stories filed under: "telcos"
Telcos: The Internet Will Collapse If The Gov't Doesn't Gives Us Lots Of Money
from the proof,-please? dept
For a while now, we've been noting that whenever you hear people warning about the impending broadband crunch, it's politicians, consultants or lobbyists. When you actually talk to technologists, they point out that there's no problem and that normal upgrades will keep everything just fine -- even without having to do any kind of traffic shaping or violation of net neutrality.Yet, that won't stop the lobbyists, consultants and top marketing execs from claiming otherwise. A trade group heavily funded by AT&T is out yet again, warning that the internet will collapse by 2012 if "something" isn't done -- with that "something" being basically big government subsidies to the telcos. Consider it the telco bailout plan of 2009. Hell, if we're already bailing out Wall St. and Detroit, why not telcos as well?
Filed Under: bandwidth crunch, broadband crunch, exaflood, net neutrality, subsidies, telcos
Has Anyone At AT&T Ever Called AT&T Tech Support?
from the welcome-to-the-soviet-ministries dept
While the FCC and certain broadband companies like to insist that there's real competition in the broadband market, right here in the heart of Silicon Valley, there's little evidence that this is true. If there were real competition, they might take customer service seriously. In the past few days I've had two separate issues with AT&T that suggests that the company treats customer service as not just an after thought, but something to effectively be shunned. Given my long history in killing off broadband providers who give me service, perhaps it's only fair that they do their best not to serve me, but these two experiences seemed worth shining some light on.First, a quick history. That link above goes through all the broadband providers I went through (and killed off) in the 2001 time frame. After that, I ended up with Comcast cable modem service until 2004. In October of 2004, Comcast turned the cable modem service to my house off every day at 10am for no clear reason. Every day I would call, and the response would be: "Oh, this is scheduled maintenance. Service will be back by 4pm." I would ask if I should expect the service to go down the next day as well, and be told that they had no idea. Apparently, the "schedule" for scheduled maintenance was a tightly held secret -- but it went on, every single day, for at least the month of October. I moved in November of that year, and swore off Comcast after that experience. My only other option was AT&T. I ordered AT&T DSL and was promised it would be installed within a week. A week came and went, and I called AT&T. They told me the order had been canceled because (despite what the first person told me) DSL wasn't actually available at my location (right in the middle of Silicon Valley). Why they didn't call to let me know of the cancellation was not explained.
I asked why the first person had told me service was available, and the woman told me to hold one while she checked her other computer. That computer told her that DSL was available at my location, despite what the first computer said. Apparently, AT&T does not have a single map of DSL availability, preferring to load a series of different local availability maps on every computer.
A year ago I moved again, and DSL has been working more or less okay at the new location. However, last Thursday it died in the afternoon and was down until around midnight. When it came back it was super slow -- maxing out around 64 kbps. I waited until Friday afternoon and decided I should call to ask what's up. That's when I discovered that AT&T makes it damn near impossible to find a phone number. The AT&T website has no phone numbers listed at all. When I clicked on the "contact" link, I was given a one-line form to discuss what my problem was. When I hit submit, I received a blank page. No matter how many times I tried, I always got the blank page. Eventually, and I don't remember how, I got to an error page that listed a bunch of phone numbers. I called the one listed with "Residential: 1-877-737-2478" since this is a residential account.
Thus began a rather insane process. After waiting on hold, the call proceeded as follows:
- Automated system demands I enter in my account number and asks me to describe my problem. It doesn't recognize "slow internet" service, so I just say "can I speak to an operator?" It asks me more questions instead. Eventually (after a long hold) it sends me to a live human being.
- AT&T Rep asks me for my account number (despite having punched it in already). She tells me she cannot find my account. Then she asks where I'm located (which, I would think would be obvious from the area code of the account number). She tells me she needs to put me on hold.
- Rather than putting me on hold, she actually transfers me. I get an automated system that demands I enter in my account number and asks me to describe my problem. It doesn't recognize "slow internet" service, so I just say "can I speak to an operator?" It asks me more questions instead. Eventually (after a long hold) it sends me to a live human being.
- The woman asks me (again!) for my account number. Then she asks why I've called her. She works in sales. Tells me she needs to transfer me, but tells me in the future to call 888.321.2375 for tech support. She transfers me.
- I get an automated system that demands I enter in my account number and asks me to describe my problem. It doesn't recognize "slow internet" service, so I just say "can I speak to an operator?" It asks me more questions instead. Eventually (after a long hold) it sends me to a live human being.
