verizon

verizon-beats-lawsuit-from-utility-worker-who-said-lead-cables-made-him-sick

Verizon beats lawsuit from utility worker who said lead cables made him sick

However, Ranjan found that Tiger lacked standing to bring the lawsuit. It is not clear that Tiger’s symptoms were caused by working with lead-covered cables, and everyone is exposed to lead to some degree, the ruling said.

“Given the naturally occurring lead levels in the environment and in our bodies, and the fact that individuals exposed to lead may not develop any lead-related conditions or symptoms at all, mere exposure to lead—and the mere presence of lead in one’s body—isn’t a concrete injury,” Ranjan wrote.

Verizon said in September 2023 that at sites described in the Wall Street Journal article, soil lead levels near Verizon cables were similar to lead levels in the surrounding area and did not pose a public health risk.

Verizon is also seeking dismissal of a similar lawsuit filed in US District Court for the District of New Jersey. Verizon yesterday submitted a filing to the New Jersey federal court that cited the Pennsylvania ruling. Verizon said the plaintiffs in the two cases are represented by the same legal team and that the allegations are “virtually identical.”

Health claims not specific enough

Ranjan’s ruling said that “Tiger hasn’t alleged the presence of elevated levels of lead in his body,” and “has not taken any blood or bone testing to measure the amount of lead that is presently in his body. This is problematic because, as indicated by the articles cited to in the amended complaint, everyone is exposed to lead, due to its prevalence in the environment.” Ranjan continued:

Mr. Tiger might have a better argument if he had asserted conditions or non-common symptoms that are unique to or at least more consistent with elevated levels of lead in his body. But, despite his allegations that lead exposure can cause certain “catastrophic” health issues, such as reduced kidney function, neurological problems, cardiovascular problems, and cancer, he has not alleged that he suffers from these ailments or that they are even imminent.

And, from the complaint, the Court cannot tell the amount or extent of Mr. Tiger’s exposure to lead, e.g., whether, and the extent to which, the alleged exposure to Verizon’s lead cables increased his risk of contracting an illness or condition, such that it posed an unacceptable risk to his health, and whether there is a dangerous amount of lead in his body. Simply put, the Court requires more concrete confirmation that Mr. Tiger has suffered an injury—or is at imminent and substantial risk of suffering an illness—likely caused by exposure to lead.

In summary, the judge decided that the “complaint fails to plead any cognizable injury-in-fact” and that the “theories of injury in the context of this specific case are too conjectural and speculative.” Ranjan dismissed the complaint without prejudice and said in a footnote that “nothing in this opinion should be construed as a finding that Mr. Tiger lacks standing to bring any of his claims in state court.”

Verizon beats lawsuit from utility worker who said lead cables made him sick Read More »

report:-at&t,-verizon-aren’t-notifying-most-victims-of-chinese-call-records-hack

Report: AT&T, Verizon aren’t notifying most victims of Chinese call-records hack

Telecom companies aren’t required to notify customers about every breach. A Federal Communications Commission order in December 2023 adopted a “harm-based notification trigger” in which “notification of a breach to consumers is not required in cases where a carrier can reasonably determine that no harm to customers is reasonably likely to occur as a result of the breach, or where the breach solely involves encrypted data and the carrier has definitive evidence that the encryption key was not also accessed, used, or disclosed.”

The FCC said that harm requiring notifications can include, but is not limited to, “financial harm, physical harm, identity theft, theft of services, potential for blackmail, the disclosure of private facts, the disclosure of contact information for victims of abuse, and other similar types of dangers.”

The FCC order argued that the harm-based standard would let carriers “focus their time, effort, and financial resources on the most important and potentially harmful incidents” and protect “customers from over-notification and notice fatigue, specifically in instances where the carrier has reasonably determined that no harm is likely to occur.”

Senator: Telecoms should tell customers

US Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) this week criticized the carriers for having weak security and the FCC for “let[ting] phone companies write their own cybersecurity rules.” Wyden proposed legislation to beef up telecom security requirements.

A spokesperson for Wyden today said that carriers should notify the affected customers.

“Senator Wyden strongly supports the phone companies notifying their customers about the theft of their data,” the spokesperson told Ars. “Not only do Americans have a right to be told that their information was stolen, but this is useful information that could result in some consumers voting with their wallets and switching service to carriers that retain less data and or have better cybersecurity.”

Stanford University researchers collected and studied telephone metadata for a 2016 paper to determine how it could be used against customers. “Using crowdsourced telephone logs and social networking information, we find that telephone metadata is densely interconnected, susceptible to reidentification, and enables highly sensitive inferences,” they wrote.

Report: AT&T, Verizon aren’t notifying most victims of Chinese call-records hack Read More »

verizon,-at&t-tell-courts:-fcc-can’t-punish-us-for-selling-user-location-data

Verizon, AT&T tell courts: FCC can’t punish us for selling user location data

Supreme Court ruling could hurt FCC case

Both AT&T and Verizon cite the Supreme Court’s June 2024 ruling in Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy, which held that “when the SEC seeks civil penalties against a defendant for securities fraud, the Seventh Amendment entitles the defendant to a jury trial.”

