Bill Grignard was well for the first 10 months of his life. In the next year he had pneumonia once, several episodes of otitis media (inflammation of middle ear) and on once occasion developed erysipelas (skin streptococcal infection) on his right cheek. These infections were all treated successfully with antibiotics but seemed to his mother, a nurse, that he was constantly on antibiotics.

His mother had two brothers who all died, 30 years prior to Bill’s birth, from pneumonia in their second year of life, before antibiotics were available. She also had two sisters who were well; one had a healthy son and daughter and the other a healthy daughter.

Bill was a bright and active child who gained weight, grew and developed normally but he continued to have repeated infections of the ears and sinuses and twice again pneumonia. At 2 years 3 months his local pediatrician tested his serum immunoglobulin is. He found 80 mg/ dl IgG ( normal is 600-1500 mg/dl), no IgA (normal is 50-125 mg/dl) and only 10 mg/dl IgM (normal is 75-150 mg/dl).

Bill was started on monthly intramuscular injections of gamma globulin; his serum IgG level was maintained at 200 mg/dl. He started school at age 5 years and performed well despite prolonged absences because of recurrent pneumonia and other infections.

At age 9 he was referred to the Children’s Hospital because of atelectasis (partial lung collapse) and a chronic cough. On physical examination he was found to be a well-developed alert boy. He weighed 33.5 kg and was 146 cm tall (normal). The doctor noted he had no visible tonsils (he never had a tonsillectomy). With a stethoscope the doctor also heard rales (moist crackles) at both lung bases.

Further family history revealed that Bill had one younger sibling, John, a 7 year old brother who also had contracted pneumonia on 3 occasions. John had a serum IgG of 150 mg/dl.

Laboratory studies at the time of Bill/s visit to the Children’s Hosptial gave a white blood cell count of 5100/ ul (normal) of which 45% were neutrophils (normal), 43% were lymphocytes (normal), 10% were monocytes (elevated) and 2% were eosinophils (normal).

Flow cytometry showed of lymphocytes, 85% were T cells ( 55% CD4, 29% CD8), however there was a complete lack of B cells (CD19+, normal 12%). Serum IgG remained low at 155 mg/dl and serum IgA and IgM were still undetectable.

3. Read the description paragraph below and identify/diagnose what the patient is experiencing (ie disease or immunological problem).

2. Once you identify the problem, think over what we have covered in class and describe what the outcomes of the disease or immunological problem is in the context of the immune system and where might there be deficiencies or problems with the normal immune system function.

3. Lastly, describe how the immune system would be working in a healthy individual. This could include a brief description of how the specific part of the immune system identified as being deficient normally works in a stepwise pathway that we cover in class. You can either use words to describe these pathways or you can draw pictures well annotated with high detail and include them as pictures with your word document you submit.

JAVA programming Classwork- please answer all prompts as apart of one java programming project

Part A

Add to your project this class Position, which has x and y coordinates.

Create an abstract class GameElt, which has a String name, an int health (keep it in the range 0 to 100) and a Position pos.

For GameElt, include a default constructor that starts pos at (0, 0), and a parameterized constructor that takes x and y coordinates and a name. health should always start at 100.

Create a class BigDarnHero which inherits from GameElt. Override toString so that when we print a hero, we see something like "Thondar the Hero (3, 17)" based on the name and the position. Other than toString and two constructors taking the same parameters as in GameElt, you do not need to add anything else for this class at this time.

Part B

☑ Create an interface MoveStrategy which requires methods

• void move(Position p, String direction)
• boolean chanceToFall()

The idea is that moving in a given direction will change the given position, and chanceToFall will return true if a fall happened or false otherwise. How this happens will depend on the implementation in the actual classes.

Moving North or South will change the Y coordinate (vertical movement) moving East or West will change the X coordinate (horizontal movement). Direction will be passed as "N", "S", "E", or "W".

☑ Write a class WalkMoveStrategy which implements MoveStrategy. When walking, the position changes by 1 in the direction chosen, and a message like "Walking from (7,1) to (7, 2)." should also be printed out.

People who are walking have a 1 in 20 chance of falling. In chanceToFall choose a random number and use it to determine if chanceToFall returns true.

You do not need to add anything other than the methods to implement the strategy, not even a constructor

☑ Change GameElt so that it also has an instance variable moveStrat of type MoveStrategy.

Add to GameElt a method move(direction) which calls moveStrat's move method, passing it the direction given and GameElt's pos instance variable. Then call chanceToFall and if the GameElt fell while moving, print a statement about this and reduce health by 5.

☑ In all constructors for BigDarnHero, set the MoveStrategy to a new instance of WalkMoveStrategy.

☑ In a main program, create a BigDarnHero named "Mighty Thog" at (5, 3) and have them walk three moves north and one west. Print the hero before they move, and again after they have moved.

Part C

☑ Add another class RunMoveStrategy which implements MoveStrategy, and whose move method changes the position by 5 in the direction given, as well as printing something like "Running from (9, 3) to (4, 3). Boy my mighty thews are tired."

People who run have a 1 in 10 chance of falling.

