America Needs To Stop Pretending The Broadband 'Digital Divide' Isn't The Direct Result Of Corruption

from the we-didn't-get-here-by-accident dept

Last week, a tweeted photo of two kids huddled on the ground outside of a Taco Bell -- just to gain access to a reliable internet connection -- made the rounds on social media. The two found themselves on the wrong side of the "digital divide," forced to sit in the dirt just to get online, just 45 minutes from the immensely wealthy technology capital of the United States:

America's broadband access and affordability issues have long been a problem. But they're taking on greater urgency in the COVID-19 era, with millions of Americans being forced to learn, teach, work, and socialize from home. In that climate, it didn't take long for the photo to garner attention and public sympathy, resulting in outlets like CNN reporting that the local school district wound up giving the family a mobile hotspot so they could actually do homework at home:

"The district gave the family a hotspot so the students could access classroom instructions from their home, according to Gebin...In a statement, a spokesperson for Taco Bell Corp. told CNN that "the photo of two young girls outside of a Salinas, CA Taco Bell is a tough reminder of basic inequalities facing our communities."

While a kind gesture, the episode is fairly representative of our relationship to the digital divide and America's patchy, expensive broadband networks. As in, we've let telecom giants dictate state and federal policy for 30 years, resulting in geographic monopolies where the primary objective is maintaining the status quo (high prices, little competition, zero real accountability for market failure). Then, in the rare instance where the problem can hold our attention for more than thirty seconds, we throw a band aid on the byproduct of this corruption and pat ourselves on the back for a job well done.

Granted CNN, like so many major news outlets, covers this problem in a way that implies that expensive, mediocre, patchy broadband networks are just some thing that magically happened, and not the obvious byproduct of state and federal corruption. The kind of corruption that usually involves companies like AT&T burying competition crushing language in unrelated ordinances, literally writing state laws banning creative local community broadband alternatives, or convincing the FCC to effectively self-immolate upon request, gutting not only the agency's authority over telecom, but most meaningful consumer protections.

American broadband doesn't suck because America is big, or because we haven't thrown enough money at the problem (giants like AT&T have received countless billions in tax breaks, subsidies, and regulatory favors, usually in exchange for bupkis). American broadband sucks because giant monopolies literally write state and federal telecom law, and have completely corrupted the legislative process from the town level on up.

It takes thirty seconds watching state and federal legislatures before it becomes clear that the majority of our lawmakers have prioritized Verizon, Comcast, and AT&T campaign contributions above anything even vaguely resembling the public interest. It's simply undeniable, and it should be the bedrock upon which all U.S. broadband policy conversations and news coverage is built upon. Fail to acknowledge this reality and you're allowing the problem to perpetuate. There's an entire cottage industry of telecom-linked think tankers, economists, and consultants whose mortgage payments depend on pretending American broadband isn't a monopolized mess. It's hard to look at coverage from the likes of CNN and not come away realizing how effective they've been at shaping the discourse.

Despite its reputation as a haven for "the socialisms," California is certainly no exception to this corruption (just ask the EFF). Several recent legislative proposals have been pushed to help lessen the digital divide, including expanding fiber networks, funding "middle-mile" broadband projects, and boosting the standard speed of what's considered broadband in California from a pathetic 6 Mbps down, 1 Mbps up -- to 25 Mbps in both directions. But more than a few consumer advocates have been complaining to me that the broadband speed bill was never even allowed to come to a vote despite widespread support. Why? AT&T didn't like it:

"Senate bill 1130, authored by senator Lena Gonzalez (D – Los Angeles), would have raised the bar to symmetrical 25 Mbps down/25 Mbps up speeds. The California senate approved it in June, but it died in the assembly as democratic leaders refused to allow a full floor vote on it.

Had they done so, SB 1130 would have easily won the majority needed to pass. That wasn’t acceptable to assembly speaker Anthony Rendon (D- Los Angeles). Backed up by majority floor leader Ian Calderon (D- Los Angeles), Rendon pulled the bill, caving in to pressure – and loads of money – from AT&T and a solid line of cable companies, including Comcast and Charter Communications. Frontier Communications was against it too, but the relative pittance it directly puts in legislative pockets – $61,000 over the years versus $7.4 million from AT&T alone – doesn’t buy much influence. AT&T’s indirect payoffs to Californian democrats and republicans are more than five times that."