The Supreme Court ruling, which affirmed a 5th Circuit order, had not been issued yet when the FCC finalized its fines. The FCC disputed the 5th Circuit ruling, saying among other things that Supreme Court precedent made clear that “Congress can assign matters involving public rights to adjudication by an administrative agency ‘even if the Seventh Amendment would have required a jury where the adjudication of those rights is assigned to a federal court of law instead.'”

Of course, the FCC will have a tougher time disputing the Jarkesy ruling now that the Supreme Court affirmed the 5th Circuit. Verizon pointed out that in the high court’s Jarkesy decision, “Justice Sotomayor, in dissent, recognized that Jarkesy was not limited to the SEC, identifying many agencies, including the FCC, whose practice of ‘impos[ing] civil penalties in administrative proceedings’ would be ‘upend[ed].'”

Verizon further argued: “As in Jarkesy, the fact that the FCC seeks ‘civil penalties… designed to punish’ is ‘all but dispositive’ of Verizon’s entitlement to an Article III court and a jury, rather than an agency prosecutor and adjudicator.”

Carriers: We didn’t get fair notice

Both carriers said the FCC did not provide “fair notice” that its section 222 authority over customer proprietary network information (CPNI) would apply to the data in question.

When it issued the fines, the FCC said carriers had fair notice. “CPNI is defined by statute, in relevant part, to include ‘information that relates to… the location… of a telecommunications service,'” the FCC said.

Verizon, AT&T tell courts: FCC can’t punish us for selling user location data Read More »

t-mobile,-at&t-oppose-unlocking-rule,-claim-locked-phones-are-good-for-users

T-Mobile, AT&T oppose unlocking rule, claim locked phones are good for users


Carriers fight plan to require unlocking of phones 60 days after activation.

A smartphone wrapped in a metal chain and padlock

T-Mobile and AT&T say US regulators should drop a plan to require unlocking of phones within 60 days of activation, claiming that locking phones to a carrier’s network makes it possible to provide cheaper handsets to consumers. “If the Commission mandates a uniform unlocking policy, it is consumers—not providers—who stand to lose the most,” T-Mobile alleged in an October 17 filing with the Federal Communications Commission.

The proposed rule has support from consumer advocacy groups who say it will give users more choice and lower their costs. T-Mobile has been criticized for locking phones for up to a year, which makes it impossible to use a phone on a rival’s network. T-Mobile claims that with a 60-day unlocking rule, “consumers risk losing access to the benefits of free or heavily subsidized handsets because the proposal would force providers to reduce the line-up of their most compelling handset offers.”

If the proposed rule is enacted, “T-Mobile estimates that its prepaid customers, for example, would see subsidies reduced by 40 percent to 70 percent for both its lower and higher-end devices, such as the Moto G, Samsung A15, and iPhone 12,” the carrier said. “A handset unlocking mandate would also leave providers little choice but to limit their handset offers to lower cost and often lesser performing handsets.”

T-Mobile and other carriers are responding to a call for public comments that began after the FCC approved a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in a 5–0 vote. The FCC is proposing “to require all mobile wireless service providers to unlock handsets 60 days after a consumer’s handset is activated with the provider, unless within the 60-day period the service provider determines the handset was purchased through fraud.”

When the FCC proposed the 60-day unlocking rule in July 2024, the agency criticized T-Mobile for locking prepaid phones for a year. The NPRM pointed out that “T-Mobile recently increased its locking period for one of its brands, Metro by T-Mobile, from 180 days to 365 days.”

T-Mobile’s policy says the carrier will only unlock mobile devices on prepaid plans if “at least 365 days… have passed since the device was activated on the T-Mobile network.”

“You bought your phone, you should be able to take it to any provider you want,” FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel said when the FCC proposed the rule. “Some providers already operate this way. Others do not. In fact, some have recently increased the time their customers must wait until they can unlock their device by as much as 100 percent.”

T-Mobile locking policy more onerous

T-Mobile executives, who also argue that the FCC lacks authority to impose the proposed rule, met with FCC officials last week to express their concerns.

“T-Mobile is passionate about winning customers for life, and explained how its handset unlocking policies greatly benefit our customers,” the carrier said in its post-meeting filing. “Our policies allow us to deliver access to high-speed mobile broadband on a nationwide 5G network via handsets that are free or heavily discounted off the manufacturer’s suggested retail price. T-Mobile’s unlocking policies are transparent, and there is absolutely no evidence of consumer harm stemming from these policies. T-Mobile’s current unlocking policies also help T-Mobile combat handset theft and fraud by sophisticated, international criminal organizations.”

For postpaid users, T-Mobile says it allows unlocking of fully paid-off phones that have been active for at least 40 days. But given the 365-day lock on prepaid users, T-Mobile’s overall policy is more onerous than those of other carriers. T-Mobile has also faced angry customers because of a recent decision to raise prices on plans that were advertised as having a lifetime price lock.

