Warrantless Wiretap 'Compromise' Really Just A Get Out Of Jail Free Card From The President

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

We've been following the ridiculous attempts by the administration to protect telcos who most likely broke the law in supplying warrantless wiretaps by trying to get "immunity" included in the new FISA bill. As we've pointed out, this makes absolutely no sense. If the administration or the telcos (or both) broke the law -- then that issue should be explored. Granting anyone immunity from even being tried for breaking the law doesn't seem appropriate. If there were special circumstances that explain why the telcos or the administration broke the law, why not at least have them come out in court rather than sweeping them all under the rug?

Unfortunately, now there's word coming out that a new "compromise" bill is likely to be approved. However, the details suggest this isn't a compromise. This is exactly what the administration wanted, and which some members of Congress have been fighting against. Basically, it would let the President say that he assured the telcos that their actions were legal -- and that would grant them immunity. In other words, this law would basically say that as long as the President tells you something is legal, it's automatically legal, and you can't get in trouble for doing it. That's not how the law is supposed to work -- and is a huge abuse of power. There's simply no way Congress should let this through, as it sets an awful precedent.

Filed Under: administration, fisa, immunity, telcos, warrantless wiretap

Congress Thinking About 'Compromise' That Would Move Telco Immunity Questions To Secret Court

from the what's-so-secret-here? dept

There's been an ongoing battle in Congress over whether or not telcos that helped the gov't with warrantless wiretaps should get retroactive immunity for their actions. No one has given any good reason why companies should be granted immunity for any sort of illegal actions, and there are plenty of reasons why they should not. The fact that the administration "asked" them to administer the wiretaps is no excuse. The president is not above the law. Basically, the only reason to demand immunity is because it's clear that someone (or, more likely, multiple people and companies) broke the law.

The latest move in this process is a so-called "compromise" bill that would move these disputes into a secret court, who could then dismiss the lawsuits without giving any explanation whatsoever. And, yet, no one has explained why these trials should happen in secret either. Either the companies followed the procedures that are clearly stated in the law, or they did not. You can determine if they followed the procedure without giving up state secrets. This whole thing seems to be involving an awful lot of smoke and mirrors coming out of DC, with people making all sorts of ridiculous statements about "security" and "terrorism." Those statements are all meaningless distractions. There is a clear legal procedure for wiretapping that even allows for going back after the fact to get approval. There is no excuse that the process was too cumbersome or slow, because of that ability to go back. The question here has nothing to do with security and safety. It has to do with whether or not the legal process was followed -- and it's hard to see why that should remain secret.

Filed Under: congress, immunity, telcos, wiretapping

Why Is The FCC Subsidizing The Least Efficient Providers Of Rural Telco Services?

from the questions,-questions,-questions dept

The Universal Service Fund (USF) is a huge boondoggle for telcos, who keep getting more and more money out of it, with almost no oversight into what's done with that money. And, the way it's set up, it actually blocks more innovative (and cheaper!) services from being used to improve connectivity in rural areas. It's good to see others are beginning to notice this. News.com is running an article from Gregory L. Rosston at Stanford who points out that the USF rewards companies for being the least efficient providers. That is, by showing how much more it costs the telcos to provide for rural users, the FCC grants them even more money. In other words, the less efficient they are, the more money they get. Not exactly the type of incentives the FCC should be setting up -- but given FCC chair Kevin Martin's super chummy relationship with the telcos, perhaps it's no surprise.

Filed Under: efficiency, favoritism, fcc, kevin martin, telcos, universal service fund

Why So Many Telco/Cableco False Advertising Lawsuits?

from the false-advertising-all-around dept

It seems that the telcos and the cable companies just can't stop making questionable claims against each other. It's been going on for years, but it seems that the telcos are finally going to court over it. Last month, we mentioned that Verizon was suing Time Warner Cable over what it claimed was false advertising, but then had to embarrassingly admit that its own ads were misleading as well. Now, AT&T is suing Comcast for misleading advertising thanks to a print ad campaign that suggests AT&T DSL customers will have to put a huge cabinet on the side of their homes. As AT&T points out, it only needs to install such cabinets for one out of approximately 750 homes -- and it never installs them on private property without the permission of the homeowner. To be honest, it hardly seems like that big of a deal either. If it took a big box on the side of my house to get great internet speeds, I'd be fine with it.

