Skip to content

The Social Critic

perspectives from a journalist turned blogger

  • About
  • Briefly
  • Economy
  • Media
  • Politics

Tag: phone

Snowden Amnesty Debate Misses the Point — Again

On December 17, 2013March 16, 2022 By The Social CriticIn Politics & Public Policy, Technology & ScienceLeave a comment

Amidst this week’s revelation that a federal judge would likely rule in favor of a judicial activist who argues that the NSA’s activities violate the Fourth Amendment — and the revelation that some in the NSA would rather grant fugitive Edward Snowden amnesty than drive him further into the open arms of the Russians and Chinese — I am reminded again how often the story isn’t the story.

At best, it is incomplete.

Personally, I have no problem in offering Snowden amnesty, if only because Snowden revealed what we already knew about the privacy of our phone and email communications both before and after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. What few are talking about, by contrast, carries more serious implications.

If I cast a net wide enough to catch every fish in the ocean, while in reality I am only fishing for sharks, how efficiently can I separate the sharks from the dolphins?

The metaphor posits a key question: Can or should we have confidence that government data mining efforts will be timely enough to prevent terrorism? The Boston bombing would seem to suggest otherwise. Pervasive, indiscriminate data collection not only encroaches upon Americans’ right to privacy, it is a bottomless pit when it comes to taxpayer money — to the tune of nearly one trillion per year! And there are environmental ramifications, too. The NSA alone is said to consume as much energy as a mid-size city in its data collection efforts according to the December 15 edition of “60 Minutes”.

Whether Snowden is a hero or a traitor really isn’t the end-all, be-all question. The story behind the story concerns the government’s ongoing efforts to obtain prohibitively costly services from glorified staffing agencies which, as in the case of the Obamacare website, are not fit to render core services. Uncle Sam leaves to the private-sector the bulk of recruitment efforts, too. In spite of a still rather anemic U.S. economy, the contract to build the HealthCare.gov website was awarded in a no-bid process to a foreign firm its own government saw fit to fire. Snowden, meanwhile, landed a six-figure information technology job in spite of the fact that he is a high school dropout — a fact that, in the tough economy of recent years, would have almost certainly precluded him from similar employment elsewhere.

As long as middlemen continue to line up for taxpayer handouts — even as they line politicians’ pockets with campaign donations — the scope of government intrusion into our lives will increase even as the government’s ability to keep tabs on the actions of their own contractors and subcontractors, let alone bona fide terrorists, decreases. In IT alone — not including other aspects of defense spending — the U.S. government spends $80 billion annually, often for systems that are largely obsolete by the time they are ready to implement.

Government outsourcing of sensitive and vital services increases the risks associated with the proverbial Right hand’s failure to know what the Left hand is doing. All the while, background checks are administered by private firms that are raking in taxpayer funds only to offer up questionable candidates. A firm under contract to facilitate government security clearances — the same firm that cleared Snowden — also enabled a mentally-deranged man, Aaron Alexis, to obtain IT work at a Navy yard in spite of an alleged rap sheet. Note how deftly controversy was steered away from the more telling topic of government’s inadequate vetting practices to law enforcement’s actions when the not-yet-murder called to complain that guests at a hotel where he was staying were attempting to implant ideas into his head. First responders, subsequently, were delayed in their attempts to aid to shipyard shooting victims, thanks to flawed communication systems supplied by yet another DOD contractor.

The Paradox is On Us

The bigger the government’s metadata-collection machine, the more unwieldy, Constitutionally-untenable and unaccountable the outcome — fiscally, legally and technically. The revolving-door face of today’s temporary employment landscape not only makes us vulnerable to the likes of Snowden and Alexis, it makes us more vulnerable to foreign spies, identity theft and nearly any othercrime unlawful access into a centralized database permits. If we want to safeguard both the Constitution and the American people, the proliferation of noncompetitive government contracts staffed by non-government employees, and foreign firms to boot, ought to be the topic.