AT&T enables unlocking of paid-off phones after 60 days for postpaid users and after six months for prepaid users. AT&T lodged similar complaints as T-Mobile, saying in an October 7 filing that the FCC’s proposed rules would “mak[e] handsets less affordable for consumers, especially those in low-income households,” and “exacerbate handset arbitrage, fraud, and trafficking. “

AT&T told the FCC that “requiring providers to unlock handsets before they are paid-off would ultimately harm consumers by creating upward pressure on handset prices and disincentives to finance handsets on flexible terms.” If the FCC implements any rules, it should maintain “existing contractual arrangements between customers and providers, ensure that providers have at least 180 days to detect fraud before unlocking a device, and include at least a 24-month period for providers to implement any new rules,” AT&T said.

Verizon, which already faces unlocking rules because of requirements imposed on spectrum licenses it owns, automatically unlocks phones after 60 days for prepaid and postpaid users. Among the three major carriers, Verizon is the most amenable to the FCC’s new rules.

Consumer groups: Make Verizon rules industry-wide

An October 18 filing supporting a strict unlocking rule was submitted by numerous consumer advocacy groups including Public Knowledge, New America’s Open Technology Institute, Consumer Reports, the National Consumers League, the National Consumer Law Center, and the National Digital Inclusion Alliance.

“Wireless users are subject to unnecessary restrictions in the form of locked devices, which tie them to their service providers even when better options may be available. Handset locking practices limit consumer freedom and lessen competition by creating an artificial technological barrier to switching providers,” the groups said.

The groups cited the Verizon rules as a model and urged the FCC to require “that device unlocking is truly automatic—that is, unlocked after the requisite time period without any additional actions of the consumer.” Carriers should not be allowed to lock phones for longer than 60 days even when a phone is on a financing plan with outstanding payments, the groups’ letter said:

Providers should be required to transition out of selling devices without this [automatic unlocking] capability and the industry-wide rule should be the same as the one protecting Verizon customers today: after the expiration of the initial period, the handset must automatically unlock regardless of whether: (1) the customer asks for the handset to be unlocked or (2) the handset is fully paid off. Removing this barrier to switching will make the standard simple for consumers and encourage providers to compete more vigorously on mobile service price, quality, and innovation.

In an October 2 filing, Verizon said it supports “a uniform approach to handset unlocking that allows all wireless providers to lock wireless handsets for a reasonable period of time to limit fraud and to enable device subsidies, followed by automatic unlocking absent evidence of fraud.”

Verizon said 60 days should be the minimum for postpaid devices so that carriers have time to detect fraud and theft, and that “a longer, 180-day locking period for prepaid is necessary to enable wireless providers to continue offering subsidies that make phones affordable for prepaid customers.” Regardless of what time frame the FCC chooses, Verizon said “a uniform unlocking policy that applies to all providers… will benefit both consumers and competition.”

FCC considers impact on phone subsidies

While the FCC is likely to impose an unlocking rule, one question is whether it will apply when a carrier has provided a discounted phone. The FCC’s NPRM asked the public for “comment on the impact of a 60-day unlocking requirement in connection with service providers’ incentives to offer discounted handsets for postpaid and prepaid service plans.”

The FCC acknowledged Verizon’s argument “that providers may rely on handset locking to sustain their ability to offer handset subsidies and that such subsidies may be particularly important in prepaid environments.” But the FCC noted that public interest groups “argue that locked handsets tied to prepaid plans can disadvantage low-income customers most of all since they may not have the resources to switch service providers or purchase new handsets.”

The public interest groups also note that unlocked handsets “facilitate a robust secondary market for used devices, providing consumers with more affordable options,” the NPRM said.

The FCC says it can impose phone-unlocking rules using its legal authority under Title III of the Communications Act “to protect the public interest through spectrum licensing and regulations to require mobile wireless service providers to provide handset unlocking.” The FCC said it previously relied on the same Title III authority when it imposed the unlocking rules on 700 MHz C Block spectrum licenses purchased by Verizon.

T-Mobile told the FCC in a filing last month that “none of the litany of Title III provisions cited in the NPRM support the expansive authority asserted here to regulate consumer handsets (rather than telecommunications services).” T-Mobile also said that “the Commission’s legal vulnerabilities on this score are only magnified in light of recent Supreme Court precedent.”

The Supreme Court recently overturned the 40-year-old Chevron precedent that gave agencies like the FCC judicial deference when interpreting ambiguous laws. The end of Chevron makes it harder for agencies to issue regulations without explicit authorization from Congress. This is a potential problem for the FCC in its fight to revive net neutrality rules, which are currently blocked by a court order pending the outcome of litigation.

Photo of Jon Brodkin

Jon is a Senior IT Reporter for Ars Technica. He covers the telecom industry, Federal Communications Commission rulemakings, broadband consumer affairs, court cases, and government regulation of the tech industry.