- The next woman asks me (again!) for my account number. She tells me she cannot find my account. Then she asks where I'm located (which, I would think would be obvious from the area code of the account number). I say California, and she says she doesn't serve California, only a region of 9 southern states (hasn't it been more than a year since AT&T & BellSouth merged?). She transfers me -- after personally promising me the next person I speak to will be the correct person. She also tells me that, contrary to the earlier person (and the AT&T website) the real number to call is: 800.310.2355.
- I get an automated system that demands I enter in my account number and asks me to describe my problem. It doesn't recognize "slow internet" service, so I just say "can I speak to an operator?" It asks me more questions instead. Eventually (after a long hold) it sends me to a live human being.
- By the way, at this point, I've had the "hold voice" repeatedly pitch me on upgrading my service, mentioning that if I do, I can get access to "AT&T's award-winning customer service." I am getting curious as to exactly what "award" this is.
- Before the next woman can say much beyond hello, I explain the saga, and mention that she is the 4th person I'm speaking to and ask her please, if she is the right person to help me fix my slow DSL in California. She says she will try, and (again!) asks for my account number. She does some searches and then admits: she really wants to help, but she's in billing, not tech support. She promises to transfer me (and kindly gives me a small credit on my account). She also tells me that the proper phone number to call in the future is none of the above, but 877.722.3755.
- Unlike the last few people, she actually says on the line and answers the same exact questions in the automated system for me. This is something of a consolation, though I've gotten good at entering the info.
- Finally, tech support! I give the guy my account info (again!) and he logs into my modem and he diagnoses: your connection is slow. I could have told him that. Wait, actually, I did tell him that. He doesn't know what to do, but says that tech support will call me back later. I thought he was tech support, but whatever.
- An hour later, I get an automated call from AT&T tech support, telling me to call them back at (yes, a different number): 888.312.2450.
- I call back, and amazingly am put in contact with a competent tech, who doesn't treat me like an idiot, who even gets me logged into the DSL modem myself, explains the different system readings, and notes that my modem seems to have capped itself at 64kbps. He says it could be a few different things, but the most likely is a broken phone cable from the jack to the modem. I switch the cables, and voila, it's working again.
I have some travel coming up, and was realizing that I may not be in EVDO coverage for some of it. So I thought it might be good to make use of the AT&T WiFi that's included as a part of my account. It's supposed to work at McDonalds, Starbucks, Barnes & Noble and some other places as well. While I had signed up and used the WiFi service a few years ago, it's probably been at least two years since I last tried. On Monday, I figured I'd hit up a McDonalds at lunch and test it out, to work out any "kinks" if there were any. I honestly figured it would be fine.
I got my chicken sandwich (sans mayo) and sat down to login. Yippee. I even was sitting next to an outlet, but quickly discovered that the outlet had been turned off (boo). Okay, so I get the (extremely slow) proxy server that asks me to login. I type in my login info, and it gives me a message: "We're Sorry - Your Login Has Been Rejected." Then it tells me to call: 888.888.7520 "for further assistance." So here's how that call went:
- Dial the number from my mobile phone. It rings for a while and then says "I see you're calling from..." and repeats back a phone number I don't recognize, starting with a 512 area code (which is Austin, Texas). I'm in California on a California mobile phone, so I have no idea where that comes from. I say no.
- It asks for my account number. I'm not at home, so I don't have my bill to read off the account number. I don't have internet access so I can't log in to get my account number. The system tells me my only options are to say my account number or to say I'm trying to sign up for service. I say "neither" a few times, and the system gets impatient with me, and then demands I answer from a specific list of problems what my issue is. All of the issues have to do with home DSL, not WiFi hotspots -- which seems odd, given that this is supposedly the WiFi hotspot support number.
- Finally, it transfers me to a human who again asks my account info. I give it to her. She cannot find my account. She puts me on "hold" which again is actually a transfer. I again go through the dance with the automated call system -- which demands I choose between giving my account number or signing up for service, followed by a list of service options that have nothing to do with WiFi hotspots.
- After a while on hold, I get another person, who also insists my account does not exist. She transfers me to tech support (or so she says).
- I go through the same pointless questions, and speak to another person. I explain the situation, noting that she's the 3rd person I spoke to. She explains that she's not in tech support, but in customer retention.
- I have now come to the conclusion that AT&T's "call transfer" system is actually a big roulette wheel that will dump you on any random person with a phone. I doubt most of them even work for AT&T.
- I am transferred again. The fourth person I speak to, after going back and forth, tells me that she does not handle California customers (this sounds familiar).
