Editor's Choice

H1-B/L1 Followup

Beau Monday — Sat, 11 Oct 2003 02:18:00 GMT

In my late-night diatribe about the H1-B and L1 visa programs being severely abused and used to replace American workers with imported ones, I failed to include links to a couple of current peices of legislation that are trying to address the issues I laid out:

HR2702: HR-2702 would take several steps to address the huge holes in the L1 visa program. If you remember, there is currently no cap on the number of L1 visas that can be issued annually, like there is with the H1-B program. Also there is nothing requiring companies to pay a prevailing wage to L1 visa-holders. HR2702 would take a number of steps to reduce the burgeoning abuse of the L1 program:
- Place an annual cap of 35,000 on new L1 visas
- Prohibit the practice of filing blanket L1 visa petitions to hire workers
- Deny L1 visas to any firm that has laid off an American worker within the preceding 6 months and for 6 months after the application is filed
- Add a prevailing wage requirement to protect L1 workers, and to protect American workers from being displaced by lower-wage L1 visa holders
- Require L1 petitioners to have been employed by the petitioning firm for 3 continuous years (currently it's 1 cumulative out of the last 3)
HR2688: HR2688 is a bill introduced this summer by Representative Tancredo from Colorado. It calls for the immediate repeal of the H1-B visa program, charging (as I did) that the original purpose of the program has been fulfilled and its continued existence only serves to further harm American workers.

I encourage you all to contact your representatives and let them know that you are tired of seeing your friends laid off and replaced by cheap foreign workers.

The Looming High-Tech Catastrophe

Beau Monday — Thu, 09 Oct 2003 02:17:00 GMT

(I spent the last 2 hours rewriting this entire article, save the first paragraph, thanks to the aforementioned failure of w.Bloggar's "Save" function. It's 2AM but at least I can sleep now.)

If you thought the economy has been bad the past couple of years, you ain't seen nothing yet if you work in the high tech industry. I have to admit that nothing concerns me more today than the increasing exportation of US jobs to foreign workers who can do the same job for as little as 1/10th the cost.

I remember back in my BSQUARE days when I learned that we had outsourced a few projects out to a firm in South Africa. I was stunned. Little BSQUARE, who was around 400 employees at the time, was farming out work to South Africa, of all places. I remember feeling a little ashamed knowing that. But hey, I still had a job.

Fast forward 3 or so years later, and I'm working in a job I don't particularly like, for a company that I don't really believe in, because I work in an area of the country that has been hardest hit by the "dot-com bust" and recession. Seattle has the (mis-)fortune of being not only the home of Boeing, but also has been historically popular for the high tech industry. We don't have the cost of living of Silicon Valley (well, NOW we do), and the quality of life here is pretty darned attractive for potential job seekers. But since terrorists figured out there was little practical difference between an aircraft and a guided missile, Boeing has been laying off people in droves, and the dot-com bust has done a number on our other high tech employers. The result has been the 2nd worst overall unemployment in the country (7.5% in August), only Oregon having it worse than us here in Washington. But if you are a high-tech worker, you are facing an unemployment rate of over 10%. Everyone is telling us how the economy is turning around, yet we are still shedding jobs nationally (93,000 more jobs lost in August), even while corporate earnings are looking strong.

There are several reasons why unemployment continues to increase, even while corporate earnings are on the upswing, giving rise to the term "jobless recovery":

