OT att and tmobile merger ... may have just hit a BRICKWALL ... - HTC EVO 3D

http://nationaljournal.com/tech/kohl-seeks-to-block-at-t-merger-20110720
Sen. Herb Kohl, D-Wis., who chairs the Senate's Antitrust Subcommitteee, is calling for regulators to block the proposed merger of AT&T and T-Mobile, saying on Wednesday that it would be "highly dangerous to competition and consumers."
Kohl wrote to the Justice Department and the Federal Communications Commission to argue that the merger would concentrate the market too much.
"I have concluded that this acquisition, if permitted to proceed, would likely cause substantial harm to competition and consumers, would be contrary to antitrust law and not in the public interest, and therefore should be blocked by your agencies," he wrote.
The senator's letter provides political cover to the FCC and Justice if they want to either block the proposed $39 billion merger outright or impose stringent conditions. The approval process is expected to last until at least the end of the year.
Kohl noted that cell phones are a daily necessity. “Therefore, in this industry, perhaps more than any other, full and vibrant competition is essential so that all consumers realize the benefits of this technology at the best prices and with the most choices.”
An AT&T spokesman disputed Kohl's assessment.
“We ... feel his view is inconsistent with antitrust law, is shared by few others, and ignores the many positive benefits and numerous supporters of the transaction," the spokesman said.
"This is a decision that will be made by the Department of Justice and the FCC under applicable law and after a full and fair examination of the facts. We continue to believe those reviews will result in approval of this transaction."
AT&T contends that competition will remain vigorous in the wireless industry even after the transaction.
It says that the merger will allow the companies to offer advanced wireless services to almost all Americans. That pledge has helped AT&T make inroads with lawmakers in both parties as it seeks approval of the deal. A group of 76 Democrats wrote to regulators in June saying that the merger may be beneficial to the spread of broadband access.
The letter from Kohl has been anticipated for weeks and helps set the tone for how Democrats in Congress will view the deal.
Earlier Wednesday, top Democrats in the House also expressed caution about the deal, saying that it could discourage investment and restrict innovation.
"We believe that AT&T's acquisition of T-Mobile would be a troubling backward step in federal public policy--a retrenchment from nearly two decades of promoting competition and open markets to acceptance of a duopoly in the wireless marketplace," House Energy and Commerce Communications and Technology Subcommittee Chairwoman Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., and House Judiciary ranking member John Conyers, D-Mich., wrote in their letter to FCC and the Justice Department.
"Such industry consolidation could reduce competition and increase consumer costs at a time our country can least afford it."

AMEN! ten chars

788346: SprintFreeMsg: Public hearings on proposed AT&T/T-Mobile merger July 21, 25, 27 in Culver City, San Diego, Fresno. More info at www.cpuc.ca.gov/merger
Sent from my PG86100 using XDA App

Cool now I may get back on Tmo when I move to Georgia next year when my sprint contract is up.

"We believe that AT&T's acquisition of T-Mobile would be a troubling backward step in federal public policy--a retrenchment from nearly two decades of promoting competition and open markets to acceptance of a duopoly in the wireless marketplace," House Energy and Commerce Communications and Technology Subcommittee Chairwoman Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., and House Judiciary ranking member John Conyers, D-Mich., wrote in their letter to FCC and the Justice Department.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah, that's 'cuz 30 years ago a certain little company known as AT&T was broken up into the "baby bells" (Of which Verizon, aka Bell Atlantic was one) because they were found guilty of leveraging their monopoly status unfairly and in harm to the consumer and the market and ultimately innovation.
...to be fair they only stifled innovation in 'the market' so far as the market itself is concerned. There was no market, they owned the whole game. They were actually a very technologically innovative company...though I'm sure Bell Labs was a pretty distant branch from the root of all that evil.
So, we are really to believe that a convicted abusive monopolist that has reformed and is bigger than even before is to be trusted? The company by the same name that at one time wouldn't allow you to plug in a phone from anyone but them? That wouldn't let you own your own phone? That would hard-wire a phone and charge you monthly for each extension in the house? Pffffffft.

daneurysm said:
So, we are really to believe that a convicted abusive monopolist that has reformed and is bigger than even before is to be trusted? The company by the same name that at one time wouldn't allow you to plug in a phone from anyone but them? That wouldn't let you own your own phone? That would hard-wire a phone and charge you monthly for each extension in the house? Pffffffft.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Great stuff, dude! If you were running for office, you'd have my vote!

Best news I heard all day... That and it gives me a chuckle to think of ATT still being forced to pay deutsche telekom billions even if the merger falls through

I'm still weary of it. There was an article out the other day talking about lobbyists working as staffers for politicians and guess who had the most of them, AT&T. and they all seemed to work for just the right people.
Sent from my PG86100 using XDA Premium App

Related

Leaked FAA Report Slams Lightsquared!!

