Sunday, November 29, 2015

Montco woman wins victory over Verizon

Bernice Keebler had a simple complaint: Verizon billed her $4.19 for six "local calls" but wouldn't tell her where she'd called - not unless she got a lawyer and a subpoena. Keebler said that wasn't reasonable, and a PUC judge agrees.

Montco woman wins victory over Verizon


Bernice Keebler had a simple complaint: Verizon billed her $4.19 for six "local calls" but wouldn't tell her where she'd called - not unless she got a lawyer and a subpoena.

To Keebler, that stretched the bounds of fair dealing beyond the breaking point.  "I think I have the right to know what I am paying for," she told me in a column about her case last month.  Keebler likened the experience to getting a tab at a restaurant with a bottom line for "food," but no details to review or question.

A Public Utility Commission judge agreed. In a decision released today by the PUC's communications office, Administrative Law Judge Mary D. Long proposed fining Verizon Pennsylvania $1,000 for failing in its duty to provide "adequate customer service":

It is a basic matter of fair business practice that a consumer should be able to contact a utility about a charge on a bill and learn what the charge is for and learn that the charge was correctly applied. The only verification that Verizon’s witness could offer that a charge like Mrs. Keebler’s $4.19 measured use charge was accurate and billed correctly was her faith in the accuracy of Verizon’s computer system. The only way that Verizon would offer any information about a past charge in response to a consumer inquiry was to require that customer to hire a lawyer and subpoena their own usage information. By no reasonable standard could this be considered reasonable customer service.

You can find the whole ruling by clicking here - you'll have to download a Word document.  The PUC itself will make the final ruling on the case, in which Long also held that Keebler hadn't met the burden of proof to overturn a key provision of Verizon's 1999 tariff that Keebler also found outrageous: The local phone company is allowed to charge her a $40 one-time fee, plus 2 cents per call, if she wants an itemized monthly bill - even in electronic form - for calls that are too close to be classified as "regional toll calls" but too far to be within her flat-rate monthly service terriitory.

Of course, Keebler is a consumer, and proving such a point is beyond her reasonable reach.  Long says Verizon argued that Keebler would have had to provide "cost studies or expert testimony which would support a contention that the rate in the tariff is unreasonable or that detailed billing of residential measured use calls is feasible."

A dozen years of technological and marketplace development have shown that itemizing hundreds or even thousands of calls per bill is feasible - wireless companies do it all the time, as Keebler noted in her complaint.

But she's won a real victory on her broader point: It's simply not reasonable for a company to send you a bill, for any amount, and refuse to tell you clearly what you're being charged for - unless you get a lawyer and a subpoena.

Inquirer Business Columnist
We encourage respectful comments but reserve the right to delete anything that doesn't contribute to an engaging dialogue.
Help us moderate this thread by flagging comments that violate our guidelines.

Comment policy: comments are intended to be civil, friendly conversations. Please treat other participants with respect and in a way that you would want to be treated. You are responsible for what you say. And please, stay on topic. If you see an objectionable post, please report it to us using the "Report Abuse" option.

Please note that comments are monitored by staff. We reserve the right at all times to remove any information or materials that are unlawful, threatening, abusive, libelous, defamatory, obscene, vulgar, pornographic, profane, indecent or otherwise objectionable. Personal attacks, especially on other participants, are not permitted. We reserve the right to permanently block any user who violates these terms and conditions.

Additionally comments that are long, have multiple paragraph breaks, include code, or include hyperlinks may not be posted.

Read 0 comments
comments powered by Disqus
About this blog

Jeff Gelles, who writes the Inquirer's weekly Consumer 14.0 and Tech Life columns, takes a broad look at the marketplace of goods, services, and ideas.

Reach Jeff at

Jeff Gelles Inquirer Business Columnist
Also on
letter icon Newsletter