From all appearances, a slight-of-hand has taken place with respect to Snowden’s NSA leaks — reducing the story to little more than fodder for the usual partisan finger pointing. And yet the Left/Right polarity does no justice to the matter at hand: As long as the government continues to operate the way it does we will see the Constitution crumble, the debts and deficits skyrocket, the leaks continue — and efforts to protect the American public from terrorist attack prove unsuccessful. If we allow for all manner of failure, whether Snowden is a traitor or a hero hardly matters in the end. Conservative or liberal, we need both country and constitution to survive the economic pitfalls of outsourcing and the epic temptations of technology. The buck has to stop somewhere, and it could very well stop here. Problem is, with Snowden at the pinnacle of the debate we’re missing the point.

### 

A Not-So-Unlimited Talk, Text & Web Plan by AT&T

On December 17, 2011March 16, 2022 By The Social CriticIn Technology & ScienceLeave a comment

If you haven’t been in the market for a cell phone recently, perhaps you missed it: AT&T’s Unlimited Talk, Text & Web GoPhone Plan, ushered in by a June 21, 2011 press release.

The FCC, FTC or state attorneys general really ought to look into AT&T for the marketing of their “unlimited web” mobile phone services. Without the benefit of a clear-and-obvious disclosure, AT&T’s prepaid smartphone customers, like their contract-bound counterparts, need to sign up for a separate data package, otherwise there is virtually no web to speak of under so-called unlimited talk, text and web GoPhone plans. A data plan will set consumers back $10 to $45 or $5 to $25 per month in additional fees depending on whether or not the service is under contract (postpaid) or prepaid (with prices subject to change, of course).

For consumers trying to keep their costs down in a tough economy, every dime counts. AT&T and its largest competitor, Verizon, would like us to think they are competitive in the prepaid market so they’ve crafted their own definition of the word “unlimited”. Verizon stipulates parenthetically that their unlimited prepaid option applies only to “basic phones”. By contrast, AT&T makes an implicit suggestion that web access is unlimited to any prepaid handset owner. The reality that it does not comes on top of the industry’s controversial practice of capping or throttling data access on the part of its heaviest “unlimited data” users. It is, in a nutshell, a case of what Sir Richard Branson calls “confusion marketing“.

AT&T titled their press release this past summer “Prepaid Calling Just Got Better: Nationwide Unlimited Talk, Text & Web Plan Now Available for $50”.

Two things stand out: 1) The news organizations and blogs that covered this new plan largely parroted the headline to perpetuate a patently false notion of the true cost of owning a modern prepaid phone, and 2) AT&T and its competitors need to abide by standard English usage in the use of the word “unlimited” when paired to “talk, text & web”. In fact, they have a legal obligation to abide by truth-in-advertising laws.

To the best of my knowledge, no action has been taken to reign in AT&T’s misleading verbiage even as progress on a similar front are on the rise outside the US. When the smaller prepaid providers offer a $45 or $50 “unlimited” pay-as-you-go service they typically mean everything for that price. At present, AT&T, like Verizon, is not competitive in the emerging prepaid smartphone market. Only by engaging in false advertising do they give the appearance of something they do not, in fact, offer at a $50 price point.

AT&T isn’t just throwing curve balls at prospective prepaid customers. The company brochure depicts a la carte data plan “options” that are, in fact, mandatory for any smartphone user — even those who talk or text exclusively. While this practice may be prevalent in the postpaid marketplace, it is not widely anticipated in the prepaid market and, as such, is not adequately disclosed. In looking at Walmart and Best Buy’s selection of AT&T prepaid products — online or off — a disclaimer does not appear indicating that actual costs may be higher, nor is a “smartphone disclosure” printed prominently on the bright orange GoPhone prepaid card packages or online descriptions.

In the interest of full disclosure, I have been an AT&T-exclusive customer since the days of PacBell and Cingular. As a loyal customer, I have an expectation some 20 years after the debut of this technology to enter the market to find that it has become more transparent and competitive. Instead, smartphones and their data-driven 3G/4G service plans have given license to wireless providers to start a whole new round of gimmicks, games and hoop-jumping. There’s a reason I run my phones into the ground and don’t upgrade all that often: the mobile service providers make it too much of a Gotcha! hassle. And therein lies the lesson the cellular services industry ought to catch on to sooner, not later: keep it simple. Kiss and make up with your market by streamlining consumers’ cell phone purchasing experience and mobile phone providers might just see a revenue boost.