T-Mobile, AT&T oppose unlocking rule, claim locked phones are good for users Read More »

reports:-china-hacked-verizon-and-at&t,-may-have-accessed-us-wiretap-systems

Reports: China hacked Verizon and AT&T, may have accessed US wiretap systems

Chinese government hackers penetrated the networks of several large US-based Internet service providers and may have gained access to systems used for court-authorized wiretaps of communications networks, The Wall Street Journal reported Saturday. “People familiar with the matter” told the WSJ that hackers breached the networks of companies including Verizon, AT&T, and Lumen (also known as CenturyLink).

“A cyberattack tied to the Chinese government penetrated the networks of a swath of US broadband providers, potentially accessing information from systems the federal government uses for court-authorized network wiretapping requests,” the WSJ wrote. “For months or longer, the hackers might have held access to network infrastructure used to cooperate with lawful US requests for communications data, according to people familiar with the matter.”

These “attackers also had access to other tranches of more generic Internet traffic,” according to the WSJ’s sources. The attack is being attributed to a Chinese hacking group called Salt Typhoon.

The Washington Post reported on the hacking campaign yesterday, describing it as “an audacious espionage operation likely aimed in part at discovering the Chinese targets of American surveillance.” The Post report attributed the information to US government officials and said an investigation by the FBI, other intelligence agencies, and the Department of Homeland Security “is in its early stages.”

The Post report said there are indications that China’s Ministry of State Security is involved in the attacks.

Verizon reportedly working with FBI

Verizon reportedly set up a war room at its facility in Ashburn, Virginia, where it is working with personnel from the FBI, Microsoft, and Google subsidiary Mandiant.

Reports: China hacked Verizon and AT&T, may have accessed US wiretap systems Read More »

verizon-customers-face-mass-scale-outage-across-the-us

Verizon customers face mass-scale outage across the US

5Gpocalypse —

More than 100,000 reports appeared on Downdetector.

A map showing hotspots of outages primarily in the east coast and central US, but some in California as well

Enlarge / A Downdetector map showing where Verizon outages are reported.

Wireless customers of Verizon and AT&T have found that they cannot make calls, send or receive text messages, or download any mobile data. As of this article’s publication, it appears the problem has yet to be resolved.

Users took to social media throughout the morning to complain that their phones were showing “SOS” mode, which allows emergency calls but nothing else. This is what phones sometimes offer when the user has no SIM registered on the device. Resetting the device and other common solutions do not resolve the issue. For much of the morning, Verizon offered no response to the reports.

Within hours, more than 100,000 users reported problems on the website Downdetector. The problem does not appear isolated to any particular part of the country; users in California reported problems, and so did users on the East Coast and in Chicago, among other places.

By 10 am, some AT&T users also began reporting problems. Outage maps based on user-reported data found that the outages were especially common in parts of the country otherwise affected by Hurricane Helene.

After a period of silence, Verizon acknowledged the problem in a public statement. “We are aware of an issue impacting service for some customers,” a spokesperson told NBC News and others. “Our engineers are engaged and we are working quickly to identify and solve the issue.”

However, the spokesperson did not specify why the outage was occurring. It’s not the first major online service outage this year, though. AT&T experienced an outage previously, and the CrowdStrike-related outage of Microsoft services caused chaos and made headlines in July.

Update 5: 37 PM ET:  Some users are reporting they have regained service, and Verizon confirmed this in another statement: “Verizon engineers are making progress on our network issue and service has started to be restored. We know how much people rely on Verizon and apologize for any inconvenience some of our customers experienced today. We continue to work around the clock to fully resolve this issue.”

Verizon customers face mass-scale outage across the US Read More »

verizon-to-buy-frontier-for-$9.6-billion,-says-it-will-expand-fiber-network

Verizon to buy Frontier for $9.6 billion, says it will expand fiber network

Verizon/Frontier merger —

Verizon once sold part of its network to Frontier; now it’s buying the company.

A Verizon FiOS box truck on a street in New York City.

Enlarge / A Verizon FiOS truck in Manhattan on September 15, 2017.

Verizon today announced a deal to acquire Frontier Communications, an Internet service provider with about 3 million customers in 25 states. Verizon said the all-cash transaction is valued at $20 billion.

Verizon agreed to pay $9.6 billion and is taking on over $10 billion in debt held by Frontier. Verizon said the deal is subject to regulatory approval and a vote by Frontier shareholders and is expected to be completed in 18 months.

“Under the terms of the agreement, Verizon will acquire Frontier for $38.50 per share in cash, representing a premium of 43.7 percent to Frontier’s 90-Day volume-weighted average share price (VWAP) on September 3, 2024, the last trading day prior to media reports regarding a potential acquisition of Frontier,” Verizon said.

Assuming regulatory and shareholder approval, Verizon will be buying back a former portion of its network that it sold to Frontier eight years ago. In 2016, Frontier bought Verizon’s FiOS and DSL operations in Florida, California, and Texas. The 2016 changeover was marred by technical problems that caused weeks of outages for tens of thousands of customers.

