AT&T is notifying millions of current or former customers that their account data has been compromised and published last month on the dark web. Just how many millions, the company isn’t saying.

In a mandatory filing with the Maine Attorney General’s office, the telecommunications company said 51.2 million account holders were affected. On its corporate website, AT&T put the number at 73 million. In either event, compromised data included one or more of the following: full names, email addresses, mailing addresses, phone numbers, social security numbers, dates of birth, AT&T account numbers, and AT&T passcodes. Personal financial information and call history didn’t appear to be included, AT&T said, and data appeared to be from June 2019 or earlier.

The disclosure on the AT&T site said the 73 million affected customers comprised 7.6 million current customers and 65.4 million former customers. The notification said AT&T has reset the account PINs of all current customers and is notifying current and former customers by mail. AT&T representatives haven’t explained why the letter filed with the Maine AG lists 51.2 million affected and the disclosure on its site lists 73 million.

According to a March 30 article published by TechCrunch, a security researcher said the passcodes were stored in an encrypted format that could easily be decrypted. Bleeping Computer reported in 2021 that more than 70 million records containing AT&T customer data was put up for sale that year for $1 million. AT&T, at the time, told the news site that the amassed data didn’t belong to its customers and that the company’s systems had not been breached.

Last month, after the same data reappeared online, Bleeping Computer and TechCrunch confirmed that the data belonged to AT&T customers, and the company finally acknowledged the connection. AT&T has yet to say how the information was breached or why it took more than two years from the original date of publication to confirm that it belonged to its customers.

Given the length of time the data has been available, the damage that’s likely to result from the most recent publication is likely to be minimal. That said, anyone who is or was an AT&T customer should be on the lookout for scams that attempt to capitalize on the leaked data. AT&T is offering one year of free identity theft protection.

https://arstechnica.com/?p=2016342

Internet service providers and their lobby groups are fighting a US plan to prohibit discrimination in access to broadband services. In particular, ISPs want the Federal Communications Commission to drop the plan’s proposal to require that prices charged to consumers be non-discriminatory.

In 2021, Congress required the Federal Communications Commission to issue rules “preventing digital discrimination of access based on income level, race, ethnicity, color, religion, or national origin” within two years. FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel last month released her draft plan to comply with the congressional mandate and scheduled a November 15 commission vote on adopting final rules.

The plan is likely to pass in a party-line vote as Rosenworcel has a 3-2 Democratic majority, but aspects of the draft could be changed before the vote. Next week’s meeting could be a contentious one, judging by a statement issued Monday by Republican Commissioner Brendan Carr.

Carr described Rosenworcel’s proposal as “President Biden’s plan to give the administrative state effective control of all Internet services and infrastructure in the US.” He also objects to the Rosenworcel plan’s statement that the FCC rules may apply to entities that are not broadband providers, such as landlords, if they “impede equal access to broadband Internet access service.”

Consumer advocates generally support the proposal but say the planned system for handling complaints, ISP responses, and investigations is not transparent enough, reducing the system’s potential to act as a deterrent. Consumer advocates also say Internet users who have already been harmed by discrimination may not get any relief because the proposed rules do not apply retroactively.

ISPs: Don’t investigate our prices

ISPs including Comcast, Charter, AT&T, and Verizon have held a flurry of meetings with FCC officials and commissioners in which they argued that the rules are too broad. The broadband firms are especially concerned about the FCC’s plan to consider the prices consumers pay when determining whether an ISP practice is discriminatory. The industry wants the FCC to consider only the deployment of broadband, not other factors such as how much it costs.

In a meeting with Rosenworcel’s staff, cable company executives “stated that the Draft Order would impose overbroad liability standards that impede further broadband investment and are legally vulnerable by adopting a disparate impact rather than a disparate treatment liability approach,” according to an ex parte filing submitted yesterday by cable lobby group NCTA-The Internet & Television Association. The meeting included executives from Comcast, Charter, and Cox.

The cable companies said the FCC “should define digital discrimination as disparate treatment and should limit the standard to policies and practices involving the deployment of broadband network facilities. It should not regulate rates or non-technical aspects of broadband service.” The cable industry filing said “it is especially important for the Commission to exclude ‘price’ from the list of ‘covered elements of service.'”

