Monday, February 4, 2013

Catholic hospital takes surprise stance in lawsuit

DENVER (AP) -- It was a startling assertion that seemed an about-face from church doctrine: A Catholic hospital arguing in a Colorado court that twin fetuses that died in its care were not, under state law, human beings.

When the two-year-old court filing surfaced last month, it triggered an avalanche of criticism ? because the legal argument seemed to plainly clash with the church's centuries-old stance that life begins at conception.

But it is also now fueling an already raging debate in Colorado and beyond about whether fetuses should have legal rights and, if so, what kind.

On Monday, the hospital and the state's bishops released a statement acknowledging it was "morally wrong" to make the legal argument.

News of the wrongful death lawsuit came as Colorado lawmakers weigh how far they should go in penalizing acts that harm a fetus, and some worry that the case could diminish the Catholic Church's credibility in advocating more rights for the unborn.

Miguel De La Torre, a professor at the Iliff School of Theology in Denver, noted that the church often argues for laws recognizing a fetus as a human being.

"If that legislation was to come up again, how could the Catholic Church argue we should protect the rights of a fetus?" he said.

Indeed, last week Colorado's bishops met with executives at Catholic Healthcare Initiatives, a branch of the church that operates the hospital at the center of the case, to review how the lawsuit was handled. The two released separate statements Monday saying CHI executives had been unaware of the legal arguments and pledging to "work for comprehensive change in Colorado's law, so that the unborn may enjoy the same legal protections as other persons."

Spurred on by advancing medical technology that makes fetuses more viable and more visible, states have been expanding some rights to fetuses, sometimes in conjunction with anti-abortion groups and the Catholic Church.

State laws vary widely. It's difficult to quantify how many states allow wrongful death lawsuits on behalf of unborn children because each state has different case law and judicial interpretation. A report from the anti-abortion Americans United for Life estimates that 38 permit such lawsuits.

According to The Guttmacher Institute, which tracks reproductive health issues, 37 states allow some form of prosecution for killing a fetus. A federal law also makes it a crime to harm a fetus while committing other federal crimes.

The debate over such measures has been especially heated in Colorado, which has long battled over the legal status of unborn children. For example, Colorado has been ground zero for the "personhood" movement, which pushes laws that give fertilized eggs all the legal rights of human beings. Opponents warn that such laws would outlaw all forms of abortion and some types of birth control. Voters here so far have overwhelmingly rejected such proposals.

In 1986, a federal court ruled that fetuses are indeed people for purposes of wrongful death lawsuits in Colorado, but state courts have offered conflicting views. This latest case further calls the matter into question.

The case centers on St. Thomas More Medical Center in Canon City, a few hours south of Denver, and a wrongful death lawsuit filed by a husband who lost his pregnant wife.

Lori Stodghill was 28 weeks into her pregnancy when, on New Year's Day 2006, she began vomiting and feeling short of breath, according to court papers. Her husband, Jeremy, took her to the emergency room of St. Thomas More, where Stodghill collapsed and went into cardiac arrest.

Doctors and nurses tried to revive her, but she was declared dead from a pulmonary embolism. No one tried to remove the fetuses via an emergency cesarean section, and they perished, too, court papers said.

Jeremy Stodghill sued the hospital, some doctors and Catholic Healthcare Initiatives, which owns the company that operates Thomas More. Attorneys for CHI in 2010 filed court papers asking a judge to dismiss the case because the plaintiffs couldn't prove negligent care killed Lori Stodghill and her fetuses. They also argued that "under Colorado law, a fetus is not a 'person,' and Plaintiff's claims for wrongful death must therefore be dismissed."

The trial judge agreed, finding that previous state cases required a fetus to be "born alive" to have a legal claim. An appellate court upheld the dismissal on other grounds. Stodghill's attorneys are now asking the state Supreme Court to hear the case.

The arguments were first reported on Jan. 23 by The Colorado Independent and Westword and set off a firestorm because of Catholic health groups' past stances on such issues. The trade group representing Catholic Hospitals opposed a provision of the federal health care law mandating that birth control be covered by insurance.

In their Monday statement, Denver Archbishop Samuel J. Aquila, Colorado Springs Bishop Michael Sheridan and Pueblo Bishop Fernando Isern said: "Catholic healthcare institutions are, and should, be held to the high standard of Jesus Christ himself."