- I am transferred again. More messing with the annoying automated system, and I eventually get a guy who tells me that he cannot help me unless I can tell him my account number. He insists that when he looks up my user name, he gets a different account owner and a different address than the one I tell him. That's comforting.
- Rather than transferring me, he says he can only give me the phone number to call for billing, where I should see if they can actually tell me my account info over the phone. Phone number: 800.288.2020. I ask him what number I should call after that to get back to him once I have the account number. He says to just ask to be transferred to DSL tech support.
- I call the billing number, and speak to my 6th person of the day. After a great deal of effort, she finally reveals to me what my account number is (thank you!). She then, as requested, transfers me to DSL tech support.
- My seventh customer support person of the day, after I've been on hold and have entered the proper account number, asks me for my account number anyway -- and then explains to me that DSL tech support has nothing to do with WiFi hotspots, but he will transfer me.
- My eighth customer support person tells me that the WiFi access on my account was canceled twice. Once last September and once in January. Why twice when I don't think I ever canceled it even once? He has no clue.
- Well, can I sign up to have the service included on my account? No. That's not his department. He needs to transfer me to customer support instead of tech support.
- Transferred again. On hold again. Enter my info again. Now speaking to my 9th AT&T rep. After explaining the situation, I am told that it is impossible for them to add WiFi hotspots to my account over the phone. Instead, I need to (get this) sign up via the web at home.
- I hang up, and notice another open WiFi network -- so I login, and go to the website he pointed me to: FreedomLink.com to sign up. Once there, I am directed to a page where I am told: "AT&T Wi-Fi Basic service is FREE and already included if you subscribe to AT&T High Speed Internet.... No ordering required! Simply use your AT&T high-speed Internet membership ID and password at any AT&T Wi-Fi Basic hot spot."
- That seems to conflict with what the last few folks told me, so I pick up the phone again and call. After the same old process of entering info and being put on hold, I explain my situation to the 10th representative I am speaking to. She says she will get everything solved and puts me on hold. Every five or 10 minutes she comes back and says she's "getting the info I need" and will be back soon.
- I begin to notice the batteries on both my laptop and my cell phone are on their last legs.
- After nearly half an hour on hold, the woman comes back and tells me that she has found the phone number I really need to call. It's 877.722.3755 (the second time I've heard this number!) but that when I reach it, I need to ask for "Tier 2 support." She promises that she will take care of this part for me and will get me to the right person.
- I mention to her that my batteries are almost dead anyway, and she says "Isn't that always how it is?" to which I respond: "No. Normally, it does not take 2.5 hours and 10 people to get me the info to log into my account."
- Eventually, she gets me on the line with another woman, and tells her I need Tier 2 support and then hangs up. This new representative (the 11th I'm speaking to) asks me to repeat the whole situation to see if I really need Tier 2 support. I tell her my batteries are dying, and I really need Tier 2 support, and I need it as fast as possible.
- She puts me on hold for 25 minutes -- where the hold message is pure silence, punctuated ever 10 seconds by the most annoying voice in the world commanding: "PLEASE WAIT."
- She finally comes back, says: "I have connected you to tier 2 support" and hangs up. Except she hasn't connected me to Tier 2 support. She has transferred the call, so I'm in another hold queue.
- Ten more minutes go by and someone finally picks up. As he finishes saying hello, the battery in my mobile phone dies and the call is over. This is now 4:10pm. I had arrived at the restaurant at 1pm.
- I drive home. I pick up my home phone and call one more time. After waiting on hold and inputting my information, I speak to my 13th customer rep of the day. He insists that the information is wrong on my account, and that I have the wrong username, though it's the same username that I had used to log into my AT&T account as I was speaking to him (now that I'm on my home WiFi, which since Friday, has been working fine).
- He says that my username is actually different, but he refuses to tell me what my actual username is. Apparently, that's not allowed. Instead, he has me dig out my last AT&T bill, and buried on page 4 there is a username which is different from my regular username. He insists that this username will allow me to log into the WiFi hotspots
- I'm no longer at McDonalds so I cannot test it, but perhaps I can now log into WiFi. I will have to go back to McDonalds later this week to try.
