---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message-ID: <20190601195126.GA5203@telecom.csail.mit.edu> Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2019 19:51:26 +0000 From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net> Subject: CWA Bargaining Update (This is from the CWA newsletter) [Bargaining Update -] AT&T AT&T workers across the country are showing that they are ready to fight for fair contracts! At AT&T Midwest and AT&T Legacy T, CWA members who have been working for more than a year without a contract are standing strong and rallying to push Congress to hold corporations accountable for their broken tax cut promises. In Puerto Rico, AT&T Mobility workers are showing their support for their bargaining team. At AT&T Southeast, CWA members are gearing up for the start of negotiations later this year. -- Bill Horne (Remove QRM from my email address to write to me directly) ------------------------------ Message-ID: <006801d51981$f7fdd220$e7f97660$@nc.rr.com> Date: 2 Jun 2019 16:30:04 -0400 From: "Bob Goudreau" <BobGoudreau@nc.rr.com> Subject: RE: - How Qualcomm shook down the cell phone industry for almost 20 years In <0959C941-2928-4880-AC1E-10DE65B0A081@roscom.com>, Monty Solomon quoted this article: > In 2005, Apple contacted Qualcomm as a potential supplier for modem > chips in the first iPhone. Qualcomm's response was unusual: a letter > demanding that Apple sign a patent licensing agreement before Qualcomm > would even consider supplying chips. > > "I'd spent 20 years in the industry, I had never seen a letter like this," > said Tony Blevins, Apple's vice president of procurement. > > https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/05/how-qualcomm-shook-down-the-cell-phone-industry-for-almost-20-years/ > > ***** Moderator's Note ***** > > I'm always amused when a brand name player has a temper tantrum about a > supplier that refuses to prostrate themselves at the mega-corp door. With all due respect to our Moderator, you've got this all wrong. Even though you seem to bear a special animus toward Apple, please bear in mind that Qualcomm's egregiously anti-competitive practices, which the judge has branded illegal, gouged every company that licensed their technology (i.e., pretty much all makers of mobile phones, not just Apple), and therefore gouged their customers (you, me, and every other mobile phone user), who ended up paying more for phones. Here's one of the most salient quotes from the Ars Technica article: "Qualcomm's patent licensing fees were calculated based on the value of the entire phone, not just the value of chips that embodied Qualcomm's patented technology. This effectively meant that Qualcomm got a cut of every component of a smartphone--most of which had nothing to do with Qualcomm's cellular patents." So when Samsung introduces a new Galaxy model that has a better screen, Qualcomm wants a slice of the value of that component, even though the screen has no bearing on the radio chip that Samsung is licensing from Qualcomm. When Apple introduces a new iPhone model with a better camera, Qualcomm demands a cut of that component's cost. And likewise with Motorola, Huawei, Nokia and virtually every other phone manufacturer. But of course, the phone makers ultimately pass those increased manufacturing costs along to their own consumers, who end up paying higher retail prices. In concert with other illegal monopolist practices, most notably threating to cut off the supply of chips to any manufacturer who tried to use the wares of any of Qualcomm's rivals, the effect was to lock phone makers into using Qualcomm technology exclusively and to extract very high "rents" (in the economic sense of that term) from this ill-gotten monopoly. This is a classic example of a monopolist illegally abusing its market power. I for one am happy that Apple was one of the companies that fought Qualcomm most vigorously in court, because it is unlikely that the Federal Trade Commission would have opened or won this anti-trust case against Qualcomm without such testimony and evidence provided by victimized companies. Bob Goudreau Cary, NC ***** Moderator's Note ***** "All wrong?" I am disinclined to acquiesce to your insinuation. I don't bear a "special" animus toward Apple, just an ordinary, run-of-the mill distaste for it's marketing and sales practices. Consider: * Run-of-the-mill protocols hidden behind trademarked names. * Proprietary connectors on every cable, thus forcing customers to pay exorbitant prices for every lost or damaged cord. * Processor speeds that would make even IBM blush. * An all-but-impenetrably-cute user interface, with terms like "slide," "focus," "Column View," "metadata," and a nearly infinite number of iObscure names for devices, services, and software. I don't dislike "Apple." I'm just astonished that millions of yuppies jumped on Steve Jobs' ever-larger bandwagon, and traded the appearance of exclusivity for the reality of basic business functionality. Bill Horne Moderator ------------------------------ Message-ID: <02DC2654-C60D-4FAF-9093-366FCD7ACC29@roscom.com> Date: 3 Jun 2019 12:13:17 -0400 From: "Monty Solomon" <monty@roscom.com> Subject: U.S. Requiring Social Media Information From Visa Applicants By Sandra E. Garcia The State Department is asking visa applicants to submit social media accounts that they have used in the past five years under a new policy that took effect on Friday. Such account information would give the government access to photos, locations, dates of birth, dates of milestones and other personal data commonly shared on social media. "We already request certain contact information, travel history, family member information, and previous addresses from all visa applicants," the State Department said in a statement. "We are constantly working to find mechanisms to improve our screening processes to protect U.S. citizens, while supporting legitimate travel to the United States." https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/02/us/us-visa-application-social-media.html ***** Moderator's Note ***** In other words, only the dull and subservient are welcome in the new, improved, one-mindset-fits-all America. Sorry, Muhammad: your cousin once tweeted a remark critical of the U.S. No Visa for you! Too bad, Ahmed: your math instructor complained about obviously fraudulent charts and graphs in a US Aid Public Relations Packet. No Visa for you! Hasta la vista, Pablo: you wrote a story in your college paper about the endemic corruption at Pemex, so you'll have to live in a shithole country where we can employ you for one dollar a day instead of thirty dollars an hour. No Visa for you! I could go on forever, but the point is obvious: I told my son, when he started using AOL Instant Messager, that he was giving the names of his friends to total strangers. I warned him how those social network maps would be used to sell him everythign from life insurance to a home. Children don't listen: I know I didn't when I was that age. Now, it seems, the best oily bureaucrats money can rent will be perusing every Visa applicant's list of contacts: and if someone whose name bears a resemblence to the name of some public figure on a no-fly list or any other kind of watch list applies, well, a lot of aspiring engineers and accountants and other professionals who wanted the American dream will find themselves living a nightmare. Bill Horne Moderator ------------------------------ Message-ID: <70F24A1C-1702-4152-896D-3EB2009995F5@roscom.com> Date: 2 Jun 2019 16:20:05 -0400 From: "Monty Solomon" <monty@roscom.com> Subject: Huawei reportedly scales back phone production following US ban It might be preparing itself for a long slog. Huawei may be expecting to live with a US ban for a long time. South China Morning Post sources claim Foxconn has stopped Huawei phone production on "several" lines in response to reduced orders. It wasn't certain if this was a short- or long-term cut, but it came just months after Huawei's growing demand reportedly prompted Foxconn to go on a hiring spree. Foxconn declined to comment, and Huawei hadn't initially responded to requests for comment. https://www.engadget.com/2019/06/01/huawei-scales-back-phone-production/ ------------------------------ ********************************************* End of telecom Digest Tue, 04 Jun 2019