They and CHI pledged not to argue against fetal personhood further in the case. They also said they and CHI sympathize with the Stodghill family.

Attorney Timms Fowler, who wrote a brief on behalf of the Colorado Trial Lawyers Association in the case, doesn't believe that allowing lawsuits over wrongfully killed fetuses leads to giving them the same rights as human beings. He said there is a difference between "the duty owed by a stranger to the mother and the unborn child" and the mother's own decisions about the fetus' future.

"To die by the wrongful conduct of a stranger, you don't have to be a walking, talking, full person," Timms said, stressing he was speaking for himself and not the association.

Last Monday, no church representatives testified as a state legislative committee considered a proposal to make it a crime to kill a fetus. Republican Rep. Janak Joshi said his measure was not meant to wade into abortion politics but rather enable prosecutors to file additional charges in cases like the Aurora movie theater shooting. One victim was so severely wounded during the July massacre that she miscarried, but prosecutors could not file murder charges on her unborn child's behalf.

Witness Heather Surovik told the committee about how a drunken driver injured her last year and killed her 8 1/2-month-old unborn son, Brady. At the hospital, the emergency staff removed him from her body and dressed his corpse in infant clothes. Prosecutors could not file vehicular manslaughter charges because Brady was not legally a person.

Democrats and an attorney for Planned Parenthood argued that Joshi's measure, as written, could enshrine legal rights for fetuses in state law and lead to an abortion ban. The committee voted it down, but Democrats later unveiled their own bill that would make it a crime to kill a fetus during a criminal act committed against a pregnant woman. That measure specifically states that the intent is to neither outlaw abortions nor give unborn children additional rights.

A hearing on that proposal is scheduled later this month.

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/catholic-hospital-takes-surprise-stance-200838961.html

happy thanksgiving Macys Thanksgiving Day Parade 2012 Turkey Cooking Times Butterball mashed potatoes Apple Black Friday how to cook a turkey

Stocks tumble; S&P 500 posts worst day since Nov.

Stocks slid on Monday, giving the S&P 500 its worst day since November, as renewed worries about the euro zone crisis caused the market to pull back from recent gains.

Shares of McGraw-Hill shed 13.8 percent to $50.30, their worst daily percentage decline since the October 1987 market crash, after news the U.S. Justice Department plans to sue Standard & Poor's, a unit of McGraw-Hill, over its ratings in 2007 of some mortgage bond deals. Moody's Corp shares were down 10.7 percent at $49.45, their worst one-day drop since August 2011.

Chevron and Wal-Mart were among the biggest drags on the Dow after analyst downgrades, and all 10 S&P 500 sectors were lower. The losses follow Friday's market climb that left the S&P 500 at a five-year high and the Dow above 14,000.

"The market is extended and due for a pullback. I think people are looking for an excuse to make sales, and there (is) the concern coming from Europe," said Michael James, senior trader at Wedbush Morgan in Los Angeles.

Spanish and Italian bond yields rose, renewing worries about the euro zone's sovereign debt crisis. Spain's prime minister faced calls to resign over a corruption scandal, while a probe of alleged misconduct involving an Italian bank was expected to widen three weeks before a national election.

Adding to market pressure, data from the U.S. Commerce Department showed overall factory orders for December were below economists' expectations.

The Dow Jones industrial average was down 129.71 points, or 0.93 percent, at 13,880.08. The Standard & Poor's 500 Index was down 17.46 points, or 1.15 percent, at 1,495.71. The Nasdaq Composite Index was down 47.93 points, or 1.51 percent, at 3,131.17.

The benchmark S&P 500 rose on Friday, leaving it roughly 60 points away from its all-time intraday high of 1,576.09, while the Dow's march above 14,000 was the highest for the index since October 2007.

The S&P index remains up about 5 percent for the year, with nearly half of the gains coming after U.S. legislators temporarily sidestepped the "fiscal cliff" of automatic tax increases and spending cuts.

The CBOE Volatility index VIX, Wall Street's so-called fear gauge, jumped 13.7 percent.

Chevron dipped 1.1 percent to $115.20 after UBS cut its rating to neutral, while Wal-Mart Stores Inc shed 1.2 percent to $69.63 after JP Morgan lowered its rating on the world's largest retailer and reduced its price target.

Shares of household products company Clorox rose 0.7 percent to $79.72 after quarterly profit beat analysts' estimates as a severe flu season boosted sales of disinfecting wipes.

