Charge Them With Racketeering (Cell Carriers)
The Market Ticker - Commentary on The Capital Markets
Logging in or registering will improve your experience here
Main Navigation
Sarah's Resources You Should See
Full-Text Search & Archives
Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions. For investment, legal or other professional advice specific to your situation contact a licensed professional in your jurisdiction.


Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility; author(s) may have positions in securities or firms mentioned and have no duty to disclose same.

Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.

The Market Ticker content may be sent unmodified to lawmakers via print or electronic means or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media, to republish full articles, or for any commercial use (which includes any site where advertising is displayed.)

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.

Considering sending spam? Read this first.

2013-11-22 11:41 by Karl Denninger
in Consumer , 160 references Ignore this thread
Charge Them With Racketeering (Cell Carriers)

Want to get mad?  Read this.

Some of the biggest US cellular networks have been accused of preventing Samsung from installing anti-theft remote "kill switch" software on smartphones: supposedly, because they were worried it would eventually cut into profits.

San Francisco district attorney George Gascón said he had been working with Sammy to get the LoJack security software installed by default on the South Korean manufacturer's Android handsets. But when Samsung pitched this to the five main US carriers they all said "no, thanks", it seems.

The reason for this is not "just" the ridiculously-overpriced "handset insurance" marketed by the carriers (and Assurion which provides most of the coverage) it is also, and probably far more importantly, due to the fact that if you're under contract you can be effectively forced to buy a new handset at full price if yours is stolen.

There's a word for designing business systems to profit from illegal activity, even if you're not the source of the activity.  You need only profit from any of the listed unlawful acts.

The solution to this problem is to give control of the handset's "lock" to the customer through a web-based interface, allowing him or her to permanently lock a device until and unless he or she drops the lock.  Placing that software in NVRAM would make it impervious to a hard reset or even a firmware reflash (if done correctly.)

I'm willing to bet a case can be made that carrier demands to suppliers that such capability not be included falls within that boundary, given that it is profitable specifically because of the thefts that occur, and that the suppression of solutions to that problem has been systematically enforced by these carriers.

Do any of the prosecutors in these areas have the balls to indict Verizon, AT&T, Sprint and T-Mobile along with the various MVNOs?

We'll see.