WiFi Worries Still Going Strong In The UK

from the gotta-freak-out-about-something dept

Not so long ago, the BBC did a scare-mongering show about the supposed "threats" of WiFi radiation on children. Never mind the fact that it was later pointed out that the program used horrendously bad science, that actual scientific tests have shown the fears to be totally overblown (the amount of radiation is minimal, and double blind tests find that people cannot tell when WiFi is on, despite claims to the contrary) and that even the BBC later admitted that the show was poorly done and presented only one side of the story (the fear mongering one) while blatantly making the one reasonable person on the show look bad. It also left out some of the conflicts of interests concerning one of the scientific "experts" on the show (the guy who sold anti-radiation products and has a clear reason to build up fear mongering around WiFi radiation).

But, no matter, anti-WiFi hysteria has been in full bloom since that program aired. Despite all the studies showing little to no impact from WiFi radiation, the UK's Daily Mail is running yet another fear mongering piece about how WiFi in schools is harming children and wants a moratorium on WiFi in schools. Apparently the fact that a year's worth of WiFi radiation is the equivalent of 20 minutes on a mobile phone hasn't been explained to these people.

Filed Under: radiation, uk, wifi, worries

AT&T Wants To Throw Some FCC Roadblocks Into Sprint, Clearwire Joint Venture

from the good-luck-with-that dept

In a move that is clearly designed to just piss off and waste the resources of a competitor, AT&T has filed papers with the FCC opposing Sprint and Clearwire's plan to merge their WiMax divisions, which was announced a few months ago (found via Broadband Reports. Of course, AT&T has a chummy relationship with the FCC, who has allowed it to merge with telco after telco without many real conditions (and even telling it that it can ignore some of the conditions it agreed to to get those mergers approved).

In this case, AT&T claims that it isn't really opposed to the merger, but it's filing opposition papers because it feels that Sprint and Clearwire aren't receiving the same level of scrutiny that AT&T received in its mergers, specifically with regards to it spectrum holdings. This seems like grasping at straws by AT&T just to throw some sort of extra paperwork roadblock in the path of the new Clearwire, which is an obvious competitor.

Filed Under: fcc, mergers, roadblocks, spectrum
Companies: at&t, clearwire, sprint

iPhone 3G Illustrates What A Real Contract Looks Like

from the legally-binding dept

I spent most of my day last Friday acquiring an iPhone 3G. It was a long and tedious process involving several hours of waiting, a visit to the Apple Store, and two visits to AT&T. Part of the reason it took so long is that Apple wasn't willing to let me have the phone until I'd signed up for a 2-year contract with AT&T. Mike has previously discussed the pros and cons of cell phone subsidies, and the associated carrier lock-in. Whatever you think of that debate, the iPhone story is a good example of what a real contract looks like. I was required to sign up for an AT&T service plan and sign an AT&T service agreement before I was allowed to leave the Apple Store with my iPhone. I knew exactly what I was getting into, and had the option to decline before completing the transaction. I think there's little doubt that the courts would enforce the contract's terms if I tried to renege on my commitment.

Now compare that to the shrink-wrap "contracts" that retail software developers keep trying to foist on people who buy their products. When you buy a software product at Best Buy, the cashier almost never informs you about the license agreement, much less require you to read and sign it. In many cases, it's not even possible to open the box and read the agreement until after you've completed the transaction. One of the key differences here is that Apple spent valuable employee time informing me of the contract, giving me time to read it, and requiring me to sign it. This is annoying for Apple, but enforcing some minimum requirements for contract formation also serves an important function: ensuring that firms only resort to using formal contracts when they have a pretty good reason. Forming, complying with, and enforcing contracts consumes resources, so we don't want people forming contracts too lightly. It also ensures that the contracts actually get read, something Apple has had trouble with in the past. The software industry, in contrast, tries to get all the benefits of legally-enforceable contracts without shouldering any of the costs. That approach isn't fair to consumers or to taxpayers.

Filed Under: contracts, iphone
Companies: apple, at&t

I Don't Think It's Motorola's Trade Secrets That Have Made The iPhone A Success

from the let's-be-honest-here dept

Late Friday, the news broke that Motorola was suing a former sales executive who had left Motorola and joined Apple in April. Motorola is claiming that he was sharing Motorola's trade secrets with Apple. Of course, given the directions both companies seem to be heading in with their mobile phone devices, one might think that the only "secrets" he might have shared from Motorola were about what not to do. In fact, it seems like a lot of Apple's success with the iPhone has been in ignoring many of the old rules.