H1-B and L1 Visas: In 1990, the US government introduced a new type of visa, designed to give US companies the opportunity to hire foreign workers if they were unable to find Americans with the necessary skills. The visa was dubbed H1-B, and was capped at 65,000 per year, each carrying a 3-year duration and renewable one time for an additional 3 years. In 2000, under intense pressure by Corporate America, the cap was temporarily increased (scheduled to sunset Oct 1st, 2003), to 195,000 visas annually. Since the cap was increased, 9 out of every 10 IT jobs in America have gone to foreign workers in the H1-B program(link).
The H1-B program is heavily abused. The law requires that the company consider American workers for openings, but does not require that the job be offered to the American worker. Often, American workers are told they are "over-qualified" and the position is given to an H1-B worker who is just happy to be in the US and won't demand a high salary. There are even documented cases of laid-off American workers being forced to train their new H1-B replacements in order to receive their severance packages (link).
Of growing popularity is the L1 visa, which is used to transfer foreign workers at an international subsidiary of an American company to a US location. There is absolutely no limit on the number of these visas that can be issued, and they are good for 7 years. In addition, the L1 visa does not put any requirements on what the foreign worker must be paid, unlike the H1-B. In many cases, L1 visas are bing used to import foreign workers to directly replace American workers for 1/3 of the cost (link). As companies realize the benefits of the L1 visa over the more restrictive H1-B, there has been a 58% increase in the number of L1 visas issued to foreign workers in the last year (link).
American labor is expensive: Let's face it, it's expensive to live in America, and American workers are more expensive than their counterparts in other areas of the world. In some cases, like in Russia and China, software developers can be hired for roughly 10% of what an American developer would cost. The American might be better trained (and likely is in such a scenario), but even if you have to hire 2 foreign workers to get the output you would from a single American worker, you are still saving 80%. And that doesn't take into effect the extra savings realized by not having to pay Workers' Comp, Social Security, Health Care, and everything else that is required in the case of American employees. Add those things up, and you can save an additional 30%, in addition to the base salary.
And I'm not saying foreign workers are poorly trained universally, in many cases they have excellent training. India, for example, is churning out software engineers at the rate of 200,000 per year (link). In fact, India's outsourcing industry is growing at a rate of 25% per quarter.
It's no wonder that countries like India can find a ready source of new recruits. The average developer with 2 years of experience is earning an average of $545 per month, in a country where the average per capita income is $480 per year (link).
Everybody's doing it: Companies look around and see that their competitors are cutting costs by using foreign workers. For companies to remain competitive, they have to follow suit. There is simply no way for a company using 100% American workers to compete with a company that relies heavily on outsourcing to foreign entitites. It's simple math.

IBM expects 3.3 million service jobs will move off-shore over the next 10 years, and has publicly stated it will accelerate plans to move a large portion of its own workforce out of the US in order to stay ahead of competitors. That means another 2% of the American workforce will be out of work as these jobs move overseas. It's a tragic race for competitive edge as US employers scramble for ways to lay off Americans and hire the best talent in foreign countries before the rates go up.

What does this mean for the US economy? Well, we are already seeing the effects. The economy is recovering nicely from the recent recession, yet unemployment rates continue to rise. There are a lot of people out of work right now. People who can't afford to buy durable goods. People with very little disposable income. The 3.3 million jobs moving overseas represents $136 Billion in wages that will not be earned (or spent) by American workers. This has to trickle up at some point and start impacting the national economy.

So what do we do:

Suspend, at least temporarily, the H1-B and L1 visa programs: There is absolutely no reason in today's economic reality, that these programs are still needed. The H1-B program was designed to assist US companies with hiring talent in the days of a 2% unemployment rate. Now that there are hundreds of thousands of highly-skilled American workers looking for jobs, these programs are no longer necessary.
Innovate: America has to stay ahead of the curve on technology. WE have to create the demand for skills that are not available overseas, and the only way to do that is to continue to innovate.
Education: Similarly, IT workers have to continue to add skills to their dossier. The more skills an individual has, the more valuable they are to a corporation. After a year or two, a particular skill will be available from legions of foreign workers at a reduced rate, so the employee must continue to find ways to compete with the foreign worker, and that means adding value to their skill set.
Tax Cuts: The vast majority of American workers who invest do so in vehicles that are already sheltered from taxible dividends (such as 401k). So cutting dividend taxes do little to help the average worker. What must be done instead, is reduce the taxes that are forced upon the companies themselves, reducing the cost gap that makes a foreign worker on average 50% cheaper than an American one. Reduce the cost of Workers' Compensation insurance, and do something about Health Insurance costs. These are all costs that American corporations generally bear on behalf of American employees, and costs that magically go away when they ship those job overseas.

