Oh Look... Another Open WiFi Criminal Caught Through Detective Work

from the ain't-so-fool-proof-after-all dept

For many years, there have been all sorts of fear mongering stories about how today's cyber-criminals can simply use any open WiFi network and never get caught. Of course, that's ridiculous. Anyone committing a crime leaves all kinds of clues behind -- and just because you can't track them down via their IP connection, it doesn't mean they can't be tracked down. It's like complaining that a bank robber who wears gloves can't be caught because he doesn't leave any fingerprints. Chances are that he left other clues behind. That's why it should come as no surprise that an extortionist who was using open WiFi to cover his tracks was eventually caught through good, old-fashioned detective work, just like other cases we've covered where open WiFi criminals were later caught through old-fashioned detective work. So can we put to rest the myth that open WiFi means cyber criminals can never be caught?

Filed Under: criminal behavior, detective work, open wifi

Sprint Takes Away 3 Unnecessary Fees, Replaces Them With 2 New Unnecessary Fees

from the fee-fee-fee-fee dept

Mobile operators have a long history of trying to hide price increases by adding official looking, but totally unnecessary fees to customer bills. The fees usually have quasi-governmental names to them, such as "Federal Programs Cost Recovery," which makes many customers (falsely) believe that these are actually taxes required by the government. Instead, they're simply a way for the operators to squeeze more money out of you while claiming to keep the price low. There's been something of a crackdown on these fees lately, and Sprint has decided to throw in the towel... sorta. It's getting rid of three of the fees, but replacing them with two other fees, just to make things even more confusing. Again, it doesn't appear that either fee is required, but rather they act as a way to hide a price increase while being able to publicly market a lower price.

Filed Under: fees, telcos

Bad Trends: Cafes Blocking Outlets

from the not-making-customers-very-happy dept

In the past, we've noted that with the rise of laptops and wireless access, there's a growing interest in people to find power outlets to plug in their laptops. While some airports are retrofitting to make this possible, it appears that a number of cafes, bars and restaurants may be going in the other direction. Jeremy Wagstaff notes that he's seeing more and more places covering up their outlets in an attempt to stop people from plugging in. The reasons usually given don't make much sense (one guy even tells Wagstaff that he's afraid people plugging in will "ruin the circuitry"). A typical response, of course, is that it's "stealing" electricity or that it's somehow costly. However, it's really just a a few pennies -- and if having available electricity brings in just a few more paying customers each day it's likely to be more than worth it. Another complaint that I've heard is that these types of places don't want people sitting around "clogging" the tables during busy periods, though many people have found that it actually helps to bring in more people during downtime and most users don't want to stick around during the busy times anyway. That may not always be the case, but any of these places can easily put in place a policy saying people can only stay for a certain period of time if they're not ordering more food, rather than blocking the use of electricity completely.

Filed Under: electricity, freeloaders, outlets, wifi

WiFi On Airplanes Coming. Does That Mean Airborne Skype?

from the we-can-hope dept

The New York Times says that several airlines are testing in-flight Internet services. JetBlue will apparently be offering free, but crippled service that includes only email and instant messaging. And Crunchgear suggests it will be even more crippled than that: only Yahoo! and BlackBerry-based mail and IM will be supported. For a lot of travelers (including me) that will be completely useless, although I guess something is better than nothing. At the opposite extreme, American (along with Alaska Air) is reportedly working on full-featured Internet access that will allow you to use the applications of your choice, but it will apparently cost around $10. The Times also notes the most intriguing possibility for this service: that Internet access may mean the ability to make VoIP-based phone calls. It's not clear that the Internet connection will be good enough to make phone calls practical initially, but as technology advances, it's only a matter of time before there's enough bandwidth to make calls practical.

The Times calls this a "pitfall" and says that American won't permit Internet-based phone calls. But I have trouble imagining that ban sticking. Once it becomes technologically feasible to make calls, it will be extremely difficult for airlines to enforce a no-calls rule. There's no automated way to block phone calls, and stewardesses will have a difficult time policing the activities of dozens of passengers. The only way it would work is if the caller's neighbor was willing to rat him out, and I suspect that fellow passengers are a lot more opposed to the idea of cell phones on airplanes in the abstract than they would be about an actual cell phone caller in the seat next to them. After all, cell phone calls are commonplace on buses and trains, and while they're occasionally annoying, they're no more annoying than a loud real-life conversation or a crying baby. There's no groundswell of support for banning cell phone calls on public transit, despite the fact that the annoyance factor is exactly the same. One possibility is that we'd see different airlines cater to different customers, with some airlines aggressively prohibiting airplane-based phone calls and others allowing them. My guess is that business travelers, who generate a disproportionate share of airline revenues, will find the ability to get work done on the airplane to be worth the minor inconvenience of occasionally having to listen to a neighbor's phone call, and so airlines that permit calls will be more profitable.