This isn't some one-off. Unless beneficial telecom legislation can somehow garner massive public attention (difficult to do since telecom wonkery doesn't generate ad impressions), it's trivially easy for a giant like AT&T to covertly kill pretty much any legislation that even remotely challenges the status quo, attempts something new, or opens the door to more serious competition. As such it's not particularly surprising that AT&T-owned CNN examines the lack of broadband as a heart-warming fable -- without explaining to its readers/viewers why U.S. broadband has been mired in mediocrity for the better part of a generation.

42 million Americans lack broadband, nearly double the FCC's official, rose-colored-glasses estimates. Another 83 million or so live under a monopoly, ensuring they see terrible customer service, high prices, and little effort to seriously improve. Millions more live under duopolies where their only choice is either Comcast or a phone company that hasn't updated its DSL lines since 2002. It's the result of corruption. It's the end result of a wholesale failure in ethical governance. Ignoring this reality, denying this reality, or painting this American failure as just quirky happenstance -- ensures we'll never set about truly fixing it.

Filed Under: broadband, california, competition, corruption, digital divide, fcc

Want To Know Why U.S. Broadband Is A Bad Joke? Take a Close Look at Frontier Communications

from the ill-communication dept

In telecom policy circles, there's an army of "experts" who twist themselves into pretzels trying to pretend U.S. telecom is a healthy, normal, vibrant market. Blinded by partisan loyalties, sector financial links, or ideologies embedded decades ago, they're incapable of even acknowledging that Americans pay too much money for spotty, substandard service with historically terrible customer support. They're even less likely to acknowledge the corruption, regulatory capture, and lack of competition that made this dysfunction possible. If it is acknowledged, it's downplayed to a comical degree.

As in the Ma Bell days, at the heart of U.S. broadband dysfunction sits phone companies. Providers, that have long refused to upgrade their aging DSL networks despite millions in taxpayer subsidies, lobby for state laws that ensure nobody else can deliver broadband in these neglected footprints either. These are companies that have a bizarre disdain for their paying customers, delivering the bare minimum (slow DSL) at the highest rates they can possibly charge without a full-scale consumer revolt. It's not surprising, then, that many telco DSL customers are fleeing to cable, assuming they even have a second broadband option.

This dynamic often results in some almost comedic dysfunction.

Like in West Virginia, where incumbent telco Frontier has repeatedly been busted in a series of scandals involving substandard service and the misuse of taxpayer money. The graft and corruption in the state is so severe, state leaders have buried reports detailing the depth of the problem, and, until recently, a Frontier executive did double duty as a state representative without anybody in the state thinking that was a conflict of interest.

But it's not just West Virginia. Frontier has since been under investigations from New York to Minnesota for failing to upgrade or even repair its aging network, at points putting human lives at risk. The company has also been repeatedly under fire for blatantly ripping its users off. For example, it has been charging its customers a rental fee for modems they already own. Very rarely do you see state leaders stand up to the company. And you'll certainly never see any kind of substantive pushback by the current, industry-captured FCC.

Customers who can leave (usually to the other end of the duopoly, Comcast), have been fleeing whenever possible, resulting in a looming bankruptcy by the company. In a report to investors this week we're only now starting to finally see something close to truth from the company as it tries to own up to its incompetence. Frontier had apparently tried to redact much of the report detailing the scope of network neglect, but appears to have bungled that as well:

"For example, one redacted sentence says that "Frontier WV's copper network has at least 952,163 connection points that are susceptible to moisture, corrosion, loose connections, etc. that may cause interruptions of service to customers."...The failed redaction of the number of connection points was coupled with failed redactions about the age of the network. The consultant firm's report said that 46.8 percent of Frontier's West Virginia network is between 36 and 47 years old. Both the percentage and the numbers of years were unsuccessfully "redacted" by Frontier.

The report makes it clear that the company probably shouldn't have engaged in mindless M&As, acquiring unwanted aging phone networks from AT&T and Verizon in "growth for growth's sake." Many of those deals were completely bungled and saddled the company with unneeded debt. Most should have been blocked by regulators and lawmakers who were too busy kissing the company's ass. Frontier also should have invested money back into the network to build a stronger company and retain subscribers, instead of engaging in repeated stock buybacks.

