David Lazarus

SBC says a recent change for thousands of business customers will provide money-saving flexibility in determining the right long-distance calling plan.

So how come the company is making it so hard for people to understand this?

That’s what Elisabeth Jewel, a Berkeley political lobbyist, wondered after receiving a postcard SBC is mailing to business customers nationwide.

«I read legislation for a living and I couldn’t understand what SBC was talking about here,» Jewel told me. «I gave it to my partners to see if anyone could figure it out.

»We’re highly educated people, trained to read dense material," she said. «This was completely beyond all of us.»

The card involves the under-utilization fee, or UUF, for business customers who change calling plans or do not meet «either the MAC and/or MMC.»

No explanation is provided as to what a MAC or MMC may be.

«If the Customer moves between Business Optional Calling Plans a UUF may be assessed,» the card warns. «If the remaining unpaid portion of the original plan’s Total Revenue Commitment is greater than the Total Revenue Commitment of the new plan the UUF is equal to the lesser of:

»a. the difference between the dollar value of the unpaid portion of the Customer’s Total Revenue Commitment on the Customer’s current term plan and the dollar value of the Customer’s Total Revenue Commitment for its new term plan agreement, or

«b. 50% of the unpaid portion of the Customer’s Total Revenue Commitment on the Customer’s current plan that is being canceled by the Customer.»

The message, which SBC describes on the card as «important information about your SBC long-distance service,» left Jewel scratching her head.

«It’s unintelligible,» she said. «I have no idea if this is something I need to worry about or not.»

So I asked Marc Bien, an SBC spokesman, to take a crack at the card.

«I’ve read it three or four times and I still don’t know what it means,» he admitted.

A few hours later, though, after doing some checking, Bien was able to offer this explanation:

The card was sent out because SBC had fiddled with its policy for the minimum annual commitment (MAC) or minimum monthly commitment (MMC) some business customers make for their calling plans.

In essence, customers agree to spend a certain amount each month or year in return for a lower rate. The underutilization fee isn’t really a fee, it turns out, but the amount left over if the customer doesn’t use all of his or her allotted service. It goes to SBC.

What SBC is trying to say here is that if customers switch to a more suitable plan that meets their actual calling needs, they can move any outstanding funds to the new plan, rather than SBC’s pockets.

If customers cancel their service, as point «b» attempts to make clear on the card, they only get half their remaining money back.

«The card is intended to provide customers with flexibility and options to help them save money,» Bien said. «That’s what we’re communicating.»

More or less.

Wireless woes: Speaking of phone companies, AT&T Wireless subscribers may want to examine their bills a little more closely if they have the «mobile-to- mobile» plan.

The plan essentially allows AT&T Wireless customers to make cut-rate calls to other AT&T subscribers, but only as long as both parties are on the AT&T network.

The problem, as Burlingame lawyer Mike Love recently discovered, is that AT&T has cut a deal with Cingular to share networks in the Bay Area, and a subscriber’s cell phone may switch back and forth between the two services at virtually any time.

Cingular and AT&T Wireless are hoping to close a $41 billion merger by the end of the year.

«My son goes to Stanford and his girlfriend is at Cal,» Love told me. «Mobile-to-mobile was perfect for them because they talk every day.»

He got the bill the other day, though, and it was $70 higher than expected. A call to AT&T revealed that those lovebirds at Stanford and Cal were chatting up a storm, but they weren’t staying on AT&T’s network.

Unbeknown to them, one or the other was slipping onto Cingular’s service during calls, resulting in a higher rate.

«What was supposed to be cheap suddenly wasn’t,» Love said.

Gina Pernetti, an AT&T Wireless spokeswoman, acknowledged that «a little system glitch» had resulted in some mobile-to-mobile customers being socked with unintentionally higher bills.

«It’s been happening for 30 to 60 days,» she said. «It’s being fixed. Anybody who was mischarged, it will be corrected.»

That is, as long as the customer brings it to the company’s attention.

In the meantime, AT&T subscribers can avoid inadvertently slipping onto Cingular’s network by always including the area code when they dial, even when it’s a local call.

«How many dollars have been collected by them as a result of this?» asked Love. «The moral is that you should always read your bill.»