Filed Under: customer support, tech support, telcos, wifi
Companies: at&t
What If You Owned Your Own Fiber Connection?
from the not-a-ridiculous-suggestion dept
Almost five years ago, we wrote about a project in Burlington, Vermont to bring fiber optics to residents there. The idea was that, rather than a traditional "municipally-owned" network, this would actually be owned by the residents themselves. The article focused on the work of economist Alan McAdams, who (it needs to be admitted) was the guy who not only sent me down the path of better understanding the economics of information over a dozen years ago, but also convinced me to start Techdirt in the first place. McAdams has been pushing for the idea that if the end users actually owned the network itself, you would end up with much greater broadband, in part because you might still end up with a single fiber network, but there would be significant competition of service providers on that network. And, indeed, it appears that's where the Burlington fiber project has gone. A more recent case study on the project suggests that, with a slow and deliberate pace, thousands of residents in Burlington now have access to the fiber network, and can choose their own ISP, if they want.Tim Lee has now written about another example as well, where there's an effort underway in Ottawa (which is only about 170 miles from Burlington), to string up 400 homes with fiber, but where the individual home owners will pay for and own the "last mile" connection to their homes. This is definitely a test on a small scale, but it's a similar situation to what McAdams has been pushing for all along. Let the customer own the connection itself, and then get to choose the service provider. In the Ottawa case, once again, service providers would no longer have to worry about wiring up your home (the most expensive part), but just need to offer service at various peering points, and each individual could choose who to get service from.
In this manner, you still get real competition, which is sorely lacking in the telco arena, and you get the benefits of higher speed networks. It's not as crazy as it might sound, either. As Lee points out, the telephone company used to own not just the wiring in your house, but the actual telephone as well. Over the years, that's been pushed back. Now you own your own phone -- and the wiring inside your house. So is it so crazy to think that you should own the wires outside of your house out to the main network as well? There are still plenty of practical issues that need to be resolved -- and the initial economics may be a bit daunting for many (the idea of paying, say, $3,000, to own your own fiber drop may freak some people out). But, it's experiments like these that are a real step in the right direction towards adding real competition, rather than the faux duopoly we all deal with today.
Filed Under: alan mcadams, economics, fiber, internet access, ottawa, ownership, telcos
Comparing The Telecom Industry To OPEC Isn't So Crazy
from the too-much-regulation dept
Tim Wu has an op-ed in the New York Times comparing the American telecommunications market to the OPEC oil cartel. My esteemed co-blogger Adam Thierer calls the comparison -- and Wu's piece -- "absurd." I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with Adam on this one. Wu's basic point is the same one that Techdirt has been making for years: there's not enough competition in the broadband marketplace. Adam suggests that OPEC is nothing like the telecommunications industry because "OPEC is a GOVERNMENT-RUN cartel," implying, I guess, that the telecommunications industry is not a government-run cartel. That's strange because Adam loves to talk about how excessive FCC regulation is holding back the telecommunications sector. Likewise, Adam has written eloquently about the harms of the FCC's over-regulation of the spectrum. Government regulations still impose significant barriers to entry in the telecommunications market. That sounds like a "government-run cartel" to me.
It's true, of course, that the American telecom market is less constrained than the telecom markets in some other countries. And it's certainly less constrained than it was 30 years ago. But it's also far from being a free market. Potential entrants to the wired broadband market face hostile local governments who often enjoy cozy relationships with the incumbents and a variety of taxes and regulatory mandates. As for wireless, Wu puts it as well as I could: "The federal government dictates exactly what licensees of the airwaves may do with their part of the spectrum. These Soviet-style rules create waste that is worthy of Brezhnev." I read Wu as making a point that couldn't be more libertarian: that bad regulatory decisions have limited competition in the telecom marketplace. He explicitly calls for "relaxing the overregulation of the airwaves and allow use of the wasted spaces." Amen to that.
Now, Adam and Wu aren't going to agree on what should be done about these problems. Wu is a fan of municipal broadband, while Adam is not. Wu supports network neutrality regulations that Adam opposes. And Wu wants more spectrum to be made available for use as a commons, while Adam would prefer to see the creation of robust property rights in spectrum. My sympathies are with Adam on all three issues. But in criticizing those specific proposals, I think it's important not to lose sight of the big picture. The big ideological debate of 20th century telecom policy was over whether market competition or government planning is a better way to promote progress. I think it's a sign of how completely the pro-market side has won that argument that Wu explicitly clothes his modest regulatory proposals in pro-competitive, deregulatory language. Wu explicitly acknowledges the potential for unintended consequences and the importance of robust market competition. Wu is no libertarian, but it's silly to paint him as some kind of throwback from the 1930s.