There are two reasons the company didn't do better on these fronts. One is sniveling, feckless, U.S. regulators and cash-compromised state and federal lawmakers, who rubber stamp every merger thrown on their desks, and refuse to hold politically powerful monopolies accountable. The other? A lack of competition across most of Frontier's territories:

"So why would a company like Frontier not immediately hit the upgrade button and start a massive copper retirement-fiber upgrade plan to keep the company in the black? In short, Frontier has survived chronic underinvestment because of a lack of broadband competition. Nearly two million Frontier customers have only one choice for internet access: Frontier. For another 11.3 million, there is only one other choice – a cable company that many detest. Frontier has enjoyed its broadband monopoly/duopoly for at least two decades. So long as its customers have fewer options, Frontier is under less pressure to invest in upgrades."

There were ample opportunities for state and federal leaders to step in and correct these problems, while embracing pro-competition policies that minimized the need for government involvement. Instead we let a regional monopoly dictate state and federal policy, and now act surprised when the end result is a smoldering dumpster fire. Granted as Frontier stumbles toward bankruptcy most of its debt will be wiped clean, nobody in the U.S. will learn anything from the process, and a universe of "very serious telecom policy thinkers" will continue to turn a blind eye to the entire mess as history repeats itself.

Filed Under: broadband, cable, competition, corruption, dsl, fcc, promises, subsidies, west virginia
Companies: frontier

Orange County DA's Office Shrugs Off Sheriff's Deputies Falsifying Evidence Reports [UPDATED]

from the boldly-adding-zero-accountability-to-zero-accountability dept

UPDATE: The Orange County DA's office has issued this correction:

There is misinformation in this story. Orange County District Attorney Todd Spitzer has reopened the criminal investigations into the 17 deputies referenced in this post.

This post says that there was a decision to not charge those deputies. That is not accurate as the review is ongoing.

This is the reporting from The Appeal, which has apparently not received the same statement from Spitzer's office:

Between 2017, before the first audit began, and October 2018, the sheriff’s department referred 15 deputies to the district attorney’s office for criminal investigation as a result of filing false reports, according to the DA’s response to Voice of OC reporter Nick Gerda’s public information request. But by the end of January 2019, the DA’s office had decided not to prosecute any of the deputies, according to a motion filed last month by Scott Sanders, an assistant public defender. Two additional deputies were later submitted and also rejected for prosecution, several months later.

Original post follows:

If this were a private business, it would have collapsed under the combined weight of its unhappy customers and its own incompetence. But it isn't. We realize you don't have a choice in your law enforcement provider and all that.

The Orange County Sheriff's Department is a mess. It has been a mess for years. Some of its corruption was exposed five years ago, when an investigation by lawyers in a murder trial uncovered multiple occasions where the department had buried exculpatory information or refused to hand it over to defendants. This resulted in Orange County DA's office (including all of its 250 prosecutors) being kicked off the high-profile murder trial. The Sheriff's involvement was the strategic housing of jailhouse informants to illegally coax information out of defendants awaiting trial.

The problems uncovered here were made worse when the Sheriff's Department shredded documents ahead of a DOJ investigation and then-Sheriff Sandra Hutchens claimed the omissions made by deputies during testimony were honest mistakes -- the unfortunate result of the officers supposedly not knowing what they could and could not discuss about the Department's informant database in open court.

The same office "inadvertently" collected thousands of recordings containing privileged conversations between defendants and their lawyers. The department claimed a "software glitch" resulted in this windfall of rights violations.

Evidence-handling continues to be a problem for this department. Last year, it managed to anger one of its best friends -- the Orange County DA's office -- by constantly booking in evidence in an untimely manner. The root cause? Very succinctly, the DA's office said the Sheriff's evidence-handling protocols had "no system of accountability."

The audit of the department's extremely faulty booking process continues. And, as Elizabeth Weill-Greenberg reports for The Appeal, it's uncovering even more lax handling of criminal evidence.

Deputies booked evidence days, and sometimes weeks, after it was purportedly collected, according to an internal audit, which examined thousands of police reports filed between 2016 and 2018. Thirty percent of evidence was “booked out of policy,” according to a slide presentation describing the first audit’s findings. A second audit found that deputies had claimed to have collected evidence that was never booked.

Some deputies were far worse than others. One deputy in particular appeared to have set the curve the rest of the department was graded on.