Frontier, which had also purchased the Connecticut portion of AT&T’s network, struggled for many years and filed for bankruptcy in April 2020. It was criticized by regulators for not properly maintaining its copper phone network. Frontier emerged from bankruptcy in 2021 with a plan to upgrade many of its outdated copper DSL locations with fiber-to-the-home service.

“Frontier’s 2.2 million fiber subscribers across 25 states will join Verizon’s approximately 7.4 million FiOS connections in 9 states and Washington, D.C.,” Verizon said. “In addition to Frontier’s 7.2 million fiber locations, the company is committed to its plan to build out an additional 2.8 million fiber locations by the end of 2026.”

Combined, the Verizon and Frontier fiber networks pass over 25 million premises in 31 states and the District of Columbia, the companies said. Verizon and Frontier both “expect to increase their fiber penetration between now and closing,” they said.

Frontier “complementary” to Verizon’s Northeast market

Frontier has 2.05 million residential fiber customers and 721,000 residential copper DSL customers, according to an earnings report. In the business and wholesale category, Frontier has 134,000 fiber customers and 102,000 copper customers. Frontier reported $1.48 billion in revenue in Q2 2024 and a net loss of $123 million.

Verizon said Frontier’s recent investment in fiber made it a more attractive acquisition target. “Over approximately four years, Frontier has invested $4.1 billion upgrading and expanding its fiber network, and now derives more than 50 percent of its revenue from fiber products,” Verizon said.

Verizon FiOS is available in parts of Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Virginia, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, and the District of Columbia. Verizon said Frontier’s footprint is “highly complementary to Verizon’s core Northeast and Mid-Atlantic markets,” and will help grow the number of customers who purchase both home Internet and mobile service.

Frontier is available in parts of Alabama, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

Verizon to buy Frontier for $9.6 billion, says it will expand fiber network Read More »

record-labels-sue-verizon-for-not-disconnecting-pirates’-internet-service

Record labels sue Verizon for not disconnecting pirates’ Internet service

Music piracy —

Lawsuit: One user’s IP address was identified in 4,450 infringement notices.

A Verizon service truck with a FiOS logo printed on the side.

Getty Images | Smith Collection/Gado

Major record labels sued Verizon on Friday, alleging that the Internet service provider violated copyright law by continuing to serve customers accused of pirating music. Verizon “knowingly provides its high-speed service to a massive community of online pirates,” said the complaint filed in US District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Universal, Sony, and Warner say they have sent over 340,000 copyright infringement notices to Verizon since early 2020. “Those notices identify specific subscribers on Verizon’s network stealing Plaintiffs’ sound recordings through peer-to-peer (‘P2P’) file-sharing networks that are notorious hotbeds for copyright infringement,” the lawsuit said.

Record labels allege that “Verizon ignored Plaintiffs’ notices and buried its head in the sand” by “continu[ing] to provide its high-speed service to thousands of known repeat infringers so it could continue to collect millions of dollars from them.” They say that “Verizon has knowingly contributed to, and reaped substantial profits from, massive copyright infringement committed by tens of thousands of its subscribers.”

The firms allege that Verizon is guilty of contributory and vicarious copyright infringement and should have to pay damages of up to $150,000 for each work infringed. Plaintiffs filed what they call a “non-exhaustive” list of infringed works that includes 17,335 titles. That would imply requested damages of over $2.6 billion.

Numerous lawsuits against ISPs

Record labels and movie studios have filed numerous copyright lawsuits against Internet providers. Perhaps the most significant ongoing case involves Cox Communications, which has been fighting a $1 billion jury verdict since 2019.

Cox received support from groups such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which warned that the big money judgment could cause broadband providers to disconnect people from the Internet based only on accusations of copyright infringement. The US Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit overturned the $1 billion verdict in February 2024, rejecting Sony’s claim that Cox profited directly from copyright infringement committed by users of Cox’s cable broadband network.

While judges in the Cox case reversed a vicarious liability verdict, they affirmed the jury’s additional finding of willful contributory infringement and ordered a new damages trial.

Cox recently said it is seeking a Supreme Court review on the questions of “whether an Internet service provider materially contributes to copyright infringement by declining to disconnect an Internet account knowing someone is likely to use it to infringe,” and “whether a secondary infringer can be adjudged willful based merely on knowledge of another’s direct infringement.” There is a circuit split on both questions, Cox said.

4,450 notices about one IP address

In the Verizon case, record labels claim that thousands of Verizon subscribers “were the subject of 20 or more notices from Plaintiffs, and more than 500 subscribers were the subject of 100 or more notices. One particularly egregious Verizon subscriber was single-handedly the subject of 4,450 infringement notices from Plaintiffs alone.”

That Verizon subscriber’s IP address was identified in 4,450 infringement notices between March 2021 and August 2023, the lawsuit said. Two other subscribers were allegedly the subject of 2,703 and 2,068 infringement notices, respectively.