☑ To BigDarnHero, add a method speedUp() which changes the hero's MoveStrategy to a RunMoveStrategy, and a method slowDown which changes the MoveStrategy to a WalkMoveStrategy.

☑ In the main program, have Mighty Thog move around, speed up, move around, slow down, and move around again.

Part D

☑ Add another strategy for movement, RandomCursedMoveStrategy, which changes the position by a random amount in a random direction, no matter what direction is passed in, and prints out something like "Truly, I am accursed and shall never get to class on time".

People moving by this strategy have a 50/50 chance of falling and hurting themselves.

In the main program, create a hero, set this as their movement strategy, and add some movement for them.

Integrative Case 3.4

The Antitrust Case on the AT&T-T Mobile Merger

Mike W. Peng

In 2011, the second-largest US mobile wireless carrier AT&T (with a 25% market share) proposed to merger with the fourth-largest carrier T-Mobile, which had a 15% market share and was a wholly owned subsidiary of Deutsch Telekom. Antitrust authorities blocked this merger. Why?

The Merger

In March 2011, Dallas-based AT&T announced that it had reached an agreement with Deutsch Telekom. (DT) to purchase DTs holy into US subsidiary, T-Mobile USA, four $39 billion. The tub for concentrations in mobile wireless telecommunication services in the US the counter for more than 90% of the market share. Of the big four, the second range AT&T had about 25% market share, and the fourth-ranked T-Mobile had 15%. The largest player was Verizon with 31%, and the third was Sprint Nextel at 20%. Although some small carriers competed in certain regions, no carriers other than the big four competed nationally. After the proposed merger, the combined AT&T and T-Mobile would become the nation’s largest wireless carrier, commanding more than 40% of market share, with 132 million customers and 72 billion in revenues. The scale and scope of the merger would require regulatory approval. AT&T indicated its willingness to sell off certain assets if necessary, and plan to complete merger in one year.

AT&T argued that the merger would allow AT&T to expand 4G LTE broadband to another 55 million Americans, reaching a total of 97% of the population and especially benefit in rural areas currently without broadband coverage. Because T-Mobile was losing money and suffering from its poor economies of scale, and it (and its parent company DT) had been unable to upgrade its networks and invest in 4G broadband. While AT&T was booming and adding customers, T-Mobile was losing customers- it was the only major carrier that did not offer the iPhone. But T-Mobile possessed some hard-to-substitute resources: spectrum. Spectrum represented finite resources auctioned by the federal communications commission (FCC). Exhausting its own spectrum, AT&T could benefit from tapping into T-Mobile’s underutilize spectrum. Accelerating 4G wireless deployment would not only generate new jobs due to AT&T’s own investment, but would also stimulate broader job creation and civil engagement due to better access to more affordable and more widespread wireless broadband services.

A variety of labor, environmental, and business groups supported the merger. These groups pointed to AT&T’s record and commitments to labor and environmental standards, and appreciated the investment and the jobs the merger would bring. Also, civil rights groups applauded the additional boost and civil engagement that could be facilitated by more widespread broadband. Governors of 26 states wrote letters to support the merger.

However, other diverse groups were opposed to this merger. Not surprisingly, Verizon and Sprint did not like the deal, because it would make them weaker. Sprint would become a distant third, so clearly it would not appreciate the outcome.  Verizon would lose its top position, but it would still be a strong player in a new duopoly. Internet companies did not like the merger either, because the merger would leave them with fewer service providers to negotiate with for getting their content and applications to customers. The computer and communication industry Association- which included eBay, Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo as its members- was opposed to the merger. Consumer groups argued that the merger would raise prices and stifle innovation by consolidating so much of the wireless industry in one firm.

On the core issue of whether increasing AT&T’s market power would hurt consumers, AT&T pointed out that the average inflation-adjusted price for wireless services in the United States fell by 50% from 1999 to 2009, according to the government accountability office. AT&T also argued that in many markets AT&T would still be competing with four or more rivals, so taking T-Mobile (which was losing customers anyway) out of the mix would not dent competition. If AT&T could not acquire T-Mobile (which had sizable infrastructure, such as cellular towers and significant spectrum), then AT&T might be forced to build its own infrastructure, which would be an unnecessarily costly undertaking and social waste, especially in crowded urban areas such as San Francisco. But even if AT&T went head-to-head with infrastructure building, it would still suffer from a shortage of spectrum, while T-Mobile, at the same time, could not fully utilize its spectrum- clearly a waste of finite resources.

The Antitrust Case

In August 2011, the US department of justice filed a lawsuit alleging that this merger would reduce competition and violate antitrust law. DOJ alleges that the “anticompetitive harm” of this merger would include:

(a) actual and potential competition between AT&T and T-Mobile would be of limited; (b) competition in general likely will be lessened substantially; (c) prices are likely to be higher than they otherwise would; (d) the quality and quantity of services are likely to be less than they otherwise would due to reduce incentives to invest in capacity and technology improvements; and (e) innovation and product variety likely will be reduced.