I wouldn't get your hopes up for Lightsquared's 4g ever coming to a neighborhood by you any time soon.
Leaked FAA Report Slams LightSquared
“The effects of LightSquared deployment would be far-reaching and potentially devastating to aviation,” the FAA wrote to the President’s Space-Based Positioning, Navigation and Timing (PNT) group in a report that was recently leaked to the media. In that document, the FAA estimates that the resulting interference to GPS from LightSquared’s proposed 4G broadband transmitters would lead to 794 deaths, a $70 billion loss in aviation capabilities and the addition of 30 million tons of CO2 emissions in the 10 years following LightSquared’s startup. These effects would stem from delays in NextGen development and implementation, reversion to ground-based navigation aids, the loss of GPS efficiency and safety benefits and the cost of acquiring and retrofitting modified GPS equipment across the entire aviation fleet. The FAA estimates that the total avionics and related modifications and retrofit programs would take 10 to 15 years to complete, although LightSquared experts claimed earlier that it could be accomplished in only three years. The FCC is expected to announce in mid-September whether or not LightSquared will be allowed to proceed with its plan.
cruise350 said:
I wouldn't get your hopes up for Lightsquared's 4g ever coming to a neighborhood by you any time soon.
Leaked FAA Report Slams LightSquared
“The effects of LightSquared deployment would be far-reaching and potentially devastating to aviation,” the FAA wrote to the President’s Space-Based Positioning, Navigation and Timing (PNT) group in a report that was recently leaked to the media. In that document, the FAA estimates that the resulting interference to GPS from LightSquared’s proposed 4G broadband transmitters would lead to 794 deaths, a $70 billion loss in aviation capabilities and the addition of 30 million tons of CO2 emissions in the 10 years following LightSquared’s startup. These effects would stem from delays in NextGen development and implementation, reversion to ground-based navigation aids, the loss of GPS efficiency and safety benefits and the cost of acquiring and retrofitting modified GPS equipment across the entire aviation fleet. The FAA estimates that the total avionics and related modifications and retrofit programs would take 10 to 15 years to complete, although LightSquared experts claimed earlier that it could be accomplished in only three years. The FCC is expected to announce in mid-September whether or not LightSquared will be allowed to proceed with its plan.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is getting a lil rediculous. Lightsquared owns the spectrum it operates and has run the trials in so far. The FCC gave all GPS and related manufacturers a long notice of the deployment of lightsquareds LTE over that spectrum, and it is clear some/most took little to zero steps to fix their devices/firmware to not let their units spread onto that spectrum.
The CEO was on CNBC last month and he was very clear about this. The media has gotten this completely wrong so far. It is those gps companies that are interfeering and wandering onto some of Lightsquareds spectrum and NOT lightsquareds signal wandering onto theirs and causing interfearence.
The FCC actually has a mandate out for Lightsquared to have national rollout of LTE by time X(which i think is 2013-5) which when the official Sprint PR of the deal was released they stated they would have rolled out a year ahead of the mandate.
Im willing to bet this lightsquared thing is going to be a bigger bust than clear was. It's not just the FAA fighting them, I saw a suit by nautical cruiselines and all.
sgt. slaughter said:
This is getting a lil rediculous. Lightsquared owns the spectrum it operates and has run the trials in so far. The FCC gave all GPS and related manufacturers a long notice of the deployment of lightsquareds LTE over that spectrum, and it is clear some/most took little to zero steps to fix their devices/firmware to not let their units spread onto that spectrum.
The CEO was on CNBC last month and he was very clear about this. The media has gotten this completely wrong so far. It is those gps companies that are interfeering and wandering onto some of Lightsquareds spectrum and NOT lightsquareds signal wandering onto theirs and causing interfearence.
The FCC actually has a mandate out for Lightsquared to have national rollout of LTE by time X(which i think is 2013-5) which when the official Sprint PR of the deal was released they stated they would have rolled out a year ahead of the mandate.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Bingo, light squared is within their spectrum but gps makers got cheap and didn't isolate their systems well enough. I was under the impression one of the FCC's jobs when certifying electronics was to make sure it could handle interference from other devices but I guess not.
Sent from my PG86100 using XDA Premium App
xHausx said:
Bingo, light squared is within their spectrum but gps makers got cheap and didn't isolate their systems well enough. I was under the impression one of the FCC's jobs when certifying electronics was to make sure it could handle interference from other devices but I guess not.
Sent from my PG86100 using XDA Premium App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It is, BUT im guessing all the complaints are from older models as you dont go buy a new gps unit every year ya know. OR the FCC just passed them based on old standard and wouldn't require it until lightsquared actually gave the goahead on rollouts.
fact is gps ppl got cheap and lazy even when given a big notice ahead of time...
cruise350 said:
LightSquared’s proposed 4G broadband transmitters would lead to 794 deaths, a $70 billion loss in aviation capabilities and the addition of 30 million tons of CO2 emissions in the 10 years following LightSquared’s startup. These effects would stem from delays in NextGen development and implementation, reversion to ground-based navigation aids, the loss of GPS efficiency and safety benefits and the cost of acquiring and retrofitting modified GPS equipment across the entire aviation fleet. The FAA estimates that the total avionics and related modifications and retrofit programs would take 10 to 15 years to complete,
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Taking into consideration that these technologies are either spreading onto LightSquared's spectrum or have poorly tuned instrumentation that is susceptible to harmonics of activity on Lightsquared's spectrum...well...I'm okay with this.
Get your **** onto your own frequencies. There are plenty of other services on frequencies with natural harmonic interference from other frequencies--it's unavoidable without proper filtering and/or compensation. 400mhz is a perfect octave below 800mhz and thus resonant, as is anything that is a common denominator fractionally....plug in any frequency you want and do the same simple math...that's just how this **** works.
While critical aviation systems should absolutely be given priority they should also be given scrutiny. Fix your **** or move it. Just because this industry put it's system and practices into place in the 1950's-1970's, long before "4G" wireless broadband technology could have ever been envisioned, doesn't mean it should stand in the way of progress. Sure, it might cost billions to transition....but...holy ****, that's progress AND we just created tens of thousands of jobs. Progress costs money.
This problem is not technical, it is political and systemic.
Seriously here, the companies that cut corners should be the ones on the hook to correct the situation.
They knew the specifications they were supposed to follow and chose to ignore it. They should be the ones to correct it.
daneurysm said:
Taking into consideration that these technologies are either spreading onto LightSquared's spectrum or have poorly tuned instrumentation that is susceptible to harmonics of activity on Lightsquared's spectrum...well...I'm okay with this.
Get your **** onto your own frequencies. There are plenty of other services on frequencies with natural harmonic interference from other frequencies--it's unavoidable without proper filtering and/or compensation. 400mhz is a perfect octave below 800mhz and thus resonant, as is anything that is a common denominator fractionally....plug in any frequency you want and do the same simple math...that's just how this **** works.