When we, the consumer, demand a straightforward buying experience we will get one.

While every other business in the difficult economy of recent years is selling their goods and services on razor-thin margins driven by inflated fuel, commodity and energy prices, the cellular industry hasn’t even stopped the practice of charging tax rates that don’t match the cost anyone actually pays for a handset! Still at play, too, are the perennial “line activation” fees. It’s not that the mobile phone providers don’t have the right to recoup expenses. They just need to stop announcing them in an endless onslaught of fine print. Here’s an idea: Include the usual tack-on fees in the cost of the handset. Consumers don’t care for line-itemized, nickle-and-dime exchanges. Take a cue from Amazon: bundle these charges in such a way that they are accounted for by the set price. When customers believe they are getting more for less — or for free, in the case of  “free” Amazon shipping  — they will be inclined to express greater satisfaction with the goods or services in question.

Long ago, the wireless industry devised a lucrative if not fatiguing strategy for luring consumers in at one cost, only to tack on innumerable fees at checkout. A straightforward and transparent transaction at the consumer level will not happen until consumer protection agencies at the state and federal level do what they’re paid by taxpayers to do: regulate. Mind you, not like they regulated Enron while the lights were going out on the West Coast (following energy deregulation). And not like they regulated BP, the foreign-owned company that killed US oil rig workers and filled the Gulf with sludge in 2010. And not like the US government regulated the mortgage-backed securities that ultimately toppled markets, taking down entire banks — nations, even — and retirement pension funds as blow-back for the deregulatory binge Republicans and Democrats engaged in during the Clinton Administration.

I am not a member of the Occupy Wall Street Movement. Yet when people talk about corporate malfeasance it’s all too obvious that the lack of law enforcement at the state and federal level is spurred on by the fact that bending and breaking laws in the name of “crony capitalism” are the national norm. Our eagle-eyed regulators look the other way because corporate lobbying firms and hefty campaign donations keep on flowing to the higher-ups in DC.

Consumer mobile phone contracts and services are needlessly complicated by corporate doublespeak. When a mobile phone service provider enters the market that will allow us to buy any carrier’s phone and use it on their service, we will see the democratization — true free market competition — the wireless market has lacked from the outset.

Change is inevitable. It’s only a question of “What direction?” and “When?”. Let’s begin with a demand for truth-in-advertising laws in the cellular industry. AT&T’s GoPhone prepaid cards and product descriptions should strike the word “web” from so-called unlimited plans or instead stipulate “Unlimited Talk, Text & Feature Phone Web; smartphone data access sold separately”. If this sounds too clunky to print on a slick brochure or a small prepaid card package, perhaps AT&T should say what they mean and mean what they say. The current verbiage misleads consumers into believing that that their monthly bills will be lower or at least commiserate with the competition regardless of what type of handset they purchase. It simply isn’t so. Verizon is the most costly overall, while Sprint does not offer a significant month-to-month cost savings over AT&T. T-Mobile is only marginally more competitive. On the whole, however, the cellular industry would appear to be engaged in collusion by proxy — if not out-and-out collusion — the latter of which is noncompetitive and therefore illegal.

In the spirit of the muckraking tradition, I urge consumers who are frustrated by misleading practices to mail company headquarters paperback dictionaries with the word “unlimited” and “web” written on the inside front and back cover respectively. The industry’s marketing practices solicit interest in their products and services with a bait-and-switch gimmick waiting in the wings. As consumers, we can make our position known too.

AT&T Inc.

208 S. Akard St.

Dallas, TX 75202 Map

Phone: 210-821-4105

###

RESOURCES

Cell Phone Plans: Don’t Get Caught in the Ringer | MSNBC

Posts navigation

Older posts

Archives

Follow The Social Critic on WordPress.com

Follow On Twitter

  • Twitter

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 295 other subscribers
  • Follow Following
    • The Social Critic
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • The Social Critic
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...