Today, more than 45 consumer, senior and low-income groups from across Ohio are sending a letter to lawmakers urging them to strengthen two bills on behalf of the state’s residential telephone consumers. Today’s action underscores growing concern from consumers that the proposed bills, Substitute Senate Bill 162 and House Bill 276, are harmful to customers of basic and bundled phone services.
Columbus, Ohio (Vocus/PRWEB ) December 9, 2009 -- Today, more than 45 consumer, senior and low-income groups from across Ohio are sending a letter to lawmakers urging them to strengthen two bills on behalf of the state’s residential telephone consumers. Today’s action underscores growing concern from consumers that the proposed bills, Substitute Senate Bill 162 and House Bill 276, are harmful to customers of basic and bundled phone services.
The groups, many of whom have come together as Ohioans Protecting Telephone Consumers (OPTC), oppose these bills as proposed. Many of the OPTC organizations have outlined their opposition to the proposed legislation in committee hearings where the bill is being considered.
“We are united in our belief that it is not good public policy to pass legislation that gives benefits to the telephone companies at the expense of residential customers,” said Consumers’ Counsel Janine Migden-Ostrander. “There are no net benefits in these bills for consumers – there are only take aways.”
We are deeply concerned that as the recession continues and job losses mount, more and more Ohioans are struggling to keep food on their table and a roof over their heads. |
”We are deeply concerned that as the recession continues and job losses mount, more and more Ohioans are struggling to keep food on their table and a roof over their heads," said Lisa Hamler-Fugitt, the executive director of the Ohio Association of Second Harvest Foodbanks. "The last thing Ohioans need right now is rising telephone rates. We urge Ohio's legislators to oppose the telephone deregulation bill, and protect consumers instead."
"The annual price increases would hit low-income consumers the hardest, especially with the troubled economy," said Noel Morgan, attorney for Communities United for Action. "In addition, because the phone companies aggressively market their bundles or packages of telecom services, basic protections should not be eliminated, as the legislation would do."
“Ohioans are struggling to keep up with current household expenses; so allowing annual telephone rate increases would worsen this hardship," said Ellis Jacobs, attorney for Advocates for Basic Legal Equality.
“Many seniors continue to rely on home telephone service as their primary method of communicating," said Mike Walters of Pro-Seniors. "This legislation fails to ensure they will continue to receive service at an affordable, reasonable price."
“With decreased service quality, Ohio’s elderly could be alone and without telephone service for several days with no way to call for help,” said Ron Bridges of AARP Ohio.
“There is a reason they call it ‘Lifeline.’ A telephone is a necessity in modern society, not an extra convenience,” said Philip E. Cole, executive director of the Ohio Association of Community Action Agencies, which represents Ohio’s network of 52 agencies serving low-income people in all 88 counties.
"Eliminating vital consumer protections for telephone services would negatively affect seniors, many of whom rely on their landline to communicate with family, doctors, emergency services and community," said Lynn Weiland, administrator for the Community Office of Aging, Cuyahoga County Department of Senior and Adult Services.
“In these tough economic times, the last thing Ohioans need is increasing telephone bills,” said Noel Williams of the Columbus NAACP. “This legislation would harm Ohioans who are most vulnerable, including those on the low-income Lifeline program. This legislation, as proposed, is simply unacceptable."
Among the concerns OPTC is raising about the proposed Am. S.B. 162 and House Bill 276 is that they:
|
The consumer groups urge Ohioans to contact their legislators immediately and let them know the importance of keeping rates reasonable and telephone consumer protections intact.
Editor’s Notes:
A copy of the letter is attached to this press release. Also included is a list of the more than 45 organizations that signed the letter to oppose the telephone legislation.
Additional Contacts:
|
Bookmark - Del.icio.us | Furl It | Technorati | Ask | MyWeb | Propeller | Live Bookmarks | Newsvine | TailRank | Reddit | Slashdot | Digg | Stumbleupon | Google Bookmarks | Sphere | Blink It | Spurl
See Also:
- iEmployee Announces Availability of 2009 Winter Release of Time and Attendance Software Solution
- The Law Office of Todd J. Krouner Files Suit Against NYPD for Suspected Use of Excessive Force
- United Law Group Litigating on Behalf of Homeowners Victimized By Lenders and Servicers Who Aren’t Honoring President Obama’s Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP)
- Lamson & Cutner's Special Elder Law Website Takes a New Direction Presenting Long-Term Care Information and How to Pay for it
- Leopard Solutions Presents: The Law Students’ Guide To Succeeding In Tough Times
[Via Legal / Law]
- viagra soft tabs
- buy propecia online - order generic propecia online
- buy generic cialis online
- fertility drugs without prescription
No comments:
Post a Comment