Time Warner Cable and Charter do not automatically offer refunds or credits to their overcharged customers, according to the results of a US Senate investigation published this week. Comcast, DirecTV, and Dish, meanwhile, do offer refunds or credits for overcharges caused by company billing errors, the study found. Time Warner and Charter billing errors were mostly overcharges for equipment that its customers rent, including set-top boxes and routers. A Senate subcommittee monitored customer accounts for more than six years, and found that the two companies “made no effort to trace equipment overcharges to their origin unless customers specifically asked them to and did not provide notice or refunds to customers.” The subcommittee estimates that TWC has already overbilled customers $639,948 between January and April, and will overbill customers $1,919,844 by the end of 2016. As a result of the investigation, Charter informed the subcommittee that it overbilled customers by at least $442,691 per month. TWC said it corrects overcharges using an often buggy computer program. The company told the investigators that its aim is to correct only 80 percent of billing errors through the program. Last month, it did not correct any because the program crashed. Although overbilling still frequently occurs at Comcast, DirectTV, and Dish, they employ more advanced practices to detect it. In Dish’s case, the company has automatic protections that make it impossible for a customer’s rental equipment to be added or removed without triggering a change in the billing record. As a result of the investigation, TWC offered to provide an automatic one-month credit to all customers for each piece of overbilled equipment or service, while Charter has decided to give its customers a one-year credit for any equipment overcharges.
POWAY, CA — The Poway City Council may order a comprehensive audit of the city’s real estate contracts and billing practices, after two billing errors went unnoticed for several years, potentially costing the city nearly $900,000. Councilman Jim Cunningham called for the review, citing two incidents that have made headlines in recent months. In the first case, the city billed Pomerado Hospital for only 10 percent its water use between 2008 and 2014 — a shortfall of roughly $800,000. In the second, the city failed to calculate a scheduled increase in lease payments from Sportsplex USA from 2010 to 2015, costing Poway roughly $90,000. The city is trying to recoup some of its money from both parties, but the hospital and Sportsplex are challenging those efforts, and the law may limit what Poway can collect. City Manager Dan Singer learned about the water-billing error last summer and the Sportsplex error in March, but waited for months to notify the council. Cunningham said Friday when the Great Recession hit in 2008, the city cut its workforce from about 270 employees to roughly 190. He said he’s now worried that the details in city contracts slipped through the cracks because of the loss of manpower. “I don’t know what’s out there so that’s why I’m requesting the audit. We don’t have anybody assigned like we did in the old days to look at every real estate contract and monitor them,” Cunningham said. He has asked Singer to schedule a special meeting to discuss hiring an outside firm to conduct the audit, and to determine how to pay for it. Mayor Steve Vaus Friday said he expects an audit will take place. “There is no doubt in my mind we will be taking a close look at every contract,” he said. The Sportsplex lease calls for the company, which operates a large recreation complex on city-owned land in the Poway Business Park, to pay the city $4,000 a month, plus a portion of its gross revenues. In 2010, the percentage of revenues was supposed to have jumped from 7 percent to 8 percent, but the city never factored in the increase. The result: about $15,000 per year went uncollected. Making matters worse, some council members said, Singer failed to notify them about the problem and instead negotiated a deal with Sportsplex that called for the business to repay a portion of what was due, and put $10,000 of that toward the Tony Gwynn Memorial Fund. The council has repeatedly said the Gwynn memorial would be funded only through private donations. A closed-session council meeting was set for Friday evening to discuss Singer’s performance evaluation and possible contract renewal. This is the fifth time in the past few months the council has met behind closed doors to discuss Singer, without providing specific information about the status of his review. Normally such performance evaluations are routine matters requiring usually only two closed sessions. It is not expected that any action will be taken Friday night by the council.