Similar arguments were raised by wireless industry trade group CTIA. “Evaluating matters such as pricing, deposits, discounts, and data caps is price regulation because the Commission may levy consequences based on the price per level of service that a provider chooses to offer,” CTIA said. “Commission evaluation of price is unnecessary in the competitive wireless marketplace and may deter offering discounts and enticements to switch providers that consumers enjoy today.”

More opposition came in filings submitted by AT&T, Verizon, and the USTelecom industry group. ISPs and their trade groups will likely sue the FCC if the rules are approved.

“The draft rules ignore the statute’s clear focus on broadband deployment and instead cast a net so wide it would capture every business decision a provider makes concerning how to sell its product, with little regard to the reasonableness (or usefulness) of that decision,” AT&T said. “This regulatory overreach will impose unnecessary regulation on broadband providers and divert attention and vital resources from broadband investment and deployment at this key juncture in the bipartisan Infrastructure Act’s Broadband, Equity, Access & Deployment Program (BEAD).” That’s a reference to a $42 billion grant program that will pay ISPs to expand their networks.

ISPs previously complained about an unrelated rule requiring them to list all their monthly fees, but the FCC rejected their complaints and issued the rule.

https://arstechnica.com/?p=1982368

AT&T’s legacy telephone network may have nearly 200,000 miles of lead-covered cables, according to an estimate by AT&T submitted in a court filing.

“Based on its records, AT&T estimates that lead-clad cables represent less than 10 percent of its copper footprint of roughly two million sheath miles of cable, the overwhelming majority of which remains in active service,” AT&T wrote in a court filing yesterday in US District Court for the Eastern District of California. “More than two thirds of its lead-clad cabling is either buried or in conduit, followed by aerial cable, and with a very small portion running underwater. There are varying costs of installation, maintenance, and removal by cable type (aerial, buried, buried in conduit, underwater).”

Reacting to the court filing, financial analyst firm Raymond James & Associates wrote in a research note, “AT&T is telling us that the total exposure is 200,000 route miles or less.” With about two-thirds of the lead cables either buried or installed inside conduit, “We believe the implication for AT&T’s data is that the route miles that should be addressed most immediately is about 3.3 percent (or less),” the analyst firm wrote.

AT&T’s new court filing came in a case filed against AT&T subsidiary Pacific Bell by the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance (CSPA) in January 2021. The sportfishing group sued AT&T over cables that are allegedly “damaged and discharging lead into Lake Tahoe.”

AT&T: No need to remove Lake Tahoe cables for now

The two underwater cables run along the bottom of the western side of Lake Tahoe for a total of eight miles. AT&T “contends that it stopped using the Cables in or around the 1980s or earlier, that the Easements therefore have terminated, and that Defendant no longer owns the Cables,” according to a November 2021 settlement.

AT&T agreed in that settlement to remove the cables but now says it is at an “impasse” with the CSPA regarding removal. “In this matter, AT&T has always maintained that its lead-clad telecommunications cables pose no danger to those who work and play in the waters of Lake Tahoe, but in 2021, AT&T agreed to remove them simply to avoid the expense of litigation,” an AT&T lawyer at the firm Paul Hastings wrote yesterday in a letter to the plaintiff that was attached to the court filing.

AT&T said “the parties should agree to maintain these cables in place to permit further analysis by any qualified and independent interested party, including the EPA, and allow the safety of these cables to be litigated with objective scientific evidence rather than sensationalized media coverage. To do otherwise would give the misimpression that these cables present a health risk, which they do not, and would destroy evidence necessary for all relevant facts to be made public in court.”

To support its argument, AT&T cited the nonprofit Environmental Defense Fund’s position that the EPA should investigate underwater cables:

AT&T is not alone in this conclusion. In fact, just yesterday, in an open letter to the US Environmental Protection Agency, the Environmental Defense Fund recommended that the “EPA should assess the condition of the underwater cables to determine their condition, their current and anticipated releases to the environment, and the risks posed by their removal or leaving them in place.” AT&T agrees.

The Environmental Defense Fund’s statement was regarding underwater cables in general and not specific to Lake Tahoe.

AT&T denies confirming it would remove cables

AT&T’s stance that it won’t remove the Lake Tahoe cables any time soon is apparently a surprise to the plaintiff. The CSPA said in a court filing last week that in a Zoom meeting on July 10, “AT&T confirmed that it is prepared to commence the removal process on September 6, 2023, as long as the new permit request that AT&T submitted to State Parks in May is approved by State Park.”

AT&T’s filing said the company never “confirmed” that it is prepared to start the cable removal process on September 6.

