document_title: List of Major League Baseball single-game grand slam leaders

question_text: who hit 2 grand slams in the same inning

text: In baseball, a grand slam is a home run that is hit when all three bases are occupied by baserunners ("bases loaded"), thereby scoring four runs—the most possible in one play.[1] Thirteen players have hit two grand slams in a single Major League Baseball (MLB) game to date, the most recent being Josh Willingham of the Washington Nationals on July 27, 2009.[2] No player has accomplished the feat more than once in his career and no player has ever hit more than two in a game. Tony Lazzeri was the first player to hit two grand slams in a single game, doing so for the New York Yankees against the Philadelphia Athletics on May 24, 1936.[3]

text: Every team which had a player hit two grand slams won their milestone games. These games have resulted in other single-game MLB records being set due to the extreme offensive performance. Lazzeri, for example, proceeded to hit a third home run in the game and finished with a total of eleven runs batted in, an American League record.[3][4] Fernando Tatís became the only player to hit two grand slams in the same inning, when he attained the milestone, slugging two in the third inning for the St. Louis Cardinals on April 23, 1999.[3][5] In achieving the feat, he also set a new major league record with eight runs batted in a single inning.[6][7]

text: Tony Cloninger is the only pitcher to have accomplished the feat.[5] Bill Mueller hit his grand slams from both sides of the plate,[3][8] while Jim Northrup hit his grand slams on consecutive pitches received in the fifth and sixth innings.[9] Nomar Garciaparra is the sole player to achieve the feat at home, doing so at Fenway Park for the Boston Red Sox.[10] Cloninger is the only player who never hit a grand slam before or after his milestone game, while Robin Ventura—with 18 grand slams—hit more than any other player in this group. Frank Robinson is also a member of the 500 home run club.[11]

text: Of the nine players eligible for the Baseball Hall of Fame who have hit two grand slams in a game, two have been elected and one was elected on the first ballot. Players are eligible for the Hall of Fame if they have played in at least 10 MLB seasons, and have either been retired for five seasons or deceased for at least six months.[12] These requirements leave ineligible one player—Josh Willingham— who is living and has played in the past five seasons and one—Jim Tabor—who did not play in 10 seasons.[13]

text: Players[edit]

text:
Key

Player
Name of the player

Date
Date of the two grand slam game

Team
The player's team at the time of the game

Opposing team
The team against whom the player hit two grand slams

Score
Final score of the game, with the player's team score listed first

Career GS
The number of grand slams the player hit in his MLB career

Elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame

tag: table

text:
MLB hitters with two grand slams in one game

Player
Date
Team
Opposing team
Score
Career GS
Ref(s)

Lazzeri, TonyTony Lazzeri
000000001936-05-24-0000May 24, 1936
New York Yankees
Philadelphia Athletics
25–2
8
[14][15]

Tabor, JimJim Tabor
000000001939-07-04-0000July 4, 1939
Boston Red Sox
Philadelphia Athletics
18–12
7
[16]

York, RudyRudy York
000000001946-07-27-0000July 27, 1946
Boston Red Sox
St. Louis Browns
13–6
12
[17]

Gentile, JimJim Gentile
000000001961-05-09-0000May 9, 1961
Baltimore Orioles
Minnesota Twins
13–5
6
[18]

Cloninger, TonyTony Cloninger
000000001966-07-03-0000July 3, 1966
Atlanta Braves
San Francisco Giants
17–3
2
[19]

Northrup, JimJim Northrup
000000001968-06-24-0000June 24, 1968
Detroit Tigers
Cleveland Indians
14–3
8
[20]

Robinson, FrankFrank Robinson
000000001970-06-26-0000June 26, 1970
Baltimore Orioles
Washington Senators
12–2
8
[21][22]

Ventura, RobinRobin Ventura
000000001995-09-04-0000September 4, 1995
Chicago White Sox
Texas Rangers
14–3
18
[23]

Hoiles, ChrisChris Hoiles
000000001998-08-14-0000August 14, 1998
Baltimore Orioles
Cleveland Indians
15–3
8
[24]

Tatís, FernandoFernando Tatís
000000001999-04-23-0000April 23, 1999
St. Louis Cardinals
Los Angeles Dodgers
12–5
8
[25]

Garciaparra, NomarNomar Garciaparra
000000001999-05-10-0000May 10, 1999
Boston Red Sox
Seattle Mariners
12–4
7
[26]

Mueller, BillBill Mueller
000000002003-07-29-0000July 29, 2003
Boston Red Sox
Texas Rangers
14–7
4
[27]

Willingham, JoshJosh Willingham
000000002009-07-27-0000July 27, 2009
Washington Nationals
Milwaukee Brewers
14–6
6
[28]


document_title: History of mobile phones

question_text: when was the first mobile cell phone invented

question_tokens: when was the first mobile cell phone invented

root

text: History of mobile phones

text: Predecessors[edit]

text: Before the devices existed that are now referred to as mobile phones or cell phones, there were some precursors. In 1908, a Professor Albert Jahnke and the Oakland Transcontinental Aerial Telephone and Power Company claimed to have developed a wireless telephone. They were accused of fraud and the charge was then dropped, but they do not seem to have proceeded with production.[2] Beginning in 1918, the German railroad system tested wireless telephony on military trains between Berlin and Zossen.[3] In 1924, public trials started with telephone connection on trains between Berlin and Hamburg. In 1925, the company Zugtelephonie AG was founded to supply train telephony equipment and, in 1926, telephone service in trains of the Deutsche Reichsbahn and the German mail service on the route between Hamburg and Berlin was approved and offered to first-class travelers.[4]

tag: p

text: Fiction anticipated the development of real world mobile telephones. In 1906, the English caricaturist Lewis Baumer published a cartoon in Punch magazine entitled "Forecasts for 1907" in which he showed a man and a woman in London's Hyde Park each separately engaged in gambling and dating on wireless telephony equipment.[5] Then, in 1926, the artist Karl Arnold created a visionary cartoon about the use of mobile phones in the street, in the picture "wireless telephony", published in the German satirical magazine Simplicissimus.[6]

text: The Second World War made military use of radio telephony links. Hand-held radio transceivers have been available since the 1940s. Mobile telephones for automobiles became available from some telephone companies in the 1940s. Early devices were bulky, consumed high power, and the network supported only a few simultaneous conversations. Modern cellular networks allow automatic and pervasive use of mobile phones for voice and data communications.

text: In the United States, engineers from Bell Labs began work on a system to allow mobile users to place and receive telephone calls from automobiles, leading to the inauguration of mobile service on 17 June 1946 in St. Louis, Missouri. Shortly after, AT&T offered Mobile Telephone Service. A wide range of mostly incompatible mobile telephone services offered limited coverage area and only a few available channels in urban areas. The introduction of cellular technology, which allowed re-use of frequencies many times in small adjacent areas covered by relatively low powered transmitters, made widespread adoption of mobile telephones economically feasible.

text: In the USSR, Leonid Kupriyanovich, an engineer from Moscow, in 1957-1961 developed and presented a number of experimental pocket-sized communications radio. The weight of one model, presented in 1961, was only 70 g and could fit on a palm.[7][8] However, in the USSR the decision at first to develop the system of the automobile "Altai" phone was made.[9]

text: In 1965, Bulgarian company "Radioelektronika" presented on the Inforga-65 international exhibition in Moscow the mobile automatic phone combined with a base station. Solutions of this phone were based on a system developed by Leonid Kupriyanovich. One base station, connected to one telephone wire line, could serve up to 15 customers.[10]

text: The advances in mobile telephony can be traced in successive generations from the early "0G" services like MTS and its successor Improved Mobile Telephone Service, to first-generation (1G) analog cellular network, second-generation (2G) digital cellular networks, third-generation (3G) broadband data services to the state-of-the-art, fourth-generation (4G) native-IP networks.