In particular, given T-Mobile’s positioning as a self-styled “ disruptive pricing” provider, “AT&T’s acquisition of T-Mobile,” alleged DOJ, “would eliminate the important price, quality, product variety, and innovation competition that an independent T-Mobile brings to the marketplace.” In addition, DOJ argued:

The substantial increase in concentration that would result from this merger, and the reduction in the number of nationwide providers from 4 to 3, likely will lead to lessened competition due to an enhanced risk of anticompetitive coordination. Certain aspects of mobile wireless communications services markets, including transparent pricing, little buyer-side market power, and high barriers to entry and expansion, make them particularly conductive to coordination.

In conclusion, DOJ argued that the proposed merger would violate section 7 of the Clayton act and that it should be stopped. In the lawsuit, DOJ also sued T-Mobile and DT as co-defendants. On behalf of the US government, DOJ was the sole plaintiff in its first complaint filed on August 31, 2011. In its first amended complaint filed on September 16, DOJ was joined by the states of New York, Washington, California, Illinois, Massachusetts, Ohio, and Pennsylvania as co-plaintiffs. And it’s second amended complaint filed on September 30, Puerto Rico joined as a co-plaintiff. The case was officially the United States et al. v. AT&T Inc. et al.

AT&T was not a stranger to antitrust lawsuits. Today’s AT&T is the direct result of the first United States vs AT&T antitrust lawsuit. Because of its monopoly and long-distance (land-line) telephone, the original AT&T (“Ma Bell”) was forced by DOJ to break up into Sevan regional bell operating companies (known as “Baby Bells”) in 1983. Between 1983 and 2005, today’s AT&T was one of these Baby Bells named Southwestern Bell Corporation between 1983 and 1995, and shortened to SBC between 1995 and 2005. Due to its successful market performance, SBC emerged as a leading offspring of the original AT&T (Verizon was another leading off-spring). In 2005, SBC spent $16 billion to purchase its former parent company, AT&T corporation- a Baby Bell acquiring Ma Bell. Quitting in the SBC name, the merged entity named itself AT&T Inc. and took on the iconic AT&T branding (including it’s logo and its stock ticker “T”, which simply sounds for “telephone”). Before the filing of the second United States versus AT&T case, the economist asked: “Could the bid for T-Mobile be a sign that monopoly Ma is trying to return from her grave?”

The Outcome

In November 2011, the FCC issued its opinion and joined DOJ in opposing the merger. In December 2011 (before the antitrust case went on trial), AT&T gave up the merger and DOJ dismissed the case. A triumphant DOJ announced:

Consumers won today… Had AT&T acquire T-Mobile, consumers in the wireless market place would have faced higher prices and reduce innovation. We sued to protect consumers who rely on competition in this important industry. With the parties’ abandonment, we achieved that result.

A frustrated AT&T noted in its press release:

[Dallas, Texas, December 19, 2011] AT&T Inc. (NYSE: T) said today bad after a thorough review of options it has agreed with Deutsch Telekom AG to end its bid to acquire T-Mobile USA, which began in March of this year.

The actions by the federal communications commission and the Department of Justice to block this transaction did not change the realities of the US wireless industry. It is one of the most fiercely competitive industries in the world, with a mounting need for more spectrum that has not diminished and must be addressed immediately. The AT&T and T-Mobile USA combination would have offered an interim solution to the spectrum shortage. In the absence of such steps, customers will be harmed and needed investment will be stifled.

“AT&T will continue to be aggressive in leading the mobile Internet revolution,” said Randall Stephenson, AT&T chairman and CEO. “Over the past four years we have invested more in our networks than any other US company. As a result, today we deliver best-in-class mobile broadband speeds- connecting smartphones, tablets, and emerging devices at a record pace- and we are well underway with our nationwide 4G LTE deployment.

“To meet the needs of our customers, we will continue to invest,” Stephenson said. “However, adding capacity to meet these needs will require policymakers to do two things. First, in the near term, they should allow the free markets to work so that additional spectrum is available to meet the immediate needs of the US wireless industry, including expeditiously approving our acquisition of unused Qualcomm spectrum currently pending before the FCC. Second, policymakers should enact legislation to meet our nation’s longer-term spectrum needs.

“ The mobile Internet is a dynamic industry that can be a critical driver in restoring American economic growth and job creation, but only if companies are allowed to react quickly to consumer needs and market forces’, Stephenson said.

The fine prints in the deal included DOJ’s blessing of AT&T and T-Mobile’s collaboration in roaming. The more significant (or, if you will, the more bizarre) outcome was that as per AT&T’s original deal with DT, in the event of merger failure, AT&T would pay T-Mobile $3 billion as a break-up fee and give T-Mobile $1 billion worth of AT&T-held wireless spectrum. In short, the US government reduced the competitiveness of a US firm by forcing a US firm to subsidize the wholly owned subsidiary of a foreign firm.

