Mention “cramming” to a college student and images of grueling, all-night study sessions instantly come to mind.
What more students – especially those living off-campus – need to be aware of is another form of cramming. This form may loosen their wallets.
“Cramming” also refers to the practice of adding charges to a bill which the customer did not specifically want or ask for. Unfortunately, cramming is a practice not many students are aware of.
Mike Sowko, a senior in atmospheric science, has been a victim of cramming in the past.
“The problem is, there are so many little charges that it’s hard to even tell what’s legitimate,” he said.
The Public Utilities Commission of Ohio has identified many examples of cramming on utility bills, include adding features such as voice mail and caller ID, which are not requested by the consumer to phone bills, charging higher rates than promised or agreed upon and charging numerous fees not agreed to by the consumer.
Even “psychic friends networks” can provide an example of cramming; callers sometimes may be charged a monthly fee after placing the original call since their participation has unknowingly signed them onto the network, Shana Gerber, a public information officer for the PUCO, said.
Sowko cites his phone bill as a past problem, but says he was often able to settle the situation directly with the phone company.
“I have had calls I didn’t recognize on my bills in the past,” he said. “They called the people, who didn’t recognize me, and the charge was taken off of my bill.”
One of the main problems of cramming is how common it is. According to Gerber, the PUCO received 271 cramming complaints from August to December 1999, and 446 total complaints in 2000. So far in 2001, the organization has logged 121 cramming complaints.
In the wake of the dishonest and unfair practice of cramming, the state is taking notice. A bill introduced August 28 by Representative David Goodman, R-Bexley, would disallow cramming of consumer utility bills as well as require the PUCO to actively investigate all claims against cramming.
“This is a growing concern that must be dealt with,” said Goodman in a statement.
“The cramming bill says the PUCO can adopt rules that would define an unauthorized charge, standards for continuing utility service in light of a disputed charge, and verification procedures for the addition of new charges,” Gerber said.
Gerber said the bill allows for fines from $1,000 per day per offense, to up to $5,000 per day per offense if the cramming is a pattern; the legislation also provides for a criminal penalty of a third degree misdemeanor for repeat offenders. Gerber warns that the bill will come down especially hard on deliberate fraud.
“It is important to remember, though, that for this legislation, the biller has to intentionally add unexpected charges,” she said.
Other states around the country are looking into legislation to fight cramming.
Texas enacted a law last year which requires utility companies to inform customers of new or added charges and to get consumer consent before adding them to the bill.
The PUCO also has suggestions on its Web site to consumers who think they may be victimized by cramming. Tips included are thoroughly examining monthly bills for clear comprehension, noting each authorized service, understanding any service authorized and simply reading the fine print.
Kathy Wise, project director with the Student Housing Legal Clinic, said that although she has not received complaints about cramming from off-campus residents, students who have questions or think they are victims of illegal cramming can contact the office to receive free legal assistance.
