A few years ago, I had this idea. I was pretty sure that we could get a new populist movement sweeping the nation through pro-consumer actions aimed at two groups: cell phone carriers, and cable companies.

Do you know anyone who likes their companies and who's happy with the amount they're paying? Me neither. Now I'm even more convinced it was a good idea after reading this piece by Matt Stoller in the Republic Report:

Last year, a new company called Lightsquared promised an innovative business model that would dramatically lower cell phone costs and improve the quality of service, threatening the incumbent phone operators like AT&T and Verizon. Lightsquared used a new technology involving satellites and spectrum, and was a textbook example of how markets can benefit the public through competition. The phone industry swung into motion, not by offering better products and services, but by going to Washington to ensure that its new competitor could be killed by its political friends. And sure enough, through three Congressmen that AT&T and Verizon had funded (Fred Upton (R-MI), Greg Walden (R-OR), and Cliff Stearns (R-FL)), Congress began demanding an investigation into this new company. Pretty soon, the Federal Communications Commission got into the game, revoking a critical waiver that had allowed it to proceed with its business plan.

Oh yeah. Remember the all-out attack on LightSquared?

Continue reading »

Seeing a connection between the so-called "Shoot First" laws passed with the support of the American Legislative Exchange Council and the National Rifle Association, a group of progressive organizations is calling upon ALEC's funders to dump the conservative group before more harmful laws are passed. Crooks and Liars previously reported on the connection between "Shoot First" laws and ALEC and the NRA.

The story of Trayvon Martin is, first and foremost, a tragedy for his family, and our hearts go out to them. It’s also about things that need to change, including how powerful interests use their superior resources to distort the processes of government — in this case a well-funded private group, fueled by donations from big corporations: the American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC.

We want to know why major U.S. corporations support ALEC, which, working with the National Rifle Association, helped write and promote around the country the law that might allow Trayvon Martin’s killer to go free. So Republic Report, along with Color of Change, the Center for Media and Democracy, and Van Jones’ organization, Rebuild the Dream, just sent those companies a letter asking them to stop supporting and financing ALEC.

The corporations the letter was sent to include:

Continue reading »

Occupy Atlanta, the Communications Workers of America, the Teamsters and Jobs With Justice held a rallies last week to prevent AT&T from laying off hundreds of workers at a time when they are making record profits and paying their CEO $27 million. The company plans to lay off 740 workers in Atlanta. The company says they have offered the workers other jobs with the company, but they all appear to be lower-paying jobs with no benefits. The organizations rallying against AT&T demand that the current jobs be kept.

Michael Dawson, a service representative, was laid off last year, but got another job with the company. Dawson said worrying about losing his job again is draining.

“I may be axed with no opportunity for a job,” Dawson said. “We’re scared because the company will flip a switch and decide ‘we no longer need you.’”

Kim Ball, a maintenance administrator, knows what it’s like to face the layoff guillotine. Ball has been part of a downsizing effort before. She doesn’t want to go through that again.

“AT&T is making enough money to keep people on the payroll. Stop the layoffs. We want them to stop the layoffs,” Ball said.

12 protesters were arrested at a related rally earlier in the week.

The actions by the Federal Communications Commission and the Department of Justice to block this transaction do not change the realities of the U.S. wireless industry. It is one of the most fiercely competitive industries in the world, with a mounting need for more spectrum that has not diminished and must be addressed immediately. The AT&T and T-Mobile USA combination would have offered an interim solution to this spectrum shortage. In the absence of such steps, customers will be harmed and needed investment will be stifled.

“AT&T will continue to be aggressive in leading the mobile Internet revolution,” said Randall Stephenson, AT&T chairman and CEO. “Over the past four years we have invested more in our networks than any other U.S. company. As a result, today we deliver best-in-class mobile broadband speeds – connecting smartphones, tablets and emerging devices at a record pace – and we are well under way with our nationwide 4G LTE deployment.

“To meet the needs of our customers, we will continue to invest,” Stephenson said. “However, adding capacity to meet these needs will require policymakers to do two things. First, in the near term, they should allow the free markets to work so that additional spectrum is available to meet the immediate needs of the U.S. wireless industry, including expeditiously approving our acquisition of unused Qualcomm spectrum currently pending before the FCC. Second, policymakers should enact legislation to meet our nation’s longer-term spectrum needs.

“The mobile Internet is a dynamic industry that can be a critical driver in restoring American economic growth and job creation, but only if companies are allowed to react quickly to customer needs and market forces,” Stephenson said.

I was curious about what legislation in particular AT&T wanted "to meet...longer-term spectrum needs." Behold, I discovered this tidbit from The Hill:

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Julius Genachowski said on Tuesday evening that language in the House GOP payroll tax bill that restricts his agency's ability to regulate the airwaves could "threaten U.S. global leadership in spectrum-related innovation."

"Several provisions of the House bill would tie the agency’s hands in ways that could be counterproductive, reducing economic value and hindering innovation and investment," he said in a statement after the House approved the bill 234-193.