The CSPA argues that the lead-covered cables “have leached, are leaching, and will continue to leach lead into the waters of Lake Tahoe, and that such leaching may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to human health or the environment.”

https://arstechnica.com/?p=1955116

AT&T’s stock price hit a 29-year low on Friday and continued to sink today as investors fled telecom stocks on reports that cleanups of lead-covered telephone cables could cost the industry tens of billions of dollars.

AT&T stock dropped 4.1 percent to $14.50 on Friday, reportedly the lowest close since 1994. AT&T’s stock price fell another 6.7 percent to $13.53 when the market closed today.

Frontier Communications stock dropped 11.9 percent on Friday and was down 15.8 percent today. Verizon stock fell 1.8 percent on Friday and was down 7.5 percent today. Lumen (formerly CenturyLink) fell 10.2 percent Friday and was down 8.6 percent today.

Despite the notable telecom declines, the overall market continued to rise, with the S&P 500 up 0.39 percent today and the tech-focused NASDAQ up 0.93 percent.

Today’s telecom losses came after the four stocks “lost a combined $18 billion in market value last week,” Investor’s Business Daily wrote. The losses were spurred by a Wall Street Journal investigation into lead-sheathed cables installed by phone companies across the US many decades ago.

The industry started phasing out lead in the 1950s, but the WSJ said it found evidence of more than 2,000 lead-covered cables and said there “are likely far more throughout the country.”

The telecom stocks were already having a rough year. Over the past 12 months, including today’s results, AT&T’s stock is down 34.1 percent. Verizon is down 37.4 percent over the past year. Lumen and Frontier are down 84.2 percent and 52.8 percent during the past 12 months, respectively.

AT&T likely faces biggest total cost

Lawmakers are pressuring telcos to identify all the cables and address any potential environmental and health problems. US Sen. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) called the telecom industry’s alleged lack of action “corporate irresponsibility of the worst kind.”

New Street Research estimated that remediation could cost the telecom industry $60 billion, according to a Telecompetitor article. AT&T has the biggest network of legacy telephone cables and could thus face the biggest cost.

“We have discussed the copper lead sheathing situation with many industry contacts and have been unable to find a reasonable way to calculate any potential liability, but believe that AT&T will have the largest exposure given its massive LEC [local exchange carrier] business as well as owning the original AT&T long haul network,” JPMorgan wrote, according to Reuters.

Wells Fargo agreed that “AT&T undoubtedly has the greatest exposure to this potential issue, as its long-distance network dates back to the late 19th century,” as quoted in a Light Reading article. Verizon, Frontier, and Lumen “likely have exposure as well of an unclear amount.”

“The fear, of course, is that addressing the lead cable issue could divert valuable capital (and resources) from projects like fiber-to-the-home and tower upgrades. It will certainly be a topic of focus around Q2 earnings, but we also don’t expect much clarity for some time,” Wells Fargo wrote.

Long-term stock impacts predicted

Investor’s Business Daily cited several other financial analysts who expect the lead-cable problem to have lasting impacts on telecom stocks. “We could see what amounts to a general telecom buyer’s strike for some time… Investors are likely to shoot first and ask questions later. After all, none of these are stocks with outsized growth stories,” MoffettNathanson analyst Craig Moffett wrote in a note to clients today.

“AT&T and Verizon likely have the greatest potential exposure in dollar terms” because of the size of their wired networks, but Lumen and Frontier don’t have large consumer wireless businesses to soften the blow, Moffett wrote. “Frontier, by virtue of primarily being a roll-up of incumbent phone company assets, may have the greatest proportionate exposure.”

Goldman Sachs analyst Brett Feldman told investors that the lead-cable revelations mean it “may take the major wireline telcos longer, and cost them more, to decommission legacy networks based on copper cables that may have lead sheathing.”

The companies could face class-action lawsuits and lawsuits from attorneys general, TD Cowen analyst Gregory Williams was quoted as saying. On the other hand, the long-term financial outlook might not be as bad as feared for the companies if it turns out that the level of contamination is “overstated.”

“The range of outcomes could range from near-zero liability to billions of dollars in damages,” Williams wrote.

Telecom industry downplayed health concerns

The telco industry tried to downplay the environmental and health concerns last week. “We have not seen, nor have regulators identified, evidence that legacy lead-sheathed telecom cables are a leading cause of lead exposure or the cause of a public health issue,” the USTelecom industry trade group told Ars.