But the thing that seems most strange, is this constant focus on attacking each other with exaggerated and misleading claims. That's a sign of a stagnating industry. A growing industry focuses on promoting what's new and what great features it has. Or, if it does mention the competition at all, it's to show why its service is better -- not why the other's is worse. The fact that the two sides are attacking each other in this manner, while broadband providers in other countries are spending their money on actual improvements is rather disappointing. If these broadband providers put half as much effort into just offering better service, perhaps it wouldn't have to resort to name calling and lawsuits against each other.

Filed Under: cable, false advertising, telcos
Companies: at&t, comcast

As Expected, Republicans Push To Get Telcos Off The Hook For Illegal Activities

from the who-woulda-thunk-it dept

Back in February, we broke the story that some Republican Congressional Representatives were looking to circulate a discharge petition to force a vote on the FISA bill that would grant telcos retroactive immunity for any illegal activity having to do with wiretap activities. And, in fact, that's exactly what happened. Earlier this week, a group of Republicans started circulating just such a petition. This is an extremely rare move. A discharge petition hasn't been used successfully since 2002. However, the reasoning behind the supporters of this discharge petition is highly suspect and deserves to be examined. Rep. Roy Blunt stated:

"More than 66 days have passed since House Democrats allowed a key piece of terrorist surveillance legislation to expire--not because they had concerns with the bill, but because they were seemingly more concerned that not enough trial lawyers would be able to file enough expensive and frivolous lawsuits against U.S. telecom firms."

That's both incorrect and misleading at the same time. First of all, there were concerns with the bill: the concerns about giving telcos immunity for potentially illegal activities. As we've pointed out, there are really only three potential reasons for wanting immunity, and they certainly have nothing to do with filing frivolous lawsuits. If this was about frivolous lawsuits, immunity wouldn't be needed -- because the cases would get thrown out. The only real reason to push for immunity is because it's known that the telcos and/or the administration acted illegally. In such a case, immunity obviously shouldn't be allowed. No one has yet given a decent reason for immunity, and the statement here to back up the discharge petition is incredibly disingenuous. Hopefully, a majority of Congressional representatives will realize that and reject the petition.

Filed Under: congress, immunity, telcos, wiretapping

And Of Course, FCC Sides With Verizon In Argument With Cable Cos.

from the no-surprise-there dept

Last month we pointed out that the cable companies had filed a complaint with the FCC accusing Verizon of some shady practices in trying to get customers to stay, even after they'd already agreed to switch to cable. Since most customers want to keep their home phone number, the cable companies needed to contact Verizon to make the switch. At that point, Verizon would immediately contact those customers to prevent them from switching. As the cable companies pointed out, this gave the telcos an unfair advantage. They were using information they learned from elsewhere (the group in charge of managing number portability) to steal customers back from the cable companies. Of course, given how today's FCC tends to think that telcos are always right and cable co's are always wrong, it will surprise probably none of you, that the FCC has no problem with Verizon's practices. Perhaps the cable companies should have waited until a new FCC commish was sworn in before making this complaint.

Filed Under: cable, fcc, number portability, telcos
Companies: comcast, fcc, time warner, verizon

It's Good To Be A Monopoly: Bell Canada Tells ISPs To Shut Up And Accept Traffic Shaping

from the what-are-you-gonna-do? dept

Remember how Bell Canada had decided to start traffic shaping without telling any of its ISP resellers? Well, in a meeting with those resellers, the company both admitted it and told them there was nothing they could do about it, even if it meant that those ISPs were violating their own terms of service and promises to customers. It's good to be a monopoly, you see. Since those ISPs have nowhere else to go, Bell Canada is able to do whatever it wants to the network, and if those ISPs don't like it, they're pretty much out of luck.