Ah, this would be the bill that the House is trying to force into a conference committee rather than taking the Senate's bill and voting on it. And there's more:

Continue reading »

Here's some good news for consumers today:

WASHINGTON—The U.S. Justice Department is suing to block AT&T Inc.'s proposed $39 billion takeover of T-Mobile USA, saying Wednesday that the combination of the second- and fourth-largest U.S. cellphone companies would hurt competition and likely raise prices.

At a news conference Wednesday, Deputy Attorney General James Cole said the combination would result in tens of millions of consumers facing fewer choices and lower-quality products.

But the agency said the "door is open" to AT&T to propose remedies in the deal.

The proposed tie-up has faced tough opposition from consumer groups and No. 3 carrier Sprint Nextel Corp. since it was announced in March. Shares of AT&T were down 3.7% on the announcement. Shares of Sprint, thought to be a victim of an enlarged AT&T, were 9.6% higher.

[...] The deal would create a giant in mobile telephony that AT&T has argued would provide better service to more of the country. But the Justice Department said in its suit that it would also remove an important challenger—T-Mobile—from the market, reducing pressure on its larger rivals to keep prices down and improve service. T-Mobile has been struggling to compete with the larger carriers, and owner Deutsche Telekom AG has said it isn't willing to invest more in the venture.

And this really cheers me up, too. Nice to see the Justice Department on our side for a change!

Continue reading »

In June, more than 52,000 ColorOfChange members spoke out against a proposed merger between AT&T and T-Mobile, arguing that the deal is likely to destroy jobs, raise the price of cellular service, and threaten net neutrality for wireless high-speed Internet.

Now, there's one more reason to oppose the merger -- and AT&T gave it to us. The company has repeatedly claimed that merging with T-Mobile is the only way it would make good business sense to cover 97 percent of Americans with the latest mobile broadband technology.

But according to a letter filed by AT&T, the cost of building its 4G wireless system to the entire nation is $3.8 billion -- a mere one tenth the cost of the $39 billion merger! And if the merger isn't approved, AT&T will be obligated to pay T-Mobile a $3 billion fee, more than 75 percent of the cost of extending 4G coverage to 97 percent of Americans.

This new revelation makes clear that AT&T's major public interest rationale for merging with T-Mobile amounts to nothing more than fuzzy math. But Democratic 76 members of Congress, led by North Carolina Rep. G.K. Butterfield, have signed a letter advancing AT&T's false rationale.

In response, we've launched a campaign calling on these members to withdraw their support for the deal. Here's the message we sent to ColorOfChange members on Wednesday. We hope you'll consider signing the petition and spreading the word to your friends and family.

Continue reading »

This was my first thought when I heard the news: Are the feds really going to let this merger go through? It sounds as though I'm not the only person who had that reaction. But then, I still don't understand how the Comcast/NBC merger went through, either:

The surprising announcement that AT&T Inc. would acquire T-Mobile USA from Deutsche Telekom AG in a $39 billion merger leaves one giant question mark: Will the U.S. government approve an acquisition that most experts thought was unthinkable until recently?

At the very least, most technology, finance and policy experts say the combination of the second and fourth largest providers of U.S wireless service by revenue will face a rocky road as the two companies seek approval from government regulators.

First, AT&T will need the FCC's approval to acquire T-Mobile's spectrum licenses.

But the deal is also certain to face a thorough investigation by the Justice Department, according to people familiar with the matter.

The merger is likely to be of particular concern to antitrust enforcers because the industry's two dominant companies—Verizon Wireless, a joint venture of Vodafone Group PLC and Verizon Communications Inc., and AT&T—are already so far ahead of anyone else, raising the specter of an effective duopoly in mobile telephony.

Antitrust enforcers would likely have taken a more benign view of a potential merger of Sprint Nextel Corp. and T-Mobile USA which would have created a larger third player to compete with the top two providers, those people said.

Herbert Hovenkamp, a law professor at the University of Iowa who specializes in antitrust matters, said the deal would also have a hard time meeting the new merger guidelines recently issued by the Department of Justice.

"It's a pretty highly concentrated market," he said. "The guidelines would say this is a highly questionable merger unless there is a significant provable efficiency. This will get fairly close scrutiny."

So corporations have the right to free speech, but no personal privacy rights? Corporations: Salad dressing and a floor wax? I'm so confused!

The Supreme Court of the United States ruled Tuesday that AT&T and other corporations do not have personal privacy rights under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

The Freedom of Information Act requires federal agencies to make documents publicly available upon request, but contains an exemption for documents that "constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy."

Claiming they were a "corporation citizen," AT&T tried to use the personal privacy exemption to prevent the disclosure of federal government documents about the company.

The unanimous decision in Federal Communications Commission v. AT&T, Inc. reversed a ruling by a US appeals court in favor the telecommunications company.

"Personal' in the phrase 'personal privacy' conveys more than just 'of a person,'" Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in his decision. "It suggest a type of privacy evocative of human concerns—not the sort usually associated with an entity like, say, AT&T."