Can America adjust in ways that allow us to continue to hire domestic workers, yet remain competitive in a global economy? Well, I like to think so. I think if we take the steps I've outlined above, we'll have a fighting chance.

The gods are against me

Beau Monday — Tue, 23 Sep 2003 02:12:00 GMT

My weakness for bookstores, by now, is well-documented. It is especially difficult for me because the office complex I work in is a block away from a fairly large Borders bookstore. Worse still, is the fact that this particular bookstore lies directly between my office and the nearest Starbucks. So, every day, I have to trek past the Borders to get my daily dose of chai. Worse yet, is the fact that with doors on both sides of the store, it would be a considerable shortcut to go through the Borders on my way to Starbucks...

Obviously I have to exercise certain precautions in order to keep Borders from becoming a leinholder on my house. For example, I try to make my morning Starbucks run before 10:00, so the Borders is not yet open. Or I take an especially-circuitous route that keeps me across the street from its various tempting entrances.

Even with these precautions though, I convince myself every once in a while that I need a new book. Today was such a day.

After working until 8:00 last night, creating 100 users and mailboxes (twice!) on a new Exchange server, I convinced myself that I need to dive into scripting a bit more. I actually did use a script to create the 100 accounts, but I know I was just scratching the surface of what is possible with ADSI these days. So on my way to lunch (also coincidentally on the far side of the damn Borders) I ducked in to the book store to see what they might have in the way of scripting books. I spent about 10 minutes looking at the few books they had on the subject, convinced myself I'd do better at Barnes and Nobles, and made my way to the exit. I was feeling rather proud of myself as I headed out, as it's a rare accomplishment that I escape a bookstore without having bought a single book.

And then I saw it. Staring at me, on the table near the door specifically designed to stop people from leaving empty-handed, was a fresh pile of the brand new Alton Brown book "Gear For Your Kitchen". And that thing with the beam of light that shines down from the heavens, there was that shining right down onto the books like a sign from freaking God.

I was stunned. I literally stood there staring at it for like 2 full minutes, like I was in some kind of strange hypnotic trance. I was so damn close to the door, but I had to get past this new book that until that moment I had not even known existed, by my favorite author/tv personality of all time. After my initial shock wore off, I found myself thumbing through the book, not even remembering picking it up. I frantically sought some excuse, any excuse, to not buy the book. But all the excuses my feeble brain could come up with were immediately drowned out by the little devil on my left shoulder screaming at a volume Sam Kinnison would be proud of: "Buy the damn thing already and let's get out of here, I'm hungry!" I took a desperate look at the cashier area, hoping to see a long-ass line that I wouldn't have time for. All I saw was 3 smiling cashiers, all staring at me with knowing looks, as if to say "You know you want it, just bring that book and your credit card over here...".

And then my brain hit the Holy Grail of excuses: The wife will find out, and then you'll have to explain why she can't buy those new shoes she's been eyeing... "Ooo, good one," admitted the Sam Kinnison on my shoulder, vanishing shortly thereafter in a cloud of imaginary smoke.

I put the book down, and walked out.

No joy in Mudville

Beau Monday — Tue, 23 Sep 2003 02:09:00 GMT

I just watched the Mariners lose in 11 innings to division rival Anaheim. I've run the sims, and done the math (I knew that accounting degree would come in handy some day!), but being 5 games behind Oakland with 4 games left to play, I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that the Mariners will not win their division this year. The wildcard is still a possibility, albeit a long shot (3 and a half games behind Boston, with 4 to play).

