WARREN Consumer group objects to Sprint's increased rates

The rate increases affect about 70,000 area Sprint telephone customers.
THE VINDICATOR, YOUNGSTOWN, OHIO
By CYNTHIA VINARSKY
VINDICATOR BUSINESS WRITER
WARREN -- Sprint has increased its rates for frequently used extras such as call forwarding and three-way calling for the second time in six months, and a consumer group is crying foul.
The Ohio Consumers' Counsel filed a complaint with the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio asking that the telephone service provider be ordered to reverse its recent increases.
New rates, which affect about 70,000 Sprint residential and business lines in Trumbull county and western Mahoning County, took effect July 9.
Sprint raised other rates in February.
For example, the OCC said, Sprint increased its charge for a second telephone book directory listing this month from 90 cents to $1.50 per month, a 66 percent increase.
Call forwarding, three-way calling and nonpublished number service were increased from $1.25 per month for each service to $2, the counsel reported, a 60 percent increase.
Robert S. Tongren, an OCC spokesman, said the changes are unfair because most Sprint customers don't have a choice of telephone service providers, so they must pay the higher price or cancel the service.
"How many rate increases are consumers expected to endure?" he said.
Agreement
The PUCO gave Sprint the right to raise its fees for some services last October in exchange for the company's promise to freeze its rates for local phone service and caller identification.
Stephanie Shaw, a Sprint spokeswoman in Warren, said Sprint also agreed to invest in bringing digital subscriber lines, or DSL, to more rural areas of Ohio and to loosen eligibility requirements for Lifeline, its monthly phone service discount for people on Medicaid, Medicare and other public assistance. She said Sprint has increased the discounts and the number of people eligible to receive them.
OCC is objecting to the PUCO agreement, however, arguing that the agency is allowing Sprint to operate under rules state legislators included in Ohio law to allow pricing flexibility for companies that have direct competition from another local phone service provider. The OCC argues that Sprint does not have such competition.
The counsel filed a similar complaint with the PUCO in February when Sprint initiated its first round of increases.
It has also filed an appeal with the Ohio Supreme Court, arguing that Sprint should not be allowed to operate under the same rules governing phone service providers facing direct competition.
vinarsky@vindy.com