In the name of preserving (domestic) competition, the US government preserved a (foreign) competitor. “The problem is,” noted one expert at Slate, “ T-Mobile doesn’t want to be a competitor anymore. It’s parent company DT wants out of the US market.” As the weakest among the big four, T-Mobile only added 89,000 new customers between 2009 and 2011, while the industry took in 33 million new customers. By essentially giving up since March 2011, T-Mobile lost 467,000 lucrative contract customers during the merger process. By focusing on its terms of exit, T-Mobile turned its attention away from network upgrades and improvements. DOJ and FCC cannot force T-Mobile to be in business, just like no one can force customers to sign up for plans they do not want. By breathing a new lease on life into T-Mobile, that was exactly what DOJ and FCC did: forcing T-Mobile to be in business against its (and it’s parents company’s) own wishes. The same expert at Slate continued:

Sure, companies like T-Mobile and Sprint can offer cheaper plans, but the success of Verizon and AT&T shows price is not our primary concern when it comes to wireless service. We want shiny smartphones and big, powerful, reliable networks… Rather than stay for competition, the merger would have intensified the war between the two giants, AT&T and Verizon. And for those people for whom price is paramount, there would remain not only Sprint, but a slew of smaller, regional providers like Leap and MetroPCS.

In 150 words or more complete the following (use outside sources/ information if possible):

Defend this merger as T-Mobile‘s or Deutsch Telekom’s CEO (both firms were co-defendants in this case).

Integrative Case 3.4

The Antitrust Case on the AT&T-T Mobile Merger

Mike W. Peng

In 2011, the second-largest US mobile wireless carrier AT&T (with a 25% market share) proposed to merger with the fourth-largest carrier T-Mobile, which had a 15% market share and was a wholly owned subsidiary of Deutsch Telekom. Antitrust authorities blocked this merger. Why?

The Merger

In March 2011, Dallas-based AT&T announced that it had reached an agreement with Deutsch Telekom. (DT) to purchase DTs holy into US subsidiary, T-Mobile USA, four $39 billion. The tub for concentrations in mobile wireless telecommunication services in the US the counter for more than 90% of the market share. Of the big four, the second range AT&T had about 25% market share, and the fourth-ranked T-Mobile had 15%. The largest player was Verizon with 31%, and the third was Sprint Nextel at 20%. Although some small carriers competed in certain regions, no carriers other than the big four competed nationally. After the proposed merger, the combined AT&T and T-Mobile would become the nation’s largest wireless carrier, commanding more than 40% of market share, with 132 million customers and 72 billion in revenues. The scale and scope of the merger would require regulatory approval. AT&T indicated its willingness to sell off certain assets if necessary, and plan to complete merger in one year.

AT&T argued that the merger would allow AT&T to expand 4G LTE broadband to another 55 million Americans, reaching a total of 97% of the population and especially benefit in rural areas currently without broadband coverage. Because T-Mobile was losing money and suffering from its poor economies of scale, and it (and its parent company DT) had been unable to upgrade its networks and invest in 4G broadband. While AT&T was booming and adding customers, T-Mobile was losing customers- it was the only major carrier that did not offer the iPhone. But T-Mobile possessed some hard-to-substitute resources: spectrum. Spectrum represented finite resources auctioned by the federal communications commission (FCC). Exhausting its own spectrum, AT&T could benefit from tapping into T-Mobile’s underutilize spectrum. Accelerating 4G wireless deployment would not only generate new jobs due to AT&T’s own investment, but would also stimulate broader job creation and civil engagement due to better access to more affordable and more widespread wireless broadband services.

A variety of labor, environmental, and business groups supported the merger. These groups pointed to AT&T’s record and commitments to labor and environmental standards, and appreciated the investment and the jobs the merger would bring. Also, civil rights groups applauded the additional boost and civil engagement that could be facilitated by more widespread broadband. Governors of 26 states wrote letters to support the merger.

However, other diverse groups were opposed to this merger. Not surprisingly, Verizon and Sprint did not like the deal, because it would make them weaker. Sprint would become a distant third, so clearly it would not appreciate the outcome.  Verizon would lose its top position, but it would still be a strong player in a new duopoly. Internet companies did not like the merger either, because the merger would leave them with fewer service providers to negotiate with for getting their content and applications to customers. The computer and communication industry Association- which included eBay, Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo as its members- was opposed to the merger. Consumer groups argued that the merger would raise prices and stifle innovation by consolidating so much of the wireless industry in one firm.

On the core issue of whether increasing AT&T’s market power would hurt consumers, AT&T pointed out that the average inflation-adjusted price for wireless services in the United States fell by 50% from 1999 to 2009, according to the government accountability office. AT&T also argued that in many markets AT&T would still be competing with four or more rivals, so taking T-Mobile (which was losing customers anyway) out of the mix would not dent competition. If AT&T could not acquire T-Mobile (which had sizable infrastructure, such as cellular towers and significant spectrum), then AT&T might be forced to build its own infrastructure, which would be an unnecessarily costly undertaking and social waste, especially in crowded urban areas such as San Francisco. But even if AT&T went head-to-head with infrastructure building, it would still suffer from a shortage of spectrum, while T-Mobile, at the same time, could not fully utilize its spectrum- clearly a waste of finite resources.

The Antitrust Case

In August 2011, the US department of justice filed a lawsuit alleging that this merger would reduce competition and violate antitrust law. DOJ alleges that the “anticompetitive harm” of this merger would include:

(a) actual and potential competition between AT&T and T-Mobile would be of limited; (b) competition in general likely will be lessened substantially; (c) prices are likely to be higher than they otherwise would; (d) the quality and quantity of services are likely to be less than they otherwise would due to reduce incentives to invest in capacity and technology improvements; and (e) innovation and product variety likely will be reduced.