The wife and I are going to the last game of the season on Sunday, which is shaping up to be downright depressing. Not only will we likely see a team anxious to put an end to the disappointing season and start the winter vacation, but it will likely represent the last game of the best designated hitter of all time, Edgar Martinez. Edgar was a study in hitting, every time he stepped up to the plate. And he's about the nicest guy you could ever meet. He's going to leave the biggest hole in the Mariners franchise since they traded Randy Johnson away. I'm not talking hole-in-the-lineup, anyone can play DH. People like Edgar leave holes of an entirely different nature. It's like looking at the Seattle skyline and not seeing the Space Needle. Something just doesn't feel right.

I felt this way about The Big Unit too, when he was traded away. I was a season ticket-holder back in those days, along with some friends. I'd go to 20-25 games a year. We planned our games around Randy Johnson, even plotting out his expected starts 9 months in advance so we could plan to attend those games. Nothing was more exciting than hearing "Wecome to the Jungle" crank up over the craptacular Kingdome sound system as Randy took the mound to start a game. You heard that song and you knew it was ON. Randy was clocked at 103MPH on occasion, and he was a solid 98MPH on a bad day. Then he had "Mr Snappy", a devastating slider that looked like a mediocre fastball until the bottom fell out of it about 2 feet before the plate. I was at Game 5 of the Division Series in 1995, when Randy took the mound in relief and pitched 3 incredible innings on only 1 days rest. I was 3 rows up when Edgar hit the game-winning double right past us in the 11th inning of that game to win the most exciting division series of all time (IMHO). Edgar had driven in 7 runs the day before, including 2 homers. They still talk about that game to this day, and the series has gone down as one of the greatest of all time. And I was lucky enough to be there.

I haven't been to a Mariners game since Randy went away, Sunday will be my first. I wonder how long it will be before I can bring myself to attend an Edgar-less Mariners game?

Denied

Beau Monday — Tue, 23 Sep 2003 02:01:00 GMT

Just before the wedding, I sent a rare resume in for a job in Colorado. I really have no desire to live in Colorado, I like it here. But this was my dream job. New Belgium Brewery, the makers of the finest beer in the world, needed an IT Director to help them run their little brewery. It would be like telling God "No" to not submit a resume, really.

But alas, my 16 years of IT experience (damn, I'm getting old) no longer trumps the Bachelor Degree requirement, like it would have 3 years ago. Waiting for me, on our return from the honeymoon, was a simple postcard from the brewery, saying "regrettably, you do not qualify for the position". It's a good thing I had a six pack of the Fat waiting for me also, patiently, on the top shelf of the fridge.

Heartbroken by the brewery, consoled by the brew. It's all good.

Kurt Cobain > Eddie Van Halen???!?!111?!

Beau Monday — Tue, 23 Sep 2003 02:00:00 GMT

On a lighter note:

In the most recent Rolling Stone issue, they rate the top 100 guitarists of all time. Kurt Cobain ranks 12th. While I don't have a problem with Kurt's guitar-playing, it's borderline criminal for Rolling Stone to rank Eddie Van Halen #73 (WTF?!?!?!). Kurt also magically beats out Carlos Santana (#15), as well as Mark Knopfler (#27?!?!?!?!). How none of those 3 made it into the top 10 is beyond explanation. George Harrison better than Mark Knopfler? Please someone tell me in what alternate universe is George Harrison a better guitar player than Mark Knopfler and Eddie Van Halen so I can be sure to never go there (well, once it's possible to travel to alternate universes).

I wonder if they put out this kind of bogus list just to get people talking about (and subsequently buying) the magazine.

Bluntly

Beau Monday — Tue, 23 Sep 2003 01:59:00 GMT

This is a message to all the home users out there. I apologize in advance for the bluntness, but the message has not been sinking in.