text: Early services[edit]

text: MTS[edit]

text: In 1949, AT&T commercialized Mobile Telephone Service. From its start in St. Louis, Missouri, in 1946, AT&T introduced Mobile Telephone Service to one hundred towns and highway corridors by 1948. Mobile Telephone Service was a rarity with only 5,000 customers placing about 30,000 calls each week. Calls were set up manually by an operator and the user had to depress a button on the handset to talk and release the button to listen. The call subscriber equipment weighed about 80 lb.[11]

text: Subscriber growth and revenue generation were hampered by the constraints of the technology. Because only three radio channels were available, only three customers in any given city could make mobile telephone calls at one time.[12] Mobile Telephone Service was expensive, costing 15 USD per month, plus 0.30 to 0.40 USD per local call, equivalent to about 176 USD per month and 3.50 to 4.75 per call in 2012 USD.[11]

text: In the UK, there was also a vehicle-based system called "Post Office Radiophone Service,"[13] which was launched around the city of Manchester in 1959, and although it required callers to speak to an operator, it was possible to be put through to any subscriber in Great Britain. The service was extended to London in 1965 and other major cities in 1972.

text: IMTS[edit]

text: AT&T introduced the first major improvement to mobile telephony in 1965, giving the improved service the obvious name of Improved Mobile Telephone Service. IMTS used additional radio channels, allowing more simultaneous calls in a given geographic area, introduced customer dialing, eliminating manual call setup by an operator, and reduced the size and weight of the subscriber equipment.[11]

text: Despite the capacity improvement offered by IMTS, demand outstripped capacity. In agreement with state regulatory agencies, AT&T limited the service to just 40,000 customers system wide. In New York City, for example, 2,000 customers shared just 12 radio channels and typically had to wait 30 minutes to place a call.[11]

text: Radio Common Carrier[edit]

text: Radio Common Carrier[14] or RCC was a service introduced in the 1960s by independent telephone companies to compete against AT&T's IMTS. RCC systems used paired UHF 454/459 MHz and VHF 152/158 MHz frequencies near those used by IMTS. RCC based services were provided until the 1980s when cellular AMPS systems made RCC equipment obsolete.

text: Some RCC systems were designed to allow customers of adjacent carriers to use their facilities, but equipment used by RCCs did not allow the equivalent of modern "roaming" because technical standards were not uniform. For example, the phone of an Omaha, Nebraska–based RCC service would not be likely to work in Phoenix, Arizona. Roaming was not encouraged, in part, because there was no centralized industry billing database for RCCs. Signaling formats were not standardized. For example, some systems used two-tone sequential paging to alert a mobile of an incoming call. Other systems used DTMF. Some used Secode 2805, which transmitted an interrupted 2805 Hz tone (similar to IMTS signaling) to alert mobiles of an offered call. Some radio equipment used with RCC systems was half-duplex, push-to-talk LOMO equipment such as Motorola hand-helds or RCA 700-series conventional two-way radios. Other vehicular equipment had telephone handsets and rotary dials or pushbutton pads, and operated full duplex like a conventional wired telephone. A few users had full-duplex briefcase telephones (radically advanced for their day)

text: At the end of RCC's existence, industry associations were working on a technical standard that would have allowed roaming, and some mobile users had multiple decoders to enable operation with more than one of the common signaling formats (600/1500, 2805, and Reach). Manual operation was often a fallback for RCC roamers.

text: Other services[edit]

text: In 1969 Penn Central Railroad equipped commuter trains along the 360 km New York-Washington route with special pay phones that allowed passengers to place telephone calls while the train was moving. The system re-used six frequencies in the 450 MHz band in nine sites.[12]

text: In the UK, Channel Islands and elsewhere the "Rabbit" phone system was briefly used, being a hybrid of "cell" base stations and handsets. One major limitation was that you had to be less than 300 feet (closer with buildings) from a base due to power limitations on a portable device. [15][better source needed] With modern technology a similar variant is being considered for Apple's new 4G "smart watch" so they can be used in large events in a broadly similar way to a femtocell.

text: European mobile radio networks[edit]

text: This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (April 2012) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

text: In Europe, several mutually incompatible mobile radio services were developed.

text: In 1966 Norway had a system called OLT which was manually controlled. Finland's ARP, launched in 1971, was also manual as was the Swedish MTD. All were replaced by the automatic NMT, (Nordic Mobile Telephone) system in the early 1980s.

text: In July 1971 Readycall was introduced in London by Burndept after obtaining a special concession to break the Post Office monopoly to allow selective calling to mobiles of calls from the public telephone system. This system was available to the public for a subscription of £16 month. A year later the service was extended to two other UK towns.[16]

text: West Germany had a network called A-Netz launched in 1952 as the country's first public commercial mobile phone network. In 1972 this was displaced by B-Netz which connected calls automatically.

text: The cellular concept[edit]

text: In December 1947, Douglas H. Ring and W. Rae Young, Bell Labs engineers, proposed hexagonal cells for mobile phones in vehicles.[17] At this stage, the technology to implement these ideas did not exist, nor had the frequencies been allocated. Two decades would pass before Richard H. Frenkiel, Joel S. Engel and Philip T. Porter of Bell Labs expanded the early proposals into a much more detailed system plan. It was Porter who first proposed that the cell towers use the now-familiar directional antennas to reduce interference and increase channel reuse (see picture at right)[18] Porter also invented the dial-then-send method used by all cell phones to reduce wasted channel time.

text: In all these early examples, a mobile phone had to stay within the coverage area serviced by one base station throughout the phone call, i.e. there was no continuity of service as the phones moved through several cell areas. The concepts of frequency reuse and handoff, as well as a number of other concepts that formed the basis of modern cell phone technology, were described in the late 1960s, in papers by Frenkiel and Porter. In 1970 Amos E. Joel, Jr., a Bell Labs engineer,[19] invented a "three-sided trunk circuit" to aid in the "call handoff" process from one cell to another. His patent contained an early description of the Bell Labs cellular concept, but as switching systems became faster, such a circuit became unnecessary and was never implemented in a system.

text: A cellular telephone switching plan was described by Fluhr and Nussbaum in 1973,[20] and a cellular telephone data signaling system was described in hipatitas by Hachenburg et al.[21]

text: Emergence of automated services[edit]

text: The first fully automated mobile phone system for vehicles was launched in Sweden in 1956. Named MTA (Mobiltelefonisystem A), it allowed calls to be made and received in the car using a rotary dial. The car phone could also be paged. Calls from the car were direct dial, whereas incoming calls required an operator to locate the nearest base station to the car. It was developed by Sture Laurén and other engineers at Televerket network operator. Ericsson provided the switchboard while Svenska Radioaktiebolaget (SRA) and Marconi provided the telephones and base station equipment. MTA phones consisted of vacuum tubes and relays, and weighed 40 kg. In 1962, an upgraded version called Mobile System B (MTB) was introduced. This was a push-button telephone, and used transistors and DTMF signaling to improve its operational reliability. In 1971 the MTD version was launched, opening for several different brands of equipment and gaining commercial success.[22][23] The network remained open until 1983 and still had 600 customers when it closed.

text: In 1958 development began on a similar system for motorists in the USSR.[24] The "Altay" national civil mobile phone service was based on Soviet MRT-1327 standard. The main developers of the Altay system were the Voronezh Science Research Institute of Communications (VNIIS) and the State Specialized Project Institute (GSPI). In 1963 the service started in Moscow, and by 1970 was deployed in 30 cities across the USSR. Versions of the Altay system are still in use today as a trunking system in some parts of Russia.

text: In 1959 a private telephone company in Brewster, Kansas, USA, the S&T Telephone Company, (still in business today) with the use of Motorola Radio Telephone equipment and a private tower facility, offered to the public mobile telephone services in that local area of NW Kansas. This system was a direct dial up service through their local switchboard, and was installed in many private vehicles including grain combines, trucks, and automobiles. For some as yet unknown reason, the system, after being placed online and operated for a very brief time period, was shut down. The management of the company was immediately changed, and the fully operable system and related equipment was immediately dismantled in early 1960, not to be seen again.[citation needed]

text: In 1966, Bulgaria presented the pocket mobile automatic phone RAT-0,5 combined with a base station RATZ-10 (RATC-10) on Interorgtechnika-66 international exhibition. One base station, connected to one telephone wire line, could serve up to six customers ("Radio" magazine, 2, 1967; "Novosti dnya" newsreel, 37, 1966).