AT&T posted a response last week claiming that The Wall Street Journal’s testing was flawed. “For decades, we have managed legacy lead-clad cables in compliance with applicable laws and regulations, and we have followed industry-wide best practices to maintain this legacy infrastructure in a way that’s safe for all based on established science,” AT&T said.

USTelecom also said that lead cables don’t necessarily need to be removed. “Many considerations go into determining whether legacy lead-sheathed telecom cables should be removed or should be left in place, including those regarding the safety of workers who must handle the cables, potential impacts on the environment, the age and composition of the cables, their geographic location, and customer needs as well as the needs of the business and infrastructure demands. The US telecommunications industry stands ready to engage constructively on this issue,” the group said.

https://arstechnica.com/?p=1954536

Newly raised concerns about lead-covered telephone cables installed across the US many decades ago are putting pressure on companies like AT&T and Verizon to identify the locations of all the cables and account for any health problems potentially caused by the toxic metal.

US Sen. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) wrote a letter to the USTelecom industry trade group this week after a Wall Street Journal investigative report titled, “America Is Wrapped in Miles of Toxic Lead Cables.” The WSJ said it found evidence of more than 2,000 lead-covered cables and that there “are likely far more throughout the country.”

WSJ reporters had researchers collect samples as part of their investigation. They “found that where lead contamination was present, the amount measured in the soil was highest directly under or next to the cables, and dropped within a few feet—a sign the lead was coming from the cable,” the article said.

Markey wrote to USTelecom, “According to the Wall Street Journal’s investigation, ‘AT&T, Verizon and other telecom giants have left behind a sprawling network of cables covered in toxic lead that stretches across the US, under the water, in the soil and on poles overhead… As the lead degrades, it is ending up in places where Americans live, work and play.'”

Markey wants answers

Markey wants answers to a series of questions by July 25:

Do the companies know the locations and mileage of lead-sheathed cables that they own or for which they are responsible—whether aerial, underwater, or underground? Are there maps of the locations and installations? If not, what plans do the companies have to identify the cables?

Why have the companies that knew about the cables—and the potential exposure risks they pose—failed to monitor them or act?

Markey also asked what plans telcos have to address environmental and public health problems that could arise from lead cables. He asked the companies to commit to “testing for soil, water, and other contamination caused by the cables,” to remediate any contamination, and warn communities of the potential hazards.

Markey also asked USTelecom if the phone companies will guarantee “medical treatment and compensation to anyone harmed by lead poisoning caused by the cables.”

Markey isn’t the only lawmaker expressing concern. “There is no safe level of lead exposure—none—which is why I’m so disturbed by these reports of lead cable lines throughout the country,” US Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. (D-NJ) told the WSJ. “It is imperative that these cables be properly scrutinized and addressed.”

Rep. Patrick Ryan (D-NY) told the Journal he is considering legislation on remediating contamination from the cables and that telecom companies should “do the right thing and clean up their mess.” The Journal said its testing in a playground in Ryan’s district “registered high levels of lead underneath an aerial cable running along the perimeter of the park.”

A Light Reading article quoted New Street Research analysts as saying that “the WSJ article raises the prospects that the telephone companies may face significant financial exposure down the road that the market has not anticipated” and that AT&T likely faces “the greatest exposure” due to the size of its network.

USTelecom: No cause for alarm

A USTelecom spokesperson told Ars today, “We are engaging with stakeholders on this important matter. The US telecom industry prioritizes the health and safety of our communities and workers. We have not seen, nor have regulators identified, evidence that legacy lead-sheathed telecom cables are a leading cause of lead exposure or the cause of a public health issue.”

USTelecom also set up a “Telecom Cable Facts” website to address concerns. “The use of lead alloys in telecom cables started in the 1880s and the industry began to phase out placement of new lead-sheathed cables in the 1950s after developing a new type of sheathing,” the trade group’s website said. “Some of these cables still provide customer voice and data services, including connecting 911 service, fire alarms, and other central monitoring stations.”

We contacted AT&T and Verizon today and will update this article if we get any response.

The WSJ reported, “For many years, telecom companies have known about the lead-covered cables and the potential risks of exposure to their workers, according to documents and interviews with former employees. They were also aware that lead was potentially leaching into the environment, but haven’t meaningfully acted on potential health risks to the surrounding communities or made efforts to monitor the cables.”