If you have a system at home, and it is not protected by some form of firewall (either hardware or software), your computer is a potential weapon of cyberterrorism. If you do not regularly monitor the appropriate vendor sites for important updates to the software you are using (like the OS itself), your computer is a potential weapon of cyberterrorism. If you do not use antivirus software, and keep it updated (yes, that means you have to subscribe to the update service), your computer may be a weapon of cyberterrorism. The average system is probed for weaknesses within 20 minutes of being placed onto the Internet. Sometimes it's not even that long. How many of you have had your systems online, unprotected, for months or even years? If you do not do these things, your computer is probably already a member of some hacker's botnet, and you have no way to even tell. Let's hope the hacker that controls your computer is not a cyberterrorist, eh?

As a weapon of cyberterrorism, your computer can be instructed to attack the terrorist's target of choice, using any number of methods. That target may be a power grid providing power to a large portion of the nation. It might be a commuter train signaling system that threatens the lives of people in 23 states. Maybe the target is a sewage treatment plant that provides clean water to the local population. Your computer may have already been an accomplice in such attacks, and you would never even know it (Blaster infected over 1 million systems in the first 24 hours, and that wasn't even well-written).

Do you folks understand that your poorly-secured home computer may contribute to the deaths of actual people? We're no longer talking about "Some hacker took down eBay for 3 hours *snicker*". We're talking about "Some hacker took out a train signalling system and 50 people died when two trains collided in Pittsburgh".

That's not a headline I want to read. Secure your systems at home. Email me if you need help.

The irresistable force versus the immovable object

Beau Monday — Sat, 23 Aug 2003 01:50:00 GMT

I'm frustrated by the current state of network security. I need to ramble a little bit. Bear with me.

Operating systems, and the applications people run on them, are not perfect. This is a fact we all accept (except you Linux types, you guys are just in denial). If you want a 100% secure box, unplug it from the network, lock it in an airtight steel chamber, and dump it into the Marianas Trench. But that's not very useful is it?

We all have known how incredibly lax users are when it comes to keeping up with patches. Do I need to post examples, or can I just consider that a given? Even after the extraordinary efforts to get the word out about the dangers of the vulnerabilities in RPC/DCOM, Blaster still had a discouragingly high rate of infection. Even after not one, but two warnings from the Department of Homeland Security, and an unprecedented spam campaign by Microsoft itself (which they promptly got flamed for), and dozens of warnings plastered on every possible security web site, Blaster had an astounding infection rate. What more could Microsoft have done? This is the question I keep asking myself as the days roll on, and the stories about picking up the virtual peices continue to come out.

This is not new. Fixes for the SQL/MSDE vulnerabilities were available a full 6 months prior to them being exploited to a frightening degree by Slammer. There is a fundamental flaw in the attitudes of the home user, ladies and gentlemen. The home user does not take ownership of the security of their home networks. The home user does not realize that putting an unprotected PC on the Internet is akin to having unprotected sex with the only hooker in town.... morning noon and night..

No longer can we rely upon the home user to take care of his/her business. Too much is at stake. The damage these huge botnets can inflict is enormous, and the majority of the zombies are home users having unprotected sex with the foulest hooker possible: The Internet.

I hear you say "It's up to Microsoft to write better software!" And you are right, Microsoft (and everyone else) needs to do a much better job coding securely. But that does not help the millions of systems already deployed, does it? Windows 2000 is going to be around a very long time, and so will Windows 2003. These systems, while magnitudes better than those before them, are not perfect either. They will require patching, and diligent attention to security problems that may crop up. The question is: What do we do in the meantime?

Microsoft recently floated the idea of taking patch management out of the hands of the users, who time after time prove to be incapable of fulfilling this critical responsibility on their own. Even some staunch privacy advocates have finally given up, and realized that end users cannot be relied upon when it comes to securing the systems that ultimately become the loaded guns aimed at critical networks. But Microsoft has to do it right. No distributing Windows Media Player 22 "just because". None of this crap about collecting private information either, save your demographics/piracy code for something else. And the first broken patch they send out will doom the entire project. You can bet end users will scramble to learn how to disable the updates the second their Everquest stops working (and from then on, the first thing a Sony CSR will tell all users to do when they are having trouble is "disable that pesky auto-update feature").