Filed Under: cartels, competition, monopolies, opec, pricing, telcos
Connected Nation: National Broadband Policy Or Big Telco Front?
from the questions-questions dept
For years, we've pointed out that, unlike most every other nation these days, the US lacks any sort of comprehensive broadband policy. Whether or not you think that's a good thing may depend on your perspective -- even among free market supporters. If you believe that broadband is a national infrastructure question involving a natural monopoly (a la the highway system) then it's a shame that there's no national broadband system that allows competition at the service level. If, instead, you think that broadband is not a natural monopoly then perhaps competition at the infrastructure level makes sense, even if it decreases competition at the service level. However, there's definitely been a lot of clamoring from folks that the US needs a national broadband policy. For years, the big telcos have resisted this push, often with incredibly misleading statements about how the government needs to keep its "hands off" their network. That's misleading because they leave out how much of that infrastructure was subsidized by the government -- whether through direct subsidies, grants of rights of way or tax breaks.Either way, it appears that the telcos have recognized that they need to get behind a "national broadband policy" before one is handed to them -- so they've created their own, called Connected Nation. We discussed this back in February, when there was some question about whether Connected Nation really was a reasonable policy or just a front for the telcos. One of the biggest problems? The more you look at Connected Nation, the more difficult it is to figure out what it actually does. Broadband Reports is taking a look at the problems with Connected Nation, noting that the big telcos are all claiming that it represents a good national broadband policy, but that's hardly supported by the details.
For example, Connected Nation's broadband plan doesn't seem to involve anything resembling consumer advocates, or any objective look at ways to get broadband to those not served by it. But what does Connected Nation actually do? Basically tells the rest of the government that everything is groovy and not to do anything. Officially it takes taxpayer money to create its own questionable maps about broadband penetration, most of which come back showing that there's plenty of broadband penetration (nothing to see here, move along now). Then it sends out marketing material to local leaders about the importance of broadband -- effectively advertising incumbent telco broadband offerings with taxpayer money. Whether or not you support a national broadband policy, this seems pretty questionable all around. It seems to just divert taxpayer money to broadband advertising, without doing much to actually improve broadband.
Filed Under: broadband policy, telcos
Companies: connected nation
Bush Administration Admits That Telco Immunity More Important Than Increased Spying Power
from the doesn't-that-say-something? dept
While we had thought that Congress was going to easily roll over on the so-called (but not really) compromise bill on new surveillance powers that included telco immunity from potentially illegal acts committed in the past few years, there has been some pushback in the Senate, where the bill is finally about to come up for vote. Some Senators have put together an amendment stripping telco immunity from the bill, but leaving the increased surveillance powers in place. Amazingly, the Bush Administration has now said that if telco immunity is stripped from the bill, Bush will veto the bill, even if everything else is identical. In other words, all the talk you hear from politicians about how this bill is necessary to protect Americans is hogwash. If it were true, then it is simply unforgivable to veto the bill without telco immunity.What has been made abundantly clear by this statement is that the US government does not need these extended surveillance powers at all. Its existing surveillance powers are quite sufficient. The entire purpose of this bill then, has absolutely nothing to do with security, and everything to do with making sure that the telcos (and the administration) do not have to defend their potentially illegal actions in court. If that were not the case, then the President would still be willing to approve the bill without telco immunity.
Filed Under: bush administration, congress, immunity, senate, telcos, wiretapping
Perhaps The Senate Won't Roll Over On Telecom Immunity
from the could-it-be? dept
Maybe, just maybe, there are a few people in the Senate who actually won't just roll over and hand the President a "get out of jail free" card to give to telcos who carried out the almost certainly illegal "warrantless wiretapping" program. While last week reports suggested that the new "compromise" bill (which basically does grant immunity, as well as expand the warrantless wiretapping program) would breeze through both the House and the Senate, there may actually be a few politicians with a backbone fighting to stop it. It did cruise through the House relatively easily, but now Senators Dodd and Feingold have announced that they'll filibuster against immunity, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (who had earlier suggested he supported the faux "compromise") says he'll support the filibuster.What's not clear is whether or not there will really be enough support to get rid of telecom immunity. Early on it seemed like there was plenty of support for the "compromise" from those who thought it was best to get past that and focus on "other battles" instead. Also, there's the issue of
Filed Under: congress, immunity, telcos, wiretapping
Sorting Out Truth From Fiction In The Cable/Telco Customer Retention Mess
from the smoke-and-mirrors dept
Back in March, we wrote about a complaint to the FCC by cable companies about how Verizon was abusing the number portability system to try to retain customers. In April, Kevin Martin took his expected position in siding with Verizon, the telco. However, it appears that only Martin was convinced. All the other FCC commissioners went in the other direction and sided with the cable companies, smacking down Verizon and telling it to stop.What's impressive, though, is the response and the amount of misinformation flying around. Even before the official vote, Verizon's policy guys put up a blog post claiming that this decision would hurt customers. That resulted in a spirited discussion in the comments on that post between Verizon's public policy guy and a cable lobbyist. There have also been some interesting discussions among public policy followers, with some, like James Gattuso, buying Verizon's take that this is bad for consumers, and others, like Karl Bode, noting that Verizon's spin on this appears to be pure "nonsense."