In particular, given T-Mobile’s positioning as a self-styled “ disruptive pricing” provider, “AT&T’s acquisition of T-Mobile,” alleged DOJ, “would eliminate the important price, quality, product variety, and innovation competition that an independent T-Mobile brings to the marketplace.” In addition, DOJ argued:

The substantial increase in concentration that would result from this merger, and the reduction in the number of nationwide providers from 4 to 3, likely will lead to lessened competition due to an enhanced risk of anticompetitive coordination. Certain aspects of mobile wireless communications services markets, including transparent pricing, little buyer-side market power, and high barriers to entry and expansion, make them particularly conductive to coordination.

In conclusion, DOJ argued that the proposed merger would violate section 7 of the Clayton act and that it should be stopped. In the lawsuit, DOJ also sued T-Mobile and DT as co-defendants. On behalf of the US government, DOJ was the sole plaintiff in its first complaint filed on August 31, 2011. In its first amended complaint filed on September 16, DOJ was joined by the states of New York, Washington, California, Illinois, Massachusetts, Ohio, and Pennsylvania as co-plaintiffs. And it’s second amended complaint filed on September 30, Puerto Rico joined as a co-plaintiff. The case was officially the United States et al. v. AT&T Inc. et al.

AT&T was not a stranger to antitrust lawsuits. Today’s AT&T is the direct result of the first United States vs AT&T antitrust lawsuit. Because of its monopoly and long-distance (land-line) telephone, the original AT&T (“Ma Bell”) was forced by DOJ to break up into Sevan regional bell operating companies (known as “Baby Bells”) in 1983. Between 1983 and 2005, today’s AT&T was one of these Baby Bells named Southwestern Bell Corporation between 1983 and 1995, and shortened to SBC between 1995 and 2005. Due to its successful market performance, SBC emerged as a leading offspring of the original AT&T (Verizon was another leading off-spring). In 2005, SBC spent $16 billion to purchase its former parent company, AT&T corporation- a Baby Bell acquiring Ma Bell. Quitting in the SBC name, the merged entity named itself AT&T Inc. and took on the iconic AT&T branding (including it’s logo and its stock ticker “T”, which simply sounds for “telephone”). Before the filing of the second United States versus AT&T case, the economist asked: “Could the bid for T-Mobile be a sign that monopoly Ma is trying to return from her grave?”

The Outcome

In November 2011, the FCC issued its opinion and joined DOJ in opposing the merger. In December 2011 (before the antitrust case went on trial), AT&T gave up the merger and DOJ dismissed the case. A triumphant DOJ announced:

Consumers won today… Had AT&T acquire T-Mobile, consumers in the wireless market place would have faced higher prices and reduce innovation. We sued to protect consumers who rely on competition in this important industry. With the parties’ abandonment, we achieved that result.

A frustrated AT&T noted in its press release:

[Dallas, Texas, December 19, 2011] AT&T Inc. (NYSE: T) said today bad after a thorough review of options it has agreed with Deutsch Telekom AG to end its bid to acquire T-Mobile USA, which began in March of this year.

The actions by the federal communications commission and the Department of Justice to block this transaction did not change the realities of the US wireless industry. It is one of the most fiercely competitive industries in the world, with a mounting need for more spectrum that has not diminished and must be addressed immediately. The AT&T and T-Mobile USA combination would have offered an interim solution to the spectrum shortage. In the absence of such steps, customers will be harmed and needed investment will be stifled.

“AT&T will continue to be aggressive in leading the mobile Internet revolution,” said Randall Stephenson, AT&T chairman and CEO. “Over the past four years we have invested more in our networks than any other US company. As a result, today we deliver best-in-class mobile broadband speeds- connecting smartphones, tablets, and emerging devices at a record pace- and we are well underway with our nationwide 4G LTE deployment.

“To meet the needs of our customers, we will continue to invest,” Stephenson said. “However, adding capacity to meet these needs will require policymakers to do two things. First, in the near term, they should allow the free markets to work so that additional spectrum is available to meet the immediate needs of the US wireless industry, including expeditiously approving our acquisition of unused Qualcomm spectrum currently pending before the FCC. Second, policymakers should enact legislation to meet our nation’s longer-term spectrum needs.

“ The mobile Internet is a dynamic industry that can be a critical driver in restoring American economic growth and job creation, but only if companies are allowed to react quickly to consumer needs and market forces’, Stephenson said.

The fine prints in the deal included DOJ’s blessing of AT&T and T-Mobile’s collaboration in roaming. The more significant (or, if you will, the more bizarre) outcome was that as per AT&T’s original deal with DT, in the event of merger failure, AT&T would pay T-Mobile $3 billion as a break-up fee and give T-Mobile $1 billion worth of AT&T-held wireless spectrum. In short, the US government reduced the competitiveness of a US firm by forcing a US firm to subsidize the wholly owned subsidiary of a foreign firm.