Markey’s letter called that passage from the article “especially concerning” and “corporate irresponsibility of the worst kind.” He said telecom companies have a “civil and legal” duty to address the problem and promised that he will be “watching closely from my seats on Senate committees that have jurisdiction over the environmental and public health issues these cables present.” Markey is chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Clean Air, Climate, and Nuclear Safety.

https://arstechnica.com/?p=1954031

AT&T and other entities are trying to block the SpaceX/T-Mobile plan to provide Starlink satellite service directly to cell phones.

In a filing yesterday, AT&T urged the Federal Communications Commission to reject the SpaceX/T-Mobile proposal. “The FCC’s rules do not permit SpaceX’s proposed use of T-Mobile’s terrestrial spectrum, and Applicants fail to even request—much less justify—rule waivers that would be necessary to authorize their proposed SCS [supplemental coverage from space] authorizations,” AT&T said.

AT&T said it is interested in the proceeding because it has a license to use adjacent spectrum in the PCS C Block. AT&T says the SpaceX/T-Mobile plan, which was announced in August 2022, could “jeopardize or inhibit the delivery of terrestrial wireless services,” including mobile broadband.

SpaceX and T-Mobile’s “technical showings are woefully insufficient regarding the risk of harmful interference posed by their planned SCS deployments,” AT&T told the FCC. “SpaceX and T-Mobile’s applications fall far short of meeting the threshold for waiver and cannot be granted in their current state.”

Plan affects up to 7,500 satellites

The FCC last month sought comment on the application, noting that SpaceX requested modification of its license for low-orbit Earth satellites “to add a direct-to-cellular communications capability on up to 7,500 Gen2 Starlink satellites.” The links to consumer devices would rely on the 1910-1915 MHz (Earth-to-space) and 1990-1995 MHz (space-to-Earth) bands, also known as PCS G-Block, the FCC said.

The FCC is on board with satellite companies and mobile carriers partnering to close gaps in wireless networks. In a March action, the FCC proposed a new regulatory framework to help satellite operators and wireless companies “leverage the growth in space-based services to connect smartphone users in remote, unserved, and underserved areas.” But the FCC could still reject or require changes to the SpaceX/T-Mobile plan.

We contacted SpaceX and T-Mobile today and will update this article if we get any response.

SpaceX said recently that it plans to start testing the satellite-to-cell system with T-Mobile sometime this year. Text messaging is expected to be the first supported service, with voice and Internet coverage to be added later.

Rural wireless group has similar objections

The SpaceX/T-Mobile docket also drew responses yesterday from the Rural Wireless Association, a trade group for small, rural wireless carriers, and Omnispace, which is partnering with Ligado for a satellite-to-phone system.

The RWA told the FCC it is concerned “that T-Mobile’s and SpaceX’s proposed operations may cause adjacent channel interference to licensees’ mobile and fixed network operations in the 1895-1910 MHz and 1975-1990 MHz bands (‘PCS C-Block’) in rural and remote areas.”

SpaceX told the FCC that its “direct-to-cellular system will operate without causing harmful interference to or requiring protection from any other service duly licensed in these bands” and “will protect adjacent band operations from harmful interference.”

But according to the RWA, “SpaceX offers no support for this conclusion nor does it offer to put any protections in place to ensure there is no adjacent channel interference.” SpaceX and T-Mobile also have not “provided the results of any field trials that would allow the public to analyze the potential for adjacent channel interference,” the rural wireless group said. Omnispace similarly told the FCC that the SpaceX/T-Mobile plan would interfere with existing mobile-satellite service networks.

One other opposition filing came in two weeks ago from the National Radio Astronomy Observatory, a government-funded research center. The group said the SpaceX/T-Mobile plan would cause harmful interference in portions of the National Radio Quiet Zone. SpaceX issued a response saying that the astronomy group’s concerns “appear more appropriately addressed in the Commission’s general rulemaking to establish industry-wide rules for SCS.”

The FCC sided with SpaceX in a separate battle over spectrum use yesterday. As we reported, the FCC rejected a Dish Network proposal for mobile service in the 12.2-12.7 GHz band, saying the Dish plan would cause harmful interference to satellite broadband service.

https://arstechnica.com/?p=1940732

Today, the Federal Communications Commission proposed rules to implement the Safe Connections Act, which President Joe Biden signed into law last December. Advocates consider the law a landmark move to stop tech abuse. Under the law, mobile service providers are required to help survivors of domestic abuse and sexual violence access resources and maintain critical lines of communication with friends, family, and support organizations.