While critical aviation systems should absolutely be given priority they should also be given scrutiny. Fix your **** or move it. Just because this industry put it's system and practices into place in the 1950's-1970's, long before "4G" wireless broadband technology could have ever been envisioned, doesn't mean it should stand in the way of progress. Sure, it might cost billions to transition....but...holy ****, that's progress AND we just created tens of thousands of jobs. Progress costs money.
This problem is not technical, it is political and systemic.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Nice look at daneursym going hard. Well stated +1
Sent from my PG86100 using Tapatalk
sgt. slaughter said:
This is getting a lil rediculous. Lightsquared owns the spectrum it operates and has run the trials in so far. The FCC gave all GPS and related manufacturers a long notice of the deployment of lightsquareds LTE over that spectrum, and it is clear some/most took little to zero steps to fix their devices/firmware to not let their units spread onto that spectrum.
The CEO was on CNBC last month and he was very clear about this. The media has gotten this completely wrong so far. It is those gps companies that are interfeering and wandering onto some of Lightsquareds spectrum and NOT lightsquareds signal wandering onto theirs and causing interfearence.
The FCC actually has a mandate out for Lightsquared to have national rollout of LTE by time X(which i think is 2013-5) which when the official Sprint PR of the deal was released they stated they would have rolled out a year ahead of the mandate.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
First post nailed it. Bravo, good sir
AyyRayy said:
Nice look at daneursym going hard. Well stated +1
Sent from my PG86100 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Lol, I just got back from the bar when I posted that. Don't know why it sounds so angry... I was in a great mood.
Sent from my PG86100 using XDA App
I tend to believe that many are complaining only to be included incase LTE is forced to give money for "damages". In a time when Mcdonalds can be sued for someone spilling coffee on themselves, anything is possible.
Jason
Alright, off topic, but it always bothers me when someone references the McDonald's case as being the epitome of litigious people. If you actually knew about the case, you'd know that it was completely reasonable. Also, the person who got hurt only asked for damages covering Medical Bills. McDonald's declined and the judge awarded her the "high" amount people call ridiculous. The coffee in question was at a higher temperature than anyone other companies coffee/home-made coffee. Those are just a few of the reasons why she won.
I thought this report was actuallly based older specs, lightsquared since then has eliminated the frequency that caused 90% of the inteference. I thought this report was done before lightsquared improved the situation on their end.
nkd said:
I thought this report was actuallly based older specs, lightsquared since then has eliminated the frequency that caused 90% of the inteference. I thought this report was done before lightsquared improved the situation on their end.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wouldn't know op did link us n nothing in news that I saw
Sent from my PC36100 using XDA Premium App
qitupx said:
Alright, off topic, but it always bothers me when someone references the McDonald's case as being the epitome of litigious people. If you actually knew about the case, you'd know that it was completely reasonable. Also, the person who got hurt only asked for damages covering Medical Bills. McDonald's declined and the judge awarded her the "high" amount people call ridiculous. The coffee in question was at a higher temperature than anyone other companies coffee/home-made coffee. Those are just a few of the reasons why she won.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah, I agree whole heartedly...and then there is the fact that this event occured over 10 years ago...hell, I think it might have been over 15 years ago. Since then we have seen so many absurd abuses of the justice system that even IF this case were particularly frivolous--which it was not--there are likely hundreds of examples that prove the point far better. Some of them not only from this decade but also from this century.
Sorry to spin this slightly OT reply and fling it even farther OT.
Here is the link for the story, I'm a pilot and I get these news excerpts all the time. The main problem with lightsquared is the frequency band they are using was meant for low power satellite transmissions only, this would not interfere with gps. They then did an end around of the system and convinced the FCC that they could use the same frequency at high power in ground stations. No initial tests were done and the FCC hoping to be the hero by allowing 4g everywhere quickly approved it. Then when lightsquared started switching on the noticed the interference. When lightsquared switched to the alternate freq band it helped but did not solve the problem. It would cost way to much money to fix gps across all the platforms, so I don't think we will see lightsquared unless they find a new freq band.
http://www.ainonline.com/news/single-news-page/article/leaked-faa-report-slams-lightsquared-30832/
Sounds like FAA is A: lazy B: broke **** and C: I hope it does go through just cause I don't care for them anyways.
Sent from my PC36100 using XDA Premium App
qitupx said:
Alright, off topic, but it always bothers me when someone references the McDonald's case as being the epitome of litigious people. If you actually knew about the case, you'd know that it was completely reasonable. Also, the person who got hurt only asked for damages covering Medical Bills. McDonald's declined and the judge awarded her the "high" amount people call ridiculous. The coffee in question was at a higher temperature than anyone other companies coffee/home-made coffee. Those are just a few of the reasons why she won.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
...says the lawyer. You're probably right though, we DO need the government to dictate how hot "hot coffee" should be.
I'm not sure if you're arguing that this case in particular was legitimate or that litigation is a good thing, but either way I think you're about as far off from the target as one can get. Just look at how lawyers affect the world in which we live. Heck, the two worst kinds are personal injury lawyers and IP lawyers. Bastards.
daneurysm said:
Taking into consideration that these technologies are either spreading onto LightSquared's spectrum or have poorly tuned instrumentation that is susceptible to harmonics of activity on Lightsquared's spectrum...well...I'm okay with this.
Get your **** onto your own frequencies. There are plenty of other services on frequencies with natural harmonic interference from other frequencies--it's unavoidable without proper filtering and/or compensation. 400mhz is a perfect octave below 800mhz and thus resonant, as is anything that is a common denominator fractionally....plug in any frequency you want and do the same simple math...that's just how this **** works.
While critical aviation systems should absolutely be given priority they should also be given scrutiny. Fix your **** or move it. Just because this industry put it's system and practices into place in the 1950's-1970's, long before "4G" wireless broadband technology could have ever been envisioned, doesn't mean it should stand in the way of progress. Sure, it might cost billions to transition....but...holy ****, that's progress AND we just created tens of thousands of jobs. Progress costs money.
This problem is not technical, it is political and systemic.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I couldn't agree more! The higher your priority the higher the level of scrutiny you should undergo. Poorly designed GPS units should be replaced. Progress should not be delayed simply because these companies don't want to invest the $ and resources to better their own technology and standards.
As a pilot, the way I see it;
1. The FAA is an under funded entity that congress is willing to hold hostage for their agendas.
2. Light Squared tried to maximize their frequency right (I think that is their right).
3. Cutting out land navigation facilities will save billions yearly for the government.
4. Airlines will save billions on shortest routes.
Bottom line, the plan for modernization of the ATC system will take precedence, because a huge part of the economy is tied to it. Light Squared LTE was unfortunate to win that particular spectrum.
Sent from my PG86100 using XDA Premium App