text: One of the first successful public commercial mobile phone networks was the ARP network in Finland, launched in 1971. Posthumously, ARP is sometimes viewed as a zero generation (0G) cellular network, being slightly above previous proprietary and limited coverage networks.[citation needed]

text: Handheld mobile phone[edit]

text: Prior to 1973, mobile telephony was limited to phones installed in cars and other vehicles.[19] Motorola was the first company to produce a handheld mobile phone. On April 3, 1973, Martin Cooper, a Motorola researcher and executive, made the first mobile telephone call from handheld subscriber equipment, placing a call to Dr. Joel S. Engel of Bell Labs, his rival.[25][26] The prototype handheld phone used by Dr. Cooper weighed 1.1 kg (2.42 lb) and measured 23 cm long, 13 cm deep and 4.45 cm wide. The prototype offered a talk time of just 30 minutes and took 10 hours to re-charge.[27]

text: John F. Mitchell,[28][29][30] Motorola's chief of portable communication products and Cooper's boss in 1973, played a key role in advancing the development of handheld mobile telephone equipment. Mitchell successfully pushed Motorola to develop wireless communication products that would be small enough to use anywhere and participated in the design of the cellular phone.[31][32]

text: The early generations[edit]

text: Newer technology has been developed and rolled out in a series of waves or generations. The "generation" terminology only became widely used when 3G was launched, but is now used retroactively when referring to the earlier systems.

text: 1G – Analogue cellular[edit]

text: First automatic analogue cellular systems deployed were NTT's system first used in Tokyo in 1979, later spreading to the whole of Japan, and NMT in the Nordic countries in 1981.

text: The first analogue cellular system widely deployed in North America was the Advanced Mobile Phone System (AMPS).[33] It was commercially introduced in the Americas in 13 October 1983, Israel in 1986, and Australia in 1987. AMPS was a pioneering technology that helped drive mass market usage of cellular technology, but it had several serious issues by modern standards. It was unencrypted and easily vulnerable to eavesdropping via a scanner; it was susceptible to cell phone "cloning" and it used a Frequency-division multiple access (FDMA) scheme and required significant amounts of wireless spectrum to support.

text: On 6 March 1983, the DynaTAC 8000X mobile phone launched on the first US 1G network by Ameritech. It cost $100m to develop, and took over a decade to reach the market.[34] The phone had a talk time of just thirty-five minutes and took ten hours to charge. Consumer demand was strong despite the battery life, weight, and low talk time, and waiting lists were in the thousands.[35][36]

text: Many of the iconic early commercial cell phones such as the Motorola DynaTAC Analog AMPS were eventually superseded by Digital AMPS (D-AMPS) in 1990, and AMPS service was shut down by most North American carriers by 2008.

text: In February 1986 Australia launched its Cellular Telephone System by Telecom Australia. Peter Reedman was the first Telecom Customer to be connected on 6 January 1986 along with five other subscribers as test customers prior to the official launch date of 28 February.

text: 2G – Digital cellular[edit]

text: In the 1990s, the 'second generation' mobile phone systems emerged. Two systems competed for supremacy in the global market: the European developed GSM standard and the U.S. developed CDMA standard. These differed from the previous generation by using digital instead of analog transmission, and also fast out-of-band phone-to-network signaling. The rise in mobile phone usage as a result of 2G was explosive and this era also saw the advent of prepaid mobile phones.

text: In 1991 the first GSM network (Radiolinja) launched in Finland. In general the frequencies used by 2G systems in Europe were higher than those in America, though with some overlap. For example, the 900 MHz frequency range was used for both 1G and 2G systems in Europe, so the 1G systems were rapidly closed down to make space for the 2G systems. In America the IS-54 standard was deployed in the same band as AMPS and displaced some of the existing analog channels.

text: In 1993, IBM Simon was introduced. This was possibly the world's first smartphone. It was a mobile phone, pager, fax machine, and PDA all rolled into one. It included a calendar, address book, clock, calculator, notepad, email, and a touchscreen with a QWERTY keyboard.[37] The IBM Simon had a stylus you used to tap the touch screen with. It featured predictive typing that would guess the next characters as you tapped. It had applications, or at least a way to deliver more features by plugging a PCMCIA 1.8 MB memory card into the phone.[38] Coinciding with the introduction of 2G systems was a trend away from the larger "brick" phones toward tiny 100 – 200 gram hand-held devices. This change was possible not only through technological improvements such as more advanced batteries and more energy-efficient electronics, but also because of the higher density of cell sites to accommodate increasing usage. The latter meant that the average distance transmission from phone to the base station shortened, leading to increased battery life while on the move.

text: The second generation introduced a new variant of communication called SMS or text messaging. It was initially available only on GSM networks but spread eventually on all digital networks. The first machine-generated SMS message was sent in the UK on 3 December 1992 followed in 1993 by the first person-to-person SMS sent in Finland. The advent of prepaid services in the late 1990s soon made SMS the communication method of choice among the young, a trend which spread across all ages.

text: 2G also introduced the ability to access media content on mobile phones. In 1998 the first downloadable content sold to mobile phones was the ring tone, launched by Finland's Radiolinja (now Elisa). Advertising on the mobile phone first appeared in Finland when a free daily SMS news headline service was launched in 2000, sponsored by advertising.

text: Mobile payments were trialed in 1998 in Finland and Sweden where a mobile phone was used to pay for a Coca-Cola vending machine and car parking. Commercial launches followed in 1999 in Norway. The first commercial payment system to mimic banks and credit cards was launched in the Philippines in 1999 simultaneously by mobile operators Globe and Smart.

text: The first full internet service on mobile phones was introduced by NTT DoCoMo in Japan in 1999.

text: 3G – Mobile broadband[edit]

text: As the use of 2G phones became more widespread and people began to use mobile phones in their daily lives, it became clear that demand for data (such as access to browse the internet) was growing. Further, experience from fixed broadband services showed there would also be an ever-increasing demand for greater data speeds. The 2G technology was nowhere near up to the job, so the industry began to work on the next generation of technology known as 3G. The main technological difference that distinguishes 3G technology from 2G technology is the use of packet switching rather than circuit switching for data transmission.[39] In addition, the standardization process focused on requirements more than technology (2 Mbit/s maximum data rate indoors, 384 kbit/s outdoors, for example).

text: Inevitably this led to many competing standards with different contenders pushing their own technologies, and the vision of a single unified worldwide standard looked far from reality. The standard 2G CDMA networks became 3G compliant with the adoption of Revision A to EV-DO, which made several additions to the protocol while retaining backwards compatibility:

text:
Introduction of several new forward link data rates that increase the maximum burst rate from 2.45 Mbit/s to 3.1 Mbit/s
Protocols that would decrease connection establishment time
Ability for more than one mobile to share the same time slot
Introduction of QoS flags

tag: ul

text: All these were put in place to allow for low latency, low bit rate communications such as VoIP.[40]

text: The first pre-commercial trial network with 3G was launched by NTT DoCoMo in Japan in the Tokyo region in May 2001. NTT DoCoMo launched the first commercial 3G network on 1 October 2001, using the WCDMA technology. In 2002 the first 3G networks on the rival CDMA2000 1xEV-DO technology were launched by SK Telecom and KTF in South Korea, and Monet in the US. Monet has since gone bankrupt. By the end of 2002, the second WCDMA network was launched in Japan by Vodafone KK (now Softbank). European launches of 3G were in Italy and the UK by Three/Hutchison group, on WCDMA. 2003 saw a further eight commercial launches of 3G, six more on WCDMA and two more on the EV-DO standard.

text: During the development of 3G systems, 2.5G systems such as CDMA2000 1x and GPRS were developed as extensions to existing 2G networks. These provide some of the features of 3G without fulfilling the promised high data rates or full range of multimedia services. CDMA2000-1X delivers theoretical maximum data speeds of up to 307 kbit/s. Just beyond these is the EDGE system which in theory covers the requirements for 3G system, but is so narrowly above these that any practical system would be sure to fall short.

