Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Cactus on Friday March 07 2014, @02:30AM   Printer-friendly
from the does-this-sound-famliar dept.

r00t writes

"The Obama administration has accused Sprint of overcharging the government to the tune of more than $21 million in wiretapping expenses.

Another lawsuit has been dismissed recently by telco's arguing that New York Deputy Attorney General John Prather technically couldn't file a whistle blower lawsuit under the False Claim Act and claim he himself was the "original source of the information" -- because he filed the original complaint while working for the government.

The Prather case claimed the telco's overcharge for taps in general, but have historically dodged culpability by simply hitting the government with large bills that don't itemize or explain why a wiretap should magically cost $50,000 to $100,000. Now it seems that Sprint is being specifically targeted for this lawsuit. "Under the law, the government is required to reimburse Sprint for its reasonable costs incurred when assisting law enforcement agencies with electronic surveillance," Sprint spokesman John Taylor said. "The invoices Sprint has submitted to the government fully comply with the law." Though according to the suit, Sprint overinflated charges by approximately 58 percent between 2007 and 2010.

Not only do we get to be spied on, we likely paid for these wiretaps both on the taxpayer side and on the telco side as the companies passed on both real and imaginary wiretap costs to you."

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by prospectacle on Friday March 07 2014, @07:14AM

    by prospectacle (3422) on Friday March 07 2014, @07:14AM (#12529) Journal

    I don't know if any countries are using this model exclusively, but there are some state-owned wholesale telcos, which sell network access to various retail providers:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Broadband_Ne twork [wikipedia.org]
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kordia [wikipedia.org]

    In Australia, the copper-network owner is also required by law to be a wholesale provider at a fair/equal price, so there are various internet and phone-service companies that all use the same infrastructure but still compete on service and price. It's a private company, though the copper network and the company itself were created and built by the government, and later privatised.

    In general governments seem more willing to roll infrastructure out to all corners of a country, even though it may not be profitable in the short term. As long as they allow an open market for retail service-providers who use that infrastructure, it seems to me the best of both worlds.

    --
    If a plan isn't flexible it isn't realistic
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Informative=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3