Lightsquared got screwed..

http://www.engadget.com/2012/01/14/lightsquareds-lte-hopes-dashed-by-federal-agency-report/ well aint that a bummer. what does this mean to sprint? will lte be delayed now or will the consumer end be unchanged?
Saw this coming months ago...
who needs GPS anyway.. grab a map.. LOL!
hmm
well i guess i wont be getting one of those fancy quad core lte phones. i also wonder what is going to happen to verizons network since they don't have wimax at all. At least we have something for the time being even if its not all over the place yet. all in all i think this is funny
GPS was first, and was originally for military use. Lightsquared never stood a chance for multiple reasons.
sprkat85 said:
well i guess i wont be getting one of those fancy quad core lte phones. i also wonder what is going to happen to verizons network since they don't have wimax at all. At least we have something for the time being even if its not all over the place yet. all in all i think this is funny
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's not going to have an effect on Verizon since they were smart enough to build their own LTE network from the start.
brownhornet said:
It's not going to have an effect on Verizon since they were smart enough to build their own LTE network from the start.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Lol ya Verizon has 4g everywhere tho there data cap and plans and phone prices are insane.
My bad this didn't come up when I made my thread. Below is my post on it BTW.
http://www.engadget.com/2012/01/14/lightsquareds-lte-hopes-dashed-by-federal-agency-report/
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9223412/LightSquared_seeks_probe_of_GPS_advisory_board_member
Well now the looks for sprint to have an LTE partner other than itself and Clear are looking dim according to this story. Lightsquared was going to be a big help to Sprints LTE efforts and give them more spectrum to work with and enable users to connect to.
The issue has always been GPS interference with Lightsquared's LTE implementation. What MANY people FAIL to realize its NOT Lightsquared's fault for the interference. The GPS handsets/systems are encroaching on Lightsquared's Spectrum/frequency and that is whats causing the interference. The FCC even made notice to give manufacturers many many years heads up notice that Lightsquared was coming and using Freq X but the manufacturers did squat and so in turn they still encroach on the signal causing issues to themselves. Now b/c they have been there for so long everyone looks at it as if Lightsquared is causing the problem but its actually the other way around.
Whats sad is even though lightsquared made deals with other companies to implement fixes on these GPS handsets for FREE, it still didn't fly with ppl.
"...Trimble sells products and services for precision GPS and has been one of the most prominent opponents of LightSquared's network plan. LightSquared said deployment of its network could force Trimble to adapt its equipment to stop using frequencies licensed to LightSquared, a concern that LightSquared said Trimble has acknowledged. Parkinson sits on the board of Trimble, so he should have recused himself from the government's decision-making process on the LTE proposal, LightSquared said...."
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's truly a shame the GPS manufacturers are so set in there way and control so much of the FCC, as in they have much much more $$ to toss around capitol hill and get things their way.
Now we will be the ones hurt in the end by this more than anyone else.
Sent from my PG86100 using XDA App
---------- Post added at 07:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:49 PM ----------
brownhornet said:
It's not going to have an effect on Verizon since they were smart enough to build their own LTE network from the start.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
has nothing do do with verizons lte network nor the fact that they built their own form the start. Sprint is building their own too, they were just going to use Lightsquared's in conjunction along with Clears like they do Clears for WiMax now. Cept Lightsquard's was on a much better Freq than Clears was for easy coverage.
sgt. slaughter said:
My bad this didn't come up when I made my thread. Below is my post on it BTW.
http://www.engadget.com/2012/01/14/lightsquareds-lte-hopes-dashed-by-federal-agency-report/
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9223412/LightSquared_seeks_probe_of_GPS_advisory_board_member
Well now the looks for sprint to have an LTE partner other than itself and Clear are looking dim according to this story. Lightsquared was going to be a big help to Sprints LTE efforts and give them more spectrum to work with and enable users to connect to.
The issue has always been GPS interference with Lightsquared's LTE implementation. What MANY people FAIL to realize its NOT Lightsquared's fault for the interference. The GPS handsets/systems are encroaching on Lightsquared's Spectrum/frequency and that is whats causing the interference. The FCC even made notice to give manufacturers many many years heads up notice that Lightsquared was coming and using Freq X but the manufacturers did squat and so in turn they still encroach on the signal causing issues to themselves. Now b/c they have been there for so long everyone looks at it as if Lightsquared is causing the problem but its actually the other way around.
Whats sad is even though lightsquared made deals with other companies to implement fixes on these GPS handsets for FREE, it still didn't fly with ppl.
It's truly a shame the GPS manufacturers are so set in there way and control so much of the FCC, as in they have much much more $$ to toss around capitol hill and get things their way.
Now we will be the ones hurt in the end by this more than anyone else.
Sent from my PG86100 using XDA App
---------- Post added at 07:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:49 PM ----------
has nothing do do with verizons lte network nor the fact that they built their own form the start. Sprint is building their own too, they were just going to use Lightsquared's in conjunction along with Clears like they do Clears for WiMax now. Cept Lightsquard's was on a much better Freq than Clears was for easy coverage.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yea... but with Sprint's being on the 1900mhz frequency it sounds like wimax penetration fail part 2.
It will be the same as the current 3g sig.. but better after the network vision upgrades. 1.9ghz for Sprint will get better as they are going to mount the radios at the antenna instead of at the base of the tower.
That will get rid of signal loss from the hardline.. which is pretty high at that frequency. Once Nextel is phased out Sprint will start using its 800mhz freqs for coverage as well.
Sent from my PG86100 using xda premium
Means I'm switching to a different carrier before my contract is up. If I were to guess, Sprints network will remain stagnant, in its current, horrible state.
Friend was driving the other night and asked me to get info about hours of a store...slow, slow data means I didn't get the information, got pissed("why do I pay them?! it doesnt work! Im switching to verizon, at least their 3g speeds are consistently around 800kbps."), gave up and we just went.
They were open.
sgt. slaughter said:
My bad this didn't come up when I made my thread. Below is my post on it BTW.
http://www.engadget.com/2012/01/14/lightsquareds-lte-hopes-dashed-by-federal-agency-report/
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9223412/LightSquared_seeks_probe_of_GPS_advisory_board_member
Well now the looks for sprint to have an LTE partner other than itself and Clear are looking dim according to this story. Lightsquared was going to be a big help to Sprints LTE efforts and give them more spectrum to work with and enable users to connect to.
The issue has always been GPS interference with Lightsquared's LTE implementation. What MANY people FAIL to realize its NOT Lightsquared's fault for the interference. The GPS handsets/systems are encroaching on Lightsquared's Spectrum/frequency and that is whats causing the interference. The FCC even made notice to give manufacturers many many years heads up notice that Lightsquared was coming and using Freq X but the manufacturers did squat and so in turn they still encroach on the signal causing issues to themselves. Now b/c they have been there for so long everyone looks at it as if Lightsquared is causing the problem but its actually the other way around.
Whats sad is even though lightsquared made deals with other companies to implement fixes on these GPS handsets for FREE, it still didn't fly with ppl.
It's truly a shame the GPS manufacturers are so set in there way and control so much of the FCC, as in they have much much more $$ to toss around capitol hill and get things their way.
Now we will be the ones hurt in the end by this more than anyone else.
Sent from my PG86100 using XDA App
---------- Post added at 07:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:49 PM ----------
has nothing do do with verizons lte network nor the fact that they built their own form the start. Sprint is building their own too, they were just going to use Lightsquared's in conjunction along with Clears like they do Clears for WiMax now. Cept Lightsquard's was on a much better Freq than Clears was for easy coverage.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You don't really know **** about this do you. Lightsquared is using it's frequency band illegally and thought a few bribes to the FCC and some congressmen would get it done but they got caught when they messed with GPS. As a commercial pilot I know the importance of GPS and broadband the wrong way is not the solution. Lightsquared gambled that they could sneak this through without anyone noticing but got caught when the screwed with the DOT, farmers, aviation, and the general public. Here are some excerpts from some aviation publications:
After LightSquared made statements that it has a “legal right” to build a network of terrestrial 4G broadband transmitters in the U.S., the Coalition to Save Our GPS last Thursday stepped up its attack of the company’s plans. Tests of LightSquared’s transmitters earlier this year showed that they interfere with GPS signals. According to the coalition, “LightSquared did not pay for and does not have a ‘legal right’ to build a nationwide terrestrial network in the MSS band.” MSS stands for mobile satellite spectrum, a quiet corner of the radio band reserved for very low power satellite-to-earth signals, such as GPS. Spectrum is in high demand, and commercial broadcast frequencies accordingly sell for tens of billions of dollars. But because of their restrictions, MSS frequencies are much cheaper. In fact, LightSquared bought a complete satellite system and two MSS frequencies for $2 billion. However, the GPS coalition said LightSquared is trying to circumvent FCC restrictions to convert these frequencies into a terrestrial spectrum that, according to a report published by LightSquared-hired consultants, would be worth $12 billion. LightSquared “is using legal double speakto hide a $10 billion spectrum windfall–money that should be going to U.S. taxpayers,” the coalition charged.
Congressional opponents of LightSquared’s 4G broadband plan allege that “short circuiting” procedures are involved at the FCC, the White House and the company’s owner to expedite LightSquared’s submissions. Mike Turner (R-Ohio), chairman of the House armed services subcommittee on strategic forces, and five other subcommittee members asked the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee (OGR) late last week to conduct an investigation into the roles of FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, the White House and the Harbinger Capital Partners hedge fund over the matter. In a separate letter sent to Genachowski on Friday, Tom Petri (R-Wis.), chairman of the House aviation subcommittee, and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, expressed similar concerns. “We have never seen the entire federal government and so many private companies directed to expend such considerable financial resources and man hours to accommodate a single company’s desires,” they wrote. “Never have we seen a company’s business model threaten critical transportation safety infrastructure and yet be assisted by its federal regulator. It is odd that the FCC has pegged the hopes of expanding broadband access on such a controversial proposal by a single applicant.”
“The effects of LightSquared deployment would be far-reaching and potentially devastating to aviation,” the FAA wrote to the President’s Space-Based Positioning, Navigation and Timing (PNT) group in a report that was recently leaked to the media. In that document, the FAA estimated that the resulting interference to GPS from LightSquared’s proposed 4G broadband transmitters would lead to 794 deaths, a $70 billion loss in aviation capabilities and the addition of 30 million tons of CO2 emissions in the 10 years following LightSquared’s startup. These effects would stem from delays in NextGen development and implementation, reversion to ground-based navigation aids, the loss of GPS efficiency and safety benefits and the cost of acquiring and retrofitting modified GPS equipment across the entire aviation fleet. The FAA estimated that the total avionics and related modifications and retrofit programs would take 10 to 15 years to complete, although LightSquared experts claimed earlier that it could be accomplished in only three years. The FCC is expected to announce in mid-September whether or not LightSquared will be allowed to proceed with its plan.
The current GPS/LightSquared frequency battle could be described as Washington’s most recent electro-political struggle.
At least two years before President Obama’s January State of the Union announcement of the National Broadband Plan, entrepreneurs and investors were already dissecting its several FCC drafts, looking for business opportunities. One of these investors was billionaire subprime mortgage speculator Philip Falcone, who saw real promise in its market potential. In 2009, Falcone’s company, Harbinger Partners, began the acquisition of ailing broadband satellite operator Sky Terra, which already held an FCC license to provide nationwide Internet service via a large satellite that it had ordered from Boeing.
But for Falcone, Sky Terra, to be renamed LightSquared, also had two aces in the hole. First was its possession of radio spectrum in excess of its needs and, second, it held an FCC dispensation to operate a number of terrestrial Internet re-transmitters in areas of poor satellite reception, and both came with the acquisition. Unused radio spectrum is a rare commodity today, commanding prices in the hundreds of millions from broadcasters. (Occasionally, the FCC holds public spectrum auctions, but future auctions will be conducted more carefully. Last year the FCC accidentally sold the total block of frequencies reserved for the USAF’s B-2 Stealth bomber.)
Yet the Sky Terra acquisition still needed to be finalized before submission for FCC approval, and political connections had to be cemented. The National Legal and Policy Center reports that on Sept. 22, 2009, Falcone and LightSquared CEO Sanjiv Ahuja visited the Office of Science and Technology Policy in the White House. On the following day, Harbinger and Sky Terra signed the merger agreement. One week later, Falcone, previously a very modest Republican supporter, and his wife, Lisa, each made the maximum personal contribution of $30,400 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. In September 2010, Republican supporter Sanjiv Ahuja contributed $30,400 to the same committee.
It was also necessary to maintain continuous contact with the FCC, so Falcone arranged for lobbyist Steve Glaze to perform that task. Coincidentally, Glaze is married to Terri Glaze, the FCC’s director of legislative affairs. However, Falcone and LightSquared were already well connected with the agency. Falcone himself was a Harvard classmate of Barack Obama, and is clearly a strong supporter of the President’s broadband plan, as is Obama appointee Julius Genachowski, the FCC chairman, who oversaw its development.
I'm sorry I don't trust the faa they are the biggest group of liars o don't have cells or WiFi on n now planes have WiFi for internet. Makes ZERO sense to me what they decided to magically figure a way so it doesn't "mess" with their stuff and the report on fuel and deaths is total made up numbers and bull****. People got around forever without gps and still could reason faa doesn't support this the airlines are greedy sobs and none of the airlines can manage their money that's why they always are raising prices and needing help.
Sent from my PC36100 using xda premium
cruise350 said:
You don't really know **** about this do you. Lightsquared is using it's frequency band illegally and thought a few bribes to the FCC and some congressmen would get it done but they got caught when they messed with GPS. As a commercial pilot I know the importance of GPS and broadband the wrong way is not the solution. Lightsquared gambled that they could sneak this through without anyone noticing but got caught when the screwed with the DOT, farmers, aviation, and the general public. Here are some excerpts from some aviation publications:
After LightSquared made statements that it has a “legal right” to build a network of terrestrial 4G broadband transmitters in the U.S., the Coalition to Save Our GPS last Thursday stepped up its attack of the company’s plans. Tests of LightSquared’s transmitters earlier this year showed that they interfere with GPS signals. According to the coalition, “LightSquared did not pay for and does not have a ‘legal right’ to build a nationwide terrestrial network in the MSS band.” MSS stands for mobile satellite spectrum, a quiet corner of the radio band reserved for very low power satellite-to-earth signals, such as GPS. Spectrum is in high demand, and commercial broadcast frequencies accordingly sell for tens of billions of dollars. But because of their restrictions, MSS frequencies are much cheaper. In fact, LightSquared bought a complete satellite system and two MSS frequencies for $2 billion. However, the GPS coalition said LightSquared is trying to circumvent FCC restrictions to convert these frequencies into a terrestrial spectrum that, according to a report published by LightSquared-hired consultants, would be worth $12 billion. LightSquared “is using legal double speakto hide a $10 billion spectrum windfall–money that should be going to U.S. taxpayers,” the coalition charged.
Congressional opponents of LightSquared’s 4G broadband plan allege that “short circuiting” procedures are involved at the FCC, the White House and the company’s owner to expedite LightSquared’s submissions. Mike Turner (R-Ohio), chairman of the House armed services subcommittee on strategic forces, and five other subcommittee members asked the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee (OGR) late last week to conduct an investigation into the roles of FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, the White House and the Harbinger Capital Partners hedge fund over the matter. In a separate letter sent to Genachowski on Friday, Tom Petri (R-Wis.), chairman of the House aviation subcommittee, and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, expressed similar concerns. “We have never seen the entire federal government and so many private companies directed to expend such considerable financial resources and man hours to accommodate a single company’s desires,” they wrote. “Never have we seen a company’s business model threaten critical transportation safety infrastructure and yet be assisted by its federal regulator. It is odd that the FCC has pegged the hopes of expanding broadband access on such a controversial proposal by a single applicant.”
“The effects of LightSquared deployment would be far-reaching and potentially devastating to aviation,” the FAA wrote to the President’s Space-Based Positioning, Navigation and Timing (PNT) group in a report that was recently leaked to the media. In that document, the FAA estimated that the resulting interference to GPS from LightSquared’s proposed 4G broadband transmitters would lead to 794 deaths, a $70 billion loss in aviation capabilities and the addition of 30 million tons of CO2 emissions in the 10 years following LightSquared’s startup. These effects would stem from delays in NextGen development and implementation, reversion to ground-based navigation aids, the loss of GPS efficiency and safety benefits and the cost of acquiring and retrofitting modified GPS equipment across the entire aviation fleet. The FAA estimated that the total avionics and related modifications and retrofit programs would take 10 to 15 years to complete, although LightSquared experts claimed earlier that it could be accomplished in only three years. The FCC is expected to announce in mid-September whether or not LightSquared will be allowed to proceed with its plan.