According to Thomson Reuters data, of the 256 companies in the S&P 500 that have reported earnings through Monday morning, 68.4 percent have reported earnings above analyst expectations, compared with the 62 percent average since 1994 and the 65 percent average over the past four quarters.

S&P 500 fourth-quarter earnings are expected to rise 4.4 percent, according to the data. That estimate is above the 1.9 percent forecast at the start of earnings season, but well below the 9.9 percent forecast on October 1.

Herbalife Ltd ended up 1.3 percent at $35.54, recovering its losses ahead of the close. The New York Post reported the seller of weight loss products is facing a probe by the Federal Trade Commission.

Decliners outpaced advancers on the NYSE by nearly 4 to 1 and on the Nasdaq also by about 4 to 1.

Copyright 2013 Thomson Reuters.

Source: http://www.nbcnews.com/business/stocks-tumble-sp-500-posts-worst-day-nov-1B8242914

vernon davis starship troopers starship troopers cruise ship italy patriots broncos game saints willis mcgahee

OK to Break Your Lease If Landlord Wants to Sell? - Real Estate ...

As the real estate market creeps back to life, many tenants may be wondering if they can break their lease if their landlord puts the rental property up for sale.

After all, once the property is sold, a tenant could be faced with a lot of uncertainties -- such as dealing with a new landlord who may have very different ideas about what he or she wants to do with the property.

While you may just want to pack up and look for a new place to live, your ability to break your lease in this situation is limited by the lease you signed, and by your state's landlord-tenant laws.

What Does Your Lease Say?

In general, you should first look to your lease to learn about your rights and obligations if the property is put up for sale. Some leases include a sales provision because landlords want the flexibility to make tenants move out if such an opportunity arises. Similarly, a lease may give tenants the option to find a new apartment as soon as the property is placed on the market.

However, the issue can get more difficult if your lease says nothing about the issue. Most states do not give tenants an automatic opt-out of the lease if the property is put up for sale. Instead, the lease will generally remain in effect -- just under a new landlord. This means in most cases, a tenant's original lease should be respected.

However, state laws do vary, so you will want to talk to a landlord-tenant lawyer in your jurisdiction to learn about your exact rights.

When Breaking Your Lease May Be Allowed

Even if your lease is silent about what happens if your landlord wants to sell, you may still be able to legally break your lease. For example, if your landlord violates any terms of your lease while the property is being sold -- such as by forcing you to make your apartment available every day for open houses -- you may be able to get out of your lease because of the breach of contract terms.

But before resorting to legal measures, tenants looking to break their lease may want to consider talking with their landlord first. Your concerns may be alleviated if your landlord makes it clear that the sale won't happen until the end of your lease term, that the new landlord will respect your lease, or that the sales process will not intrude on your enjoyment of your unit.

Related Resources:

Source: http://blogs.findlaw.com/law_and_life/2013/02/ok-to-break-your-lease-if-landlord-wants-to-sell.html

patriots vs giants super bowl superbowl halftime show jason wu for target underwood buffalo wings superbowl kick off time 2012 new york giants

Sunday, February 3, 2013

Washington wins 3 trophies at NAACP Image Awards

Kerry Washington poses backstage with the award for outstanding actress in a drama series for "Scandal" at the 44th Annual NAACP Image Awards at the Shrine Auditorium in Los Angeles on Friday, Feb. 1, 2013. (Photo by Chris Pizzello/Invision/AP)

Kerry Washington poses backstage with the award for outstanding actress in a drama series for "Scandal" at the 44th Annual NAACP Image Awards at the Shrine Auditorium in Los Angeles on Friday, Feb. 1, 2013. (Photo by Chris Pizzello/Invision/AP)

Kerry Washington accepts the President's award at the 44th Annual NAACP Image Awards at the Shrine Auditorium in Los Angeles on Friday, Feb. 1, 2013. (Photo by Matt Sayles/Invision/AP)

Don Cheadle accepts the award for outstanding actor in a comedy series for "House of Lies" at the 44th Annual NAACP Image Awards at the Shrine Auditorium in Los Angeles on Friday, Feb. 1, 2013. (Photo by Matt Sayles/Invision/AP)

LL Cool J accepts the award for outstanding actor in a drama series for "NCIS: Los Angeles" at the 44th Annual NAACP Image Awards at the Shrine Auditorium in Los Angeles on Friday, Feb. 1, 2013. (Photo by Matt Sayles/Invision/AP)

Halle Berry presents an award at the 44th Annual NAACP Image Awards at the Shrine Auditorium in Los Angeles on Friday, Feb. 1, 2013. (Photo by Matt Sayles/Invision/AP)

(AP) ? Kerry Washington was a triple threat at the NAACP Image Awards.

