|
|
|
|
 By JENNIFER TANGEMAN
Staff Writer
Few people exhibit an enthusiasm about historical artifacts as Jim Bowsher does.
When crews working for G.A. Wintzer and Son Co. started working to build new office space on West Auglaize Street, they came across some interesting finds where a rental home had previously sat.
Jim Kent and others of Kent Surveying began finding pieces of artifacts. They called in local history buff, Bowsher, to try to figure out what the bits and pieces meant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pay up or hang up: phone legislation strips protection, state advocate says |
|
Monday, 12 October 2009 |
By KRISTA HAYES
Staff Writer
In response to hearing held Sept. 29 in the Ohio General Assembly, a group of advocacy organizations and a communications specialist say legislation to deregulate local telephone service throughout the state will hurt consumers.
“Ohioans across the state deserve fair and reasonably priced telephone service,” Ohio Consumer’s Counsel (OCC) attorney Janine Migden-Ostrander said. “Under the legislation, residential consumers could be left with higher prices while telephone companies would have less accountability for bad service. We are extremely concerned with this proposal.”
Ohio Poverty Law Center spokesman Joe Maskovyak said low-income consumers on the Lifeline program would no longer be protected from increases to the price of basic local telephone service.
“Statewide, those who cannot make ends meet could pay more each year for their dial tone,” Maskovyak said. “In a struggling economy, this legislation send one message to our poorest consumers: Pay up or hang up.”
The hearings are to consider Senate Bill 162 and House Bill 276, which are industry-backed bills that would make significant
changes to the pricing and oversight of Ohio’s local telephone companies.
“Ohioans deserve fair, competitive and reasonably priced local telephone service,” OCC Senior Communications Specialist Ryan S. Lippe said. “The Office of the Ohio Consumers’ Counsel, the residential utility consumer advocate, is concerned about legislation being considered by the Ohio Senate (Senate Bill 162) and Ohio House of Representatives (House Bill 276) because it eliminates necessary consumer protections, allows telephone companies to raise rates for basic service and does not include any significant benefits for residential consumers.”
Among the advocate’s concerns about the proposed bill are allowing annual price increases for all Ohio local telephone companies.
“The proposed legislation would allow telephone companies to increase basic rates by $1.25 annually without a showing that there is either competition for their services or that they need extra revenue from consumers,” Lippe said. “Higher rates with no alternatives for basic service may result. The annual price increases would impact customers with stand-alone basic local service, including low-income customers participating in the Lifeline program who are currently protected from such rate increases.”
They also are concerned about weakening consumer protections in areas such as service, quality, customer credits, billing and deposits.
“The Public Utilities Commission of Ohio’s (PUCO) current Minimum Telephone Service Standards (MTSS) — a set of rules and consumer protections — would disappear and be replaced with weaker laws which all telephone companies would follow,” Lippe said. “The period of time telephone companies have to restore an out-of-service telephone line would increase from 24 hours to three days. This could lead to deterioration in service quality.”
In addition, Lippe said he believes PUCO’s authority to order automatic credits for consumers when telephone companies do not comply with certain standards would be eliminated.
“For example, customers left without telephone service for several days would not receive the automatic credit for one month of service they are entitled to under current PUCO rules,” Lippe said. “To attempt to receive a credit, consumers would have to go through the formal PUCO complaint process, including traveling to Columbus for an evidentiary hearing.”
He also said adequate time would no longer be required between the billing of customers and their payment due date.
“For example, a company could send out a bill with a due date one week away,” Lippe said. “The company could then disconnect that customer for nonpayment in three weeks after the due date.
“Currently, a local telephone company may require a deposit if customers have not previously established credit or do not pay their bill on time,” he said. “Under the legislation, the maximum amount customers would pay for a deposit would increase from 230 percent to 300 percent of the monthly charges.
Lippe provided that if service is estimated to cost a customer $40 per month, a deposit of as much as $92 may currently be collected, but a deposit of as much as $120 could be collected under the legislation.
“Please note that the deposit requirement for electric and natural gas customers is 130 percent of the average monthly bill,” Lippe said.
Other concerns include weakening the Lifeline discount program for low-inclome Ohioans and shifting costs to consumers and failing to provide broadband access to all Ohioans.
“To protect Ohio’s residential consumers from unnecessary increases in telephone rates and poor customer service from telephone companies, Senate Bill 162 and House Bill 276 should be rejected,” Lippe said.
|
|
Last Updated ( Tuesday, 13 October 2009 )
|
|
|
|