The current GPS/LightSquared frequency battle could be described as Washington’s most recent electro-political struggle.
At least two years before President Obama’s January State of the Union announcement of the National Broadband Plan, entrepreneurs and investors were already dissecting its several FCC drafts, looking for business opportunities. One of these investors was billionaire subprime mortgage speculator Philip Falcone, who saw real promise in its market potential. In 2009, Falcone’s company, Harbinger Partners, began the acquisition of ailing broadband satellite operator Sky Terra, which already held an FCC license to provide nationwide Internet service via a large satellite that it had ordered from Boeing.
But for Falcone, Sky Terra, to be renamed LightSquared, also had two aces in the hole. First was its possession of radio spectrum in excess of its needs and, second, it held an FCC dispensation to operate a number of terrestrial Internet re-transmitters in areas of poor satellite reception, and both came with the acquisition. Unused radio spectrum is a rare commodity today, commanding prices in the hundreds of millions from broadcasters. (Occasionally, the FCC holds public spectrum auctions, but future auctions will be conducted more carefully. Last year the FCC accidentally sold the total block of frequencies reserved for the USAF’s B-2 Stealth bomber.)
Yet the Sky Terra acquisition still needed to be finalized before submission for FCC approval, and political connections had to be cemented. The National Legal and Policy Center reports that on Sept. 22, 2009, Falcone and LightSquared CEO Sanjiv Ahuja visited the Office of Science and Technology Policy in the White House. On the following day, Harbinger and Sky Terra signed the merger agreement. One week later, Falcone, previously a very modest Republican supporter, and his wife, Lisa, each made the maximum personal contribution of $30,400 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. In September 2010, Republican supporter Sanjiv Ahuja contributed $30,400 to the same committee.
It was also necessary to maintain continuous contact with the FCC, so Falcone arranged for lobbyist Steve Glaze to perform that task. Coincidentally, Glaze is married to Terri Glaze, the FCC’s director of legislative affairs. However, Falcone and LightSquared were already well connected with the agency. Falcone himself was a Harvard classmate of Barack Obama, and is clearly a strong supporter of the President’s broadband plan, as is Obama appointee Julius Genachowski, the FCC chairman, who oversaw its development.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sorry bud I'm not reading your bs there when you say I don't know **** when i likely know more than u do on it. FACT lightsquared was given their spectrum and the current GPS devices signals spread onto THEIR spectrum which causes the interference.
Lightsquared was provisioned to use X spctrum which GPS currently spreads into and GPS ppl.didn't fix their shot in time
Read up on this please.
Sent from my PG86100 using XDA App
FACT LightSquared was granted a waiver to use their low-power SATELLITE frequency for a terrestrial mobile network buildout IF they could do it without interfering with GPS.
This goes very deep, and in the end it comes down to some guys at the FCC who told LightSquared they could do it, and are now playing cya when GPS became an issue.
Are GPS receivers "listening" outside the normal gps band? Yes. Are they allowed to do this? Technically yes, because they're just listening. Is it a good idea for them to do this? Technologically, yes because of red/blue shift it increases accuracy of gps location.
GPS isn't doing anything wrong, and LightSquared isn't really doing anything wrong either, but they were granted a provisional waiver, and could not satisfy those provisions.
End of story.
Sent from my PG86100 using XDA App
sgt. slaughter said:
The issue has always been GPS interference with Lightsquared's LTE implementation. What MANY people FAIL to realize its NOT Lightsquared's fault for the interference. The GPS handsets/systems are encroaching on Lightsquared's Spectrum/frequency and that is whats causing the interference. The FCC even made notice to give manufacturers many many years heads up notice that Lightsquared was coming and using Freq X but the manufacturers did squat and so in turn they still encroach on the signal causing issues to themselves. Now b/c they have been there for so long everyone looks at it as if Lightsquared is causing the problem but its actually the other way around
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That doesnt make much sense to me. There are some open frequencies to use for private stuff and below a certain power amount, and there are blocks of frequencies sold by the FCC to a company. How does GPS stuff use one frequency for a LONG time and then suddenly Lightsquared owns it now and other people are encroaching? GPS was around long before this new company and is used for far more important things than 4G data. So Lightsquared has no right to interfere with GPS and should have used a differency frequency band
Lightsquared has no defense here, the bought a spectrum that is designated for a different purpose then what they intended to use it for and got caught when they bribed Obama and his cronies at the FCC. It's that simple, they had no right to build a terrestrial network based on that spectrum and now they are done.
“LightSquared did not pay for and does not have a ‘legal right’ to build a nationwide terrestrial network in the MSS band.” MSS stands for mobile satellite spectrum, a quiet corner of the radio band reserved for very low power satellite-to-earth signals, such as GPS.
---------- Post added at 11:27 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:21 AM ----------
sgt. slaughter said:
Sorry bud I'm not reading your bs there when you say I don't know **** when i likely know more than u do on it. FACT lightsquared was given their spectrum and the current GPS devices signals spread onto THEIR spectrum which causes the interference.
Lightsquared was provisioned to use X spctrum which GPS currently spreads into and GPS ppl.didn't fix their shot in time
Read up on this please.
Sent from my PG86100 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think you need to read, the MSS spectrum they bought is for satellite to earth communication not a terrestrial network. If they used the spectrum as it was intended they would not be interfering with gps. They thought they could do an end around on all the other network providers by buying up a cheap defunct satellite communications company than bribe the fcc and Obama's campaign war chest and people would look the other way while they built a terrestrial network on the MSS band. They probably would have got away with it if it didn't interfere with gps. If lightsquared had played fair, and bought the proper spectrum for its purpose there wouldn't be a problem. They gambled and lost.
---------- Post added at 11:38 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:27 AM ----------
ckoadiyn said:
I'm sorry I don't trust the faa they are the biggest group of liars o don't have cells or WiFi on n now planes have WiFi for internet. Makes ZERO sense to me what they decided to magically figure a way so it doesn't "mess" with their stuff and the report on fuel and deaths is total made up numbers and bull****. People got around forever without gps and still could reason faa doesn't support this the airlines are greedy sobs and none of the airlines can manage their money that's why they always are raising prices and needing help.
Sent from my PC36100 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, first off it is the FCC that prevents usage of cell phones on airplanes. As far as the other electronic devices, I agree that most of them don't interfere with functions on the airplane. but some due, how many of you have had a gsm phone and gotten close to a speaker and heard the interference it produces. Blackberry's throw all kinds of electronic noise off of them. One of our helicopters would get a fire warning light after take off everytime they flew this one client. After some investigation, Turned out he was leaving his Blackberry on in his case and the fire sensor circuitry was right under his bag when he turned off his blackberry the fire warning light went out. I'm not saying they all do this, but beneath the floor of an airplane is where all the wiring is. You can't say for sure that one of your electrical devices won't cause a problem. Takeoff and landing is where 90% of all crashed occur so wouldn't it make sense to limit the risk of interference at that time.
On another note, our company has just received approval to use Ipads in the cockpit to replace all our paper charts. But, before we can use them each Ipad must be sent out and tested for EMI and Pressurization failures. We've sent in over 200 Ipads to be tested so far and 2 of them came back with unacceptable EMI emissions so just because one is good doesn't mean they all are good.
Just so u know LightSquared controls 59 MHz of the United States spectrum (1525-1559 MHz) and received FCC authorization in 2004 to use this L-Band spectrum to build its nationwide 4G-LTE wireless broadband network integrated with satellite coverage.
It wasn't under Obama they got approved it was that crooked sob bush
Edit: also from what I read their sats spectrum was a agreement with inmarsat which is already for data/phone service with the military so I'm still not seeing the problem.
Ps thanks for some of the info about fcc n interference.
Sent from my PC36100 using xda premium
Also if I may add inmarsat sucks after being a it for 4 yrs in the military on a destroyer it was the worst connection and our slowest out of all of them. Part of the connection issues was due to piss poor engineering of the ship but yeah just wanted to throw that out their.
Ps it was slower then dialup for the internet
Sent from my PC36100 using xda premium
its ****ing amazing watching all of this unfold...
the power of corporations and the confidence of the people that run them is ridiculous....
how can a company like light squared have the ****ing guts to even think about pushing over such an important and well established essential system like gps?!!
i find it utterly appalling that such an idea even got this far...

