Tuesday, January 08, 2002 A consumer group is claiming that Pacific Bell has charged residential phone customers for high-speed DSL Internet service they never ordered.

The San Diego-based Utility Consumers' Action Network made the allegation in a complaint filed Monday with the state Public Utilities Commission. Called cramming, the practice alleged by the group involves unauthorized charges that show up on consumers' phone bills.

In the complaint, three San Diego County residents say they were billed for DSL service they never ordered during 2000 and 2001 and that it took too long to fix the mistake.

Michael Shames, executive director of UCAN, estimates that thousands of other PacBell customers have experienced similar billing problems.

"In talking to people within the company, they suggested this is commonplace -- thousands in California," he said.

PacBell spokesman John Britton said the scope of the complaint is without merit, noting only three customers have come forward.

"These are issues that are up to 15 months old that have all been resolved. It's untrue that we signed up thousands," said Britton.

According to the UCAN complaint, PacBell took from four to seven months to fix the billing problems of the three customers instead of the 30-day requirement under PUC rules that govern cramming complaints.

"We're trying to get the company to clean up its billing act so these problems don't happen," said Shames.

UCAN wants the PUC to fine PacBell, with the money being put in a fund to help PacBell improve its billing procedures.

One of the UCAN complainants, Jeanie Arnold, said in August 2000 she first noticed an unauthorized DSL charge on her phone bill. She called the company that same month and was told the charge would be removed. Instead, DSL charges continued to show up, accruing to more than $166 before the billing error was corrected in December 2000.

When consumers called about a problem, customer services representatives tried to sell them additional phone services such as Caller ID, call-waiting and call-forwarding, according to UCAN. The complaint cited scripts that customer services representative are told to follow when consumers call with a problem or billing concern.

"In the process of trying to get (the billing problem) fixed, people are being pitched services," Shames alleged.

Britton denied that allegation, saying that customer service representative address a caller's problem first before making any suggestions about additional phone services.

"We take care of the issue that the customer calls about first," he said. "If it's appropriate, we then talk to customers about products and services to meet their needs."

In September, the PUC fined PacBell $25.5 million for marketing abuses in 1998 and 1999 stemming from allegations that customers were being pressured into buying services they didn't need. The company has consistently denied the allegations, which were brought by UCAN and two other consumer groups.

In imposing the fine, the PUC also required PacBell to address callers' complaints before trying to sell them new services.

PacBell has appealed the PUC fine and ruling, which included a provision that forced PacBell to limit sales commissions to 5 percent of an employee's monthly pay. The PUC has since delayed implementing the 5 percent rule after PacBell went to federal court in San Francisco to block it. The company successfully argued that the provision interfered with the company's right to negotiate labor contracts.

Daily Review

-- Anonymous, January 10, 2002