text: The high connection speeds of 3G technology enabled a transformation in the industry: for the first time, media streaming of radio (and even television) content to 3G handsets became possible,[41] with companies such as RealNetworks[42] and Disney[43] among the early pioneers in this type of offering.

text: In the mid-2000s (decade), an evolution of 3G technology began to be implemented, namely High-Speed Downlink Packet Access (HSDPA). It is an enhanced 3G (third generation) mobile telephony communications protocol in the High-Speed Packet Access (HSPA) family, also coined 3.5G, 3G+ or turbo 3G, which allows networks based on Universal Mobile Telecommunications System (UMTS) to have higher data transfer speeds and capacity. Current HSDPA deployments support down-link speeds of 1.8, 3.6, 7.2 and 14.0 Mbit/s.

text: By the end of 2007, there were 295 million subscribers on 3G networks worldwide, which reflected 9% of the total worldwide subscriber base. About two thirds of these were on the WCDMA standard and one third on the EV-DO standard. The 3G telecoms services generated over $120 billion of revenues during 2007 and at many markets the majority of new phones activated were 3G phones. In Japan and South Korea the market no longer supplies phones of the second generation.

text: Although mobile phones had long had the ability to access data networks such as the Internet, it was not until the widespread availability of good quality 3G coverage in the mid-2000s (decade) that specialized devices appeared to access the mobile web. The first such devices, known as "dongles", plugged directly into a computer through the USB port. Another new class of device appeared subsequently, the so-called "compact wireless router" such as the Novatel MiFi, which makes 3G Internet connectivity available to multiple computers simultaneously over Wi-Fi, rather than just to a single computer via a USB plug-in.

text: Such devices became especially popular for use with laptop computers due to the added portability they bestow. Consequently, some computer manufacturers started to embed the mobile data function directly into the laptop so a dongle or MiFi wasn't needed. Instead, the SIM card could be inserted directly into the device itself to access the mobile data services. Such 3G-capable laptops became commonly known as "netbooks". Other types of data-aware devices followed in the netbook's footsteps. By the beginning of 2010, E-readers, such as the Amazon Kindle and the Nook from Barnes & Noble, had already become available with embedded wireless Internet, and Apple had announced plans for embedded wireless Internet on its iPad tablet devices later that year.

text: 4G – Native IP networks[edit]

text: By 2009, it had become clear that, at some point, 3G networks would be overwhelmed by the growth of bandwidth-intensive applications like streaming media.[44] Consequently, the industry began looking to data-optimized 4th-generation technologies, with the promise of speed improvements up to 10-fold over existing 3G technologies. The first two commercially available technologies billed as 4G were the WiMAX standard (offered in the U.S. by Sprint) and the LTE standard, first offered in Scandinavia by TeliaSonera.

text: One of the main ways in which 4G differed technologically from 3G was in its elimination of circuit switching, instead employing an all-IP network. Thus, 4G ushered in a treatment of voice calls just like any other type of streaming audio media, utilizing packet switching over Internet, LAN or WAN networks via VoIP.[45]

text: Mobile device charger standards[edit]

text:
USB power standards for mobile charger

Port
Current
Voltage
Power (max)

Micro-USB
500 mA
5 V
2.5 W

1 A
5 V
5 W

2 A
5 V
10 W

Type-C[46]
100 mA to 3 A
5 V
15 W

1.7 A to 3 A
9 V
27 W

1.8 A to 3 A
15 V
45 W

2.25 A to 5 A
20 V
100 W

text: Before a universal charger standard was agreed upon in the late 2000s users needed an adaptor which was often the same brand as their phone to recharge the battery.

text: In China[edit]

text: As of 14 June 2007[update], all new mobile phones applying for a license in China are required to use a USB port as a power port for battery charging.[47][48] This was the first standard to use the convention of shorting D+ and D−.[49]

text: OMTP/GSMA Universal Charging Solution[edit]

text: In September 2007, the Open Mobile Terminal Platform group (a forum of mobile network operators and manufacturers such as Nokia, Samsung, Motorola, Sony Ericsson, and LG) announced that its members had agreed on Micro-USB as the future common connector for mobile devices.[50][51]

text: The GSM Association (GSMA) followed suit on 17 February 2009,[52][52][53][54][55] and on 22 April 2009, this was further endorsed by the CTIA – The Wireless Association,[56] with the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) announcing on 22 October 2009 that it had also embraced the Universal Charging Solution as its "energy-efficient one-charger-fits-all new mobile phone solution," and added: "Based on the Micro-USB interface, UCS chargers will also include a 4-star or higher efficiency rating—up to three times more energy-efficient than an unrated charger."[57]

text: EU smartphone power supply standard[edit]

text: In June 2009, many of the world's largest mobile phone manufacturers signed an EC-sponsored Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), agreeing to make most data-enabled mobile phones marketed in the European Union compatible with a common External Power Supply (common EPS). The EU's common EPS specification (EN 62684:2010) references the USB Battery Charging Specification and is similar to the GSMA/OMTP and Chinese charging solutions.[58][59] In January 2011, the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) released its version of the (EU's) common EPS standard as IEC 62684:2011.[60]

text: Satellite mobile[edit]

text: As well as the now-common cellular phone, there is also the very different approach of connecting directly from the handset to an Earth-orbiting satellite. Such mobile phones can be used in remote areas out of reach of wired networks or where construction of a cellular network is uneconomic.

text: The Inmarsat system is the oldest, originally developed in 1979 for safety of life at sea, and uses a series of satellites in geostationary orbits to cover the majority of the globe. Several smaller operators use the same approach with just one or two satellites to provide a regional service. An alternative approach is to use a series of low Earth orbit satellites much closer to Earth. This is the basis of the Iridium and Globalstar satellite phone services.


document_title: List of languages by number of native speakers

question_text: what percentage of the world population speaks german

text: Top languages by population

text: The following table contains the top 100 languages by estimated number of native speakers in the 2007 edition of the Swedish encyclopedia Nationalencyklopedin. As census methods in different countries vary to a considerable extent, and given that some countries do not record language in their censuses, any list of languages by native speakers, or total speakers, is effectively based on estimates. Updated estimates from 2010 are also provided.[2]

text: The top eleven languages have additional figures from the 2010 edition of the Nationalencyklopedin. Numbers above 95 million are rounded off to the nearest 5 million.

text:
Top languages by population per Nationalencyklopedin

Rank

Language

Nativespeakersin millions2007 (2010)

Percentageof worldpopulation(2007)