The reality appears to be somewhere in-between. Verizon is clearly overplaying the situation in claiming that the FCC is saying that it cannot market to customers who have chosen to leave Verizon for cable. That's not what this argument is about, and James Gattuso is incorrect in suggesting that the "question at hand" is really about whether or not Verizon can contact customers who have agreed to switch and ask them not to switch. That's certainly the way Verizon wants you to think about it, but that wasn't really the question. No one is saying that telcos (or cable companies) for that matter, can't try to convince customers not to switch. What the FCC has said is that Verizon cannot abuse its position to block the switch while it tries to convince customers not to switch. That's what Verizon is doing. When it gets the request from the cable companies to switch, it basically goes into procrastinate mode, even though it's required to process the switch. It codes the switch request as a "conflict" which gives it extra time to resolve the "conflict" before obeying the switch request.
That's not the same as simply asking the customer not to switch. It's abusing the technical process for marketing purposes. The FCC has not said that Verizon (as Verizon claims) cannot try to entice customers to stay, or to win back those customers who have decided to leave. All it has said is that Verizon cannot stall and block the change request, once it's been placed, in order to try to win back the customer before the change is made. Once the customer has committed to the change, Verizon should be required to process it, rather than block it. So, don't buy the story about Verizon no longer being able to win back customers or entice them with reasons to stay. That's got nothing at all to do with this decision.
Update: Gattuso responds. I still think he's buying Verizon's spin on this ruling. Verizon is falsely claiming that it cannot market to customers who have decided to leave. That's false. They simply cannot abuse the fact that they have access to certain information from the group that has to make the change to market to them. They can still market to them through other means. In other words, Verizon's complaint here does not fly.
Filed Under: cable companies, customer retention, fcc, number portability, telcos
Companies: verizon
Our Congress Has Failed Us: Gives In On Telecom Immunity
from the no-checks,-no-balances dept
We mentioned the rumored "compromise" bill concerning telecom immunity earlier this week, and now it appears that leaders of both the House and the Senate have agreed to wording in the bill which will be brought to the floor today. From the sound of it, it's exactly what we feared: Congress has effectively given in to the administration, allowing it to grant immunity to any telco. Apparently, all that talk about not allowing the worst of this bill to go through was just talk. It's difficult to know where to begin in reviewing this "deal." It's hardly a compromise -- it's a get out of jail free card.To summarize: it appears quite likely that various telcos broke a very clear law in providing wiretaps to the government without a warrant (as required under FISA). Despite what you might hear, this has nothing to do with emergency wiretaps where there wasn't time to go the warrants. Under existing law, in such cases, it's possible to get the wiretap and get the warrant within a few days. However, in many cases, it appears no warrant was ever sought. The fact that the telcos approved these wiretaps is almost certainly against the law -- and it seems that it should obviously be tried in a court of law to determine that specifically.
However, under this new law, Congress has basically given the President (who ordered the wiretaps in the first place, and doesn't want these trials to go forward since they may reveal that he broke the law too) "get out of jail free" cards he can hand to each telco, saying that since he told them that the wiretaps were legal, the lawsuits no longer can proceed. Basically, this puts the President above the law, lets him avoid trials that might prove that his activities broke the law and to reward telcos who broke the law at his command.
Even worse, the bill basically grants the administration the right to keep on spying without getting warrants. Intelligence agencies will be able to demand various communications providers hand over communications without court approval and without naming the target, so long as they claim that the communications are "reasonably believed to involve a non-American who is outside the country." Seems rather wide open for abuse doesn't it?
This whole thing is fairly stunning, considering that it's an opposition Congress facing off against a weak administration. Yet Congress basically gave the President exactly what he wanted, and made a mockery of the checks and balances our government was supposed to include. This is allowing a President to say the law is whatever he says is the law, while destroying basic due process and civil liberties along the way.
Filed Under: congress, immunity, telcos, wiretapping