In the name of preserving (domestic) competition, the US government preserved a (foreign) competitor. “The problem is,” noted one expert at Slate, “ T-Mobile doesn’t want to be a competitor anymore. It’s parent company DT wants out of the US market.” As the weakest among the big four, T-Mobile only added 89,000 new customers between 2009 and 2011, while the industry took in 33 million new customers. By essentially giving up since March 2011, T-Mobile lost 467,000 lucrative contract customers during the merger process. By focusing on its terms of exit, T-Mobile turned its attention away from network upgrades and improvements. DOJ and FCC cannot force T-Mobile to be in business, just like no one can force customers to sign up for plans they do not want. By breathing a new lease on life into T-Mobile, that was exactly what DOJ and FCC did: forcing T-Mobile to be in business against its (and it’s parents company’s) own wishes. The same expert at Slate continued:

Sure, companies like T-Mobile and Sprint can offer cheaper plans, but the success of Verizon and AT&T shows price is not our primary concern when it comes to wireless service. We want shiny smartphones and big, powerful, reliable networks… Rather than stay for competition, the merger would have intensified the war between the two giants, AT&T and Verizon. And for those people for whom price is paramount, there would remain not only Sprint, but a slew of smaller, regional providers like Leap and MetroPCS.

In 150 words or more complete the following (use outside sources/ information if possible):

Defend AT&T’s position as its CEO.

In a study of media usage versus education level (American Demographics, Vol. 17, No. 6), an index was used to measure media usage, where a measurement of 100 represents the U.S. average. Values above 100 represent above-average media usage.

(a) List the factors and the number of levels of each factor. (Select all that apply.)

media usage, with two levels

education level, with three levels

media type, with five levels

education level, with four levels

school, with four levels

media type, with four levels

(b) Assume there is no interaction between the factors. Use two-way ANOVA and the following Minitab printout to determine if there is a difference in population mean index based on education. Use α = 0.1.

(c) Determine if there is a difference in population mean index based on media. Use α = 0.1.

Note: This problem is for the 2018 tax year. Logan B. Taylor is a widower whose wife, Sara, died on June 6, 2016. He lives at 4680 Dogwood Lane, Springfield, MO 65801. He is employed as a paralegal by a local law firm. During 2018, he had the following receipts: Salary $ 80,000 Interest income— Money market account at Omni Bank $300 Savings account at Boone State Bank 1,100 City of Springfield general purpose bonds 3,000 4,400 Inheritance from Daniel 60,000 Life insurance proceeds 200,000 Amount from sale of St. Louis lot 80,000 Proceeds from estate sale 9,000 Federal income tax refund (for 2017 tax overpayment) 700 Logan inherited securities worth $60,000 from his uncle, Daniel, who died in 2018. Logan also was the designated beneficiary of an insurance policy on Daniel's life with a maturity value of $200,000. The lot in St. Louis was purchased on May 2, 2013, for $85,000 and held as an investment. Because the neighborhood has deteriorated, Logan decided to cut his losses and sold the lot on January 5, 2018, for $80,000. The estate sale consisted largely of items belonging to Sara and Daniel (e.g., camper, boat, furniture, and fishing and hunting equipment). Logan estimates that the property sold originally cost at least twice the $9,000 he received and has declined or stayed the same in value since Sara and Daniel died. Logan's expenditures for 2018 include the following: Medical expenses (including $10,500 for dental) $11,500 Taxes— State of Missouri income tax (includes withholdings during 2018) $4,200 Property taxes on personal residence 4,500 8,700 Interest on home mortgage (Boone State Bank) 5,600 Contribution to church (paid pledges for 2018 and 2019) 4,800 Logan and his dependents are covered by his employer's health insurance policy for all of 2018. However, he is subject to a deductible, and dental care is not included. The $10,500 dental charge was for Helen's implants. Helen is Logan's widowed mother, who lives with him (see below). Logan normally pledges $2,400 ($200 per month) each year to his church. On December 5, 2018, upon the advice of his pastor, he prepaid his pledge for 2019. Logan's household, all of whom he supports, includes the following: Social Security Number Birth Date Logan Taylor (age 48) 123-45-6787 08/30/1970 Helen Taylor (age 70) 123-45-6780 01/13/1948 Asher Taylor (age 23) 123-45-6783 07/18/1995 Mia Taylor (age 22) 123-45-6784 02/16/1996 Helen receives a modest Social Security benefit. Asher, a son, is a full-time student in dental school and earns $4,500 as a part-time dental assistant. Mia, a daughter, does not work and is engaged to be married. Federal income tax of $4,500 was withheld from his wages. Required: Compute Logan's income tax for 2018. If Logan has any overpayment on his income tax, he wants the refund sent to him. Assume that the proper amounts of Social Security and Medicare taxes were withheld. Logan does not want to contribute to the Presidential Election Campaign Fund. Make realistic assumptions about any missing data. Enter all amounts as positive numbers except any losses. Use the minus sign to indicate a loss. If an amount box does not require an entry or the answer is zero, enter "0". It may be necessary to complete the other tax schedules before completing Form 1040. Use the included tax rate schedules to compute the tax. When computing the tax liability, do not round your immediate calculations. If required round your final answers to the nearest dollar.