1
Mandarin (entire branch)
935 (955)
14.1%

2
Spanish
390 (405)
5.85%

3
English
365 (360)
5.52%

4
Hindi[a]
295 (310)
4.46%

5
Arabic
280 (295)
4.23%

6
Portuguese
205 (215)
3.08%

7
Bengali (Bangla)
200 (205)
3.05%

8
Russian
160 (155)
2.42%

9
Japanese
125 (125)
1.92%

10
Punjabi
95 (100)
1.44%

11
German
92 (95)
1.39%

12
Javanese
82
1.25%

13
Wu (e.g. Shanghainese)
80
1.20%

14
Malay (inc. Malaysian and Indonesian)
77
1.16%

15
Telugu
76
1.15%

16
Vietnamese
76
1.14%

17
Korean
76
1.14%

18
French
75
1.12%

19
Marathi
73
1.10%

20
Tamil
70
1.06%

21
Urdu
66
0.99%

22
Turkish
63
0.95%

23
Italian
59
0.90%

24
Yue (incl. Cantonese)
59
0.89%

25
Thai
56
0.85%

26
Gujarati
49
0.74%

27
Jin
48
0.72%

28
Southern Min (incl. Hokkien and Teochew)
47
0.71%

29
Persian
45
0.68%

30
Polish
40
0.61%

31
Pashto
39
0.58%

32
Kannada
38
0.58%

33
Xiang (Hunanese)
38
0.58%

34
Malayalam
38
0.57%

35
Sundanese
38
0.57%

36
Hausa
34
0.52%

37
Odia (Oriya)
33
0.50%

38
Burmese
33
0.50%

39
Hakka
31
0.46%

40
Ukrainian
30
0.46%

41
Bhojpuri
29[b]
0.43%

42
Tagalog (Filipino)
28
0.42%

43
Yoruba
28
0.42%

44
Maithili
27[b]
0.41%

45
Uzbek
26
0.39%

46
Sindhi
26
0.39%

47
Amharic
25
0.37%

48
Fula
24
0.37%

49
Romanian
24
0.37%

50
Oromo
24
0.36%

51
Igbo
24
0.36%

52
Azerbaijani
23
0.34%

53
Awadhi
22[b]
0.33%

54
Gan Chinese
22
0.33%

55
Cebuano (Visayan)
21
0.32%

56
Dutch
21
0.32%

57
Kurdish
21
0.31%

58
Serbo-Croatian
19
0.28%

59
Malagasy
18
0.28%

60
Saraiki
17[c]
0.26%

61
Nepali
17
0.25%

62
Sinhalese
16
0.25%

63
Chittagonian
16
0.24%

64
Zhuang
16
0.24%

65
Khmer
16
0.24%

66
Turkmen
16
0.24%

67
Assamese
15
0.23%

68
Madurese
15
0.23%

69
Somali
15
0.22%

70
Marwari
14[b]
0.21%

71
Magahi
14[b]
0.21%

72
Haryanvi
14[b]
0.21%

73
Hungarian
13
0.19%

74
Chhattisgarhi
12[b]
0.19%

75
Greek
12
0.18%

76
Chewa
12
0.17%

77
Deccan
11
0.17%

78
Akan
11
0.17%

79
Kazakh
11
0.17%

80
Northern Min[disputed  – discuss]
10.9
0.16%

81
Sylheti
10.7
0.16%

82
Zulu
10.4
0.16%

83
Czech
10.0
0.15%

84
Kinyarwanda
9.8
0.15%

85
Dhundhari
9.6[b]
0.15%

86
Haitian Creole
9.6
0.15%

87
Eastern Min (inc. Fuzhounese)
9.5
0.14%

88
Ilocano
9.1
0.14%

89
Quechua
8.9
0.13%

90
Kirundi
8.8
0.13%

91
Swedish
8.7
0.13%

92
Hmong
8.4
0.13%

93
Shona
8.3
0.13%

94
Uyghur
8.2
0.12%

95
Hiligaynon/Ilonggo (Visayan)
8.2
0.12%

96
Mossi
7.6
0.11%

97
Xhosa
7.6
0.11%

98
Belarusian
7.6[d]
0.11%

99
Balochi
7.6
0.11%

100
Konkani
7.4
0.11%

Total

5,610
85%

text: Charts and graphs

text:
Bubble chart of languages by proportion of native speakers worldwide[2]

Languages with at least 50 million first-language speakers, millions (according to: Ethnologue[4])


document_title: North American Free Trade Agreement

question_text: who was the us president when nafta was founded

question_tokens: who was the us president when nafta was founded

text: North American Free Trade Agreement

text: Negotiation and U.S. ratification

text: Following diplomatic negotiations dating back to 1990 among the three nations, U.S. President George H. W. Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and Mexican President Carlos Salinas signed the agreement in their respective capitals on December 17, 1992.[14] The signed agreement was then ratified by each nation's legislative or parliamentary branch.

text: The earlier Canada–United States Free Trade Agreement had been controversial and divisive in Canada, and featured as an issue in the 1988 Canadian election. In that election, more Canadians voted for anti-free trade parties (the Liberals and the New Democrats) but the split of the votes between the two parties meant that the pro-free trade Progressive Conservatives (PCs) came out of the election with the most seats and so took power. Mulroney and the PCs had a parliamentary majority easily passed the 1987 Canada-U.S. FTA and NAFTA bills. However, Mulroney was replaced as Conservative leader and prime minister by Kim Campbell. Campbell led the PC party into the 1993 election where they were decimated by the Liberal Party under Jean Chrétien, who campaigned on a promise to renegotiate or abrogate NAFTA. Chrétien subsequently negotiated two supplemental agreements with Bush, who had worked to "fast track" the signing prior to the end of his term, ran out of time and had to pass the required ratification and signing of the implementation law to incoming president Bill Clinton. Before sending it to the United States Senate Clinton added two side agreements, The North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation (NAALC) and the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC), to protect workers and the environment, and also allay the concerns of many House members. They also required U.S. partners to adhere to environmental practices and regulations similar to its own.[citation needed]

text: After much consideration and emotional discussion, the US House of Representatives passed the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act on November 17, 1993, 234–200. The agreement's supporters included 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats. The bill passed the Senate on November 20, 1993, 61–38.[15] Senate supporters were 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats. Clinton signed it into law on December 8, 1993; the agreement went into effect on January 1, 1994.[16][17] Clinton, while signing the NAFTA bill, stated that "NAFTA means jobs. American jobs, and good-paying American jobs. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't support this agreement."[18]

text: This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (December 2009)

text:
Remarks on the Signing of the NAFTA Implementation Act (December 8, 1993)

Play media

Bill Clinton's remarks on the signing of the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, December 8, 1993.

Remarks on the Signing of the NAFTA Implementation Act (December 8, 1993)

Problems playing these files? See media help.

text: Provisions

text: The goal of NAFTA was to eliminate barriers to trade and investment between the U.S., Canada and Mexico. The implementation of NAFTA on January 1, 1994 brought the immediate elimination of tariffs on more than one-half of Mexico's exports to the U.S. and more than one-third of U.S. exports to Mexico. Within 10 years of the implementation of the agreement, all U.S.-Mexico tariffs were to be eliminated except for some U.S. agricultural exports to Mexico to be phased out within 15 years.[19] Most U.S.-Canada trade was already duty-free. NAFTA also sought to eliminate non-tariff trade barriers and to protect the intellectual property rights on traded products.

text: Chapter 52 provides a procedure for the international resolution of disputes over the application and interpretation of NAFTA. It was modelled after Chapter 69 of the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement.[20] The roster of NAFTA adjudicators includes many retired judges, such as Alice Desjardins, John Maxwell Evans, Constance Hunt, John Richard, Arlin M. Adams, Susan Getzendanner, George C. Pratt, Charles B. Renfrew and Sandra Day O'Connor.

text: Intellectual property

text: The North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act made some changes to the copyright law of the United States, foreshadowing the Uruguay Round Agreements Act of 1994 by restoring copyright (within the NAFTA nations) on certain motion pictures which had entered the public domain.[21][22]

text: Environment

text: U.S. congressional approval for NAFTA would have been impossible without addressing public concerns about NAFTA’s environmental impact.[23] The Clinton administration negotiated a side agreement on the environment with Canada and Mexico, the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC), which led to the creation of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) in 1994. To alleviate concerns that NAFTA, the first regional trade agreement between a developing country and two developed countries, would have negative environmental impacts, the commission was mandated to conduct ongoing ex post environmental assessment,[24] It created one of the first ex post frameworks for environmental assessment of trade liberalization, designed to produce a body of evidence with respect to the initial hypotheses about NAFTA and the environment, such as the concern that NAFTA would create a "race to the bottom" in environmental regulation among the three countries, or that NAFTA would pressure governments to increase their environmental protections.[25] The CEC has held[when?] four symposia to evaluate the environmental impacts of NAFTA and commissioned 47 papers on the subject from leading independent experts.[26]

text: Agriculture

text: From the earliest negotiation, agriculture was (and still remains) a controversial topic within NAFTA, as it has been with almost all free trade agreements that have been signed within the WTO framework. Agriculture is the only section that was not negotiated trilaterally; instead, three separate agreements were signed between each pair of parties. The Canada–U.S. agreement contains significant restrictions and tariff quotas on agricultural products (mainly sugar, dairy, and poultry products), whereas the Mexico–U.S. pact allows for a wider liberalization within a framework of phase-out periods (it was the first North–South FTA on agriculture to be signed).[clarification needed]

text: Transportation infrastructure

text: NAFTA established the CANAMEX Corridor for road transport between Canada and Mexico, also proposed for use by rail, pipeline, and fiber optic telecommunications infrastructure. This became a High Priority Corridor under the U.S. Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991.