HARRISBURG — Starting the dishwasher, plugging in a hair-dryer or flicking on a light switch will register with utilities almost instantly when their customers are monitored by state-of-the-art electric meters. So-called “smart meters” represent about four in 10 electric meters installed across the state, and utilities appear to be running ahead of schedule in introducing them before a 2023 deadline. Upgraded meters that give electricity companies and their customers real-time information about energy use are long overdue, regulators say. “Power is still billed the way it was 100 years ago,” said Nils Hagen-Frederiksen, spokesman for the state’s Public Utility Commission. But consumer advocates cite downsides — including higher bills for some households. Others complain that customers shouldn’t be forced to accept the technology, even though it’s required by a 2008 state energy conservation law. Pennsylvania is slightly behind the curve in implementing smart meters. The meters are installed in more than 90 percent of homes in Nevada and Maine, according to a separate study this spring. More than half of the homes in at least 16 states have them. Pennsylvania’s progress is localized, with three of four smart meters installed in Philadelphia and its suburbs. In western Pennsylvania, PennPower has replaced old meters with the new technology, as well. In most of the state, the rollout begins this summer and continues during the next four years. The technology itself won’t translate into higher energy bills, say consumer advocates, lawmakers and industry officials. But it does allow utilities to charge based on the time of day, with higher rates for running appliances or the air conditioning when demand is greatest.
The sysadmin-activist at the center of a bizarre legal battle over a smart meter network in Seattle, Washington, says he never expected a simple records request to turn into a lawsuit. Phil Mocek told The Register that when he asked Seattle City Light, a public power utility, to provide details on the designs and rollout of its smart power meter grid, he was simply hoping to find out what security safeguards the city and hardware providers Landis+Gyr and Sensus USA planned to use. “We all assume these meters simply monitor the amount of energy usage in the home,” Mocek explained. “But they monitor it in real time in ways that other meters did not.” The worry, Mocek said, is that the city may have been convinced by the suppliers to install a network with poor security protections or insecure protocols that could place citizens at risk of having their energy-use remotely spied on or their personal information stolen. To find out more about the meters that the city was planning to install and the security measures in place to protect those meters, Mocek filed a request for documents under the Washington Public Records Act (PRA) via the MuckRock investigations website. This, says Mocek, is where things started to get real odd. The free-software advocate said that after an email exchange with Seattle City Light officials, he obtained some of the records and uploaded them to the web – only to be told that the smart meter suppliers objected to the release of the information on the grounds that the unredacted documents would disclose their trade secrets and open the public to terrorist attacks on their infrastructure. Mocek was given a mix of unredacted and redacted documents by the city, the meter makers complained, whereas he should only have received and published files they had censored. Seattle officials said they were not skilled enough to know for sure which parts to redact, so left it to the suppliers to edit the files – yet, unredacted information managed to make its way into Mocek’s hands and onto the internet.
The City of Yuma is moving forward with a lawsuit seeking restitution for water it says was stolen by Diamond Brooks, recently filing a document in court to adjust figures due to inaccurate readings on the meter used in the investigation. According to an April 7 filing in Yuma County Superior Court by the City of Yuma Attorney’s Office, the water meter was found to have an approximate 341 percent calibration error and it was disclosing the information to all parties as was required by law. City of Yuma spokesperson Dave Nash said while the error in the meter’s calibration has caused the city to adjust its figures, what it doesn’t change is that Diamond Brooks had an unauthorized connection to a fire suppression line and took water without paying for it. In November 2010, Yuma police began an investigation into the business, located at 3025 S. Avenue 4E, after receiving reports that the company had been stealing water, which it would then process and sell back to the public. It was initially thought that approximately 76.5 million gallons, which equates to a loss of over $168,000, were stolen during the course of the investigation. Nash said that the City of Yuma actually caught the error. He said that the water meter had been placed into evidence in the federal criminal trial against Diamond Brooks owner Philip Clark and that the City was able to retrieve it and have it tested by an independent engineering laboratory. Nash explained that the fire suppression line leading into the Diamond Brooks facility had a lower flow rate than a residential water line, which the water meter had been calibrated for, so when one gallon of water passed through the unauthorized connection fire suppression line, the meter recorded approximately 3.27 gallons. After the calibration error was discovered and the error factor determined, Nash said the City adjusted its figures in the lawsuit accordingly. Based on the new figures, Diamond Brooks allegedly took about 23 million gallons of water through the unauthorized connection to the fire suppression line instead of the 76.5 million gallons originally recorded on the meter during the course of the investigation. Those 22.9 million gallons, Nash said, would amount to $47,343.00 in unpaid water usage. He also said that there is evidence that Diamond Brooks was taking water for 33 months, not just the 19 months that were monitored. Clark, the owner of Yuma’s Diamond Brooks Water Company, who recently entered into a plea agreement with federal prosecutors, is scheduled to be sentenced at 9:30 a.m. on May 12 in U.S. District Court in Phoenix. He had been charged with 18 counts of wire fraud, three counts of stolen property, five counts of money laundering, 12 counts of failure to pay taxes, eight counts of failure to file tax forms, and one count of making false statements. The charges stem from allegations that he failed to pay IRS taxes he collected from his employees, and did not file corporate and individual tax returns for several years. Clark, who remains out of custody while he awaits sentencing, could receive up to five years in prison or a fine of up to $10,000, or both. Probation is also available, and if he is sentenced to probation, the term can be for no more than five years. According to his admission statement contained in the plea agreement, Clark admitted that between Jan. 1, 2001, and Dec. 31, 2009, he failed to pay the IRS $297,234 that he collected from his employees for certain employment-related taxes. He also admits that on Sept. 30, 2011, he failed to pay the IRS more than $31,296 in taxes that had been withheld from employee paychecks.
