More from: curtis hill

The Best Internet Deal for Consumers

If you are now or are considering buying Internet services from Frontier, you should be aware of their treatment of their customers. Also be aware that Comcast provides faster service 60/60 for $30/month (not 50/50 for $60) with no extra fees (not for non-existent “taxes” or any other fabricated excuse), and Comcast’s commitment includes FREE unlimited service for up to four (4) mobile phones, and FREE WiFi every time you are near a Xfinity access point. There is a reason Frontier is in financial trouble!

I feel that a huge problem with Frontier has been adding extra fees into telephone and other consumer charges, after making a commitment for services – typically increasing the consumer’s cost by $20 or more per month over the amount to which the consumer agreed. Frontier also charges “rental” fees for “required” equipment that they routinely (40%-50% of the time) do not deliver. I feel that at the very least their billing policy is unethical and very likely illegal.

I feel Frontier is brazen and unapologetic in what I feel is deliberate billing abuse. The two actual billings above are for essentially the same services. Comcast charges $30, period. Frontier a little more and then adds several hard to verify “taxes and other charges” the customer is supposed to simply accept without thinking. Frontier implies these “taxes and other charges” are required, but Comcast apparently is not required to charge them for the same service to the same customers in the same State. Both cannot be telling the truth, can they?

Frontier is the surviving fragment of the historic Baby Bells: it has the ultimate state-of-the-art technology buried under the hubris of the traditional and obsolete over stuffed management structure – the cake is really excellent but there is too much frosting for this cake to remain edible. If Frontier is not forced to modernize their business model we are in danger of loosing community access to the technology.

No individual citizen can compel Frontier to change. We had hoped Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill would do better than this with a class action to make whole all Indiana consumers who were involuntarily charged “rental fees” for routers that Frontier never delivered, or to restore money collected for “taxes” that are rightfully due from Frontier, not the Indiana consumer.

Mr. Nash is not “disputing his bill” he is asking Indiana to compel what he feels are abusive and/or fraudulent utility oligopolies to comply with Indiana and Federal consumer law as it would apply to any other Indiana business.

A side note or importance: Frontier keeps referring to a charge for a router, which for about half of their customers they do not even deliver but charge a monthly rental fee. Comcast also will provide a router and charge a monthly rental fee. Comcast’s router, by the way, allows any Comcast customer in range to connect to Xfinity WiFi. If you are in a place of business which buys Comcast services and has their router, your own Comcast login credentials allow you seamlessly to use that business’s WiFi.

While Frontier extracts the rental fee over their customer’s objections, Comcast has no problem if their customer would prefer to simply buy a compatible router and not pay any monthly rental fee. Companies like to collect rental fees because they never end and so represent a permanent income. If you buy a router outright you have a clear one time expense that does not give the company a perpetual income. Your payback period on a router is about one year ($89-$120 outright for a router vs $10 every month forever to rent).

The issue here is not a router, it is extra charges placed into the bill and represented to the customer as required by government instead of being honestly disclosed at the time the customer agrees to terms and honored in the billing. This is legally known as BAIT & SWITCH: the company promises one thing in their advertising then charges you something else. At the very best the company “discloses” the extra charges in tiny print that you are not supposed to notice. If you doubt my observation, buy services from Frontier and at the time you are ordering try to get them to commit to exactly how much these extra charges will be: you are morally entitled to know the exact amount in advance before you agree. You will be told it is about this much but we can’t really know until you are billed. And Frontier’s advertising will never say you will be charged $39 for Internet plus $18 for other charges for a total cost of $57. This would compare unfavorably with Comcast (and other competitors) at $30.

Picture of justice

Picture of justice

The document returned from Attorney General Curtis Hill’s office is as follows. Essentially, AG Hill decided Frontier should investigate itself and Frontier decided that Frontier did nothing wrong. Whodathunkit!

Complaint Number: 11561091 Company Code:

Customer Name: John Nash Phone: 2603730914

Thank you for referring the complaint of John Nash to our office for review. We appreciate Mr. Nash bringing this matter to our attention.

The Complaint states that:

  • Mr. Nash is disputing his bill for services with Frontier.

Frontier has investigated the above statements and offers the following response:

  • Our Frontier Residential Gateway(router) is Frontier equipment provided with every service order and specifically designed to work with our service. Our advertising and our residential Internet terms and conditions make it clear that our service includes equipment charges, such as the router charge, and neither our advertisements nor our terms and conditions provide any exceptions. A customer may choose to use their own router, but if the customer does, our router charge continues to apply. Also, we cannot support or repair the non -Frontier equipment.