text: Impact

text: Canada

text: Like Mexico and the U.S., Canada received a modest positive economic benefit as measured by GDP. Many declines did not materialize, and some industries like the furniture industry, which had expected to suffer, grew instead.[citation needed] Canadian manufacturing employment held steady despite an international downward trend in developed countries.[citation needed] One of NAFTA's biggest economic effects on U.S.-Canada trade has been higher bilateral agricultural flows.[clarification needed][27] In the year 2008 alone, Canadian exports to the United States and Mexico were at $381.3 billion, and imports from NAFTA were at $245.1 billion.[28]

text: A 2007 study found that NAFTA has "almost zero welfare impact on member and nonmember countries".[29] A 2015 study found that Canada's welfare decreased by 0.06% as a result of the NAFTA tariff reductions, and that Canada's intra-bloc trade increased by 11%.[30]

text: Mexico

text: Maquiladoras (Mexican assembly plants that take in imported components and produce goods for export) have become the landmark of trade in Mexico. They moved to Mexico from the United States[citation needed], hence the debate over the loss of American jobs. Income in the maquiladora sector has increased 15.5% since the implementation of NAFTA in 1994.[31] Other sectors now benefit from the free trade agreement, and the share of exports to the US from non-border states has increased in the last five years[when?] while the share of exports from border states has decreased. This has allowed rapid growth in non-border metropolitan areas such as Toluca, León and Puebla; all larger in population than Tijuana, Ciudad Juárez, and Reynosa.

text: The overall effect of the Mexico–U.S. agricultural agreement is disputed. Mexico did not invest in the infrastructure necessary for competition, such as efficient railroads and highways.This resulted in more difficult living conditions for the country's poor. Mexico's agricultural exports increased 9.4 percent annually between 1994 and 2001, while imports increased by only 6.9 percent a year during the same period.[32]

text: One of the most affected agricultural sectors is the meat industry. Mexico went from a small player in the pre-1994 U.S. export market to the second largest importer of U.S. agricultural products in 2004, and NAFTA may be a major catalyst for this change. Free trade removed the hurdles that impeded business between the two countries, so Mexico has provided a growing market for meat for the U.S., and increased sales and profits for the U.S. meat industry. A coinciding noticeable increase in the Mexican per capita GDP greatly changed meat consumption patterns; per capita meat consumption has grown.[33]

text: Production of corn in Mexico has increased since NAFTA. But internal demand for corn has increased beyond Mexico's supply, and imports have become needed, far beyond the quotas Mexico originally negotiated.[34] Zahniser & Coyle[who?] also point out that corn prices in Mexico, adjusted for international prices, have drastically decreased, but through a program of subsidies expanded by former president Vicente Fox, production has remained stable since 2000.[35] Reducing agricultural subsidies, especially corn subsidies, has been suggested as a way to reduce harms to Mexican farmers.[36]

text: A 2001 Journal of Economic Perspectives review of the existing literature found that NAFTA was a net benefit to Mexico.[8] By the year 2003, 80% of the commerce in Mexico was executed only with the U.S. The commercial sales surplus, combined with the deficit with the rest of the world, created a dependency in Mexico's exports. These effects were evident in 2001–2003; the result of that recession was either a low rate or a negative rate in Mexico's exports.[37]

text: A 2015 study found that Mexico's welfare increased by 1.31% as a result of the NAFTA tariff reductions, and that Mexico's intra-bloc trade increased by 118%.[30] Inequality and poverty fell in the most globalization-affected regions of Mexico.[38] 2013 and 2015 studies show that Mexican small farmers benefitted more from NAFTA than large-scale farmers.[39][40]

text: NAFTA has also been credited with the rise of the Mexican middle class. A Tufts University study found that NAFTA lowered the average cost of basic necessities in Mexico by up to 50%.[41] This price reduction increased cash-on-hand for many Mexican families, allowing Mexico to graduate more engineers than Germany each year.[42]

text: Growth in new sales orders indicates an increase in demand for manufactured products, which resulted in expansion of production and a higher employment rate to satisfy the increment in the demand. The growth in the maquiladora industry and in the manufacturing industry was of 4.7% in August 2016.[43] Three quarters of the imports and exports comes are with the U.S.

text: Tufts University political scientist Daniel W. Drezner has argued that NAFTA made it easier for Mexico to transform to a real democracy and become a country that views itself as North American. This has boosted cooperation between the United States and Mexico.[44]

text: United States

text: Economists consider that NAFTA was beneficial for the United States.[45][46] In a 2012 survey of leading economists, 95% said that on average U.S. citizens benefited from NAFTA.[7] A 2001 Journal of Economic Perspectives review found that NAFTA was a net benefit to the United States.[8] A 2015 study found that US welfare increased by 0.08% as a result of NAFTA tariff reductions, and that US intra-bloc trade increased by 41%.[30]

text: In 2015, the Congressional Research Service concluded that the "net overall effect of NAFTA on the U.S. economy appears to have been relatively modest, primarily because trade with Canada and Mexico accounts for a small percentage of U.S. GDP.However, there were worker and firm adjustment costs as the three countries adjusted to more open trade and investment among their economies." The report also estimated that NAFTA added $80 billion to the US economy since its implementation, equivalent to a 0.5% increase in US GDP.[47]

text: The U.S. Chamber of Commerce credits NAFTA with increasing U.S. trade in goods and services with Canada and Mexico from $337 billion in 1993 to $1.2 trillion in 2011, while the AFL-CIO blames the agreement for sending 700,000 American manufacturing jobs to Mexico over that time.[48]

text: University of California, San Diego economics professor Gordon Hanson has said that NAFTA helped the U.S. compete against China and therefore saved U.S. jobs.[49][50] While some jobs were lost to Mexico as a result of NAFTA, considerably more would have been lost to China if not for NAFTA.[49][50]

text: Trade balances

text: The U.S. had a trade surplus with NAFTA countries of $28.3 billion for services in 2009 and a trade deficit of $94.6 billion (36.4% annual increase) for goods in 2010. This trade deficit accounted for 26.8 percent of all U.S. goods trade deficit.[51]

text: A study published in the August 2008 issue of the American Journal of Agricultural Economics, found NAFTA increased U.S. agricultural exports to Mexico and Canada, even though most of the increase occurred a decade after its ratification. The study focused on the effects that gradual "phase-in" periods in regional trade agreements, including NAFTA, have on trade flows. Most of the increase in members’ agricultural trade, which was only recently brought under the purview of the World Trade Organization, was due to very high trade barriers before NAFTA or other regional trade agreements.[52]

text: Investment

text: The U.S. foreign direct investment (FDI) in NAFTA countries (stock) was $327.5 billion in 2009 (latest data available)[when?], up 8.8% from 2008.[51] The U.S. direct investment in NAFTA countries is in nonbank holding companies, and in the manufacturing, finance/insurance, and mining sectors.[51] The foreign direct investment of Canada and Mexico in the United States (stock) was $237.2 billion in 2009 (the latest data available), up 16.5% from 2008.[51][53]

text: Jobs

text: For impacts specific to the United States, see NAFTA's effect on United States employment.