The star of ABC's "Scandal" picked up a trio of trophies at the 44th annual ceremony: outstanding actress in a drama series for "Scandal," supporting actress in a motion picture for "Django Unchained" and the President's Award, which is given in recognition of special achievement and exceptional public service.

"This award does not belong to me," said Washington, who plays a slave separated from her husband in "Django Unchained," as she picked up her first trophy of the evening for her role in the film directed by Quentin Tarantino. "It belongs to our ancestors. We shot this film on a slave plantation, and they were with us along every step of the way."

Washington, who plays crisis management consultant Olivia Pope on "Scandal," serves on President Barack Obama's Committee on the Arts and the Humanities.

Don Cheedle was awarded the outstanding actor in a comedy series trophy for his role as a slick management consultant in Showtime's "House of Lies."

"This doesn't belong just to me, but I am taking it home tonight," joked Cheedle.

A few winners weren't present at the Shrine Auditorium to pick up their trophies, including Denzel Washington for outstanding actor in a motion picture for "Flight," Viola Davis for outstanding actress in a motion picture for "Won't Back Down" and Omar Epps for supporting actor in a drama series for Fox's "House."

"Red Tails," the drama about the Tuskegee Airmen, was honored as outstanding motion picture.

"Look! I beat Quentin Tarantino," beamed "Red Tails" executive producer George Lucas as he accepted the award.

LL Cool J, who was honored as outstanding actor in a drama series for CBS' "NCIS: Los Angeles," dedicated his trophy to fellow nominee Michael Clarke Duncan, "The Green Mile" and "The Finder" actor who died last year.

"I wish his family well," said LL. "Let's give it up for him."

Gladys Knight sang during the in memoriam segment, but the beginning of her performance wasn't heard on the live NBC broadcast because of a technical glitch.

Sidney Poitier presented Harry Belafonte with the Spingarn Award, which honors outstanding achievement by an African American. His honor was followed by a serenade from Wyclef Jean and Common.

Other winners at the ceremony hosted by talk show host Steve Harvey included Loretta Devine as supporting actress in a drama series for "Grey's Anatomy," Cassi Davis as outstanding actress in a comedy series and Lance Gross as outstanding supporting actor in a comedy series for TBS' "Tyler Perry's House of Payne."

The Image Awards are presented annually by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, and the group's members select the winners.

___

Online:

http://www.naacpimageawards.net

___

Follow AP Entertainment Writer Derrik J. Lang on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/derrikjlang

Associated Press

Source: http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/3d281c11a96b4ad082fe88aa0db04305/Article_2013-02-02-NAACP%20Image%20Awards/id-ef8f317ba6ef4e5dac406e7ccfc6041d

West Nile virus symptoms snooki ll cool j amy schumer amy schumer Prince Harry Vegas pictures Avril Lavigne

Why Capitalism?

1302_SBR_DOINGCAPITALISM_IL

Illustration by Mike Norton

Why Wall Street? What good does Beezlebubbian finance really provide? Wouldn?t America be better off if we could magically transport ourselves back to the ?50s?when Wall Street was sleepy, the middle class was robust, and children dreamed of rocket ships? What is the essence of this activity known as finance? These are issues shaping William Janeway?s memoir-cum-analysis, Doing Capitalism in the Innovation Economy: Markets, Speculation and the State. You can be forgiven if you missed this book. The title could send you into hibernation. Despite the fact that Janeway writes a more polished prose than one would expect of an economist-turned-investor, the book has been packaged by Cambridge University Press in a bland baby-blue cover featuring a clip-art cellphone, its glossy pages dense with text, warning: Everyone but academics stay away.