  • Though infrequent, when a customer chooses to use a non-Frontier router, we see increased complaints and more difficulty with troubleshooting, performing online resets, and providing simple resolutions, so it costs more to serve that customer. Therefore, if a customer uses their own router, the charge still applies to cover these cost. Frontier cannot support or repair non-Frontier equipment.

  • Mr. Nash requested to upgrade his Internet service to the Fios 50/50 speed. The upgrade took place on September 6, 2019. Once the upgrade took place the customer should have received a new modem, which he did not.

  • Frontier advised Mr. Nash that the price would be $53.99 per month for the Fios 50/50 speed. The Frontier agent did not advise the customer that he would receive a new modem or that he would see the $10.00 router fee on his bill. Frontier did not send Mr. Nash a modem like they should have.

  • Mr. Nash has disconnected his account due to the new modem fee.

  • Frontier issued a credit of $9.99 for the shipping and handling of the new modem since the customer was never sent one. Frontier also issued a credit of $10.00 for the router fee charged on the September bill.

  • Frontier spoke to Mr. Nash and explained all of the above.

We trust that this information will assist you in closing this complaint. We regret any inconvenience that Mr. Nash may have experienced as a result of the above matter.

Frontier Specialist: Tami Lee Department: Customer Relations

Telephone Number: 1-844-320-4445 Ext 1122543 Fax Number: 1-518-773-3717


Indiana Attorney General will defend Indiana women’s rights

Justice is a Woman

Do women in Indiana who have chosen to have an abortion have a right to receive proper medical care, and if that care injured them, a right to sue the person who botched their abortion to be made whole? Indiana Law says they do. The ACLU says they don’t.

All citizens have a right to expect ALL medical care is proper and to the current state of the art, and that includes the right to report those who harm them with improper treatments.

In most types of medical treatment a person can ask around and learn who is good and who to avoid, but social stigmas conceal abortioneers from public scrutiny. Women who are considering or who have had an abortion deserve better: they deserve a verifiable resource to evaluate the performance of abortion providers, including a list of which ones cause health complications that harm the woman,  what kind of complications their malpractice causes, and recourse to use that list in suing a derelict abortioneer to be made whole at law.

Of course, the money rich abortion industry opposes enforcement of such protections for women from abuse. It is good to see that our Attorney General has the backbone to protect our citizens.


Today in email from Indiana Atty. General Curtis Hill:

AG Curtis Hill vows to defend the state

Attorney General Curtis Hill issued the following statement today pertaining to comments made by three of Indiana’s 91 elected prosecuting attorneys in regard to Indiana Senate Enrolled Act 340:

Clip Art by VectorToons

“The Marion County, Monroe County and Lake County prosecutors have issued a statement apparently stating they will not defend the state in a lawsuit in which they have been named as defendants – namely, the recent filing of a constitutional challenge of the Indiana law requiring practitioners to report complications resulting from abortions.

“To their credit, my friends and former colleagues are right. They will not defend the state. I will.

Clip Art by VectorToons

“While prosecutors Curry, Gaul and Carter share the opinion that this case should not be defended, they also share no authority to make that call. Mr. Curry’s ‘directive’ to me to concede the constitutionality of an Indiana statute has zero force or effect.

“I am well aware of the proper role of the prosecuting attorney as well as my responsibilities as Attorney General, and part of my responsibility is the defense of the constitutionality of legislative acts of the Indiana General Assembly that have been signed into law by the Governor.

“The protestations of Mr. Curry and the other prosecutors regarding their being drawn into this type of litigation might find a more sympathetic ear with the plaintiff, the ACLU, which chose these three ‘defendants’ who, if they had the authority, would concede the case. How convenient and disingenuous.

“If these three prosecutors want out of this case, then they can ask their friends at the ACLU to dismiss them out. As for the defense of the State of Indiana and the decisions on how to proceed in this case, I will make that call.”


Indiana AG files brief to dismiss California money grab

Not content with destroying itself, California attacks the remaining States

The historic political progression – rather decay and decomposition – is generally as follows:

1) people, persecuted for generations by self serving, arbitrary, violent dictators, arise in violent protest, at the vast expense of human life, and over impossible odds win a massive civil war to obtain their freedom by deposing the dictator;

2) the new nation establishes itself as a Constitutional Republic with a capitalist economy – if you work you eat;

3) some people find a way to exploit the kindness and humanitarian philosophies of the nation to eat without working, others see the easy lifestyle without needing to work and decide they want that also.

