from the welcome-but-ultimately-futile-gesture dept.
Sprint was the only US telecomm company to counter request the NSA for the legal rationale to release telephone metadata. Sprint asked for legal justification when it received requests for its phone metadata in 2009.
Newly declassified documents show the dilemma faced by telecommunications companies when the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) came calling.
According to a story this week in the Washington Post, Sprint asked the NSA for legal justification when it received requests for phone metadata in 2009. Reportedly, it was the only telco to require a legal rationale. The documents related to previous occasions for which the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, or FISA, had issued orders.
After the documents were presented, Sprint dropped its challenge and complied with the request.
Related Stories
T-Mobile and Sprint, the third and fourth largest U.S. wireless carriers respectively, have called off merger talks, although they have left the door open in a joint statement:
Sprint Corp and T-Mobile US Inc said on Saturday they have called off merger talks to create a stronger U.S. wireless company to rival market leaders, leaving No. 4 provider Sprint to engineer a turnaround on its own.
The announcement marks the latest failed attempt to combine the third- and fourth-largest U.S. wireless carriers, as Sprint parent SoftBank Group Corp and T-Mobile parent Deutsche Telekom AG, show unwillingness to part with too much of their prized U.S. telecom assets. A combined company would have had more than 130 million U.S. subscribers, behind Verizon Communications Inc and AT&T Inc.
The failed merger could also help keep wireless prices low as all four providers have been heavily discounting their cellphone plans in a battle for consumers. "Consumers are better off without the merger because Sprint and T-Mobile will continue to compete fiercely for budget-conscious customers," said Erik Gordon, a Ross School of Business professor at the University of Michigan.
The companies' unusual step of making a joint announcement on the canceled negotiations could indicate they still recognize the merits of a merger, keeping the door open for potential future talks.
Also at Bloomberg, NYT, and Ars Technica.
Previously: Sprint: Purchase of T-Mobile Promotes Competition
Inside the Plan to Pull Sprint Out of its Death Spiral
Related: Sprint the Only US Telecomm to Challenge NSA
T-Mobile and Verizon Mobile Plans Change; Probably Not Better for Consumers
Are True Burner Phones Now Impossible in the USA?
T-Mobile's New 600 MHz Network Rollout Begins This Summer
Verizon Wireless Divides Unlimited Plan Into Three Worse Options
(Score: 2, Insightful) by SlackStone on Monday May 19 2014, @11:58PM
It helps your mergers go through easier when you play along. Watch AT&T buy of Direct TV with very little hassle.
(Score: 2) by iwoloschin on Tuesday May 20 2014, @01:03AM
I don't think it's unreasonable for Sprint to have asked for legal rationale, they're really only protecting themselves. Note how Sprint rolled over and played nice as soon as their ass was covered. Though, to be fair, I'm not sure they had much of a choice.
(Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Tuesday May 20 2014, @03:24AM
they must have known that it was a no-win move and they can't fight 'papa'. papa gets what papa wants, period.
I dont' hold sprint with any respect at all. they caved in immediately and so its just a bullshit move, meaning nothing.
now, if they continued to fight and refused, THAT would be newsworthy.
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 20 2014, @12:01AM
What about Qwest?
(Score: 0, Troll) by sjwt on Tuesday May 20 2014, @12:08AM
As the headline uses the word 'Only' I think thats your answer.. unless of course your asking how much lube Qwest used before letting the NSA in.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 20 2014, @12:40AM
Not necessarily. "Only" could mean "only major carrier". I'm not reading TFA because it says their certificate is invalid (doesn't match host name) so I can't even check it for clarification.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 20 2014, @01:40PM
Yes, QWEST deserves lots of kudos: the CEO's life was ruined due to his fight for justice. The headline seems flat out misleading -- is it an ad for Sprint?
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2007/10/qwest-ceo-ns a-punished-qwest-refusing-participate-illegal-surv eillance-pre-9-11 [eff.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 20 2014, @12:15AM
Perhaps one of the documents said: "A warrant for the arrest of Daniel Hesse and other officers of Sprint Nextel Corporation for immediate deportation to Guantánamo Bay Camp Five Echo should compliance with this request not be forthcoming."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 20 2014, @12:17AM
It said "Bend over and spread your cheeks. We're fucking your ass either way."
(Score: 1) by nemasu on Tuesday May 20 2014, @01:10AM
Maybe it's cause the owners are a Japanese company (SoftBank)?
Could think about this more, but it's too early -_-
I made an app! Shoutium [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 20 2014, @01:22AM
This took place in 2009, three years before the Softbank acquisition, which began in 2012.
(Score: 1) by I'm just joshin... on Tuesday May 20 2014, @02:55AM
Not then. The acquisition was much later.