Bad news, folks: North Carolina governor Bev Perdue is going to let TWC’s anti-competitive municipal broadband bill become law:

“I will neither sign nor veto this will,” Perdue said in a statement. “Instead, I call on the General Assembly to revisit this issue and adopt rules that not only promote fairness but also allow for the greatest number of high quality and affordable broadband options for consumers.”

If a governor does not veto a bill, it will automatically become law. By not signing it, Perdue is symbolically signaling her displeasure.

Or…veto it and make the Legislature try again. But that would require actually having balls and using them.

So a few days ago I posted this article. It was admittedly a departure over what I usually post, since this site isn’t usually about Apple rumors. However, it is about competition and Sprint getting the iPhone is relevant since it would help to even the mobile device playing field.

Anyway, the article was originally linked on Reddit but didn’t really get much traction. Or so I thought. Within a few hours it ended up on MacRumors and it spiraled up from there. And then Apple changed the job posting, heh.

Some awesome places that linked to this site include:

• CNet article
• Washington Post blog entry
• PC World
• PC Magazine

(And I’m sure more as well, but those are the ones that I caught in the server logs while skimming them over.)

The other awesome thing is that this site now has some name recognition, it seems. I’ve noticed people coming in through Google searches for the site’s name. Top Google search terms (May 2011):

• myusage.att.com (92 visits)
• stop it at (53 visits)
• stop it att (20 visits)
• at (18 visits)
• stopitatt (10 visits)

I just want to say that I’m happy that there’s more recognition of this site now and thank you all for your support 🙂

EDIT: added reference to Apple changing the job posting.

Engadget posted some very interesting insight about the hearing that happened in Congress recently. A few bits of discussion:

One of the primary concerns in the hearing was determining whether or not AT&T actually has enough spectrum on its own. Think of spectrum like the number of lanes on a busy highway: during rush hour these highways get clogged up and causes traffic to slow to a crawl, but when more lanes are added, more traffic can be accommodated. Stephenson argues that one of the major reasons his company needed to purchase T-Mobile is to have enough spectrum to properly build out its upcoming LTE network.

The FCC’s 2008 auction of the 700 MHz band would like a word with you:

Block B – AT&T Mobility was the biggest buyer in the B block, with 227 licenses totaling $6.6 billion. U.S. Cellular and Verizon bought 127 and 77 licenses, respectively. AT&T Mobility and Verizon Wireless bought licenses around the country, while U.S. Cellular continued with its strategy to buy licenses in northern regions. [18]

This doesn’t sound like a company that’s particularly hurting for spectrum to me.

But the real reason why this is a bad idea is because this effectively creates a GSM monopoly in the United States. AT&T will be the one who gets all of the roaming revenue from foreign visitors, vs. the current situation, for one thing. (AT&T and T-Mobile are the two national GSM carriers in this country.) Not to mention that Verizon and AT&T combined will end up controlling 80% of the US mobile phone market in general.

Let’s hope that the FCC and DoJ hear your voice loud and clear.

Saw this today. From the job description:

Location Kansas City, MO
…
Member of the Carrier Engineering team that supports taking products through technical approval at the carriers. A Carrier Engineer team is responsible for day-to-day technical interactions with the one or more carriers to track down issues reported by the carrier, assist the carrier with testing they might be conducting and working with program management, software development and test teams to get products approved by the carriers.

Combined with the rumors floating around, this sounds like a Sprint iPhone is a possibility. (Note: Sprint is based in the Kansas City area, hence the Apple job posting.)

Sprint will definitely need the iPhone if the AT&T/T-Mobile merger goes through to stay relevant, so this could be very good news for them.

EDIT: here is a screenshot, in case Apple takes it down.

EDIT #2: welcome, MacRumors members! 😀 While you’re here, I invite you to browse the rest of the site and find out more about usage caps and the T-Mobile merger 🙂

EDIT #3: looks like Apple changed the job posting. See the screenshot for what it used to be.

Looks like Sprint is pretty serious about fighting the AT&T/T-Mobile merger by going directly to the state regulators. West Virginia’s, to be exact:

AT&T Inc.’s plan to acquire rival T-Mobile USA Inc. drew fire from Sprint Nextel Corp. at West Virginia’s utilities regulator.

Sprint cited its concerns that the merger would hurt consumers in seeking the state’s permission to intervene there.

As a FYI, here’s a list of the state public utility regulators, so they can put the pressure on AT&T as well. 🙂

Make your voice heard about the merger. Go here, and then click on 11-65 to reach a form where you can file brief comments. (You can also submit longer comments in PDF format, if you’d like–just make sure to enter “11-65” as the proceeding number!)

Help the FCC make the informed and correct choice. 🙂

The SCOTUS ruled this week that AT&T (and other corporations) can block people from filing class action lawsuits and force mandatory binding arbitration per the Federal Arbitration Act.

First off, here’s what the Act does:

The Federal Arbitration Act (found at 9 U.S.C. Section 1 et seq.), enacted in 1925, provides for contractually-based compulsory and binding arbitration, resulting in an “arbitration award” entered by an arbitrator or arbitration panel as opposed to a “judgment” entered by a court of law. In an arbitration the parties give up the right to an appeal on substantive grounds to a court.

Per the Wikipedia link, mandatory binding arbitration is nothing new, but in some states (such as California), forcing binding arbitration is unconscionable and can be voided from a contract by a judge. This week’s ruling voids all laws like California’s and applies one federal standard. That is, states that want to apply a higher standard now have no choice but to side with the corporations.

The downside of mandatory arbitration? Companies tend to make it such that they require you to use their own arbiter, which is hardly fair for the consumer. And there’s no way to appeal the ruling if it’s not completely legit.

Just another example of how people are getting screwed over. Our only hope now is definitely much stronger, neutral federal regulatory bodies to enforce our consumer rights.

The FCC is seeking additional comment (warning: PDF) regarding the state of the “multichannel video programming distribution” (aka cable/satellite TV) industry:

Pursuant to its statutory mandate, in 2009 the Commission solicited 2007, 2008, and 2009 data, information, and comment for the 14th Report similar to that which had been requested for earlier years. However, since that time, the Commission has initiated a comprehensive review of the way in which it uses data, including data used for its statutory competition reports. In the course of that review, we determined that the data submitted in response to the notices of inquiry for the 14th Report are insufficient to produce an adequate report. We are therefore requesting additional data for 2009 and for the first time asking for data for 2010. In submitting additional data for 2009 and new data for 2010, to the extent that it is not unduly burdensome, we encourage commenters to also submit comparable historical data for 2007 and 2008, which will facilitate the Commission’s analysis of trends.

And as part of their review of the T-Mobile/AT&T merger, they’re reviewing telephone number utilization reports (warning: PDF) to determine the effects of the merger on mobile telephone competition. However, it looks like these reports will not be released to the public:

The Commission has recognized that disaggregated, carrier-specific forecast and utilization data should be treated as confidential and should be exempt from public disclosure under 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(4). The NRUF and LNP reports are being placed into the record subject to the provisions of an NRUF Protective Order. As such, the NRUF data will not be available to the public except pursuant to the terms of the NRUF Protective Order, as outlined below.

I fully encourage everyone to participate in the FCC review/comment process. If nothing else, it will let our voice be known. 🙂