Filed Under: executies, iphone, trade secrets
Companies: apple, motorola

Now A German Court Says Open WiFi Owner Is Responsible For What Others Do On WiFi

from the courts-disagree dept

Remember just over a week ago the good news coming out of Germany concerning an appeals court ruling that noted (properly) that the owner of an open WiFi access point was not liable for actions done by others on that WiFi? Well, apparently there's a bit of a "split" in the German courts. An anonymous reader sends us notice of a news report out of Germany with a lower level court apparently ruling in the exact opposite way (link in German, translations welcome; here's Google's translation). From what the submitter and the translation suggest, the court claims that it's the responsibility of the access point owner to secure the WiFi, and if they do not, they have to take on some liability for what happens on that system. There's no question, apparently, that the owners of the WiFi system did not actually share the file in question. They showed they were not at home at the time of the alleged infringement, and they had no file sharing software on their computer. While the case isn't yet over, the owners of the WiFi access point have to pay court costs, lawyers fees and the amount they were sued for... and they may face criminal prosecution as well.

Filed Under: germany, liability, open wife, wifi

Putting iPhone Sales In Perspective

from the it's-good,-but... dept

We didn't have much (well, anything) to say about the recent iPhone launch because it certainly seemed as though the rest of the tech press/blogworld had that one... um... thoroughly covered. However, with the glowing reports earlier this week about how amazing it was that Apple had sold 1 million iPhones over the weekend, Carlo Longino has put that into perspective, noting that it's not quite as impressive as most people seem to think. First, as he notes, since the launch was international (rather than the original iPhones US-only launch), it's no surprise that it would sell many more. But, more importantly, he notes that recent stats on mobile handsets shows that 282 million handsets were sold in the first quarter of this year, and that Nokia alone appears to sell approximately 1.28 million handsets per day. So, yes, selling 1 million handsets over the weekend is a nice round milestone -- and certainly other handset makers are probably jealous of the attention it's getting. But, it's not having a huge impact on the overall handset market just yet.

Filed Under: iphone, mobile phones, sales
Companies: apple, nokia

Will Smart Parking Make Circling The Block A Thing Of The Past?

from the wouldn't-that-be-nice dept

There was a fascinating article in the NY Times this past weekend about how the city of San Francisco is embracing "smart parking" technology -- basically installing special sensors on the ground in 6,000 of its 24,000 metered parking spots. The idea is that the sensors will report (from one to the next and then onto a central computing system) where there are actually spots available -- and people will be able to discover where to go via electronic street signs indicating open spots or even via their mobile phones. It should make for an interesting experiment at the least. Beyond the hassle of just finding an open spot, the article notes that in some places a significant component of street traffic can be attributed to people just trying to find a parking space. Of course, if there's still too many people looking for spots, it's unlikely that these sensors will alert people in enough time. By the time they find the open spot, they're likely to find someone else already beat them to it. Still, this does seem like a step in the right direction in terms of using information to better deal with at least some traffic congestion problems.

Filed Under: parking, san francisco, smart dust, smart parking

Why Are People Being Sent To Jail For Unlocking A Mobile Phone?

from the bad-news-all-around dept

For a few years, we've been covering the various lawsuits over mobile phone unlocking, mostly involving the company TracFone. TracFone focuses on the "prepaid" mobile phone market. That is, rather than selling long term contracts to people with various total minutes, it just sells phones with a certain number of minutes already on them that can then be re-upped at the buyer's discretion. However, like typical mobile phone service providers, TracFone subsidizes the price of the phone in order to make it seem quite cheap (sometimes as low as $10 or $15). The idea is to hook people and make money on selling the minutes. However, there's no requirement that people buy more minutes.

What's happened, of course, is that people figured out a huge arbitrage opportunity. They buy TracFone phones on the cheap, unlock them, and then resell them for a higher price (often outside the country). The problem here is TracFone's choice of a business model. It decided to subsidize the phones and it set up a business model that doesn't require people to sign a long term contract or ever agree to buy more minutes. However, if you listen to TracFone tell the story, this is a case of felony interference of a business model, and anyone unlocking those phones must be stopped.