“Verizon acknowledged that it received these notices of infringement sent by Plaintiffs’ representatives,” the lawsuit said. “Yet rather than taking any steps to address its customers’ illegal use of its network, Verizon deliberately chose to ignore Plaintiffs’ notices, willfully blinding itself to that information and prioritizing its own profits over its legal obligations.”

The plaintiffs claim that “Verizon has gone out of its way not to take action against subscribers engaging in repeated copyright infringement,” and “failed to terminate or otherwise take any meaningful action against the accounts of repeat infringers of which it was aware.”

“It is well-established law that if a party materially assists someone it knows is engaging in copyright infringement, that party is fully liable for the infringement as if it had infringed directly,” the lawsuit said.

Complaint system too onerous, suit claims

The lawsuit also complains that Verizon hasn’t made it easier for copyright owners to file complaints about Internet users:

Through one channel, Verizon claims to allow copyright holders to send P2P notices through a so-called “Anti-Piracy Cooperation Program,” but it has attached such onerous conditions to participation that the program is rendered a nullity. Not only has Verizon required participants to pay burdensome fees for simple, automated processes like Internet Protocol (“IP”) address lookups and notice forwarding, but participants have been required to waive their copyright claims, broadly indemnify Verizon, and, tellingly, keep the terms of the program confidential. Verizon has also limited the number of notices it will forward pursuant to the program.

The lawsuit said Verizon also allows copyright owners to send email notices of infringement instead of using the channel described above. The email method apparently doesn’t require copyright owners to waive their copyright claims or make payments, but the lawsuit alleges that “Verizon does not forward these notices to subscribers or track the number of email notices sent regarding repeat infringing subscribers. Verizon also arbitrarily caps the number of notices permitted per copyright holder at this address—ironic, to say the least, given that Verizon ignored hundreds of thousands of Plaintiffs’ notices to this email inbox.”

We contacted Verizon about the lawsuit and will update this article if it provides a response.

Record labels sue Verizon for not disconnecting pirates’ Internet service Read More »

big-three-carriers-pay-$10m-to-settle-claims-of-false-“unlimited”-advertising

Big Three carriers pay $10M to settle claims of false “unlimited” advertising

False advertising —

States obtain settlement, but it’s unclear whether consumers will get refunds.

The word,

Verizon

T-Mobile, Verizon, and AT&T will pay a combined $10.2 million in a settlement with US states that alleged the carriers falsely advertised wireless plans as “unlimited” and phones as “free.” The deal was announced yesterday by New York Attorney General Letitia James.

“A multistate investigation found that the companies made false claims in advertisements in New York and across the nation, including misrepresentations about ‘unlimited’ data plans that were in fact limited and had reduced quality and speed after a certain limit was reached by the user,” the announcement said.

T-Mobile and Verizon agreed to pay $4.1 million each while AT&T agreed to pay a little over $2 million. The settlement includes AT&T subsidiary Cricket Wireless and Verizon subsidiary TracFone.

The settlement involves 49 of the 50 US states (Florida did not participate) and the District of Columbia. The states’ investigation found that the three major carriers “made several misleading claims in their advertising, including misrepresenting ‘unlimited’ data plans that were actually limited, offering ‘free’ phones that came at a cost, and making false promises about switching to different wireless carrier plans.”

“AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile lied to millions of consumers, making false promises of free phones and ‘unlimited’ data plans that were simply untrue,” James said. “Big companies are not excused from following the law and cannot trick consumers into paying for services they will never receive.”

States have options for using money

The carriers denied any illegal conduct despite agreeing to the settlement. In addition to payments to each state, the carriers agreed to changes in their advertising practices. It’s unclear whether consumers will get any refunds out of the settlement, however.

The settlement gives states leeway in how to use the payments from carriers. The payments can be used to cover “attorneys’ fees and other costs of investigation and litigation,” or can go toward “consumer protection law enforcement funds.”

States can use the payments for future consumer protection enforcement, consumer education, litigation, or a consumer aid fund. The money can also be used for “monitoring and potential enforcement” of the settlement terms “or consumer restitution,” the settlement says.

We asked James’ office about whether any consumer restitution is planned and will update this article if we get a response.

Advertising restrictions

The three carriers agreed that all advertisements to consumers must be “truthful, accurate and non-misleading.” They also agreed to the following changes, the NY attorney general’s office said:

  • “Unlimited” mobile data plans can only be marketed if there are no limits on the quantity of data allowed during a billing cycle.
  • Offers to pay for consumers to switch to a different wireless carrier must clearly disclose how much a consumer will be paid, how consumers will be paid, when consumers can expect payment, and any additional requirements consumers have to meet to get paid.
  • Offers of “free” wireless devices or services must clearly state everything a consumer must do to receive the “free” devices or services.
  • Offers to lease wireless devices must clearly state that the consumer will be entering into a lease agreement.
  • All “savings” claims must have a reasonable basis. If a wireless carrier claims that consumers will save using its services compared to another wireless carrier, the claim must be based on similar goods or services or differences must be clearly explained to the consumer.

