SBC Ameritech files slamming complaint against MCI

SBC subsidiary Ameritech Illinois last week filed a formal complaint with the Illinois Commerce Commission (ICC) alleging it has received about 1000 notifications from customers who said their local telephone service had been switched to MCI without permission. If proven true, it would represent one of the first cases of slamming on the local level.

Ameritech Illinois President Carrie Hightman said in an interview that many former customers found out about the switch only after receiving an MCI bill. Others found out when they discovered they were no longer receiving certain services that Ameritech had provided, or when they reached a WorldCom operator upon calling directory assistance or customer service.

MCI manipulated Ameritech customers into the third-party verification process needlessly, then duped them into switching their service, Hightman said. The third-party verification process confirms that a customer wants their service switched to a different provider. No cutover can be legally executed without such verification. In addition, Hightman said MCI/WorldCom representatives routinely told Ameritech customers that the carrier was going out of business, as a means of enticing them to switch to MCI.

“Our job is not to be the complaint department, but we felt we needed to take some action because we were in the center of it all,” Hightman said. “These are troubling allegations. We’re not regulators, but we’re trying to help our customers.”

Joan Campion, MCI’s regional director of public policy, defended MCI and accused Ameritech of engaging in its own skullduggery. She said MCI responded in March to an initial inquiry it received from Ameritech in February. In its written response, MCI made it clear that it does not tolerate slamming, and has zero tolerance for employees that attempt to change a customer’s preferred carrier without authorization.

MCI also said in the written response that Ameritech’s allegations were without merit and asked Ameritech to submit additional information that would allow MCI to conduct a sufficient investigation. MCI also accused Ameritech of soliciting customer-slamming complaints as it attempted to win back customers and asked Ameritech provide documentation, including scripts, audio recordings and written notes, related to its win-back efforts.

“It’s not unusual for a company that has been accused of wrongdoing to try to deflect the blame elsewhere,” countered Hightman.

Campion said MCI heard nothing from Ameritech in the wake of its March response until receiving a press release last week that Ameritech would file a formal complaint with the ICC if MCI didn’t “cease its deceptive marketing practices.” Ameritech claimed in the release that MCI had “ignored repeated written requests to stop this illegal behavior.”

Carriers are required by statute to provide 48-hours notice before filing a formal complaint. MCI responded with a letter written by Campion, submitted last week and within the 48-hour window, which suggested a face-to-face meeting between the companies to address Ameritech’s concerns. Nevertheless, Ameritech filed its complaint late in the week.

“We asked them to provide us with the third-party verification for the customers who came to us with complaints, and their response was, ‘Let’s talk,’” countered Hightman. “We had no choice but to bring it to the regulators.”

MCI was equally troubled by Ameritech’s approach to the matter, Campion said. “First they decide not to provide the information we requested so we can do an additional investigation on this, and then they conduct a media ambush,” she said.

The ICC was just as surprised by Ameritech’s notice of formal complaint, said a spokeswoman for the commission. In cases where the parties were unable to negotiate a settlement of a grievance on their own, one or both of the parties generally brings it to the ICC for mediation, she said.

“We try to resolve most issues before they get to the formal complaint stage, because that process is expensive and time consuming,” said the spokeswoman. “But we had no idea on this one. It’s unusual that we wouldn’t have heard anything.”

Ameritech discussed the matter with “at the highest levels of the commission” before filing the formal complaint, Hightman said. “Instead of worrying about procedure, commission staff should be worried about protecting consumers,” she said.

Most of the time slamming allegations are unfounded and the result of honest mistakes, Campion said.

“Sometimes there’s a keypunch error, or a spouse switches the service without telling their partner,” Campion said. “When things like this happen, we immediately address it. We don’t have a problem according to the ICC.”

The ICC spokeswoman agreed noting, “nothing jumps out about MCI.”

But Hightman said MCI has a history of deceptive practices. MCI and two other long distance providers entered into a $1.5 million settlement earlier this year with the Illinois Attorney General of a lawsuit alleging deceptive advertising practices, she said. In addition, MCI paid $8.5 million in fines in California to settle a lawsuit alleging deceptive marketing practices, and was recently fined $245,000 by the Texas Public Utility Commission for alleged slamming and cramming violations.

“Our complaint is not a first for MCI,” said Hightman. “That they would deny they have a slamming problem is astonishing.”