In one investigation, the department found that Sheriff's Deputy Bryce Simpson falsely claimed he booked evidence in 74 cases, according to a motion Sanders filed last month. In 56 of those cases, no evidence was booked at all, and in 18 only some of the evidence he reported was booked.

Another young go-getter, Deputy Joseph Atkinson, claimed evidence had been booked in 26 cases where no evidence could be located. This included seven cases where Atkinson claimed to have booked drugs, leading one to wonder what actually happened to those drugs.

And yet, as angry as the DA's office was with the Sheriff's Department late last year, nothing has been done to introduce any more accountability into a system that clearly has none. The department referred 17 deputies to the DA's office for criminal investigation. The DA's office has decided none of these public servants should be punished for abusing the public's trust.

This isn't DA Todd Spitzer's fault. He defeated the former DA by running as a reformer. And while he has expressed his vast displeasure with the department's booking procedures, his office still decided none of the first 17 deputies referred to him for falsifying records should be criminally charged. That's not much of a reform and it's not going to change the culture that led to this situation. It's going to cost the DA a lot of criminal cases. Maybe once his office bleeds enough, he'll finally start taking this seriously.

Filed Under: corruption, evidence reports, orange county, orange county sheriff's department

Illinois Comptroller Is Opting The State Out Of Collecting Red Light Camera Fees

from the full-stop dept

We've discussed red light cameras many times in the past, most often to point out how they really aren't great at providing any benefit in vehicle safety, but are quite good at filling up the coffers of local governments on the backs of motorists. Given that these are essentially profit centers run by governments that aren't well suited to maximizing profits, the contracts for these red light cameras are typically outsourced to private interests. And if that seems like a recipe for rampant corruption... well... yeah. Everyone from judges to my beloved home city of Chicago has found themselves being investigated, and sometimes charged, with wild corruption as part of these red light camera contracts. Contracts that, again, don't make anyone any safer.

It's bad enough that the Illinois State Comptroller has decided to opt out of its duties to collect on red light camera fees entirely.

Since 2012, the Illinois Comptroller’s office has served as a sort of collection agency for communities that are trying to get motorists to pay their red-light tickets. The comptroller’s tool: Deducting the amount owed in outstanding tickets from state-income tax refunds due to the violators — with about $11 million collected this way on behalf of 60 Chicago suburbs in 2019 alone — and forwarding most of the take to the towns while keeping a small cut.

But with federal investigators looking into red-light contractor SafeSpeed over allegations of pay-to-play — amid revelations about politically connected sales representatives for the company landing juicy commissions — Illinois Comptroller Susana Mendoza said her agency will no longer perform this function.

To be honest, it's more than a little sad that it takes clownish corruption to get the wheels of state government to stop bilking its own citizens with red light cameras, but at least it's happening. Mendoza wasn't done, however. She has also publicly stated that red light cameras are very much about revenue rather than safety, and went on to recommend to all of the Chicago suburbs that they all simply cease their red light camera programs.

“They should revisit their programs entirely,” Mendoza said. “I don’t think it’s good public policy and I think it’s time it ends.”

Yes, they should. We've been calling for this for years. Having traffic safety procedures that don't have anything to do with safety and are instead cynical methods for putting money in public coffers seems like the kind of thing we shouldn't do.

Filed Under: comptroller, corruption, illinois, red light cameras, susan mendoza
Companies: safespeed

EU Parliament Paid News Publisher AFP To Create Bogus Propaganda Video In Favor Of EU Copyright Directive

from the that-doesn't-seem-right dept

So we recently wrote about the bizarre situation in the EU whereby the EU Parliament's official Twitter feed had tweeted a pure propaganda video in support of the EU Copyright Directive. This was weird on many levels. First of all, the Copyright Directive has not yet been voted upon, and you would think that the EU Parliament itself should be neutral on the question of whether or not a law should be passed -- especially one with as much controversy as the Copyright Directive. Second, the video was filled with a bunch of blatantly false information (mostly from MEP Axel Voss). It's one thing for the EU Parliament to be promoting a specific outcome on a legislative vote, and it's another altogether to support that with false information delivered by just one MEP. Does the EU Parliament do this on other issues as well? The third oddity, is that the video certainly looked very professionally produced, raising questions of just who put it together.

