Sprint Took FCC Cash For 'Serving' 885,000 People It Wasn't Actually Serving (arstechnica.com) 46
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Sprint has been caught taking millions of dollars in government subsidies for "serving" 885,000 low-income Americans who weren't using Sprint service, the Federal Communications Commission said today. Sprint violated the Lifeline program's "non-usage rule" that requires providers of free, subsidized plans to de-enroll subscribers who haven't used their phones recently, the FCC said. "It's outrageous that a company would claim millions of taxpayer dollars for doing nothing. This shows a careless disregard for program rules and American taxpayers," FCC Chairman Ajit Pai said. "I have asked our Enforcement Bureau to investigate this matter to determine the full extent of the problem and to propose an appropriate remedy."
Sprint has admitted the mistake and said it will pay the money back. Like the FCC's other universal service programs, Lifeline is paid for by Americans through fees imposed on phone bills. The FCC said Sprint's violation "initially came to light as a result of an investigation by the Oregon Public Utility Commission." Because of that investigation, the FCC said it "has learned that Sprint Corp. claimed monthly subsidies for serving approximately 885,000 Lifeline subscribers, even though those subscribers were not using the service." The 885,000 subscribers that Sprint wasn't actually serving "represent nearly 30% of Sprint's Lifeline subscriber base and nearly 10% of the entire Lifeline program's subscriber base," the FCC said. The FCC didn't say exactly how much money Sprint received through its violation of the non-usage rule, but one month's worth of $9.25 payments for 885,000 subscribers would amount to $8.2 million.
Sprint has admitted the mistake and said it will pay the money back. Like the FCC's other universal service programs, Lifeline is paid for by Americans through fees imposed on phone bills. The FCC said Sprint's violation "initially came to light as a result of an investigation by the Oregon Public Utility Commission." Because of that investigation, the FCC said it "has learned that Sprint Corp. claimed monthly subsidies for serving approximately 885,000 Lifeline subscribers, even though those subscribers were not using the service." The 885,000 subscribers that Sprint wasn't actually serving "represent nearly 30% of Sprint's Lifeline subscriber base and nearly 10% of the entire Lifeline program's subscriber base," the FCC said. The FCC didn't say exactly how much money Sprint received through its violation of the non-usage rule, but one month's worth of $9.25 payments for 885,000 subscribers would amount to $8.2 million.
If I stole $8 million a month. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: If I stole $8 million a month. (Score:5, Interesting)
This isn't a Solyndra story, but a few things need to be remembered:
Solyndra asked for loan guarantees to build a manufacturing plant in Silicon Valley - approximately as expensive a location as Manhattan.
Their initial application at the end of the Bush Administration was rejected, and the analysts predicted when Solyndra would go bankrupt (month/year) if the loan guarantee was approved.
Obama Administration reviews application and approved the previously rejected loan guarantee request.
The expensive factory was built on expensive land to manufacture expensive solar panels based on curved glass.
When Solyndra started to run out of money, they got a second round of funding. The Obama administration gave the second round of investors priority if the venture failed, paying them before reimbursing federal government and other first-round investors.
As predicted, Solyndra failed just about when the Bush Admin analysts predicted it would.
The innovation that Solyndra brought to market went no where - their unique curved glass tube-based design was never popular, their panels were significantly more expensive than traditional flat solar panels, and the federal government lost hundreds of millions of dollars on this particular 'investment', but overall the program generated a small profit over its billions of investments.
Of course, some like to point out that Obama/Biden got significant donations from Solyndra executives before they reconsidered the loan guarantee application, but that's just a political distraction.
Re: (Score:1)
Of course, some like to point out that Obama/Biden got significant donations from Solyndra executives before they reconsidered the loan guarantee application, but that's just a political distraction.
Indeed. I mean, I'm pretty accepting of risk when it comes to developing new technology, but I do at least like to see a reasonable chance of something succeeding. By which I mean that I want to see that some thought has gone into identifying a niche for the product, and recognizing the scale of that niche.
The math just wasn't there for Solyndra's technology. It was always going to be less efficient and more expensive. And electricity is extremely fungible. People looking to generate electricity from s
Re: (Score:2)
Popularity had nothing to do with it. Anyone with a basic grasp of geometry could tell you that Solyndra's curved panels wo
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:If I stole $8 million a month. (Score:4, Insightful)
Its only fraud when the little people do it, when you are rich and powerful , so long as you do not rip off those in power it's called "astute business decisions". The only crime is actually being caught, and being caught is not a criminal offence as such.
Now all they have to do is say sorry, promise to reviews business practices (ie not get caught again), pay back about 10% of what they took as a fine, make a donation to the relevant political party and all gets forgiven.
Re: (Score:3)
How do you single anyone out of the amorphous blob that is the corporation, and prove that they willingly broke the law/defrauded the tax payers? (short of a crazy long discovery process to find a memo in a haystack that may or may not exist.)
But that's the entire point of a corporation -- individual profits without individual responsibility. You really have to screw up (i.e. directly piss off an AG somewhere) to even run the remote risk of being held accountable.
Re: (Score:3)
How do you single anyone out of the amorphous blob that is the corporation
Have you ever worked for a corporation? They are not amorphous at all. People are assigned specific responsibilities, decisions are documented, and contracts have signatures of real identifiable people.
Once the Feds launch an investigation, the executives will turn on each other like drowning rats, giving the investigators plenty of documentation for indictments.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But corporations are people. Therefore it should be possible to put a corporation into prison, etc...
