AT&T-Funded Politicians Accuse Google Of Gaming The Spectrum Auction System

from the please-explain dept

We've already explained why Google's actions in the recent 700 MHz spectrum auction wasn't "fleecing" taxpayers as some lobbyists had contended. Yet, it appears that the lobbying has been effective. A set of Congressional representatives have started asking whether or not Google gamed the system. This is a pretty bizarre claim against a company that put up $4.6 billion in an auction and was then outbid. Clearly, in putting up the bid, there was a chance that Google could have won and had to pay the $4.6 billion. There's no rule that Google had to keep bidding. The company stopped at the point at which it was comfortable bidding. Of course, it will probably surprise no one that if you look at the top campaign contributor to all 3 representatives attacking Google's actions, you'll notice a pattern (in the letters A, T and T). Check it out for yourself. There's Fred Upton, Cliff Stearns and John Shimkus. You think that had something to do with their opinion on the spectrum auction process? Nah...

Filed Under: 700 mhz, auction, politics, spectrum
Companies: at&t, congress, fcc, google

Mobile WiMAX Products Finally Arrive -- So Everyone Claiming They Were Offering Mobile WiMAX Has To Scramble

from the so-what-was-all-that-prior-WiMAX-stuff? dept

It wasn't all Singapore Slinging (of mud) at WiMAX Forum Asia Congress 2008. There was some real progress to mention coming out of the show last week. The Forum has announced the certification of the first 8 products that are fully mobile WiMAX compliant, and it's been a long time coming. This is good news for network providers that have been counting on high-scale-economies for standards-based kit, with which they can deploy their networks. The WiMAX Forum says that 2.5GHz kit will likely be certified later this year. 2.5GHz is of particular interest to Sprint Xohm, which is currently working with non-certified gear.

And what were all the prior announcements that WiMAX certification was available? Well, this 2005 announcement was regarding fixed WiMAX, and this 2006 announcement was really about a suite for equipment makers to test their products in development. But that's behind us, there is now real Mobile WiMAX equipment available. Finally.

But, if certified mobile WiMAX gear is only available as of this week, what were all those other "mobile WiMAX" network announcements you've been hearing for years? Turns out many of them were what boosters dubbed "pre-WiMAX". But pre-WiMAX turns out to be defined as "not really WiMAX at all but I'm eager to get on the bandwagon." This massive reality gap between pre-WiMAX and standards-based WiMAX is illustrated by a recent story in which Clearwire Chief Strategy Officer Scott Richardson says "...Clearwire may use dual-mode devices to support both technologies [pre-WiMAX and WiMAX] and may overlay WiMAX equipment on its existing markets."

Dual-mode equipment and overlays? To manage an upgrade from "pre-WiMAX" equipment to "WiMAX" equipment? What he's really saying is that the older Nextnet-made gear is simply NOT compatible with WiMAX (i.e., it's NOT WiMAX and never was), and it eventually needs to be forklift-upgraded out. If this stuff was really just "pre-," then it should have taken no more than a software upgrade and a tweak or two to make it standard WiMAX (much like 54G was pre-G, or pre-n was basically = n WiFi). It's funny that the WiMAX bandwagon was so attractive, that companies that were absolutely not using WiMAX felt the need to call their solution WiMAX. Apparently it brought more press coverage, more public enthusiasm, and easier access to capital. But, it didn't mean they were actually offering WiMAX.

Filed Under: mobile wimax, pre-wimax, wimax

Prediction: The LTE Patent Bundle Won't Prevent LTE Patent Lawsuits

from the just-wait-and-see dept

I've been seeing a few folks take the news that a bunch of big telco firms looking to get into the LTE (Long Term Evolution) market have agreed to form a patent pool. Some are even suggesting that this is exactly how the patent system should work. That's wishful thinking at best. LTE is the next generation of wireless technology that many telcos around the world are adopting as their choice for "4G" technology -- and it will be important. However, don't think that just because some companies have agreed to pool patents that it's a good thing. There have been plenty of patent pools in the past, and you can bet that one of two things is likely to happen. First, some other company (or a few other companies, and almost definitely some individual patent holders) will spring up at some point with yet another patent, claiming that LTE technology infringes on that patent and all these firms owe a ton of money. And, given how so many patent holders don't believe in apportioning damages, they'll even claim to want more than all the money being spread around in the pool itself.

But, much more to the point, the fact that so many patents need to be "pooled" just to offer this technology should be a pretty clear warning sign that the patent system isn't working as intended. Basically, what you have here is a patent thicket. Many of the patents in question are overlapping patents that never should have been issued. However, given all the uncertainty around patent litigation (and how the courts will be treating patent issues), most of these firms realize it's better to agree to split the pie rather than sue. That's still not a good result, because it only encourages more companies to suddenly push for these sorts of marginal and totally unnecessary patents just to get included in future patent pools -- even if their "invention" really adds nothing to the technology. Furthermore, this patent pool will automatically increase the price of all LTE technology, making sure that adoption is slowed down. So, yes, it's better to see a patent pool created than to see everyone just jump to lawsuits, but the history of patent pools is littered with additional lawsuits and companies having to pay for patents that they shouldn't be paying for. This is hardly a "good" solution -- it just encourages the bad system to get worse.