ACLU suing all major US carriers for failing to upgrade phones

There's an article currently on Ars Technica which you all may be interested in.
Civil liberties advocates have asked the US Federal Trade Commission to take action against the nation's four major wireless carriers for selling millions of Android smartphones that never, or only rarely, receive updates to patch dangerous security vulnerabilities.
The request for investigation and complaint for injunctive relief was filed Tuesday by the American Civil Liberties Union against AT&T, Verizon Wireless, Sprint Nextel, and T-Mobile USA. The majority of phones that the carriers sell run Google's Android operating system and rarely receive software updates, the 16-page document stated. It went on to allege that the practice violates provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act barring deceptive and unfair business practices, since the carriers don't disclose that the failure to provide updates in a timely manner puts customers at greater risk of hacking attacks. Among other things, the filing seeks an order allowing customers to terminate contracts that cover a phone that's no longer eligible to receive updates.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'll be following this case with a GREAT deal of interest. I urge anyone so inclined to send a few bucks to the ACLU - they seem to be in EFF territory here a bit, but that's fine with me.
def2moto said:
There's an article currently on Ars Technica which you all may be interested in.
I'll be following this case with a GREAT deal of interest. I urge anyone so inclined to send a few bucks to the ACLU - they seem to be in EFF territory here a bit, but that's fine with me.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sound interesting, but I don't think its going to have any impact. I read this somewhere:
The ACLU filing is a request that the FTC investigate the carriers along with factual and legal support for the argument that the four carriers aren’t complying with US law. The commission isn’t required to take any action in response. In the event FTC staff members launch an investigation, it could be months or even years for it to become public.
Blah, ACLU. Just another political action committee.
Hey I know this will come as a great shock to you all. For the time I spent with Sprint this afternoon I could've done some web work or something and made enough money to just pay their fees but its the *principle* ya know?
Anyway, when I contacted them several ways to get the early termination waved or get like the HTC One for switching new customer price because of the lack of upgrades, the first chat person said "Oh the Q update went out on the 14th" and then told me to call in.
I called in a few times, a Dominique hung up on me, but a Heidi was as sympathetic as the corporate manual allows. The price kept changing. They said I could do an early upgrade for $160 plus then the upgrade cost of a phone. Then they dropped that to $155. They said the early termination to $175.
Anyway, they also claimed that I should just go to the store to have them fix the security problems. I told them that wouldn't help, and they didn't believe me. They also told me that no one is complaining about any hacks.
So if you're bored, go ahead an try to inform a customer service rep about this complaint. I know this matters nothing, but I think that since we're in the right with it that it is a situation that we should participate fully in. Even if you no longer have a Photon the complaint is still valid for all phones not on 4.2, and for probably most phones against still when 4.3 comes out.
I know we also somewhat benefit from having the control of being able to hack the things, but that is subtly different than someone in the future finding browser vulnerabilities that stay open for years. It could eventually lead to them locking things down a la Apple, but that is a different fight. Hack it if you own it, don't hack it if you don't own it.
tomgaga said:
Sound interesting, but I don't think its going to have any impact. I read this somewhere:
The ACLU filing is a request that the FTC investigate the carriers along with factual and legal support for the argument that the four carriers aren’t complying with US law. The commission isn’t required to take any action in response. In the event FTC staff members launch an investigation, it could be months or even years for it to become public.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This old thread is telling given the recent arrival of the Stagefright exploit. ACLU was on the money with this one two years and I can now imagine a potential massive class-action lawsuit against carriers for negligence with user data security. Forced arbitration agreements are likely to head off such an effort, but there are signs that the legal stakes for consumer data security are rising: http://www.wired.com/2015/07/new-hope-victims-data-breaches/
Instead of jockeying for lower prices or switching to no contracts, one of the major carriers should standout by creating a low-cost-no-added-commitment phone upgrade program since the cost of supporting older phones is too high for their bottom line. If they don't do it themselves, I can imagine a day when carriers are soon required to issue phone recalls when a substantial exploit is discovered.

Petition to get Verizon Wireless to abandon contracts

In case you haven't seen this yet, there is a petition on change.org to convince Verizon Wireless to abandon service contracts.
Verizon: Get rid of contracts for wireless service
Petition by: Mike Beauchamp, Wichita, KS
News coverage:
CNN: Thousands petition Verizon to nix wireless contracts
Venture Beat: Verizon, can you hear me now? Thousands demand a swift end to contracts
Below is my comment on change.org. Be sure to write a comment too so your signature is meaningful!
Contractless agreements ensure the wireless providers are looking out for their customers' best interests by continuously doing "right", else facing the consequence of losing customers.
By adhering to a long-term contract model, Verizon Wireless is telling customers it cares more about shareholder profits than customer service.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Signed and can I share
Sent from my ADR6410LVW using xda premium

What is this bull$%^t now, 'Administrative Fee'