For a while it was abusing the DMCA for this purpose -- using it to claim that the unlocking was circumvention of copy protection. Of course, that's exactly how the DMCA is not supposed to be used -- and that was made even more clear when the Library of Congress explicitly carved out an exemption for mobile phone unlocking, making it quite clear that this is perfectly legal. TracFone has whined about this, but it still doesn't amount to much more than that the company just picked a bad business model.

However, the situation keeps getting more bizarre. Some folks involved in one of these arbitrage opportunities were eventually arrested for terrorism, after US officials assumed that anyone buying so many prepaid phones must be planning some sort of attack (don't ask). This had companies in the space suddenly claiming that this action of unlocking prepaid phones was a national security threat (seriously). What's scary is that some officials seem to believe it.

It turns out that TracFone actually is winning a bunch of the lawsuits it's filing, using both questionable copyright and trademark claims. However, the real kicker is that one man is actually facing jailtime for this. It's a little unclear from the wording in the article, as the jailtime may actually be as a result of him ignoring a judge's order to stop the practice of reselling unlocked TracFones -- but it's still not clear why it's illegal to unlock these phones that were legally purchased. The DMCA exemptions say that unlocking a phone is perfectly legal, and as long as the phone was legally purchased, it's now the possession of the buyer, who should be allowed to tinker with the software and resell it without having to worry about lawsuits or (worse) jailtime. Yes, TracFone is upset that it wipes out their business model, but the law isn't designed to protect their own poor choice of business models.

Filed Under: jailtime, legality, mobile phones, prepaid wireless, unlocking
Companies: tracfone

German Court Says That Open WiFi Owners Not Responsible For File Sharing Done By Others

from the good-ruling dept

There's been plenty of back and forth over the years concerning the question of whether or not an open WiFi network makes the owner of that network liable for or protected from charges of file sharing by others on that network. Since the entertainment industry can only trace back to the access point, but has no idea who's using that access point, some have always contested that an open WiFi network is a defense against charges of file sharing, since it could be anyone doing the sharing. Others contend that the owners of the open network should be liable for any crimes committed on that network.

A German court has now ruled that open WiFi network owners are not responsible for actions committed by other users on their network. This overrules a lower court decision, which the entertainment industry had been using to threaten people whose IP addresses turned up in file sharing sweeps. This doesn't mean that the owner of the network won't still be hauled off to court, or that they won't eventually be found guilty of infringement -- but if the person can present evidence that others used the network, then they have a defense against charges of file sharing. This seems like a reasonable ruling that hopefully other courts will follow as well.

Filed Under: file sharing, germany, liability, open wifi

Rogers Tries (And Fails) To Appease Angry iPhone Buyers As Belgians Contemplate $1,000 iPhones

from the ain't-so-cheap dept

Part of the supposed appeal of the new 3G iPhone when it was announced by Steve Jobs a few months back was that it was going to be much cheaper than the old iPhone. That was true until you actually looked at the fine print. The $199 pricing only applied in the US to those who signed a long-term contract with AT&T -- for which you had to pay higher service fees. In other countries the story was also questionable. Up in Canada, the only national GSM provider, Rogers, caused a stir with ridiculously high service plans. After a rather loud protest, Rogers has pretended to relent by having a limited-time offer for cheaper data rates, though still not offering an unlimited plan. This has potential customers still pretty ticked off:

So, all early adopters that will ever be interested in the iPhone will have to buy by August 31. It's a ridiculous idea, and an obvious attempt to turn a concession demanded by the market into a cudgel against its customers -- not only can you not have an unlimited plan, but you can't buy at your leisure -- for example, waiting a few months to see if users reports overcharge horror stories from Rogers' miserly plans. You have to "buy now!!!, this offer is **limited**" What nonsense. If the plan is a bona fide effort to respond to a recognized customer need in a responsible manner, it should not be time limited.

Meanwhile, folks over in Belgium have a different problem. Due to laws forbidding the entirely reasonable practice of bundling goods together with subsidized pricing, you can only buy the phone at full price: which works out to nearly $1,000. On the good side, this has highlighted how dumb the "no subsidized bundling" law is, and politicians are looking to toss it out this fall.

Filed Under: belgium, canada, iphone, prices
Companies: rogers