OGDEN — Logan Sattelmair says she’s living her own version of the American dream. Sattelmair, 25, purchased her first home, on Van Buren Avenue in Ogden, last summer and is employed full-time with Ogden city’s Animal Services division. She says as a young, single homeowner, money can be tight. But she keeps a budget, works hard and is proud that she can provide for own needs. Nearly a year into taking the plunge, Sattelmair said a recent bill from Questar Gas threw a serious monkey wrench into her pattern, adding a small element of nightmare to the whole independent homeowner equation. On April 27, Sattelmair said she got a bill from Questar for $312. Sattelmair said her previous month’s gas bill for her two-bedroom home was $44. Throughout the winter months, her gas bills hovered around that number.
“When I saw that bill, I said, ’Holy crap, this is crazy,’” she said. “I instantly got up and turned the heat off. I had no idea what was going on. I thought maybe I had some kind of leak or something.”
After making a call to Questar, Sattlemair eventually found out her gas delivery system was working just fine. Her meter, on the other hand, was a different story.
“I was told by someone in customer service that they noticed my bill was lower than what the previous owner had been paying,” she said. “They said they sent someone over to check and the meter had been misreading my usage.”
Sattelmair was told she must backpay for the gas she used. Questar is allowing her to space the payment over six months, interest free, but she says even that will stretch her pocketbook thin.
“I am single, doing it all on my own,” she said. “This is going to be like having another $50 bill each month. I’m already living tight as it is.”
Questar spokesman Darren Shepherd said bad meter readings, while rare, can happen. He said the Utah natural gas tariff, which is regulated by the Utah Public Services Commission, allows Questar to make billing corrections regardless of the cause of error. (Details on the gas tariff can be found in a 142-page document available at Questar’s website.)
“It’s about paying for the gas you actually use,” Shepherd said, noting that sometimes billing errors occur on the opposite end of the spectrum and Questar overcharges customers, then must pay them back or credit their account.
For billing errors, Shepherd said customers are typically allowed to make payments without interest over a period equal to the time the account was misread.
Cyber threats come in various forms. A diverse threat actor landscape consisting of criminals, espionage actors, hacktivists, and more have demonstrated how successful they can be launching remote attacks. Gaining unauthorized access into networks, stealing sensitive intellectual property, financial, and personal identifiable information, and conducting defacements and denial-of-service attacks, are just some ways these hostile elements target organizations in both the public and private sectors. If enterprises want to understand how they can better invest in security defenses, build the necessary One class of actor that often gets overlooked is the insider threat, largely because they represent a hybrid type of actor that capitalizes on his physical access to conduct malfeasance, often leveraging some cyber aspect in the fulfillment of his goals. What is wrong with this picture? Insiders can both be witting and unwitting. The unwitting or careless insider is an individual with legitimate accesses but who through poor judgment commits a security infraction that results in potential consequences for his organization (e.g., think the insertion of a USB key into an organization’s network). The witting or malicious insider is an individual that makes the conscious decision to abuse his access in order to obtain sensitive and/or financial information for personal gain or purposeful malicious intent (e.g., an individual like Chelsea Manning or Edward Snowden fits this category). A third type of insider is the remote actor or masquerading insider who has compromised legitimate credentials in order to gain access as a trusted individual on an organization’s network. One thing that all of these three types have in common: once inside, perimeter security can do little to deter their actions.