Filed Under: canada, telcos, traffic shaping
Companies: bell canada

Cable Companies Accuse Verizon Of Shady Practices To Prevent Customers From Leaving

from the so-we-hear-you're-leaving... dept

Comcast and Time Warner have complained to the FCC that Verizon is taking unfair advantage in preventing customers from dropping their phone service. The basic story is that the cable companies have been offering deals on various "bundles" of TV, internet and phone service, all over cable. When customers agree to switch, most want to keep their existing home phone number (which is allowed under number portability rules). The cable companies take care of that part, informing the phone company of the switch -- at which point (the cable companies say) Verizon calls up those customers and offers them cash discounts to stick around. While it's quite common for telcos (or other firms for that matter) to offer customers who cancel deals to stay, this is somewhat different. The customer hasn't called to cancel in this case. It's just because Verizon owns the telephone network that it finds out about the switch and then proactively contacts the customers. Given the FCC's extra friendly terms with the telcos rather than cable co's, anyone think this has a chance of getting anywhere?

Filed Under: cable companies, fcc, number portability, telcos
Companies: comcast, time warner, verizon

House Says No To Retroactive Immunity

from the about-time dept

Despite a fear-mongering campaign filled with outright lies and fabrications, it appears that the Democrats in the House are actually asking the right questions about why we should grant retroactive immunity to telcos for potentially breaking the law in helping give the government access to information. They approved the version of the bill that they announced earlier this week, which would not get the telcos off the hook if they broke the law over the past few years.

Throughout this whole process, the one thing that has never been explained clearly is why it would possibly make sense to give the telcos immunity for breaking the law. There are perfectly legal means for the government to go out and request the information they wanted. To not go through those legal means makes very little sense, unless the government knew that it would not get approval. To anyone who claims that the government "needed" to do this, can you explain why they would "need" to do this without following the legally prescribed paths to do so? The US government is not free to do whatever it wants without oversight. That's why we set up a government with three separate branches to have oversight of each other. Otherwise, the system can and will be abused. What's happening here is that there appears to be quite a bit of evidence that the system was abused, and the White House (and the members of Congress who agree with the White House) are saying that we should ignore that. That seems problematic.

Luckily, (and, to be honest, surprisingly), it appears that some in Congress recognize this point, and are stating it quite explicitly. The EFF highlights the comments of Nancy Pelosi:

"Why would the Administration oppose a judicial determination of whether the companies already have immunity? There are at least three explanations:

First, the President knows that it was the Administration's incompetence in failing to follow the procedures in statute that prevented immunity from being conveyed -- that's one possibility. They simply didn't do it right.

Second, the Administration's legal argument that the surveillance requests were lawfully authorized was wrong; or [third,] public reports that the surveillance activities undertaken by the companies went far beyond anything about which any Member of Congress was notified, as is required by the law.

None of these alternatives is attractive but they clearly demonstrate why the Administration's insistence that Congress provide retroactive immunity has never been about national security or about concerns for the companies; it has always been about protecting the Administration."

Of course, this is not nearly over yet. The Senate still needs to vote on legislation and the President would still need to approve it -- and he's made it clear that he'll veto any bill that doesn't include immunity. For all his complaints that not having a bill approved would make the US less safe, it would appear that it's his demand for retroactive immunity that is actually holding up the bill's passage. There is nothing in the current bill that makes the country any less safe. The only thing holding it up is a desire to brush aside questions about whether or not earlier activities broke the law.

Filed Under: congress, immunity, telcos, wiretapping

Companies Baffled By iPhone's Success

from the who'd-a-thunk-that-making-something-people-like-works dept

Rob Hyndman points us to a news report on what must have been one of the more bizarre panel discussions at this week's Mobile World Congress event in Barcelona. It was a panel on the user experience of mobile phones, where a bunch of folks from other companies tried to puzzle out why people liked the iPhone so much, noting that people generally associated the iPhone more with Apple than AT&T (gee... wonder why?) What's amazing is seeing some of the execs trying to come up with solutions through more careful methodologies:

"One direction, advocated by Lucia Predolin... is to manipulate users by identifying their "need states" -- including such compulsions as 'killing time,' and 'making the most of it' -- and fulfilling them subliminally."

And that, of course, is exactly why no other company designed the iPhone before Apple. They're trying to overthink things and figure out how to manipulate users, rather than sitting back and saying "how can we build something cool that people like that doesn't suck the way existing phones do?"

Filed Under: iphone, telcos, usability
Companies: apple