But honestly, even if Microsoft did all these things, and correctly, we'd still be doomed. Not only do we now have Linux representing 60% of the defaced web servers these days, but we also are waging war against application developers who care less about the security of the system they are running on, and more about their application working. Let me just stick with the Everquest example, since I already brought them up. They have a FAQ on their site that describes how to reduce the protection of your firewall software so your game will work. This behavior I see all the time. If I ever have a network problem on my home network, I best disconnect my firewalls prior to calling Comcast, or they will blame those the second they learn of them. You can't convince some $8.00/hr phone jockey that your NAT is not the fricking problem!

Anyway, this whole issue frustrates me, and I don't see a way out. Even if MS moves to enable auto-patching by default, there are so many scenarios that will result in it being turned off that in 3 months we'll be right back where we started, with full-blown cyber-clap and blaming Microsoft for making us take the virtual condom off.

It's only Monday, and already I find myself typing "We're so f*cking doomed".

Blackout a result of cyberterrorism?

Beau Monday — Sat, 23 Aug 2003 01:43:00 GMT

The longer it takes the government to figure out what caused the Great Blackout of 2003, the more likely it is that it's what I have suspected all along: Cyberterrorism. No, I'm not saying it's a direct result of the Blaster worm, that's just coincidence. Blaster wasn't capable of this kind of targetted attack. On the contrary, actually. I think Blaster had a hand in limiting the attack to only the Northeast. Hear me out (I'm warning you now, you are going to be thinking "That Beau, he's one CRAZY mofo"):

Follow me down the rabbit hole, for just a minute while I try to paint the picture.

Imagine you are a terrorist. Part of an organization of terrorists that understands how vulnerable the US is to Internet-bourne attack vectors. Imagine that your organization has detailed plans of US infrastructure elements, such as dams, telephone systems, and power plants. You have copies of the SCADA software, the software that controls the US power infrastructure, on your laptop.

Imagine, after much work (perhaps years), the groundwork is laid for an attack of historic impact. Taking out the entire American power grid, in one fell swoop. Dousing the US in total darkness for days. Perhaps the attack relies upon the exploitation of a very specific vulnerability that has gone un-noticed for years. A vulnerability that can be used to gain access to the SCADA systems that control the nation's power. Perhaps you do not gain access to the heart of SCADA itself, but you have access to enough connected systems to effectively control it. Perhaps through the use of a keyboard sniffer on the plant foreman's hasn't-been-patched-since-he-bought-it-2-years-ago home PC, you have recorded critical accounts and passwords that gain access to SCADA core systems. Slowly, you plan for a coordinated attack on these systems so that the entire grid can be brought down in one fell swoop. You carefully erase any traces of your activity so it cannot be traced.

Follow me just a bit further, won't you, before writing me off as a complete wacko?

The vulnerability that the attack relies upon is discovered, and quickly a patch appears... But that does not worry you much, who installs patches? It will take months for a big bureacracy like a power company to approve such a patch. The attack is nearly ready to launch.

But then along comes a worm. The worm has such a devastating effect that it becomes headline news and suddenly everyone is patching against your attack. With all the flurry of patches, the compromised systems critical to the attack are slowly being patched against the vulnerability upon which your attack relies.

So you launch your attack, hoping there is still time before the entire grid is secured against the vulnerability you have spent months or years cultivating. But there isn't. Only one of the grids comes down, leaving the Americans to wonder if an innocent hardware failure was the cause.

All you can do now is claim responsibility for an event that can be explained away as a hardware failure to the ignorant American population. Back to the drawing board.

OK, back to reality. The above is all pure speculation on my part, based on a number of facts:
  Al Qaeda laptops have been recovered with detailed designs of US infrastructure on them.
  Al Qaeda laptops have been recovered with copies of the SCADA software on them (the software that controls our power plants)
  Al Qaeda operatives have been arrested in the US gathering intelligence on critical infrastructure elements
  Al Qaeda is known to be actively recruiting hackers over IRC and other chat channels
  Other terrorist organizations sympathetic to Al Qaeda have demonstrated abilities in cyber-warfare

Could this still be simply a hardware failure? Sure, why not. But why is it taking so long to determine? Hardware failures are easy to identify. Much less easily found are expertly-crafted hacks. Especially by government agents who a week ago were trying to catch kiddie pornographers and credit card scammers.