MEP Julia Reda used her position as an MEP to ask those questions of the Parliament and now has the answer. The EU Parliament -- for reasons that are still unclear -- paid Agence France Press (AFP) to produce the video:

AFP, of course, is a giant publisher that stands to potentially benefit from Article 11 in particular. And, apparently, AFP has been one of the more aggressive lobbying organizations in Brussels pushing for Article 11. Hell, all the way back in 2005, AFP actually sued Google for linking to its stories (spoiler alert: it did not win). So for the EU Parliament to then use public funds to ask a clearly interested party to produce a propaganda video seems highly questionable. This is the akin to say, the US Congress asking Pfizer to produce a video that will go out under "Congress" official imprimatur, about prescription drug pricing. That would be a scandal. Yet, in the EU, not too many officials seem particularly bothered by this.

Of course, it should be noted that AFP does not exactly have the greatest track record on copyright itself. In 2010, the company was caught having used someone's photo of the earthquake aftermath in Haiti without licensing, and when called on it, AFP sued the photographer with a bizarre argument that anything that was posted to Twitter was free for anyone to use (no, really). Eventually, AFP was forced to pay out $1.2 million for that debacle. You'd think that experience might make the company a little more careful about supporting extremist copyright positions, but for some reason in the copyright debates, the maximalists never think the law will seriously apply back to them.

Meanwhile, instead, AFP is publishing hysterically misleading articles (that feed out to various licensees of AFP content) all about how evil Google is actively lobbying over Article 11. No, really. While (at least) the AFP article notes that AFP supports Article 11, it leaves out its active participation in the lobbying effort -- including the creation of the aforementioned video, framing the entire story about how big bad Google is doing all the lobbying over the law.

Filed Under: article 11, article 13, axel voss, bias, corruption, eu copyright directive, eu parliament, julia reda, propaganda
Companies: afp

Sheriffs' Union Boss Says Officers Have No Reason To Do Their Job If They Can't Score Forfeiture Cash On The Side

from the checkmate...-I-guess dept

Civil asset forfeiture is an abomination loaded with perverse incentives for law enforcement. Investigations and convictions are too much work. Seizing cash from random motorists or residents is so much easier than legitimate police work. The laws barely governing this practice allow the agency performing the seizure to keep all or most of what's seized, which has led directly to the widespread abuse we see around us today.

The practice always has its defenders. Most of those defenders come from the same agencies that are directly profiting from asset forfeiture. They say the expected stuff about fighting the good Drug War -- that taking $500 from a random motorist somehow creates a ripple effect felt all the way at the top of the drug distribution chain. Everyone knows they're full of shit, but there are enough true believers in most state legislatures that the practice remains largely unaltered across the United States.

But there are some outliers. Some people see the perverse incentives asset forfeiture creates and say perverted cops are the best cops.

Jarrod Bruder, the executive director of the South Carolina Sheriff's Association who frequently lobbies for law enforcement interests at the Statehouse, said that without the incentive of profit from civil forfeiture, officers probably wouldn't pursue drug dealers and their cash as hard as they do now.

If police don't get to keep the money from forfeiture, "what is the incentive to go out and make a special effort?" Bruder said. "What is the incentive for interdiction?"

I don't know... how about IT'S YOUR FUCKING JOB. This is a law enforcement professional who actually thinks cops won't do cop work unless they can periodically seize cash from people they interact with. Hey, Mr. Bruder, if cops can't solicit bribes or extort protection money from local businesses, why should they be bothered to patrol neighborhoods or respond to robbery calls?

If Wells Fargo account reps can't sign people up for accounts without their knowledge or permission, why should they even show up to help people open accounts or deal with banking issues? If an entrepreneur can't rope investors into a pyramid scheme, why even bother getting out of bed at 4 am to bathe in the glow of inflated self-worth? Come on, Bruder. How can you be so obtuse?

There's nothing quite like a law enforcement union rep telling the public the police are only willing to work when they can directly profit from their efforts. That's the kind of word-of-mouth advertising asset forfeiture reform efforts need... courtesy of a union rep who doesn't want the practice ended, much less altered.

That's the stupidest thing said in defense of asset forfeiture in this article from the Greenville News, which gathers law enforcement responses to its investigation of the unsavory tactics deployed by state agencies. Even victims of crime aren't off limits. Local cops will take money right off the kitchen counter when investigating murders and claim the $43 pocketed was the result of criminal activity.