text: Many American small businesses depend on exporting their products to Canada or Mexico under NAFTA. According to the U.S. Trade Representative, this trade supports over 140,000 small- and medium-sized businesses in the US.[54]

text: According to the Economic Policy Institute, California, Texas, Michigan and other states with high concentrations of manufacturing jobs were most affected by job loss due to NAFTA.[55] EPI economist Robert Scott estimates some 682,900 U.S. jobs have been "lost or displaced" as a result of the trade agreement.[56] However, other studies have found that NAFTA only had a modest impact on manufacturing employment, and that automation explains 87% of the losses in manufacturing jobs.[57]

text: According to University of California Berkeley professor of economics Brad DeLong, NAFTA had an insignificant impact on US manufacturing.[58] The adverse impact on manufacturing has been very exaggerated in US political discourse according to DeLong,[58] Harvard economist Dani Rodrik agrees.[59]

text: Environment

text: According to a study in the Journal of International Economics, NAFTA reduced pollution emitted by the US manufacturing sector: "On average, nearly two-thirds of the reductions in PM10[clarification needed] and SO2[clarification needed] emissions from the U.S. manufacturing sector between 1994 and 1998 can be attributed to trade liberalization following NAFTA."[60]

text: According to the Sierra Club, NAFTA contributed to large-scale, export-oriented farming, which led to the increased use of fossil fuels, pesticides and GMO.[61] NAFTA also contributed to environmentally destructive mining practices in Mexico.[61] It prevented Canada from effectively regulating its tar sands industry, and created new legal avenues for transnational corporations to fight environmental legislation.[61] In some cases, environmental policy was neglected in the wake of trade liberalization; in other cases, NAFTA's measures for investment protection, such as Chapter 11, and measures against non-tariff trade barriers threatened to discourage more vigorous environmental policy.[62] The most serious overall increases in pollution due to NAFTA were found in the base metals sector, the Mexican petroleum sector, and the transportation equipment sector in the United States and Mexico, but not in Canada.[63]

text: Mobility of persons

text: According to the Department of Homeland Security Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, during fiscal year 2006 (i.e., October 2005 through September 2006), 73,880 foreign professionals (64,633 Canadians and 9,247 Mexicans) were admitted into the United States for temporary employment under NAFTA (i.e., in the TN status). Additionally, 17,321 of their family members (13,136 Canadians, 2,904 Mexicans, as well as a number of third-country nationals married to Canadians and Mexicans) entered the U.S. in the treaty national's dependent (TD) status.[64] Because DHS counts the number of the new I-94 arrival records filled at the border, and the TN-1 admission is valid for three years, the number of non-immigrants in TN status present in the U.S. at the end of the fiscal year is approximately equal to the number of admissions during the year. (A discrepancy may be caused by some TN entrants leaving the country or changing status before their three-year admission period has expired, while other immigrants admitted earlier may change their status to TN or TD, or extend TN status granted earlier).

text: According to the International Organization for Migration, deaths of migrants have been on the rise worldwide with 5,604 deaths in 2016.[65] An increased number of undocumented farmworkers in California may be due to the initial passing of NAFTA[66]

text: Canadian authorities estimated that on December 1, 2006, 24,830 U.S. citizens and 15,219 Mexican citizens were in Canada as "foreign workers". These numbers include both entrants under NAFTA and those who entered under other provisions of Canadian immigration law.[67] New entries of foreign workers in 2006 totalled 16,841 U.S. citizens and 13,933 Mexicans.[68]

text: Disputes and controversies

text: 1992 U.S. presidential candidate Ross Perot

text: In the second 1992 presidential debate, Ross Perot argued:

text:
We have got to stop sending jobs overseas. It's pretty simple: If you're paying $12, $13, $14 an hour for factory workers and you can move your factory south of the border, pay a dollar an hour for labor,...have no health care—that's the most expensive single element in making a car— have no environmental controls, no pollution controls and no retirement, and you don't care about anything but making money, there will be a giant sucking sound going south.
    ...when [Mexico's] jobs come up from a dollar an hour to six dollars an hour, and ours go down to six dollars an hour, and then it's leveled again. But in the meantime, you've wrecked the country with these kinds of deals.[69]

text: Perot ultimately lost the election, and the winner, Bill Clinton, supported NAFTA, which went into effect on January 1, 1994.

text: Legal disputes

text: This article needs to be updated. Please update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information. (August 2009)

text: In 1996, the gasoline additive MMT was brought to Canada by Ethyl Corporation, an American company when the Canadian federal government banned imports of the additive. The American company brought a claim under NAFTA Chapter 11 seeking US$201 million,[70] from the Canadian federal government as well as the Canadian provinces under the Agreement on Internal Trade (AIT). They argued that the additive had not been conclusively linked to any health dangers, and that the prohibition was damaging to their company. Following a finding that the ban was a violation of the AIT,[71] the Canadian federal government repealed the ban and settled with the American company for US$13 million.[72] Studies by Health and Welfare Canada (now Health Canada) on the health effects of MMT in fuel found no significant health effects associated with exposure to these exhaust emissions. Other Canadian researchers and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency disagreed citing studies that suggested possible nerve damage.[73]

text: The United States and Canada have argued for years over the United States' 27% duty on Canadian softwood lumber imports. Canada filed many motions to have the duty eliminated and the collected duties returned to Canada.[74] After the United States lost an appeal beforegh a NAFTA panel, it responded by saying "We are, of course, disappointed with the [NAFTA panel's] decision, but it will have no impact on the anti-dumping and countervailing duty orders." (Nick Lifton, spokesman for U.S. Trade Representative Rob Portman)[75] On July 21, 2006, the United States Court of International Trade found that imposition of the duties was contrary to U.S. law.[76][77]

text: Change in income trust taxation not expropriation

text: On October 30, 2007, American citizens Marvin and Elaine Gottlieb filed a Notice of Intent to Submit a Claim to Arbitration under NAFTA, claiming thousands of U.S. investors lost a total of $5 billion in the fall-out from the Conservative Government's decision the previous year to change the tax rate on income trusts in the energy sector. On April 29, 2009, a determination was made that this change in tax law was not expropriation.[78]

text: Impact on Mexican farmers

text: Several studies have rejected NAFTA responsibility for depressing the incomes of poor corn farmers. The trend existed more than a decade before NAFTA existed. Also, maize production increased after 1994, and there wasn't a measurable impact on the price of Mexican corn because of subsidized[who?] corn from the United States. The studies agreed that the abolition of U.S. agricultural subsidies would benefit Mexican farmers.[79]

text: Zapatista Uprising in response to NAFTA in Chiapas, Mexico

text: Preparations for NAFTA included cancellation of Article 27 of Mexico's constitution, the cornerstone of Emiliano Zapata's revolution in 1910–1919. Under the historic Article 27, Indian communal landholdings were protected from sale or privatization. However, this barrier to investment was incompatible with NAFTA. Indian farmers feared the loss of their remaining lands, and also feared cheap imports (substitutes) from the US. The Zapatistas labelled NAFTA a "death sentence" to Indian communities all over Mexico. Then EZLN declared war on the Mexican state on January 1, 1994, the day NAFTA came into force.[80]

text: Chapter 11

text: Another contentious issue is the investor state dispute settlement obligations contained in Chapter 11 of NAFTA.[81] Chapter 11 allows corporations or individuals to sue Mexico, Canada or the United States for compensation when actions taken by those governments (or by those for whom they are responsible at international law, such as provincial, state, or municipal governments) violate international law.[82]

text: This chapter has been criticized by groups in the U.S.,[83] Mexico,[84] and Canada[85] for a variety of reasons, including not taking into account important social and environmental[86] considerations. In Canada, several groups, including the Council of Canadians, challenged the constitutionality of Chapter 11. They lost at the trial level[87] and have subsequently appealed.[when?]

text: Methanex Corporation, a Canadian corporation, filed a US$970 million suit against the United States because, it said, a California ban on Methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE), a substance that had found its way into many wells in the state, was hurtful to the corporation's sales of methanol. The claim was rejected, and the company was ordered to pay US$3 million to the U.S. government in costs, based on the following reasoning: "But as a matter of general international law, a non-discriminatory regulation for a public purpose, which is enacted in accordance with due process and, which affects, inter alios, a foreign investor or investment is not deemed expropriatory and compensable unless specific commitments had been given by the regulating government to the then putative foreign investor contemplating investment that the government would refrain from such regulation."[88]

text: In another case, Metalclad, an American corporation, was awarded US$15.6 million from Mexico after a Mexican municipality refused a construction permit for the hazardous waste landfill it intended to construct in Guadalcázar, San Luis Potosí. The construction had already been approved by the federal government with various environmental requirements imposed (see paragraph 48 of the tribunal decision). The NAFTA panel found that the municipality did not have the authority to ban construction on the basis of its environmental concerns.[89]

text: In Eli Lilly and Company v. Government of Canada[90] the plaintiff presented a US$500 million claim for the way Canada requires usefulness in its drug patent legislation.[91] Apotex is sued the U.S. for US$520 million because of opportunity it says it lost in an FDA generic drug decision.[91]

text: Lone Pine Resources Inc. v. Government of Canada[92] filed a US$250 million claim against Canada, accusing it of "arbitrary, capricious and illegal" behaviour,[93] because Quebec intends to prevent fracking exploration under the St. Lawrence Seaway.[91] Milos Barutciski, the lawyer for Lone Pine, has decried portrayals of his client as "another rapacious multinational challenging governments’ ability to regulate for health, safety and the environment".