The advertising restrictions are to be in place for five years.

T-Mobile provided a statement about the settlement to Ars today. “After nine years, we are glad to move on from this industry-wide investigation with this settlement and a continued commitment to the transparent and consumer-friendly advertising practices we’ve undertaken for years,” T-Mobile said.

AT&T and Verizon declined to comment individually and referred us to their lobby group, CTIA. “These voluntary agreements reflect no finding of improper conduct and reaffirm the wireless industry’s longstanding commitment to clarity and integrity in advertising so that consumers can make informed decisions about the products and services that best suit them,” the wireless lobby group said.

Big Three carriers pay $10M to settle claims of false “unlimited” advertising Read More »

us-cellular-is-for-sale,-reportedly-could-be-“carved-up”-by-major-carriers

US Cellular is for sale, reportedly could be “carved up” by major carriers

Wireless carrier for sale —

US Cellular talked with Verizon, but deal with T-Mobile appears more likely.

T-Mobile logo displayed in front of a stock market chart.

Getty Images | SOPA Images

T-Mobile is reportedly close to buying a portion of the regional carrier US Cellular, while Verizon has also held talks about buying some of US Cellular’s assets. “T-Mobile is closing in on a deal to buy a chunk of the regional carrier for more than $2 billion, taking over some operations and wireless spectrum licenses, according to people familiar with the matter,” The Wall Street Journal reported yesterday.

When contacted by Ars today, T-Mobile said it doesn’t “comment on rumors and speculation.” We contacted US Cellular and will update this article if we get a response.

T-Mobile is one of just three major nationwide carriers. There were four until T-Mobile bought Sprint in 2020. T-Mobile also completed an acquisition of prepaid carrier Mint Mobile less than two weeks ago.

The WSJ reports that a T-Mobile/US Cellular “deal could be reached as soon as later this month.” Verizon reaching its own deal with US Cellular could result in “separate transactions that would give both buyers access to valuable airwaves,” the report said.

While the WSJ report said that T-Mobile and Verizon are both “in discussions to carve up US Cellular,” a deal between US Cellular and Verizon appears to be less likely than the proposed T-Mobile transaction. Verizon declined to comment, but a source close to the issue told Ars that Verizon is not currently in talks with US Cellular.

The WSJ report paraphrases sources as saying that US Cellular’s “discussions with Verizon on a separate transaction are expected to take longer or might not result in an agreement.” The news report states that the “split-sale structure is designed to convince antitrust authorities who will review the deal that the tie-up won’t hurt competition.”

US Cellular may survive as smaller company

US Cellular would apparently stick around in some form even if it completes deals with both major carriers, the WSJ report said:

US Cellular offers wireless service to more than four million mostly rural customers across 21 states from Oregon to North Carolina. It also owns more than 4,000 cellular towers that weren’t part of the latest sale talks. The company has a market value of about $3 billion.

Members of the Chicago-based Carlson family control Telephone & Data Systems (TDS), which in turn owns 80 percent of U.S. Cellular. TDS last year put the wireless company’s operations on the block as it struggled with competition from national rivals and cable-broadband providers.

The rising value of wireless licenses is a driving force behind the deal. US Cellular’s spectrum portfolio touches 30 states and covers about 51 million people, according to regulatory filings.

Spectrum has become more valuable partly because Congress let the Federal Communications Commission’s authority to auction spectrum expire in March 2023. FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel has urged Congress to restore the spectrum authority the agency held for over 30 years, calling spectrum auctions “an indispensable tool for harnessing the promise of new wireless technologies.”

US Cellular is for sale, reportedly could be “carved up” by major carriers Read More »

fcc-fines-big-three-carriers-$196m-for-selling-users’-real-time-location-data

FCC fines big three carriers $196M for selling users’ real-time location data

Illustration with a Verizon logo displayed on a smartphone in front of stock market percentages in the background.

Getty Images | SOPA Images

The Federal Communications Commission today said it fined T-Mobile, AT&T, and Verizon $196 million “for illegally sharing access to customers’ location information without consent and without taking reasonable measures to protect that information against unauthorized disclosure.”

The fines relate to sharing of real-time location data that was revealed in 2018. The FCC proposed the fines in 2020, when the commission had a Republican majority, and finalized them today.

All three major carriers vowed to appeal the fines after they were announced today. The three carriers also said they discontinued the data-sharing programs that the fines relate to.

The fines are $80.1 million for T-Mobile, $57.3 million for AT&T, and $46.9 million for Verizon. T-Mobile is also on the hook for a $12.2 million fine issued to Sprint, which was bought by T-Mobile shortly after the penalties were proposed over four years ago.