Under the proposed rules, mobile service providers are required to separate a survivor’s line from a shared or family plan within two business days. Service providers must also “omit records of calls or text messages to certain hotlines from consumer-facing call and text message logs,” so that abusers cannot see when survivors are seeking help. Additionally, the FCC plans to launch a “Lifeline” program, providing emergency communications support for up to six months for survivors who can’t afford to pay for mobile services.

“These proposed rules would help survivors obtain separate service lines from shared accounts that include their abusers, protect the privacy of calls made by survivors to domestic abuse hotlines, and provide support for survivors who suffer from financial hardship through our affordability programs,” the FCC’s announcement said.

The FCC has already consulted with tech associations and domestic violence support organizations in forming the proposed rules, but now the public has a chance to comment. An FCC spokesperson confirmed to Ars that comments are open now. Crystal Justice, the National Domestic Violence Hotline’s chief external affairs officer, told Ars that it’s critical for survivors to submit comments to help inform FCC rules with their experiences of tech abuse.

To express comments, visit this link and fill in “22-238” as the proceeding number. That will auto-populate a field that says “Supporting Survivors of Domestic and Sexual Violence.”

FCC’s spokesperson told Ars that the initial public comment period will be open for 30 days after the rules are published in the federal register, and then a reply comment period will be open for 30 days after the initial comment period ends.

FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel released a statement today, asking the public to help the commission build a record “to explore how to help survivors of domestic violence stay connected.”

“What I learned is that domestic abuse often happens in silence,” Rosenworcel said, explaining how abusers cut off partners from resources and support systems. She vowed that the Safe Connections Act will help to “break that silence.”

FCC Commissioner Geoffrey Starks said that for more than 12 million domestic violence survivors in the US annually, access to “communications technology is critical—the difference between life and death.”

The public comment period will be an important time for the FCC to continue learning, Justice told Ars. She said that the law is an important step to provide more resources to survivors, but it isn’t necessarily perfect and may need to be adapted over time. For example, Justice noted that “timing is always important” when forming safety plans for survivors. So while the law’s two-day waiting period to separate a phone line may seem like a fairly quick response time for the wireless industry, any delay could become an issue for survivors needing faster access to a secure phone line, Justice said.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, which strongly supported the Safe Connections Act, published a blog from the EFF’s director of federal affairs, India McKinney, saying that EFF would have preferred if the law “did not require survivors to provide paperwork to ‘prove’ their abuse.” As currently written, the Safe Connections Act does not require that alleged abusers have been convicted but does require a copy of any documentation of the abuse, such as a police report, court statement, or signed affidavit from an official source, such as a licensed medical provider, mental health provider, or social worker.

“For many survivors, providing paperwork about their abuse from a third party is burdensome and traumatic, especially when it is required at the very moment when they are trying to free themselves from their abusers,” McKinney wrote.

Phone companies partner with domestic violence hotline

In Rosenworcel’s statement, the FCC chairwoman also announced a significant new partnership between the National Domestic Violence Hotline and the largest wireless service providers. This partnership will work to ensure that survivors reach agents who are prepared to field requests to separate phone lines and connect survivors with additional resources.

Justice told Ars that the Hotline has had a long-running relationship with Verizon but that this new initiative is “the largest effort” the Hotline has ever launched with the wireless industry. Partners include AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon, US Cellular, and the trade association CTIA.

Through the partnership, the Hotline trains customer service representatives to understand what survivors go through when they’re trying to escape traumatic experiences like domestic violence, stalking, or human trafficking. This gives phone company agents, Justice said, the language they need to communicate with survivors, provide support switching phone lines, and refer survivors to Hotline resources and other organizations across the country.

https://arstechnica.com/?p=1918597

Sasha Zbrozek lives in Los Altos Hills, California, which he describes as “a wealthy Silicon Valley town,” in a house about five miles from Google’s headquarters. But after moving in December 2019, Zbrozek says he learned that Comcast never wired his house—despite previously telling him it could offer Internet service at the address.

Today, Zbrozek is on the board of a co-op ISP called Los Altos Hills Community Fiber (LAHCF), which provides multi-gigabit fiber Internet to dozens of homes and has a plan to serve hundreds more. Town residents were able to form the ISP with the help of Next Level Networks, which isn’t a traditional consumer broadband provider but a company that builds and manages networks for local groups.

