|
||||||
|
« We Had Better Move Ahead Without Bush | Main | Welcome Back, Jeff! » May 21, 2008Qwest Customer Gets Help from CUB: Rural Utility Customers Should Watch Out for Franchise FeesIf you live outside of one of Oregon's many cities or towns, in unincorporated territory, you may want to know about the experience of an Oregon utility consumer who recently contacted CUB. A man called CUB a few weeks ago and asked to speak with someone about a problem on his Qwest bill. He was connected with CUB Executive Director Bob Jenks and proceeded to tell his story. He had noticed a franchise fee for the City of Hermiston on his Qwest telephone bill. Problem was, he didn't live in Hermiston; he lived in Umatilla County outside the City of Hermiston. He contacted Qwest and the customer service representative he spoke with said that the company was allowed to charge him the fee because his telephone line went through the City of Hermiston. He contacted the City of Hermiston, and someone there told him, "No, we only charge that fee to houses within city limits." He contacted the Public Utility Commission and a PUC employee said, "Sorry, but that's not something that we're in charge of overseeing." This poor man was getting the total runaround. Finally he called CUB. Bob Jenks told the man that he was right, that Qwest should not be charging him the franchise fee, and that the PUC does regulate the collection of those fees and should have been able to help him. The man's timing was good, because Bob took his concerns to a meeting already set up later that week with Qwest management and a PUC representative. Qwest agreed that they shouldn't be charging the fee outside city limits, and agreed to refund the man what he had paid back quite some time. It's not a large amount of money, but still satisfactory when you know you shouldn't have to pay it. This incident raises 2 issues for CUB: 1) A customer shouldn't have to make half a dozen calls to get a correct answer and some help. 2) Utilities don't always have good records of who lives within the city vs. outside it, and may well be charging city franchise fees to more than a few people who live outside Oregon cities. That's why we're encouraging people who do live outside of city limits to check their phone, gas and electric bills to see if city franchise fees appear on them. If they do, and you think the fee is in error, pay your bill and then send it on to us. It's possible this is an isolated problem that doesn't arise often. It's also possible that the problem is more systemic and should be addressed in official proceedings at the PUC. And after all, that's why we're here. Posted by Oregon CUB at May 21, 2008 04:04 PM CommentsI had the same experience when Verizon charged me for nearby long distance hookup without my agreement. The PUC said they didn't regulate it because it wasn't local and didn't regulate my bill despite providing Verizon with the monopoly that allows them to do this. The PUC will not make Verizon demonstrate that the balance they claim iI owe is correct. Having the phone monopoly allows Verizon a monopoly on DSL service, but the PUC won't deal with it. CUB needs to go to the legislature to get them to make the PUC work for us instead of for the phone companies and to get them to regulate internet connection monopolies -- DSL and cable. Please respond. Posted by: Jack Herbert at May 27, 2008 01:22 PM Jack, Thanks for your response. One of the big problems in telecommunications is the federal governemnt (Congress and the FCC) have taken away state authority over a great deal of the industry. States have almost no authority to regulate internet connections or cable television. States have a little authority over terms and conditions of wireless carriers, but no authority over wireless prices. The FCC tried to impliment a policy that said states could not regulated wireless billing but the courts ruled that billing is a term and condition that states can regulate. States have a lot of authority over landline voice connections. We opposed the Telecommunications Act of 1996 because it took away authority of state and local governments to regulate cable and internet providers, but the bill passed and the FCC has done everything they can to interpret the law in a way that is most favorable to the phone and cable companies. We are discussing the idea of promoting state legislation that would give the PUC regulatory authority over billing and advertising practices of the wireless industry. Unforunately, unless Congress changes the law, we cannot create the same authority over DSL and cable internet connection. Senator Wyden was a proponent of the Telecommunications Act of 96 that took away much of the authority of the State. It is worth letting his office know of your concerns on this issue. Bob Posted by: Bob Jenks at May 27, 2008 01:24 PM |
|
||||
©2005 Citizens' Utility Board of
Oregon |
||||||
Maybe
it's time to put your number on the national Do Not Call list.