text: Lone Pine Resources is incorporated in Delaware but headquartered in Calgary,[93] and had an initial public offering on the NYSE May 25, 2011 of 15 million shares each for $13, which raised US$195 million.[94]

text: Barutciski acknowledged "that NAFTA and other investor-protection treaties create an anomaly in that Canadian companies that have also seen their permits rescinded by the very same Quebec legislation, which expressly forbids the paying of compensation, do not have the right (to) pursue a NAFTA claim," and that winning "compensation in Canadian courts for domestic companies in this case would be more difficult since the Constitution puts property rights in provincial hands."[93]

text: A treaty[clarification needed] with China would extend similar rights to Chinese investors, including SOEs.[93]

text: Chapter 19

text: Also contentious is NAFTA's Chapter 19, which subjects antidumping and countervailing duty (AD/CVD) determinations to binational panel review instead of, or in addition to, conventional judicial review.[95] For example, in the United States, review of agency decisions imposing antidumping and countervailing duties are normally heard before the U.S. Court of International Trade, an Article III court. NAFTA parties, however, have the option of appealing the decisions to binational panels composed of five citizens from the two relevant NAFTA countries.[95] The panelists are generally lawyers experienced in international trade law. Since NAFTA does not include substantive provisions concerning AD/CVD, the panel is charged with determining whether final agency determinations involving AD/CVD conform with the country's domestic law. Chapter 19 is an anomaly in international dispute settlement since it does not apply international law, but requires a panel composed of individuals from many countries to re-examine the application of one country's domestic law.[citation needed]

text: A Chapter 19 panel is expected to examine whether the agency's determination is supported by "substantial evidence." This standard assumes significant deference to the domestic agency. Some of the most controversial trade disputes in recent years, such as the U.S.-Canada softwood lumber dispute, have been litigated before Chapter 19 panels.

text: Decisions by Chapter 19 panels can be challenged before a NAFTA extraordinary challenge committee. However, an extraordinary challenge committee does not function as an ordinary appeal.[95] Under NAFTA, it will only vacate or remand a decision if the decision involves a significant and material error that threatens the integrity of the NAFTA dispute settlement system. Since January 2006, no NAFTA party has successfully challenged a Chapter 19 panel's decision before an extraordinary challenge committee.

text: Criticism from 2016 U.S. presidential candidates

text: In a 60 Minutes interview in September 2015, American 2016 presidential candidate Donald Trump called NAFTA calling it "the single worst trade deal ever approved in [the United States]",[96] and said that if elected, he would "either renegotiate it, or we will break it."[97][98] Juan Pablo Castañón (es) president of the trade group Consejo Coordinador Empresarial, expressed concern about renegotiation and the willingness to focus on the car industry.[99] A range of trade experts have said that pulling out of NAFTA would have a range of unintended consequences for the U.S., including reduced access to the its biggest export markets, a reduction in economic growth, and higher prices for gasoline, cars, fruits, and vegetables.[100] Members of the private initiative in Mexico noted that to eliminate NAFTA, many laws must be adapted by the U.S. Congress. The move would also eventually result in legal complaints by the World Trade Organization.[99] The Washington Post noted that a Congressional Research Service review academic literature concluded that the "net overall effect of NAFTA on the U.S. economy appears to have been relatively modest, primarily because trade with Canada and Mexico accounts for a small percentage of U.S. GDP."[30]

text: Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders opposed the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, which he called "a continuation of other disastrous trade agreements, like NAFTA, CAFTA, and permanent normal trade relations with China." He believes that free trade agreements have caused a loss of American jobs and depressed American wages. Sanders has said that America needs to rebuild its manufacturing base using American factories for well-paying jobs for American labor rather than outsourcing to China and els where.[101][102][103][104]

text: Policy of the Trump administration

text: Renegotiation

text: Shortly after his election, U.S. President Donald Trump announced his intention to begin renegotiating the terms of NAFTA, to resolve trade issues he had campaigned on. The leaders of Canada and Mexico have indicated their willingness to work with the Trump administration[citation needed]. Although vague on the exact terms that he will be seeking in a renegotiated NAFTA, Trump has threatened to withdraw from it if negotiations fail.[105]

text: In July 2017, the Trump administration provided a detailed list of changes that it would like to see to NAFTA.[106] The top priority was a reduction in the United States' trade deficit.[106][107] The administration also called for the elimination of provisions that allowed Canada and Mexico to appeal duties imposed by the United States and limited the ability of the United States to impose import restrictions on Canada and Mexico.[106] The list also voiced concerns about subsidized state-owned enterprises and currency manipulation.[106][108]

text: According to Chad Bown of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, the Trump administration's list "is very consistent with the president’s stance on liking trade barriers, liking protectionism.[106] This makes NAFTA in many respects less of a free-trade agreement." The concerns over subsidized state-owned enterprises and currency manipulation are not deemed applicable to Canada and Mexico.[106] Jeffrey Schott of the Peterson Institute for International Economics noted that it would not be possible to conclude renegotiations quickly while also addressing all the concerns on the list.[108] He also said that it would be difficult to do anything about trade deficits.[108]

text: An October 2017 op-ed in Toronto's Globe and Mail questioned whether the United States wanted to re-negotiate the agreement or planned to walk away from it no matter what, noting that newly appointed American ambassador Kelly Knight Craft is married to the owner of Alliance Resource Partners, a big US coal operation. Canada is implementing a carbon plan, and there is also the matter of a sale of Bombardier jets. "The Americans inserted so many poison pills into last week's talks in Washington that they should have been charged with murder, wrote the columnist, John Ibbitson.[109]

text: Impact of withdrawing from NAFTA

text: Following Donald Trump's election to the presidency, a range of trade experts have said that pulling out of NAFTA as Trump proposed would have a range of unintended consequences for the U.S., including reduced access to the U.S.'s biggest export markets, a reduction in economic growth, and increased prices for gasoline, cars, fruits, and vegetables.[12] The worst affected sectors would be textiles, agriculture and automobiles.[110][13]

text: According to Tufts University political scientist Daniel W. Drezner, the Trump administration's desire to return relations with Mexico to the pre-NAFTA era are misguided. Drezner argues that NAFTA made it easier for Mexico to transform to a real democracy and become a country that views itself as North American. If Trump acts on many of the threats that he has made against Mexico, it is not inconceivable that Mexicans would turn to left-wing populist strongmen, as several South-American countries have. At the very least, US-Mexico relations would worsen, with adverse implications for cooperation on border security, counterterrorism, drug-war cooperation, deportations and managing Central American migration.[44]

text: According to Chad P. Bown (senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics), "a renegotiated NAFTA that would reestablish trade barriers is unlikely to help workers who lost their jobs — regardless of the cause — take advantage of new employment opportunities."[111]

text: According to Harvard economist Marc Melitz, "recent research estimates that the repeal of NAFTA would not increase car production in the United States."[11] Melitz notes that this would cost manufacturing jobs.[11][clarification needed]

text: Trans-Pacific Partnership

text: If the Trans-Pacific Partnership comes into effect, existing agreements like NAFTA will be reduced to those provisions that do not conflict with the TPP, or that require greater trade liberalization than the TPP.[112] However, only Canada and Mexico will have the prospect of becoming members of the TPP after U.S. President Donald Trump withdrew the United States from the agreement in January 2017. In May 2017, the 11 remaining members of the TPP, including Canada and Mexico, agreed to proceed with the trade deal without U.S. participation.[113]