In a study of media usage versus education level (American Demographics, Vol. 17, No. 6), an index was used to measure media usage, where a measurement of 100 represents the U.S. average. Values above 100 represent above-average media usage.

(a) List the factors and the number of levels of each factor. (Select all that apply.)

school, with four levels

education level, with three levels

education level, with four levels

media usage, with two levels

media type, with five levels

media type, with four levels

(b) Assume there is no interaction between the factors. Use two-way ANOVA and the following Minitab printout to determine if there is a difference in population mean index based on education. Use ? = 0.05.

(c) Determine if there is a difference in population mean index based on media. Use ? = 0.05.

The currency turmoil in Asia in 1997 was unexpected, but Avon Products was prepared to deal with it. An examination of what Avon did before the crisis and how it responded afterward illustrates many of the principles of managing operating exposures. It also provides insights into the role of financial officers as key members of strategic management teams.

Avon has a long history of international operations. As a general rule, Avon tries to hedge its currencies risk by buying almost all its raw materials and making nearly all its products in the markets in which they are sold. For example, Avon Asia-Pacific has factories that make cosmetics in its largest markets – China, Indonesia, the Philippines, and Japan – and contracts out production in six other Asian countries. It further hedged its currency risk by financing its local operations with local currency loans. Altogether, the 10 Asian countries in which Avon operated accounted for USD751 million of its USD4.8 billion in revenue in 1996.

When the crisis began in Thailand in July 1997, Avon’s executives did not anticipate that Thailand’s problems would spread but as a precaution decided to further reduce currency risk by having the Asian units remit earnings weekly instead of monthly. By late August 1997, however, the currency markets got nervous after the remarks of former Malaysian Prime Minister Tun Mahathir Mohamad, who complained that Asia’s economic crisis was provoked by an international cabal of Jewish financiers intent on derailing the region’s growth. The head of Avon’s Asia-Pacific region, Jose Ferriera, Jr., also considered possibility that other Asian countries would have to allow their currencies to depreciate to maintain their export competitiveness. In response, Avon decided to sell about USD50 million worth of five Asian currencies forward against the dollar for periods of up to 15 months.

Having done what it could financially, Avon turned to its operating strategy. Anticipating tough times ahead, Avon Asia-Pacific decided to redirect its marketing budget to hire more salespeople in Asia to bring in more customers rather than offering incentives to the existing sales force to get its current, cash-strapped customers to spend more money. Ferriera also urged his country managers to step up their purchase of local materials whenever possible and not allow local vendors to pass on all their cost increases. At the same time, Avon began planning to compete more aggressively against disadvantaged competitors who have to import their products and raw materials. Finally, Avon began to analyze the incremental profits it could realize by using its Asian factories to supply more of the non-cosmetic products sold in the United States. Avon Asia-Pacific was helped by a team of Latin America executives who traveled to Asia to share their experiences of how they had managed to cope in similar circumstances of currency turmoil in their countries. For example, during the Mexican crisis of 1994 and 1995, prices were raised slowly on price-sensitive brands aimed at low- and middle-income customers. Avon Mexico raise prices on premium brands much faster, since those brands were less price sensitive and competed with imports whose prices had doubled with the peso devaluation.

In all of these deliberations and decisions, Avon Treasurer Dennis Ling was a full and active participant. For example, he helped the head of Avon’s jewelry business renegotiate the terms of its contract with a Korean company that supplies jewelry for sale in the United States. The result was a substantial price discount based on the won’s steep decline against the dollar. According to Ling, “Part of my job is to help our managers of operations understand and take advantage of the impact of currencies on their business.”

Required:

Suggest other solutions to hedging the economic exposure in the long run for Avon Asia?

The currency turmoil in Asia in 1997 was unexpected, but Avon Products was prepared to deal with it. An examination of what Avon did before the crisis and how it responded afterward illustrates many of the principles of managing operating exposures. It also provides insights into the role of financial officers as key members of strategic management teams.

Avon has a long history of international operations. As a general rule, Avon tries to hedge its currencies risk by buying almost all its raw materials and making nearly all its products in the markets in which they are sold. For example, Avon Asia-Pacific has factories that make cosmetics in its largest markets – China, Indonesia, the Philippines, and Japan – and contracts out production in six other Asian countries. It further hedged its currency risk by financing its local operations with local currency loans. Altogether, the 10 Asian countries in which Avon operated accounted for USD751 million of its USD4.8 billion in revenue in 1996.

When the crisis began in Thailand in July 1997, Avon’s executives did not anticipate that Thailand’s problems would spread but as a precaution decided to further reduce currency risk by having the Asian units remit earnings weekly instead of monthly. By late August 1997, however, the currency markets got nervous after the remarks of former Malaysian Prime Minister Tun Mahathir Mohamad, who complained that Asia’s economic crisis was provoked by an international cabal of Jewish financiers intent on derailing the region’s growth. The head of Avon’s Asia-Pacific region, Jose Ferriera, Jr., also considered possibility that other Asian countries would have to allow their currencies to depreciate to maintain their export competitiveness. In response, Avon decided to sell about USD50 million worth of five Asian currencies forward against the dollar for periods of up to 15 months.