Zbrozek’s experience with Comcast led to him getting involved with LAHCF and organizing an expansion that brought 10Gbps symmetrical fiber to his house and others on nearby roads. Zbrozek described his experience to Ars in a phone interview and in emails.

“Before I bought my home, I checked with Comcast—by phone—to see if service was available at the address. They said yes. After moving in, I called to buy service. The technician came out and left a note saying that service was not available,” he told us.

Want Comcast? That’ll be $210,000

There are five parcels that neighbor Zbrozek’s property, and three of them have Comcast service, he said. Comcast’s online availability checker indicated—correctly, as it turned out—that the house he was buying didn’t have service. But it was clear that Comcast was serving the neighborhood, so he called the cable company to find out if he could get Internet access.

Zbrozek recalled a Comcast agent telling him the previous residents of the house he was buying never signed up for service and that “we might need to add a drop from the pole to your house, but, you know, otherwise it’s no big deal.”

Instead of it being no big deal, Zbrozek said it took over a year to get Comcast to tell him how much it would charge for a line extension to his house. Zbrozek eventually had to reach out to the Los Altos Hills town government to get a price quote from Comcast.

The answer was $210,000. Comcast wanted Zbrozek to pay $300 per foot to trench cable across about 700 feet, according to a February 2021 email from Los Altos Hills’ public works director that Zbrozek shared with Ars.

While Zbrozek had calculated a distance of 167 feet from his property to the nearest pole with Comcast wires, he said Comcast told him the house was too far from the pole to legally provide above-ground service. Los Altos Hills requires underground installation in most cases.

Zbrozek also proposed connecting to Comcast by running a line to a neighbor’s property that had Comcast service. “The closest point between my property and a (now former) neighbor with Comcast who would’ve let me do some private trenching is about 40 feet,” Zbrozek told Ars. However, Comcast doesn’t allow that type of property-to-property connection.

“The spirit of the franchise agreement [between Comcast and Los Altos Hills] is that I’m supposed to be able to get service because I’m on a public road, but in practice that just wasn’t the case,” he said. Before getting fiber service, Zbrozek and his wife, Stella, made do by “tethering to a cell phone. I just got an unlimited plan and plugged my cell phone into a home router and called it a day,” he said.

https://arstechnica.com/?p=1888712

AT&T agreed to pay a $23 million fine “to resolve a federal criminal investigation into alleged misconduct involving the company’s efforts to unlawfully influence former Illinois Speaker of the House Michael J. Madigan,” a Department of Justice press release said today.

“The investigation of AT&T Illinois is being resolved with a deferred prosecution agreement under which the company admitted it arranged for payments to be made to an ally of Madigan to influence and reward Madigan’s efforts to assist AT&T Illinois with respect to legislation sought by the company,” the announcement said. AT&T “admitted that in 2017 it arranged for an ally of Madigan to indirectly receive $22,500 in payments from the company.”

AT&T “made no effort to ensure any work was performed” in exchange for the payment, the Justice Department said, adding that AT&T acknowledged that the payment was made “in exchange for Madigan’s vote and influence over a bill.” The bill ended AT&T’s obligation to provide landline phone service to all state residents.

AT&T allegedly used a lobbying firm as an intermediary to make the payment and disguise its true purpose. US Attorney John Lausch’s office filed a one-count criminal information in US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, charging AT&T Illinois with using an interstate facility to promote legislative misconduct. Former AT&T Illinois President Paul La Schiazza was indicted on five charges as a result of the same investigation.

“La Schiazza conspired in 2017 with former Speaker Michael J. Madigan, Madigan’s close friend, Michael McClain, and others, to corruptly arrange for $22,500 to be paid to a Madigan ally… Although the members of the conspiracy formulated a pretextual assignment for Madigan’s ally to disguise why the ally was being paid, the ally performed no actual work for AT&T Illinois and had no role in advancing the legislation,” the Justice Department said.

Madigan and McClain were previously indicted on racketeering and bribery charges. A new superseding indictment adds an AT&T-related conspiracy charge. Madigan, a Democrat, was House speaker for all but two years between 1983 and 2021, before resigning. The original “22-count indictment accuses Madigan of leading for nearly a decade a criminal enterprise whose purpose was to enhance Madigan’s political power and financial well-being while also generating income for his political allies and associates,” the Justice Department said in March.