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, it is fraud. Sprint executives need to have a meeting with VW executives, where they can share tips on personal safety in the showers.
Re: (Score:2)
Not implemented, that is another charge. This long term borrowing by any name is stealing, those who actually did should do the appropriate custodial sentence appropriate for the amount stolen. Those individuals who actually pushed those computer buttons, idiots stealing money for other people. They can reduce their sentences by substantiating those who instructed them to carry out those crimes and they get prosecuted and they get the opportunity to reduce their sentence by passing the buck on up and on it
Re: (Score:2)
"I'm not usually on board with the "I hate corporations!!" people, but isn't this..fraud? Plain and simple fraud?"
Worse, it's wire fraud. There's prison time for every single one of those 885000 cases.
Re: (Score:3)
If I stole $8 million a month from the government, I'd be spending ten years in Federal prison and the rest of my life working fast food.
It depends on how judiciously you spent part of that $8 million on lawyers and lobbyists.
Re: (Score:1)
If I stole $8 million a month from the government, I'd be spending ten years in Federal prison and the rest of my life working fast food.
Most fast food chains have government contracts that would keep you from being hired in fast food.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly - so lets put the guy who made a coding mistake in prison for 10 years.
Or... who are you asking to send to prison?
Re: (Score:2)
Their accountants.
If anyone should have noticed, it's their finance department which balances the books. If your programmers make an error that's bringing in an extra $8m/month, they are not going to notice. But the people balancing the books definitely should know where all the money comes from.
Mixed feelings (Score:5, Insightful)
Sprint violated the Lifeline program's "non-usage rule" that requires providers of free, subsidized plans to de-enroll subscribers who haven't used their phones recently, the FCC said.
On the one hand, that is a unfair rule: it would not be fun to find out that your free/subsidized phone service was cut off because you hadn't used it enough -especially if you don't find out it was cut off until you actually need to use it.
On the other hand, sprint trying to profit from taxpayers by claiming to be helping the poor is shameful behavior.
Re: (Score:2)
Sprint violated the Lifeline program's "non-usage rule" that requires providers of free, subsidized plans to de-enroll subscribers who haven't used their phones recently, the FCC said.
On the one hand, that is a unfair rule: it would not be fun to find out that your free/subsidized phone service was cut off because you hadn't used it enough -especially if you don't find out it was cut off until you actually need to use it.
On the other hand, sprint trying to profit from taxpayers by claiming to be helping the poor is shameful behavior.
/agreed
I could see this being an honest mistake.
I could also see this as a mistake that could seem honest.
I could see 30 days being an unreasonably short period of time especially if people are using these as emergency phones.
I could also see 30 days with a 15 day warning being missed by children that parents had given their "free" phone to. (not the intended purpose)
But what kid is not going to use a phone at all in 45 days? And what adult that had been given notice is going to let their "emergency phone"
Re:Mixed feelings (Score:5, Interesting)
On the one hand, that is a unfair rule: it would not be fun to find out that your free/subsidized phone service was cut off because you hadn't used it enough -especially if you don't find out it was cut off until you actually need to use it.
So much this. I was hospitalized for 5 weeks and when I arrived home tried to call the local pharmacy to fill prescriptions I was given on discharge, only to find out my service was terminated for not using it for 30 days.
Nearest neighbor lives over a mile away, I no longer drive or own a car, and this was during the depths of a Minnesota winter. I was also almost out of food. It was almost 2 weeks before somebody stopped by and I ended up back in the hospital from not having meds and also from severe malnourishment from surviving on old, stale, saltine crackers. Lucky to still be alive.
Re: Mixed feelings (Score:2)
Since you no longer drive or own a car, whoever arrived you at your home, is a complete fucking asshole.
^^^ This.
That your free lifeline phone service was cancelled for extended non-use is far from the biggest problem in this story.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Here come the teeth (Score:1)
I bet Ajit will fine them a whole $50,000. That'll teach them.
Re: (Score:2)
If it was Verizon (Score:2)
Ajit Pai would be looking the other way.
Good start, now investigate (Score:3)
AT&T, Tmobile, and Verizon for the same practice.
And as far as the FCC saying:
"It's outrageous that a company would claim millions of taxpayer dollars for doing nothing. ..."
The quote should end in "When they could be claiming billions of taxpayer dollars"
Re: (Score:2)
"it's outrageous that a regulatory body made up of former industry executives could be counted on for any kind of meaningful fine, punishment, or deterrence from future actions contrary to the public good"
And you wonder... (Score:2)
shutdown the FCC (Score:3, Interesting)
FCC Chairman Ajit Pai said... (Score:2)
""It's outrageous that a company would claim millions of taxpayer dollars for doing nothing."
Physician heal thyself.
Hmmm... (Score:2)
I doubt they are that ignorant of how corporations run these days.
We already know Pai is a lying scuzzbag working for the interest of the corporations, so this basically comes off as an attempt to distance himself from the fallout.
Wait a minute (Score:2)
The 885,000 subscribers that Sprint wasn't actually serving "represent nearly 30% of Sprint's Lifeline subscriber base and nearly 10% of the entire Lifeline program's subscriber base," the FCC said.
There are 9 million low income adults enjoying free cellphone service at an estimated $10/month? Wow.
Re: (Score:2)
throw them in jail! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] and
how things really work https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
I bet they don't teach about that in school, right?
T-Mobile discount (Score:2)