Related
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
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.
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
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.
In the warranty it describes the procedure for disputes and claims. Unless you request an opt out, YOU WAIVE ANY RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL AS WELL AS PARTICIPATING IN ANY CLASS ACTION LAWSUITS. "Neither you, nor any customer, can be a class representative, class member, or otherwise participate in a class, consolidated, or representative proceeding without having completed the opt out requirements above."
Seriously you all, in light of all of the boot-loop issues, this is very important as if you do not opt out of this agreement then you will HAVE NO LEGAL STANDING IN A COURT OF LAW
So... what are the opt-out requirements?
But if you opt out you don't have a warranty?
Sent from my LG-LS993 using XDA-Developers Legacy app
Opt Out. You may opt out of this dispute resolution procedure. If you opt out, neither you nor LG can require the other to participate in an arbitration proceeding. To opt out, you must send notice to LG no later than 30 calendar days from the date of the first consumer purchaser's purchase of the product by either: (i) sending an e-mail to [email protected], with the subject line: "Arbitration Opt Out" or (ii) calling 1-800-980-2973. You must include in the opt out e-mail or provide by telephone: (a) your name and address; (b) the date on which the product was purchased; (c) the product model name or model number; and (d) the IMEI or MEID or Serial Number, as applicable (the IMEI or MEID or Serial Number can be found (i) on the product box; (ii) on a label on the back of the product beneath the battery, if the battery is removable; or (iii) from the settings menu via the following path: Settings > General > About phone > Status). You may only opt out of the dispute resolution procedure in the manner described above (that is, by e-mail or telephone); no other form of notice will be effective to opt out of this dispute resolution procedure. Opting out of this dispute resolution procedure will not affect the coverage of the Limited Warranty in any way, and you will continue to enjoy the full benefits of the Limited Warranty. If you keep this product and do not opt out, then you accept all terms and conditions of the arbitration provision described above.
I'll admit it, worst case scenario I'll send them a few emails and ring them a dozen times. But I'm not going to court over a phone.
thewilkster said:
I'll admit it, worst case scenario I'll send them a few emails and ring them a dozen times. But I'm not going to court over a phone.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have to agree here as well.... This will be due to the G4 and G5 law suits people have been taking out against Lg in the last 12 month.. I bet its Samsung fanbois trying to kick LG to the curb because they know the S8 is just an S7 edge with a bezel-less screen.. and theyre upset
NightOrchid said:
I have to agree here as well.... This will be due to the G4 and G5 law suits people have been taking out against Lg in the last 12 month.. I bet its Samsung fanbois trying to kick LG to the curb because they know the S8 is just an S7 edge with a bezel-less screen.. and theyre upset
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
:laugh: but oooh it has a curvy screen! It's a nice phone but I got too good of a deal on the G6 to turn it down. Plus I'm already seeing S8's everywhere.
Meh. If the phone goes kerflooey and I don't get treated right, I wouldn't mind arbitration at all. It's a pretty fair process.
Generally, those class action lawsuits tend to get tied up for years and years before the consumer sees any benefit, as the lawyers wring every last legal fee they possibly can.
Bought a 2013 Kia soul in 2012. Class action suit filed for mileage misstatement. Kia settled right up that year, and all the owners were to get 600 bucks. Then, it got held up over all kinds of issues, blah, blah... then last year, a totally new law firm filed an objection and extensive appeal to the fairness of the first settlement, and will now proceed to rake it for legal fees again for the next few years into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Meantime, the folks who these lawyers say they are fighting for might get 25 more bucks at the end. Maybe.
Bought the car 5 years ago. Kia settled 4 years ago. Lawyers will milk that cow til 2020 or longer if they can. Same thing probably will happen with the bootloop stuff, where you'll get 60 dollars from LG in 2025.
I'd arbitrate any day over doing that, and go home with a new phone or a substantial credit on the next phone, etc., and be light years ahead.
Your mileage may vary
Cheers,
StevenRN