4) Eventually people forget the horrific price in blood paid for their liberty and the national philosophy changes to Socialism with the excuse of helping those less fortunate than the working people;  mooching instead of working becomes a profession. The number of non-working people grows to 20% of the population and this segment violently demands more and more “benefits”, interferes in the election process to insure those who will accomodate their “benefits” are elected even though they can not win an election without fraud, corruption is rewarded instead of punished, and the national political nature becomes Socialism; the people are disarmed by the government to “protect them” by arbitrary government military force. Criminals are the only ones with any political power remaining as they remain armed.

5) Socialism eventually fails due to lack of anyone willing to work so everyone else can have everything for free without working, riots ensue, and a “Central Planning Committee” is designated to grab what resources remain to the few who worked and re-distribute those resources to all the many people who refuse to work, which perpetuates The Committee’s own importance: corruption takes over in every area of government as the armed criminals control most areas of life and totally control government, often by assassination. Dissidents are individually imprisoned or executed to silence them.

6) Communism is established as the national political position promising cleansing from corruption and a more equitable distribution of any remaining worker’s possessions. Personal ownership of anything is banned. The people must “serve the purposes of the State” or be euthanized “for their own good”, which includes most of the people who facilitated transition to Socialism being executed for not serving the purposes of the State – the State they created kills them as they are dead weight. The corruption levels increase instead of decrease and all who oppose are rounded up and executed.

7) A Dictator arises and promises a better life and liberty but uses extreme oppression and violence to silence all who do not wholeheartedly endorse the new Leader. Once the Leader is in power all personal freedoms are abolished. Extreme poverty and repressive violence bind all but the few who the Dictator favors. There are mass purges killing large segments of the population because they “might” disagree with the Dictator.

8) The people, persecuted for generations by self serving, arbitrary, violent dictators, arise in violent protest, at the vast expense of human life, and over impossible odds win a massive war to obtain their freedom by deposing the dictator; they form a Constitutional Republic with a Capitalist economy.

The State of California has engaged in destructive Socialist policies for some years, diverting money from every legitimate need to instead support non-working or very low wage illegal aliens and other professional indigents who will vote illegally to sustain the Socialist Democrat Party control of the State to the hurt of the working people in California. The situation is growing worse as neglect of critical infrastructure results in catastrophic failure of roads, bridges, and reservoirs and much property damage, radically high taxes, and massive corruption.

The problem with Socialism, according to Margaret Thatcher, is that sooner or later you run out of other people’s money. California has run out of money, people are fleeing the State, and California is now trying to raid working companies in other States to grab more money – because all of theirs is gone. Indiana is joined  by Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming to stop this abuse as a matter of self defense: California’s insanity has destroyed their own State and now they want to destroy ours to get more money and continue their clearly destructive Socialist policies.

Rome did not die because of attacks from outside but because of corruption inside. America should not become the next Rome. We encourage the Court to carefully consider the Amicus Brief filed by Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill and others, and rule against California’s illegal demand that other States die for California’s irresponsible fiscal policy.

-jdn-


AG Curtis Hill leads 15-state coalition seeking dismissal of lawsuit against energy and manufacturing companies

Attorney General Curtis Hill announced today that Indiana is leading a 15-state coalition in support of a motion to dismiss a lawsuit filed by the cities of San Francisco and Oakland against various energy and manufacturing companies. Indiana is joined by Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming in the amicus brief.

Attorney General Hill issued the following statement regarding the matter:

“California localities cannot dictate national energy policy or curb economic activity that occurs outside California. Unfortunately, we have seen a trend of certain states drifting farther and farther away from real America. This is just the most recent example.

“We will let our amicus brief speak for itself at the courthouse. However, this matter should be dismissed because the suit filed by California municipalities is not about the law; rather, it is about circumventing separations of power and using California judges as the arbiters of national energy policy. New York City and various Colorado municipalities have filed copycat actions.

“While today California cities sue energy manufacturers to make up for massive deficits, tomorrow we could see suits against other job creators.

“Our amicus brief should send a loud message that the rest of the nation will not stand idle while California tries to become its own regulatory empire.”

Attached, see the amicus brief filed April 19.

###