Phoning Home--at $6.01 a Minute

Today, you can usually telephone a number in India as fast as one across town, and get as clear a connection. International calling plans even make it quite inexpensive.

That’s the good side.

The bad side is when 30 calls to Bulgaria you haven’t made show up on your bill, and the charges run hundreds of dollars. Or your son hasn’t understood your calling plan, and dials places not covered by the low rates.

These things both happened to Times readers in recent months, and the way AT&T;, MCI and Pacific Bell dealt with them is instructive.

The lessons seem to be: Pay close attention to your bills and forcefully contest false items. And be sure you and your family understand your calling plans.

Four separate parties, neighbors in Hollywood, had the Bulgarian calls appear on their bills in mid-1997, then again early in 1998.

All charges challenged by three of the parties--Harold Fitzpatrick, Bruce Eaton and Peter Gotlib--were soon dropped, and the charges to the fourth, Ann Marie Harrington, finally were too, although she had to send $406 extra to MCI, which was held for several months.

In another case, Mary Hernandez, a Los Feliz divorced mother of four, faces a $2,003 bill, which she says she can’t pay.

When her son, a Marine stationed in Okinawa, made calls outside her 48-cent-a-minute MCI calling plan, they were billed at $6.01 a minute.

MCI insists on collecting, PacBell has disconnected Hernandez’s phone for not paying, and she has kept service only by putting a new phone in a relative’s name.

I tried to find out what was behind these various billing decisions by the phone carriers.

First, among the Hollywood neighbors, payments between $200 and $1,531 were due the long distance carriers, AT&T; or MCI, through PacBell, which did the billing. It was PacBell’s job to investigate for tampering.

PacBell spokesman Steve Getzug told me the company examined lines from the homes to a “B-box” junction station and found “no definite proof” of tampering.

“But because of the cluster of overseas calls on several different lines, it seemed clear [that] a theft of service had occurred,” Getzug said.

AT&T; aide Kathi Oram said that upon consulting with PacBell, “billing adjustments were made” for all three AT&T; customers.

But Oram added that AT&T; was convinced “the fraud occurred at the PacBell junction box, and we’re trying to get them to make them more secure.”

Although Getzug had said there was no proof of tampering, a letter from PacBell service rep Jane Durall came to Harrington’s home last Saturday revealing that PacBell had “determined” weeks ago that there was tampering with the B-box.

“On March 4, 1998, Pacific Bell put special locks on the B-box to prevent anyone from accessing it and being able to place calls from your telephone line,” Durall said.

MCI initially refused to drop Harrington’s 1997 Bulgarian charges of $406, saying PacBell never notified it of tampering on her line. But when MCI reviewed the Durall letter this week, it decided to send Harrington a rebate check for the full amount.

MCI spokesman Brad Burns explained: “It all hinged on PacBell’s communications with us.”

PacBell’s communications to its own spokesman and to MCI were deficient for a while. Static on the line, perhaps. But they have been straightened out now.

Turning to the case of Mary Hernandez, Burns said she was told that three types of calls could be made at the 48-cent-a-minute rate--from her home to Japan, (which includes Okinawa); on her calling card from anywhere in the U.S. to Japan, and by her son in Okinawa, on the card, to Hernandez’s home.

Hernandez gave me an MCI letter that listed the three types of 48-cent calls, but did not caution her concerning the much higher rates for calls not specified in her plan.

Should MCI have done so, or mentioned a possible $6.01-a-minute rate, so she could warn her son? She says she didn’t understand enough of her plan to do so.

Burns said the company had no obligation to alert her of other charges. “If you order chicken, corn on the cob and green beans at a restaurant, you don’t expect it to tell you what you’re not getting,” he asserted.

Hernandez says she is applying for a “re-rate” of the $2,003. PacBell says it may soon put her bill out to a collection agency.

Let’s take up one other billing case, involving 84-year-old Connie Capacchione of Toluca Lake.

When the 818 area code was established in 1984, she asked to retain her old number in the 213 area and was told OK. But she insists she was not told there would be an extra charge.

At first, according to PacBell’s Getzug, it was only nominal, but later the fee was increased to $15.65 a month, and in 1994 to $42.75 a month.

While Getzug says PacBell sent three notices in 1994 to each of 20,000 customers who had kept their old area codes, Capacchione says she didn’t see any of them.

It was not until last month that a neighbor, looking at her bill, saw the $42.75 charge, which amounted to 76% of her $56 bill that month.

Capacchione has now changed to a number in the 818 area code, which carries no special charge, and Getzug says PacBell will give her a one-time $97.92 credit. (Four years of paying a $42.75 fee means Capacchione has shelled out $2,052 extra just since 1994).

“The lesson here is that people need to pay very close attention to their bills,” Getzug said. “And if they see charges that are suspicious or unfamiliar, call us.”

Capacchione said she thought the PacBell agent she talked to said she would get $150 back, and she observed: “This has been a lot of money for me to spend. . . . I’m waiting to see whether they actually send me a check.”

Reich can be contacted with your accounts of true consumer adventure at (213) 237-7060, or by e-mail at ken.reich@latimes.com.