That?s a pity, because this is one of the most intelligent, sensible, and insightful books about Wall Street published since the financial implosion of 2008. It deserves a larger audience than it will get and serves as a refreshing relief to jeremiads from the left like Matt Taibbi?s Griftopia, and ones from the right, such as former Bain Capital partner Edward Conard?s Unintended Consequences. Taibbi, despite sharing Janeway?s progressive leanings, often seems to believe finance is essentially criminal, while Janeway views it as a necessary?if flawed?component of any modern economy. Meanwhile, Conard and Janeway share common experiences as private investors but differ in their politics. Conard speaks to the great unwashed from a fortress of assumed technical omniscience, arguing the case for a brutally divided society of givers and takers in which a tiny number of the former take risks and fuel growth that allows everyone else to bathe in self-indulgence. Conard provides the grim underpinning for Mitt Romney?s 47 percent, while insisting that actions that allow greater risk-taking?including the activities of banks involved in the meltdown of 2008?were actually good, not bad; necessary steps to drive growth, productivity, and innovation, not a moral and financial disaster.

Janeway is the son of Eliot Janeway, an economic commentator and adviser to Roosevelt and Johnson, and the novelist Elizabeth Janeway; his liberal political tendencies thus come naturally, supplemented by a long study of Keynesian economics, including close contact with one of Keynes? greatest disciples, Hyman Minsky. In fact, he has long pursued two careers, which effectively inform each other: as an economist at Cambridge University (home of Keynes) delving into the financial breakdown of 1929-31; and as a Wall Street practitioner who learned at the well-shod feet of Ferdinand Eberstadt, venture capitalist Fred Adler, and John Vogelstein, one of the founders of Warburg Pincus, Janeway?s longtime firm.

Janeway?s case studies, based on his own experiences both in the insular club of private partnerships that was 1960s Wall Street, and as an early venture investor in emerging biotech and computing concerns, are often fascinating and insightful, if arcane for those who don?t recall the history. But he continually tries to extract broader conclusions from these cases, focusing on the essential role government played in incubating those industries. Janeway lays out what he calls the ?Three-Player Game? necessary to fuel innovation: the state, financial capitalism, and the market economy (that is, ?institutions that enable the production and exchange of goods and services?). This is a three-legged stool; weaken any leg, say by deregulation or by overregulation, and you spawn instabilities and stagnation. He envisions a kind of creative tension that has broken down with the free-market ascendancy. ?That very success in ?liberating? the market economy from the encroachment of the state has potentially dire consequences for the Innovation Economy,? he writes.

Janeway?s real target here is in the ?innovation economy,? the nurturing of new, transformational technologies. Without mentioning them, he seems to be acknowledging fears from the likes of Peter Thiel and Tyler Cowen that we?ve entered a period of technological stagnation. He believes government must step in to support R&D where private investors fear to tread?where risk is too high, costs too steep, or investment periods too long.

But Janeway also recognizes that speculation is intertwined in any innovative activity. Without speculation, markets would not participate in supporting anything risky?from early biotech to desktop computing to renewable energy. Capitalists (certainly Wall Street) always try to escape what historian Fernand Braudel calls ?the world of transparence and regularity,? and seek windfalls, what Braudel calls ?super-profits.? Regulatory arbitrage?the drive to do business where oversight is lightest?is built into the business model of Wall Street. So is greed. So is speculation.

This speculative enterprise always has an element of a lottery. Not only is greed eternal, but markets have often been casinos; take risk away and reward goes with it?nowhere more so than in venture capital. Given those realities, and their material benefits, markets require strong government oversight. What defines markets is the kind of uncertainty that Keynes propounded, but that many of Keynes? postwar disciples effectively undercut when they mathematized his doctrines, only to be further buried by free-market economists who built mechanical models that afforded markets an omniscient wisdom, efficiency, and rationality. Janeway rejects those attempts to make markets their own justification, noting that their failure to predict the two great bubbles of the new millennium has made them increasingly suspect as useful tools.

This brings us to the nature and importance of bubbles, which are popularly viewed as reckless episodes of lunacy and corruption. Janeway, who has studied bubbles since his research into 1929, is more sanguine. Bubbles, he writes are ?boringly repetitive??he titles one chapter ?The banality of bubbles??but speculative excess ?has played a historic role as the engine of transformation, driving growth and economic productivity and living standards for 250 years of the modern era.?

Author William Janeway. Author William Janeway.

Photo By Rogier van Bakel/Eager Eye Photography.

Here Janeway and Conard share something. In fact, what Janeway calls ?the necessity of bubbles? isn?t an unknown argument, just an unpopular one: Michael Mandel wrote Rational Exuberance in 2004 and Daniel Gross published Pop! Why Bubbles are Great for the Economy just as the credit bubble was giving way in 2007. Janeway understands the differences between a less damaging stock-market bubble, such as the dot-com bubble, and one involving banks, as in 2008. He recognizes how some bubbles leave the world better off, with innovations scattered across the landscape for our use, while other bubbles leave behind wastelands.