Filed Under: licensing, lte, patent pools, patents, royalties

Russia Wants Everyone Setting Up A WiFi Network To Register With The Government

from the hello-bureaucracy! dept

When WiFi was first becoming popular a few years back, there were occasional stories about countries that hadn't opened up the spectrum necessary for WiFi and how problematic that was for getting WiFi adopted. However, it looks like some bureaucrats in Russia may be taking the whole concept to a new level. Apparently, Russia's equivalent of the FCC, the Russian Mass Media, Communications and Cultural Protection Service (or Rossvyazokhrankultura) have announced that any device that uses WiFi indoors anywhere needs to be registered with the government. Even worse, the registration is per user with a non-transferable license. So every user of every WiFi device will need a separate registration. As Glenn Fleishman notes in the link above: "Setting up a home Wi-Fi network or a hotspot would require what sounds like vast amounts of paperwork, akin to putting [up] a cell tower." I'm sure that will increase adoption. From the sound of it, though, some are questioning whether the group even has the authority to make such a mandate. In the meantime, if you're in Russia and using WiFi, apparently you may want to get ready to sign some paperwork.

Filed Under: bureaucracy, register, regulations, russia, wifi

WiMAX Supporters Try To Suppress Case Study About WiBRO Troubles

from the and-we-thought-they-would-just-go-away dept

Tempers flared at the WiMAX show in Singapore last week when the WiMAX Forum apparently moved to suppress a report issued by one of their media sponsors, Telecoms Korea. The Telecoms Korea report, prepared with the expectation of distribution at the event, apparently included a case study regarding KT's deployment of WiBRO in South Korea, including relevant facts about the rocky start the service has had. Well, apparently "rocky start" isn't on the agenda at the WiMAX Congress, since the Forum blocked distribution of the report. Telecoms Korea is accusing KT of being behind the cover-up, and it is specifically singling out Ron Resnick, the Intel executive who currently sits as President and Chairman of the WiMAX Forum as being the ax-man. The publication is furious at the alleged censorship, and says it degraded to a shouting match at the Congress with Resnick saying, "Get out of here, now!" several times. That's too bad, because as an occasional subscriber to Telecoms Korea, I have seen that their editorial position on WiBRO has been one part national pride mixed with one part realism. If they have had any bias, it has been a hope to see WiBRO succeed. The publication argues that by turning a blind eye to the simple realities of KT's difficult launch, the WiMAX community is setting itself up for repeat disappointment rather than being able to learn from it.

Filed Under: wibro, wimax, wimax forum
Companies: kt, telecoms korea

Why Offer 3G Service At All If You Limit Speeds To Less Than 2.5G?

from the please-'splain-it-to-us-tech-nerds dept

You have to hand it to those UK mobile operators and their disdain for their own customers' wishes. Remember how a top exec at 3 UK once declared that customers were "nuts" if they wanted to be able to access the full internet from their mobile phones (rather than the extremely limited selection of content chosen and gated by 3 UK). Eventually 3 realized that it was wrong and its customers weren't nuts, but it would appear that 3's competitor O2 is equally anti-customer. Apparently, the company has recently put a cap on its downstream 3G speeds at 128k. This is for their 3G service -- you know, the one that mobile operators had promised would bring "broadband" speeds wirelessly. Even worse, it appears that this 128k is even slower than its 2.5G EDGE network. As for how the company feels about its customers -- it may not have called them "nuts" but it came close. PR folks from the company accidentally called a reporter while talking about how to "position" this story, claiming that it was only "techie nerds" who cared about this sort of thing. I imagine that O2 may discover that it has a lot more "techie nerds" as customers than it thought -- and they'll look for opportunities to support other providers.

Filed Under: 3g, speed cap, uk
Companies: 3 uk, o2

Stating The Obvious: Unlimited Data Plans Increase Usage

from the you-think? dept

Sometimes it's fascinating to see the type of research reports that analyst firms put out. For example, one firm has put out a report supposedly warning all these wireless firms hyping up "unlimited" plans that unlimited plans tend to increase usage. You think? Really? One would have hoped, given the long history of unlimited usage plans in other fields, that the mobile operators would have understood the basic economics equation in moving to such plans. Of course, what this also ignores is that the same "unlimited" usage often helps create much greater value because it opens up the possibility of new applications and services that simply weren't possible before. If the internet had remained a pay-per-hour solution (as it was for many in the early years) it never would have become nearly as useful, and the value of having an internet connection would have been significantly lower. So, yes, it can increase the strain on a network for providers who aren't prepared (or unwilling to understand the basic incentive structure), but it also tends to increase the overall value of having access. And that should only mean good things for the firms that offer such access.