Yeah, I know. Crazy mo-fo. It's ok, I think that sometimes too.

The Fallacy of Local Number Portability

Beau Monday — Sat, 23 Aug 2003 01:42:00 GMT

I will preface the following diatribe by stating that I work for one of the largest wireless carriers in the US, whose name starts with an "A", a "T", and another "T", and ends with "Wireless" (oh, and there is an ampersand in there somewhere too). But what follows is my opinion as a consumer of wireless service, and does not necessarily represent the views of my current employer. I do not have landlines at home, I am 100% wireless (and have been for years, even prior to my current employment). However, I do have a unique insight into what is happening in wireless, thanks to my position in the company.

A couple years back, the FCC came down from the mountain and told wireless service providers "Thou shalt allow subscribers to take their phone numbers with them when switching to a competitor". The concept is called "local number portability" (LNP), and has been commonplace in traditional land-line services for many years. Wireless carriers, however, fought LNP tooth and nail, because the rate subscribers leave (or "churn", as it is called) is a key metric for measuring the success of a carrier. Anything that encourages churn is BAD, if you are a carrier.

On the surface, LNP seems like a boon to consumers, who will now have an easier time moving from one carrier to another as the fancy strikes them. In practice though, nothing could be further from the truth. And here is why:

LNP Monthly Fees: Recently appearing on your bill, and continuing for the next 5 years, is a new service charge. Go ahead, look. I'll wait. Some carriers call it out as a "Number Portability Fee", others just add it into the regular service fee. But it's there, honest. That is how much every consumer is paying for LNP, whether they intend to take advantage of it or not. Everyone with a mobile phone in the US will be paying for LNP. Has anything the government mandated ever come without a cost to the consumer? Why would this be any different? Here's the kicker. The carriers can charge whatever they want. There are no rules laid down by the FCC, and no reporting required to ensure the charge is inline with the costs involved with the implementation of necessary systems to support LNP on the carrier's network. In fact, some people are starting to wonder if these LNP charges are going to become a new profit center for carriers. The FCC, in effect, just gave carriers carte blanche to stick the consumers for however much they wanted to, so long as they claim the funds are being used in some way to support LNP. And without any reporting requirements, the FCC just has to trust that they are using the funds for that purpose. Now it becomes clear why all the major carriers have given up the fight against LNP, and are now embracing it.

Contracts: Once carriers are forced to support LNP, you can bet the contracts for service will get a LOT more restrictive. You want out of a 1-year agreement after only 6 months? Sure, you can take your number to a competitor. But you owe your original carrier for what they would have collected from you if you had fulfilled your contract entirely. Right now, many carriers don't sweat contract lengths, and often let unhappy subscribers off the hook. You can bet that won't be the case any longer.

Handsets: Many consumers don't realize that the handset they get from one carrier will not necessarily work with another. Not only are there 2G/2.5G/3G issues, but carriers are often using entirely incompatible frequencies even if they are using the same base technologies. An Ericsson t68 originally acquired from AT&T Wireless may be completely useless when taken to another carrier. So you have to buy a new phone, as well as agree to yet another long-term contract.

Wireline Switches: The carriers are only required to support LNP if there is a wireline switch in the same rate center as the wireless switch. Only 1 in 8 rate centers actually have wireline switches, so 90% of consumers won't even qualify for LNP.

LNP sounds like a great deal for consumers on the surface, but once you start digging you realize that EVERYONE is paying for a feature that HARDLY ANYONE will ever actually use. Some have called LNP a "fraud on consumers". The more I learn about it, the more I tend to agree.