"We reject the argument that because 'person' is defined for purposes of FOIA to include a corporation, the phrase 'personal privacy' in Exemption 7(C) reaches corporations as well," he said.

"The protection in FOIA against disclosure of law enforcement information on the ground that it would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy does not extend to corporations."

"We trust that AT&T will not take it personally," Roberts added. "The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed."

This one's important, spread it around.

Once again, something we can put on tone-deaf Democrats. I kept arguing that we should have pushed back on Roberts and Alito on their pro-corporate records, and not on abortion. Oh well, what the hell do I know?

I'd say it's highly unlikely that the conservatives on this court will pass up the chance to put trial lawyers out of business:

It hasn't gotten a lot of press, but a case involving AT&T that goes before the U.S. Supreme Court next week has sweeping ramifications for potentially millions of consumers.

If a majority of the nine justices vote the telecom giant's way, any business that issues a contract to customers — such as for credit cards, cellphones or cable TV — would be able to prevent them from joining class-action lawsuits.

This would take away in such cases arguably the most powerful legal tool available to the little guy, particularly in cases involving relatively small amounts of money. Class-action suits allow plaintiffs to band together in seeking compensation or redress, thus giving substantially more heft to their claims.

The ability to ban class actions would potentially also apply to employment agreements such as union contracts.

Consumer advocates say that without the threat of class-action lawsuits, many businesses would be free to engage in unfair or deceptive practices. Few people would litigate on their own to resolve a case involving, say, a hundred bucks.

"The marketplace is fairer for consumers and workers because there's a deterrent out there," said Deepak Gupta, an attorney for the advocacy group Public Citizen who will argue on consumers' behalf before the Supreme Court on Tuesday.

"Companies are afraid of class actions," he said. "This helps keep them honest."

The case is AT&T Mobility vs. Concepcion. The basic question before the court is whether companies can bar class actions in the fine print of their take-it-or-leave-it contracts with customers and employees.

High courts in California and elsewhere have ruled that class-action bans are unconscionable and contrary to public policy.

At issue at next week's court hearing is whether the Federal Arbitration Act of 1925 preempts state courts from striking down class-action bans. The federal law requires both sides in a dispute to take their grievance to an arbitrator, rather than a court, if both sides have agreed in advance to do so.

Vincent and Liza Concepcion sued AT&T in 2006 after signing up for wireless service that they'd been told included free cellphones. The Concepcions alleged that they and other Californians had been defrauded by the company because the phones actually came with various charges.

AT&T asked the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California to dismiss the case because its contract forbade class actions. The court declined, ruling that a class-action ban violates state law and is not preempted by the federal law.

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower-court ruling last year. AT&T subsequently petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the case.

William B. Gould IV, a professor emeritus at Stanford Law School and former chairman of the National Labor Relations Board under President Clinton, said the high court was clearly interested in extending the reach of the Federal Arbitration Act.

"This is a very important issue," he said. "And this Supreme Court has indicated a measure of hostility toward class actions."

The Atlantic:

(T)he Washington Post’s James Grimaldi published a fairly damning piece suggesting, with a good deal of evidence, that John and Cindy McCain were beneficiaries of special treatment from Verizon and AT&T—the implication being that the companies had sought to curry favor with the former Senate Commerce committee chairman by erecting cell phone towers at the McCains’ remote Arizona ranch.

McCain spokesman Brian Rogers responded that the towers were temporary, the result of a Secret Service request and, while conceding that Cindy McCain had made a separate, earlier request for the towers that predated her husband’s status as Republican presidential nominee, added, “Mrs. McCain's staff went through the Website as any member of the general public would—no string pulling, no phone calls, no involvement of Senate staff.” Today, a Verizon spokesman, Jeffrey Nelson, took greater umbrage, attacking the Post story as “wrong” and stating that the company, after studying McCain’s request, decided in August not to install a permanent tower at the ranch. “It doesn’t make business sense for us to do that,” Nelson told the Post.

So is this an innocent mix-up, or did McCain get special treatment from Verizon? The Post piece points out that Verizon’s CEO Ivan G. Seidenberg is a McCain bundler who has raised more than $1.3 million, and the company’s head Washington lobbyist, Robert Fisher, is a former McCain staffer. That alone is intriguing, but not, of course, evidence of any wrongdoing. But putting up a cell phone tower is a process that entails many legal and regulatory hurdles that create a lengthy public record (some of which Grimaldi draws on for his piece). And the closer you look, the less satisfying McCain’s—and especially Verizon’s—account of the towers turns out to be. Whatever its motivation, Verizon plainly went to considerable effort and expense to pursue building a permanent tower on the McCains’ ranch.

The Huffington Post has a letter from the contractor, contradicting McCain's spin on the controversy. I could be wrong, but it seems like a gift like this should be reported (according to sources, it is not, but there's an awful lot of donations from telecoms as well as former telecom lobbyists on staff).