Filed Under: service, unlimited plans, usage

Dumb Sprint 'Security' Questions Make It Easier To Hijack Accounts

from the with-security-like-that... dept

In the last year or so, there's been a disturbing trend of companies to start adding absolutely ridiculous and counterproductive "security" questions on various sites. Most of these do absolutely nothing good in terms of security. In fact, it seems the more ridiculous these features are, the less secure a site actually is. I've been collecting some examples of the more bizarre "security" features I've been seeing lately, with the really ridiculous "security questions" being quite popular. This is when the site gives you a bunch of questions to choose from -- but often those questions are not the sort that have a single answer, or an answer that's easily memorable. For example, I just saw one that asked "What's a place you'd like to visit someday?" Well, there are a few, but I doubt I could remember the one I picked. And what happens if I do visit that place before the next time I need to answer that question?

I was recently discussing this with a colleague who told me that if I wanted to see the most ridiculous example, I should look at Sprint's system, as it had a bunch of security questions where it tried to pull information on you. Before I had a chance to check it out, it looks like the folks over at Consumerist decided to take on Sprint, and discovered not just how ridiculous the questions are but noticed some patterns that make it quite easy to get control of any Sprint user's account.

The way it works is Sprint asks you a series of "security" questions that it thinks only you would know the answer to. Things like "what type of car has been registered at your address?" and "which of the following people has lived at your address?" It sounds like some data collection company probably convinced Sprint to purchase access to their data to set up these questions in the name of "security." The problem is that if you know just a little about certain people, you can easily guess the answers. Even worse, a former Sprint employee notes that, mostly to avoid "accidentally" having two right answers, it's usually quite easy to figure out the actual answers. For example, on the automobile question, the incorrect answers are usually expensive luxury vehicles.

This isn't "security." It's barely security theater. It's a huge security hole. Hopefully with a little attention Sprint gets rid of it and puts something more reasonable in place. I just hope it doesn't involve asking me where I hope to travel some day.

Filed Under: bad security, questions, security
Companies: sprint

Why Is RIM Trying To Block The Trademark On Twitter?

from the twitter-your-answer dept

IP Democracy points us to the news that RIM, the maker of the super popular Blackberry device and service, is apparently trying to block Twitter's trademark application on the name Twitter. Twitter, of course, is the also quite popular online messaging/presence solution. While both the Blackberry and Twitter have been subject of accusation of being addictive, it's difficult to figure out what possible cause RIM could have in blocking the trademark. RIM doesn't appear to have any trademarks on anything similar to Twitter already, and no one seems to have come up with any suggestions on any other reason why RIM might have cause to block the application. Even if RIM has some reason to oppose Twitter, the lack of it being obvious suggests that the whole thing is quite questionable and RIM would be better served letting the matter drop.

Filed Under: trademark
Companies: rim, twitter

No, Google Did Not Fleece Taxpayers Out Of $7 Billion

from the bad-math dept

We've talked about Scott Cleland before. He's a "telecom analyst" who has a reputation for stretching the truth as far as it can go in order to contort himself into making telcos look good and anyone opposing the telcos look bad. Jim Harper points us to Cleland's latest, where he accuses Google of "fleecing taxpayers" out of approximately $7 billion with its actions in the recent 700 MHz auction. He notes Google's admission that it was only in the auction to push the bid over the threshold requiring any service on the network to be open. This isn't a surprise. It was widely assumed that Google would merely bid up to the threshold, knowing that if it could buy the spectrum at that price, that would be great, but if someone else got it and the network was then required to be open, that was great too. So this is hardly a shocking admission on the part of Google.

Cleland then compares the prices of the other blocks of spectrum available (those that didn't have open access rules) and does a back of the envelope calculation that the average price per MHz was noticeably higher on the closed access spectrum than the open access spectrum. From that point, he jumps to the conclusion that the C block (the open access block) was significantly underpriced because (he claims) telcos valued it less since it was open. Of course, there are all sorts of problems with this. He determines the amount of the underbidding by merely averaging the % difference in the A and B blocks to the C block -- but it's a massive difference. The A block was 50% higher and the B block was 250% higher. He then just averages that to 150%. Yet, anyone who bothered to actually think about it (rather than look for a weapon with which to bash Google) would note that this calculation is quite dubious. Beyond the "small sample size" problem, the very difference in price-per-MHz in the A and B blocks should make it clear that there are many other reasons why the price would fluctuate having absolutely nothing to do with whether the network was open or closed. To assign the entire blame to that makes no sense whatsoever and ignores the realities of what these different blocks of spectrum were good for.

Next, Cleland tries to spin this story as Google illegally swiping $7 billion from taxpayers -- since this entirely mythical $7 billion would have gone into the treasury, which will now have to make it up from taxpayers. On top of that, he suggests (totally incorrectly) that the only real beneficiary of the open access rules would be Google for its Android offering. Except... not quite. He's ignoring (conveniently) the other half of the equation. The open access rules benefit plenty of other companies beyond Google (in fact, any company that wants to take advantage of those rules), and will likely lead to much greater innovation and new and valuable businesses and services, that will likely generate much more tax revenue for the government than the totally mythical $7 billion. But Cleland decides to ignore all that inconvenient information in order to make an entirely bogus claim against Google.

Filed Under: auction, scott cleland, spectrum, taxpayers
Companies: google