Having done what it could financially, Avon turned to its operating strategy. Anticipating tough times ahead, Avon Asia-Pacific decided to redirect its marketing budget to hire more salespeople in Asia to bring in more customers rather than offering incentives to the existing sales force to get its current, cash-strapped customers to spend more money. Ferriera also urged his country managers to step up their purchase of local materials whenever possible and not allow local vendors to pass on all their cost increases. At the same time, Avon began planning to compete more aggressively against disadvantaged competitors who have to import their products and raw materials. Finally, Avon began to analyze the incremental profits it could realize by using its Asian factories to supply more of the non-cosmetic products sold in the United States. Avon Asia-Pacific was helped by a team of Latin America executives who traveled to Asia to share their experiences of how they had managed to cope in similar circumstances of currency turmoil in their countries. For example, during the Mexican crisis of 1994 and 1995, prices were raised slowly on price-sensitive brands aimed at low- and middle-income customers. Avon Mexico raise prices on premium brands much faster, since those brands were less price sensitive and competed with imports whose prices had doubled with the peso devaluation.

In all of these deliberations and decisions, Avon Treasurer Dennis Ling was a full and active participant. For example, he helped the head of Avon’s jewelry business renegotiate the terms of its contract with a Korean company that supplies jewelry for sale in the United States. The result was a substantial price discount based on the won’s steep decline against the dollar. According to Ling, “Part of my job is to help our managers of operations understand and take advantage of the impact of currencies on their business.”

Required:
                                          

Conclude the benefits earn by Avon from its diversification internationally and diversification of its product.                       

Enron Corporation was an American energy, commodities, and Services Company based in Houston, Texas. It was founded in 1985, Kenneth Lay was the founder of the company, first founded in Omaha Nebraska and then it moved to Houston Texas .Before its bankruptcy on December 2, 2001, Enron employed approximately 20,000 staff and was one of the world's major electricity, natural gas, communications and pulp and paper companies, with claimed revenues of nearly $101 billion during 2000.

Enron’s line of business:

Enron was originally involved in transmitting and distributing electricity and natural gas throughout the United States. The company developed, built and operated power plants and pipeline. Enron owned large network of natural gas pipeline, which stretched ocean to ocean and border to border. Enron traded in more than 30 different products, including the following: Petrochemicals, Plastics, Power, Pulp and paper, Steel, Weather Risk Management, Oil and LNG transportation, Broadband, Principal Investments, Risk management for commodities, Shipping / freight, Water and wastewater. It was also an extensive futures trader, including sugar, coffee, grains, hogs, and other meat futures.

Review of Enron’s Rise and fall:

Throughout the late 1990s, Enron was considered one of the most innovative companies in the world. The company continued to build power plants and operate gas lines, but it became better known for its unique trading businesses. Besides buying and selling gas and electricity. it created whole new markets for such oddball "commodities" as broadcast time for advertisers, weather futures, and Internet bandwidth. Before it bankrupted in late 2001, its annual revenues rose from about $9 billion in 1995 to over $100 billion in 2000.

At the end of 2001 it was revealed that its reported financial condition was sustained substantially by institutionalized, systematic, and creatively planned accounting fraud. The Enron scandal was the biggest bankruptcy in United States history which cost 4,000 employees their jobs. On December 2, 2001 Enron filed for bankruptcy. It was an event that will always be remembered as one of the most disastrous events in the financial world.

The reasons for collapse of Enron company:

There are some reasons that lead to the collapse of Enron:

•Cheating and manipulation by the board of directors to achieve their personal interests at the expense of the interest of the company.

•That the board of director has delegated the task of reviewing the company’s transactions to a sub-committee within the company. The committee has only conducted a quick review of these transactions. The board of directors has concealed very important information whose knowledge may have led to some appropriate action.

•The company’s management inflated the company’s profit to about $ 1 billion by raising the profit by 586 million and hiding debit of $ 2.6 billion in the year before the company’s collapse.

•The loss of the members of the audit committee is independent and neutral because of the enormous they charge from the administration and may reach up to $380000 per year per member.

With the fall of Enron, the financial auditor ARTHER ANDERSON fell for his role in this process, culminating in the company’s disposal of most of the city document. But Enron’s scandal has prompted the US government to amend a number of market laws, most notably issuing legislation allowing employee to sell their shares three years after they own them, and more importantly, the Sarbanes-Oxley act, which explicitly tightens penalties for such crimes. The CEO and CFO are fully responsible for any manipulation of the financial statement. In September 2008, Enron shareholders won the lawsuit against the company and received $7.2 billion damages, the biggest settlement in the history of fraud involving listed company.

Questions:

a.Explain how the dramatic collapse of Enron has severely shaken the U.S. Capital markets in

2001.                                                                                                                                                

b.Suggest the measures that could be taken to restore the credibility of the accounting profession and investor confidence in the financial reporting process.                

Question 2

Describe the Financial Reporting practices followed in Oman quoting some practical instances. Also highlight the principles that govern the financial practices in Oman and the Organizations that form regulatory frame work in Oman.