Today, the FCC summarized its findings as follows:

The FCC Enforcement Bureau investigations of the four carriers found that each carrier sold access to its customers’ location information to “aggregators,” who then resold access to such information to third-party location-based service providers. In doing so, each carrier attempted to offload its obligations to obtain customer consent onto downstream recipients of location information, which in many instances meant that no valid customer consent was obtained. This initial failure was compounded when, after becoming aware that their safeguards were ineffective, the carriers continued to sell access to location information without taking reasonable measures to protect it from unauthorized access.

“Shady actors” got hold of data

The problem first came to light with reports of customer location data “being disclosed by the largest American wireless carriers without customer consent or other legal authorization to a Missouri Sheriff through a ‘location-finding service’ operated by Securus, a provider of communications services to correctional facilities, to track the location of numerous individuals,” the FCC said.

Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel said that news reports in 2018 “revealed that the largest wireless carriers in the country were selling our real-time location information to data aggregators, allowing this highly sensitive data to wind up in the hands of bail-bond companies, bounty hunters, and other shady actors. This ugly practice violates the law—specifically Section 222 of the Communications Act, which protects the privacy of consumer data.”

For a time after the 2018 reports, “all four carriers continued to operate their programs without putting in place reasonable safeguards to ensure that the dozens of location-based service providers with access to their customers’ location information were actually obtaining customer consent,” the FCC said.

The three carriers are ready to challenge the fines in court. “This industry-wide third-party aggregator location-based services program was discontinued more than five years ago after we took steps to ensure that critical services like roadside assistance, fraud protection and emergency response would not be disrupted,” T-Mobile said in a statement provided to Ars. “We take our responsibility to keep customer data secure very seriously and have always supported the FCC’s commitment to protecting consumers, but this decision is wrong, and the fine is excessive. We intend to challenge it.”

FCC fines big three carriers $196M for selling users’ real-time location data Read More »

epa-expands-“high-priority”-probe-into-at&t,-verizon-lead-contaminated-cables

EPA expands “high priority” probe into AT&T, Verizon lead-contaminated cables

EPA expands “high priority” probe into AT&T, Verizon lead-contaminated cables

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is expanding its investigation into potential risks posed by lead-covered cables installed nationwide by major telecommunications companies, The Wall Street Journal revealed in an exclusive report Thursday.

After finding “more than 100 readings with elevated lead near cables,” the EPA sent letters to AT&T and Verizon in December, requesting a meeting later this month, the Journal revealed. On the agenda, the EPA expects the companies to share internal data on their own testing of the cables, as well as details from any “technical reports related to the companies’ testing and sampling,” the WSJ reported.

The EPA’s investigation was prompted by a WSJ report published last July, alleging that AT&T, Verizon, and other companies were aware that thousands of miles of cables could be contaminating soils throughout the US, “where Americans live, work and play,” but did nothing to intervene despite the many public health risks associated with lead exposure.

In that report, tests showed that the telecom cables were likely the source of lead contaminated soils because “the amount measured in the soil was highest directly under or next to the cables and dropped within a few feet.” WSJ also spoke to residents and former telecom employees in areas tested who had contracted illnesses commonly linked to lead exposure.

Immediately, WSJ’s report spurred lawmakers to demand a response from USTelecom—a telecommunications trade association representing companies accused—with Senator Ed Markey (D-Mass.) suggesting that telecom giants were seemingly committing “corporate irresponsibility of the worst kind.”

Since then, the EPA has followed up and developed “its own testing data” in West Orange, New Jersey, southwest Pennsylvania, and Louisiana—the same locations flagged by the WSJ. In all locations, the EPA found lead contamination exceeding the “current recommendation for levels of lead it believes are generally safe in soil where children play,” 400-parts-per-million, the WSJ reported. In West Orange, two testing sites found lead “at 3,300 parts per million or higher.”

According to the EPA, initial testing by a national working group led to a conclusion that none of these sites poses an immediate health risk or requires an emergency response, but that finding hasn’t stopped the probe. The EPA told the WSJ that it still needs to address unanswered questions to decide “whether further actions may be required to address risks from the lead-containing cables.”

“While some locations sampled show concentrations above screening levels for long term exposures, existing data is not sufficient to determine whether lead from the cables poses a threat, or a potential threat, to human health or the environment,” the EPA said in a Reuters report.

Companies maintain that evidence from their own testing has shown lead cables do not pose public health risks requiring remediation.

USTelecom, speaking on behalf of Verizon and other telecom companies, told the WSJ that “our industry has been engaging with the EPA and our companies look forward to meeting with the EPA to discuss agency and industry testing results. We will continue to follow the science, which has not identified that lead-sheathed telecom cables are a leading cause of lead exposure or the cause of a public health issue.”

AT&T told the WSJ that it “will continue to work collaboratively with the EPA as it undertakes its review of lead-clad telecommunications cables. We look forward to the opportunity to meet with the EPA to discuss recent testing and other evidence that contradicts the Wall Street Journal’s assertions.”

An EPA spokesperson, Nick Conger, told Bloomberg that there is no date set for the meeting yet.

EPA expands “high priority” probe into AT&T, Verizon lead-contaminated cables Read More »