A new for AT&T to earn more money??
Administrative Fee (Consumer and Individual Responsibility User (IRU) lines only)
The Administrative Fee helps defray certain expenses AT&T incurs, including but not limited to: (a) charges AT&T or its agents pay to interconnect with other carriers to deliver calls from AT&T customers to their customers; and (b) charges associated with cell site rents and maintenance.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What a B.S.! Can't stand these communication companies and the lack of options in this country.
sbi1 said:
A new for AT&T to earn more money??
What a B.S.! Can't stand these communication companies and the lack of options in this country.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The rich will get richer, the poor will get poorer. Its ridiculous what this government let these corporations get away with. Of course at the working man's expense.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I717 using xda app-developers app
lildoggs said:
The rich will get richer, the poor will get poorer. Its ridiculous what this government let these corporations get away with. Of course at the working man's expense.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I717 using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They don't make enough money.... they justify by letting us pay only $200 for a $700 phone. Tha'ts how they get away with it... we can all go to the European way and just buy the phones up front and save a little on the service. But they will still make tons of money of us. $37 stock price for today 11%+ rise year to date... They obviously need more and more :crying:
I called AT&T yesterday to ***** about it, I asked the CSR "What 'new' expenses does AT&T have now that they didn't have last month?". Sure enough he started reading to me the same thing as I posted above. I said "don't read this to me, I can read it myself. I want to know what NEW EXPENSES do you have..."
He said "we don't have that info". I said "well, HQ should give you the answers".
I got so pissed at him that he ended up giving me a credit of the 4 lines times this bull**** fee for the next year ($30). Sure, I was happy and appreciative of his attempt to make a customer happy. Nevertheless, can't wait for my contract to expire to get the hell out. That's why I don't take 'free/discounted' phones from AT&T. Only international versions, nothing with AT&T logo on it. I will not be tied in contracts with big corporations any more.
Sure, it's much more difficult now to go somewhere else when Straight Talk no longer have AT&T sim cards, but we'll see.
sbi1 said:
That's why I don't take 'free/discounted' phones from AT&T. Only international versions, nothing with AT&T logo on it. I will not be tied in contracts with big corporations any more.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Could not agree more, well said.
Sent from the i777
Quick & Easy BBB, FTC, FCC links
Some momentum is growing at forums.att.com to have a mass of customers report to the BBB, FTC, and FCC, so I am posting easy links here, in case others wish to do so as well.
It's really quick and easy to make your voice heard .
BBB: www.bbb.org/atlanta/business-reviews/telephone-companies/atandt-in-atlanta-ga-7935/file-a-complaint
FTC: https://www.ftccomplaintassistant.gov/FTC_Wizard.aspx?Lang=en
FCC: http://www.fcc.gov/complaints
You can base your info on the following but you will have to edit it to fit in the web forms:
"AT&T has raised the price on every wireless line in service by $.61 a month by adding a new fee to every bill, which they explain as follows:
"MOBILITY ADMINISTRATIVE FEE" Effective May 1, 2013, the Administrative Fee will be $0.61 per line per month. The Administrative Fee helps defray certain expenses AT&T incurs, including but not limited to: (a) charges AT&T or its agents pay to interconnect with other carriers to deliver calls from AT&T customers to their customers; and (b) charges associated with cell site rents and maintenance."
This is a baloney way of saying "price increase", and is a blatant violation of basic contract law which does not allow the changing of terms after the beginning of a bilateral agreement. The vast majority of ATT customers have 2-year contract agreements which prevent their switching carriers without paying a huge penalty clause.
The ATT Wireless Agreement reads: "If we increase the price of any of the services to which you subscribe, beyond the limits set forth in your customer service summary... you may terminate this agreement without paying an early termination fee or returning or paying for any promotional items."
CTIA Consumer Code reads: "Carriers will not modify the material terms of their subscribers' contracts in a manner that is materially adverse to subscribers without providing a reasonable advance notice of a proposed modification and allowing subscribers a time period of not less than 14 days to cancel their contracts with no early termination fee."
ATT claims that the price for the service remains the same and are only adding a "fee".
What's from stopping AT&T from adding an additional $50/month fee and not letting customers out of their contract?
$.61 doesn't sound like much, but some people have multiple lines. In addition, multiplied by 115.78 million customers, AT&T makes an extra $847 million a year from this dishonest price hike.
As it is not any kind of tax or government mandated charge, the new fee should be included in the basic price displayed in advertising and informational material. The new fee should only be charged on new contracts beginning after the increase, and existing contract customers must be allowed to either reject the price hike or be allowed to terminate their service without penalty, as the contract has already been breached by the carrier."
Coincidentally I just cancelled one of my add-on packages with Comcast cable and they also tried to charge a $2.xx administrative fee. Although the CSR waived it as a 'one time courtesy,' seeing the same issue here highlights what appears to be a growing trend.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyDbfCbQnH8
harryspar said:
Some momentum is growing at forums.att.com to have a mass of customers report to the BBB, FTC, and FCC, so I am posting easy links here, in case others wish to do so as well.
It's really quick and easy to make your voice heard .
BBB: www.bbb.org/atlanta/business-reviews/telephone-companies/atandt-in-atlanta-ga-7935/file-a-complaint
FTC: https://www.ftccomplaintassistant.gov/FTC_Wizard.aspx?Lang=en
FCC: http://www.fcc.gov/complaints
You can base your info on the following but you will have to edit it to fit in the web forms:
"AT&T has raised the price on every wireless line in service by $.61 a month by adding a new fee to every bill, which they explain as follows:
"MOBILITY ADMINISTRATIVE FEE" Effective May 1, 2013, the Administrative Fee will be $0.61 per line per month. The Administrative Fee helps defray certain expenses AT&T incurs, including but not limited to: (a) charges AT&T or its agents pay to interconnect with other carriers to deliver calls from AT&T customers to their customers; and (b) charges associated with cell site rents and maintenance."
This is a baloney way of saying "price increase", and is a blatant violation of basic contract law which does not allow the changing of terms after the beginning of a bilateral agreement. The vast majority of ATT customers have 2-year contract agreements which prevent their switching carriers without paying a huge penalty clause.
The ATT Wireless Agreement reads: "If we increase the price of any of the services to which you subscribe, beyond the limits set forth in your customer service summary... you may terminate this agreement without paying an early termination fee or returning or paying for any promotional items."
CTIA Consumer Code reads: "Carriers will not modify the material terms of their subscribers' contracts in a manner that is materially adverse to subscribers without providing a reasonable advance notice of a proposed modification and allowing subscribers a time period of not less than 14 days to cancel their contracts with no early termination fee."
ATT claims that the price for the service remains the same and are only adding a "fee".
What's from stopping AT&T from adding an additional $50/month fee and not letting customers out of their contract?
$.61 doesn't sound like much, but some people have multiple lines. In addition, multiplied by 115.78 million customers, AT&T makes an extra $847 million a year from this dishonest price hike.
As it is not any kind of tax or government mandated charge, the new fee should be included in the basic price displayed in advertising and informational material. The new fee should only be charged on new contracts beginning after the increase, and existing contract customers must be allowed to either reject the price hike or be allowed to terminate their service without penalty, as the contract has already been breached by the carrier."
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Complaints filed.
sbi1 said:
Complaints filed.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You da man. How long did it take, a few minutes, right? We need more people to act.
Thanks for the heads up, I didn't even notice it. I filed a complaint with the FTC and will look into switching when my contract ends next month
Does this fee count as a material change in the contract? I'm guessing not. Sneaky
edit: I now read harryspar's post completely. When Sprint did this, many people were able to cancel and not pay an ETF, but I'm guessing AT&T will fight this but some people might be able to get away with it.
havanahjoe said:
When Sprint did this, many people were able to cancel and not pay an ETF, but I'm guessing AT&T will fight this but some people might be able to get away with it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Some people have been successful, see thread on fawallet.com: http://www.fatwallet.com/forums/finance/1270724/
harryspar said:
You da man. How long did it take, a few minutes, right? We need more people to act.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yup. few minutes and the bastards "responded" to the BBB one with the usual B.S., to which I responded with (basically) "Cut the B.S.". Nothing will change until everyone files a complaint.
I went through a similar experience with Sprint last year. They claimed it was not a "material change" as another poster eluded to and when I digged very deep in my contract - there was a clause which allowed them to add up to $2.00 per month in "fees" without being considered "material" changes...
I think it depends on the rep you get, some people I know used the fee to get out of their contracts and some it did not work for. I was able to get the fee waived (it was only 20 cents per month or so that they were adding this time) but I didn't feel like fighting to get any further.

Categories

Resources