CUB Tackles Telecommunications Issues in Salem

We have spoken most recently and most often in CUB Online about the clean energy legislation CUB is advocating in Salem, but we also are working hard at the Capitol on telecommunications issues. Today we want to share with you some information and analysis about two telecom bills that are before the Oregon Legislature.

The good news is that a Telecommunications Consumers’ Bill of Rights is back, HB 2008, introduced by Rep. Phil Barnhart and Rep. Diane Rosenbaum. It is long past time Oregon telecommunications customers should have these basic protections, things like “clear and complete information about rates,” “right to personal privacy,” “accurate and understandable bills,” and of course, the right “to select telecommunications providers and vendors and to have those selections respected by telecommunications utilities.” In other words, no slamming allowed.

Earlier this week, CUB Executive Director Bob Jenks traveled to Salem to give testimony in support of HB 2008, and we include portions of that testimony below.

Another bill being discussed is HB 2621, and this one is harder to support. This bill, which both Qwest and the Public Utility Commission endorse, would end rate regulation of all telephone rates except basic service. This means that the phone companies could raise rates for many other services and features (such as call waiting, 3-way calling, and business services features) that go along with basic local phone service. In addition, the bill says that the phone company can ask the Commission to raise the rates for basic local service in three years.

The reason the PUC is on board with the bill is that it would also provide increased consumer protection, allowing the Commission to investigate and address complaints having to do with all voice telephone services, including wireless, cable and voice-over-the-Internet (VOIP). Currently, the PUC deals with local phone complaints, has some limited authority to handle wireless complaints, and no authority over cable and VOIP.

We do wholeheartedly endorse the consumer protection aspects of the bill but are troubled by the change to regulatory practice, which would make it difficult if not impossible for CUB to argue against a rate hike if one were to be proposed by the phone companies three years from now.

Currently, we can go to the PUC and argue that this is an industry whose costs are declining, and that companies therefore do not need to charge customers more for the telecommunications services they rely on to connect them to friends, family and necessary services. However, if this bill were to pass, the price of phone service would be “disconnected” from the company’s cost, the standards for approving rate hikes would become far more subjective, and we might be forced to see ordinary home and business phone service increase by leaps and bounds. That we cannot support.

So we will continue to monitor HB 2621, and to advocate strongly for HB 2008, knowing that well-protected telecommunications utility services are a cornerstone for the healthy functioning of Oregon families, businesses and communities.

Testimony of Bob Jenks in support of HB 2008, April 4, 2007
House Consumer Protection Committee

I am pleased to be here today to testify in support of HB 2008. HB 2008 is a simple straight-forward bill. If the telecommunications industry was as straight-forward as this bill, a change in the law would not be necessary.

But it is necessary. Attached to my testimony is a chart showing that for five of the last six years, consumer complaints about telecommunications have topped the Attorney General list of consumer complaints. The only year that the telecom industry did not top this list was 2005, when it was number two.

This bill goes to the heart of these complaints. It states that customers have a right to get clear and complete information about rates, and that consumers can only be charged the rates that they have agreed to pay. It is common to see promotional materials for telecommunication services and products that do not disclose the actual price of those products. It is common to hear Oregonians tell you that they were not charged what was promised.

Like many Oregonians, I have had my own consumer problems with this industry. Once I was billed for a DSL modem that had been offered as “free” during a promotion and the company threatened to shut off my phone service for not paying for the free product, even though in Oregon they are not allowed to shut off phone service over a billing dispute unrelated to basic phone service. Another time, I was billed double the promised rate for adding a second phone to my wireless service. When I challenged it, I was told that I would have to pay an early termination fee to get out of the charge.  Only after I threatened to file a complaint with the Attorney General’s office and to take the company to small claims court, did they agree to charge me what I had been promised.

This bill is necessary because my bad experiences are not uncommon. However, most people don’t have my ability to fight back. This bill changes that. It states that consumers have a right to accurate information about services; consumers have a right to be charged what was promised; consumers have a right to expect their personal information will be protected; and consumers have a right to non-discriminatory prices.

This bill sends a powerful message to the telecommunications industry, an industry that seems to have no problem with being number one on the AG’s complaint list every year. It is time for the telecom industry to clean up its act. Rather than downplay the problem, it is time to address it.

It is time to treat customers with the respect that we deserve.

To keep up with CUB, like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter!

• Share this post on Facebook.
• Share this post on LinkedIn.
• Share this post with email.

« Back