But it's not the only stupid thing said by law enforcement reps defending forfeiture.

Clemson Police Chief Jimmy Dixon said if police didn't get to collect forfeiture money, it would hamper the department's ability to conduct long-term drug surveillance.

"It could potentially shut down our K-9 unit," he said. "Overall, our ability to conduct undercover narcotics operations could be stifled."

Lt. Jake Mahoney with the Aiken Police Department said they'd have to divert money from the budget to cover drug enforcement.

Greenwood Police Chief Gerald Brooks said it would "sharply curtail our drug enforcement activities."

Sounds like another set of cops with motivation problems. But even if you believe they're not like the union rep quoted above them, they're still complaining about possibly not being able to do something they're not legally allowed to do.

Forfeiture proceeds are not meant to be written into a budget or counted on for recurring expenses, but should be treated as a supplement to provide for extra training or equipment, according to the law and legal opinions.

Those are the arguments in favor of asset forfeiture: cops won't do their job if they can't earn cash on the side and budgets, that aren't supposed to include forfeiture funds, will experience shortfalls because chickens cops aren't supposed to count will no longer be hatched. Nice work, so-called drug warriors. It isn't -- and never has been -- about dismantling the drug trade. If law enforcement ever made a serious dent in crime, the extra money would dry up. And that's something they're just not going to allow to happen.

Filed Under: asset forfeiture, civil asset forfeiture, corruption, incentive, jarrod bruder, legalized theft, police, south carolina, stealing

Trump Hotel Fracas Highlights How T-Mobile's Consumer-Friendly Brand Schtick Is Wearing A Little Thin

from the ill-communication dept

To be clear, T-Mobile initially had an indisputably-positive impact on the wireless sector. The company's decision to eliminate consumer pain points like long-term contracts and early termination fees was quickly mirrored by other carriers thanks to a strange concept known as "competition." And CEO John Legere's relentless attacks on giants like AT&T and Verizon have proven to be immensely entertaining over the years. All told, T-Mobile has built its entire brand on the back of the idea that it was a polar opposite of the type of ethically-dubious giants that have dominated telecom for a generation.

In more recent years the company's "uncarrier" branding schtick has started to look a little worn around the edges. From supporting efforts to kill net neutrality to weirdly attacking the EFF, the company occasionally lets its mask slip, showing it's not all that different from the companies it professes to be better than. This shift has been particularly obvious as the company has tried to sell the press, public, and Trump administration on the company's job and competition killing merger with Sprint (like that time it hired Corey Lewandowski to "consult" despite his comments mocking a kid with Down Syndrome).

As it rushes to consolidate the wireless sector from four to three carriers, T-Mobile's increasingly engaging in behavior it used to mock AT&T and Verizon for. Not least of which being the company's empty promises to police the sale of user location data to dubious third brokers and aggregators, something T-Mobile was perfectly happy to do in lock-step with other carriers.

That brings us to this week's revelations that T-Mobile executives booked 9 rooms at Trump's DC hotel the day after it first announced its Sprint merger ambitions. T-Mobile execs have been regular patrons ever since as they try to sell the government on the latest telecom sector megadeal nobody asked for:

"T-Mobile executives have returned to President Trump’s hotel repeatedly since then, according to eyewitnesses and hotel documents obtained by The Washington Post.

By mid-June, seven weeks after the announcement of the merger, hotel records indicated that one T-Mobile executive was making his 10th visit to the hotel. Legere appears to have made at least four visits to the Trump hotel, walking the lobby in his T-Mobile gear."

The Post had been digging into this story for months. When they recently confronted Legere in the lobby of Trump's hotel he tried to claim his patronage was thanks to the "convenience" and "security" Trump's hotel offered:

"Last week, a Post reporter spotted Legere in the Trump hotel’s lobby. In an impromptu interview, the T-Mobile chief executive said he was not seeking special treatment. He chose the Trump hotel, he said, for its fine service and good security.

"It’s become a place I feel very comfortable,” Legere said. He also praised the hotel’s location, next to one of the departments that must approve the company’s merger. "At the moment I am in town for some meetings at the Department of Justice,” Legere said. “And it’s very convenient for that."