Janeway is seeking a balance between paradoxical forces. He views capitalism, for better or worse, as a massive set of necessary experiments that churn out considerable waste. Because the future is unknown?he quotes Thomas Hobbes on ?the future being but a fiction of the mind??there is no rational equilibrium discernable in markets, and investors make decisions with less-than-perfect knowledge. In other words, they?re wrong a sizeable portion of the time, but they?re not irrational. To maximize the odds of bringing new innovations steadily to the market, a lot of bets have to be laid. Many of them will go awry, sometime in big ways. But that?s the price to be paid for material progress.

In Janeway?s view, governments have a responsibility to insure that innovative capitalism thrives. They must actively regulate markets that need policing and that are prone to breakdown; they must support long-term R&D; they must serve as lenders of last resort; they must intervene when things blow up, particularly when demand flags. (Janeway, near the end of the book, offers a chapter on the absurdity of austerity in a financial crisis that could come from Paul Krugman.) So much of this is commonsensical, though he does leave some issues hanging, particularly on how to retain that three-party balance. He does not deal at any depth with regulatory and political capture, often by interests that have been empowered by markets. He does not deal with inequality or the effects of a financial capitalism that has become so large, complex, speculative and global.

But that?s simply to say Janeway can?t solve all our problems. What he does very well ? besides provide head-clearing historical perspectives ? is lead us to back to fundamentals. Why capitalism? Why markets? Why this den of predation and speculation called Wall Street? He is a reasonable man who offers a rational view. Both are rare these days, and valuable.

Source: http://feeds.slate.com/click.phdo?i=8d29c8e15e36cbd8c5b9327c605f6268

black friday How long to cook a turkey green bean casserole green bean casserole recipe red dawn sweet potato pie sweet potato pie

Windows Phone 7.8 hands-on: cosmetically yours

Windows Phone 78 handson cosmetically yours

There was much wailing and gnashing of teeth when Microsoft declared that fairly fresh (and costly) Windows Phone 7 devices like the Nokia Lumia 900 would never taste its latest WP8 wares. To assuage hurt feelings and keep legacy phone owners within throwing distance of the latest devices like the Nokia Lumia 920 or HTC's 8X, Redmond introduced Windows Phone 7.8 (version 7.10.8858), which started arriving via Zune on January 31st. It was likely hoping that the upgrade would tide legacy owners over until their contracts expired or boredom set in, at which point they'd get a new device packing WP8 -- including not-too-costly models like the $249 (contract-free) Lumia 620. So the question is, will the 7.8 bone thrown at WP7 handset owners prevent them from looking at the greener Android or iOS grass across the fence? We've got a Lumia 610 here that was otherwise collecting dust, so head after the break to find out our thoughts.

Filed under: , ,

Comments

Source: http://feeds.engadget.com/~r/weblogsinc/engadget/~3/Z1SYKYcSJQY/

guy fawkes gary johnson gary johnson walking dead where do i vote dixville notch Remember Remember The 5th Of November

Saturday, February 2, 2013

Ofcom mulls letting all UK carriers reuse spectrum for LTE

Winston Churchill is That Guy

British regulator Ofcom gave EE special license to reuse 1,800MHz spectrum for its fledgling LTE network; to put it mildly, that rubbed other carriers the wrong way. The agency may be more open to a level playing field, as it's proposing letting everyone follow a similar route, and then some. Following calls from H3G (Three), Telefonica (O2) and Vodafone, Ofcom has offered to let all UK providers repurpose both their 1,800MHz airwaves as well as the 900MHz and 2,100MHz bands. We won't have too long to wait before a decision: Ofcom will decide on the proposal in the second quarter, which might come just in time for carriers to supplement whatever bandwidth they get from 4G auctions. Especially when hardware already exists that could use the frequencies for faster speeds, success could see the trickle of UK LTE become more of a torrent.

Filed under: , ,

Comments

Via: The Next Web

Source: Ofcom (PDF)

Source: http://feeds.engadget.com/~r/weblogsinc/engadget/~3/rv72QHAMed8/

elon musk fox mole manson bubba watson recent earthquakes fbi most wanted list stuttering