AT&T pushed bill to end landline obligation

AT&T’s payment was designed to influence a 2017 vote on Carrier of Last Resort (COLR) legislation that “terminate[d] AT&T Illinois’ costly obligation to provide landline telephone services to all Illinois residents,” the deferred prosecution agreement says. The law was passed by the legislature and vetoed by the governor, but both houses of the legislature voted to override the veto.

Under the agreement with AT&T, “the government will defer prosecution on the charge for two years and then seek to dismiss it if AT&T Illinois abides by certain conditions, including continuing to cooperate with any investigation related to the misconduct alleged in the information,” the Justice Department said, continuing:

In addition to the monetary penalty and its continued cooperation with the government, AT&T Illinois’s obligations under the agreement include implementing a new compliance and ethics program and providing annual reports to the government regarding remediation and implementation of the program. If AT&T Illinois fails to completely fulfill each of its obligations under the agreement during the two-year term, the US Attorney’s Office can initiate prosecution of the charged offense.

AT&T must pay the $23 million fine to the Crime Victims Fund within 30 days. “We hold ourselves and our contractors to the highest ethical standards. We are committed to ensuring that this never happens again,” AT&T said in a statement to media organizations.

https://arstechnica.com/?p=1890282

Update: An AT&T spokesperson said in response to this story that “only 2022 and newer devices can be certified by the FCC to use 3.45 GHz.” Statements regarding upgrading of older 5G phones were “provided by mistake and then incorrectly confirmed,” said Jim Greer, AT&T spokesperson. “We regret the error and apologized to the reporter and his readers for the mistake.” The original story follows.

AT&T has admitted it will not upgrade “older” phones and tablets—some released as recently as June—as it rolls out its newly acquired midband 5G frequencies, going back on public statements it made as recently as late August.

The carrier told CNET on August 23 that it would release a software update that would allow phones like the iPhone 12 and 13, the Pixel 6, Galaxy S21 models, and low-cost Motorola phones to utilize the 3.45 GHz C-band AT&T purchased for roughly $9.1 billion in early 2022. Combined with the low-band access AT&T already offered, this would give its 5G phones access to both wider coverage and faster average speeds.

This was notably different from AT&T’s stance in January 2022, just after it had won its hard-fought spectrum auction. Back then, Chris Sambar, AT&T’s executive vice president of technology operations, told CNET that 3.45 GHz support would only be available on “the major flagship devices in 2022, the big devices from the big OEMs.”

AT&T’s mid-summer confidence, or confusion, came to light a little over two weeks after its reported and confirmed upgrade promise.

AT&T admitted to CNET last week that the list of devices supporting its new bands was more like 11 newer flagship devices, not more than 30 existing models. AT&T described the considerable discrepancy on “an inaccurate list… provided by mistake and then incorrectly confirmed during the fact-checking” of CNET’s post, according to Jim Greer, assistant vice president of corporate communications for AT&T.

It’s unclear whether AT&T was wrong about the frequency capabilities and hardware inside the phones it sold, if FCC certification was an issue, or if AT&T simply abandoned its work to make “older” phones viable through a software update.

The iPhone 13 uses a Qualcomm SDX60M modem, while the iPhone 14 is likely sporting the X65, the same chip as in the Samsung S22 models. A PC Magazine post from February noted that the X65 could reach and combine AT&T’s frequencies from the lower and upper parts of the n77 subsection of the C-band, providing 85 MHz of space compared to 45 MHz on an X60 chip.

Those with 5G-capable phones on AT&T will still have access to the carrier’s 3.7 GHz C-band, along with mmWave and low-band frequencies. Notably, AT&T continues to sell phones and other 5G devices that will never have access to its prime 3.45 GHz space, some with three-year contracts.

AT&T has a rich recent streak of blending facts and marketing in its handling of new network technologies. The carrier pushed a “5GE” icon to phones that were 4G-only in early 2019, proudly proclaiming that it “broke our industry’s narrative” over what actually counts as 5G. After lawsuits and arbitration hearings, AT&T was forced to drop it, if only in advertising.

In mid-2020, AT&T emailed customers with 3G phones a misleading message that left many believing their phones would imminently stop working and required upgrading. AT&T wasn’t due to turn off 3G until February 2022, and some of those customers had phones that would work on other frequencies beyond that date.

When AT&T finally launched a 5G network, testers found its speeds were notably slower than many of its competitors’ 4G offerings.

We’ve reached out to AT&T for comment on this post and will update if we receive a response.

https://arstechnica.com/?p=1881162