Legere has historically built his brand on the idea that he's part of a straight shooting, no bullshit alternative to traditionally sketchy telecom operators. Yet here he is pretty clearly assuming a major media outlet and his Twitter followers are stupid. Legere took to Twitter to similarly proclaim there's just no way that his heavy sudden patronage of a Trump business could possibly influence the Trump administration's policy making decisions:

Right. There's just no way that giving additional money and attention to a raging narcissist's brand could possibly shape the thinking of such an influence-immune administration, right? Again, the assumption here appears to be that we're collectively fairly dim, especially given the ample coverage of the emoluments battle currently being waged. T-Mobile went from insisting it didn't engage in the same "bullshit" as AT&T and T-Mobile, to quickly becoming arguably indistinguishable when it comes to pandering for governmental favors.

To be fair, this was a situation Legere was likely forced into. T-Mobile's owner Deutsche Telekom has been eager to exit the U.S. wireless market for years, putting Legere in the unenviable position of having to shift from playing an edgy Millennial caricature to selling a mammoth turd. Still, the amount of bullshit Legere's been pushing to sell the merger is pretty comical, ranging from claims that eliminating one of just four major competitors will magically increase competition, to claims the deal will create thousands of jobs (despite the fact that Wall Street, and history, predict the exact opposite).

There are, of course, fifty years of history documenting how these kinds of mergers generally raise rates, erode jobs, and reduce service quality as consolidation reduces the incentive to compete. It's the exact cause of the problem Legere has spent the last ten years ranting about. Despite this, opposition to this deal has been slow to materialize, though New York and California regulators are just starting to have some doubts as to whether this deal will even remotely deliver a fraction of its promised "synergies."

All told, T-Mobile in its earlier incarnations applied some very useful pressure on a stale, historically anti-consumer wireless sector, even if its impact on price competition has probably been overstated by the press. But as T-Mobile stumbles further and further down the rabbit hole in its bid to kiss Trump's ass and get its merger approved, it's starting to look more and more like the companies' T-Mobile has spent years making fun of. Should the deal be approved and competitive pressure proportionally reduced, you can expect this metamorphosis away from T-Mobile's consumer-friendly roots to rapidly accelerate.

Filed Under: corruption, donald trump, emoluments, john legere, lobbying, merger, trump hotel, uncarrier
Companies: t-mobile

Notoriously Corrupt Sri Lanka Police Force Arrests Citizens For Pretending To Bribe A Cardboard Cutout Cop

from the really-working-hard-to-push-back-on-public-perception dept

Sri Lanka roads might be getting a little safer. Maybe. Along with raising fines for speeding, police agencies are also deploying fake cops. Cardboard cutouts of officers have been placed alongside roads as a deterrent.

These cardboard replicants may be these agencies' only honest cops. The State Department's report on Sri Lanka says police in the country routinely engage in arbitrary arrests and "harass civilians with impunity." This harassment often takes the form of soliciting bribes. Combine the two and you have officers wandering around with iron fists and open palms. Another report says the bribery is a two-way street, with officers sometimes paying off citizens to purchase their silence about other illegal police activities.

The problem with solicited bribes is large enough the government has set up a portal for citizens to file complaints about bribes solicited/paid. Fortunately, anonymity is an option. Unfortunately, the government runs the website so collected data may help pinpoint where the complaints are originating from.

So, it naturally follows that Sri Lankans -- a third of which believe the nation's police are corrupt -- are toying with the cardboard cops. In a less corrupt society, this would have led to nothing but some fun had by all. Since Sri Lanka is notoriously corrupt, it has led to this instead:

Sri Lankan police have arrested two people who posted a Facebook video showing one of them pretending to give a bribe to a traffic police cutout.

In the footage, a motorcyclist is seen offering money to the life-size figure of an officer with a speed gun in the northern town of Vavuniya.

The man in the video and his friend who filmed it have been released on bail.

They are charged with damaging public property, and humiliating and creating a bad public image of the police.

Satire is dead. Or if it isn't dead, it's being detained and charged.

The obvious point here is the police's bad public image has been created by the police. When citizens are filming what everyone's thinking, the best course of action would be to laugh it off and maybe say a few words no one will believe about "bad apples." Instead, law enforcement has decided to create an international incident by arresting two people having a little fun with stereotypes. Having a stereotypical reaction isn't going to do much to buff out the dents in law enforcement's "bad public image."

Filed Under: bribery, cardboard cutout, corruption, police, sri lanka