Filed Under: in-flight wireless, voip, wifi
Companies: american airlines, jetblue

Author Of SAFE Act Insists He Didn't Mean For It To Cover WiFi... But Won't Promise Any Changes

from the well-that-helps dept

Yesterday we posted on the no-discussion-necessary rapid approval of the SAFE Act, and highlighted some of the more questionable problems in the bill. While the post was pretty clear about why we (and others) believed it covered WiFi (the broadly worded language in the bill, which we had in the post), we've been getting some emails from folks who say that we twisted the legislation out of context. It probably doesn't help that whoever submitted our post to Digg (and got it Dugg onto the front page) did so in a misleading way, making it sound like our post said something it did not. However, with so much interest in this bill, it's worth digging a little deeper. The bill's author quickly responded to the charges by saying that it wasn't intended to cover open WiFi networks, but the bill itself doesn't make that clear -- and the courts tend to go by the text of the law, rather than intent (intent can be helpful, but it's much less important). The author of the original article has a clarifying conversation with the author of the bill, asking him if he'll change the text to make it clear that open WiFi is not covered -- and he gets no promises. Instead, in typical "protect the children" fashion, the guy just goes on about what an awful problem this is. The thing is, no one is denying that child pornography is a terrible thing. What we're worried about is incredibly broadly worded bills that were clearly written and approved in a hurry with little oversight, and which do not appear to take into account the unintended consequences of what they're putting into law.

Filed Under: congress, protect the children, safe act, wifi

MovieBeam Finally Dead For Real

from the how-much-money-was-wasted-on-that? dept

Back in 2003, Disney's brilliant idea to "compete" with TiVo and Netflix was to start MovieBeam. Just the fact that Disney felt it needed to compete with TiVo and Netflix shows you how backwards the thinking was at the point. Moviebeam was a terrible idea from the start. People were expected to buy (yet another) expensive set top box from Disney, which would basically be a very limited DVR. The hard drive would come packed with about 100 movies, and each week some would disappear and others would magically "beam" into the box. Despite the fact that you already had to pay for the box, you still had to pay each time you wanted to watch a movie -- and, you were only given a 24-hour time period in which to watch that movie. Two years into the program (with only a few small test markets) Disney shut down the program. At the time, we figured it was gone for good, but somehow, some VCs and Cisco were convinced to pony up $50 million to bring this idea back to life as a spinoff from Disney. Yet, when the offering was relaunched (with a few small improvements) people still didn't care. Earlier this year, the company was basically sold off for next to nothing, and now the company has announced that it's shutting down operations next week. Who knows, though, maybe it'll rise from the dead again, so that it can fail a few more times.

Filed Under: downloads, movies, settop box
Companies: disney, moviebeam

Verizon Wireless' Triple [Open] Play

from the competitive-pressures-at-work dept

The recent announcement that Verizon Wireless will support Android, Google’s new software platform for mobile devices, is an early warning sign that the traditional network operator model is fast becoming obsolete. To some this move seems to contradict a widely held presumption that two previous announcements (the choice of LTE with Vodafone and the inclusion of non-Verizon phones on the Verizon Wireless network) were a competitive strike at Google’s position in the upcoming 700 mHz auction. In conjunction, these three publicly declared commitments to openness are indicators that fundamental changes to the Verizon Wireless business model are set to occur over the next 3 – 5 years.

Verizon Wireless is preparing to compete in an industry that will resemble more of a free-for-all where innovation and customer value are the rule of the day. Verizon can no longer afford to maintain strict boundaries between the devices and applications “inside” and “outside” their networks. By embracing openness on several different fronts the company is seeking to offload a large chunk of the costs associated with developing devices to a wider ecosystem of participants. Inclusive device policies will retain the same effect that outsourcing the development and support costs for new phones would. It is no longer tenable to develop devices and support customer issues for every single customer on its network, so the company is looking to basically exchange network access for ownership of support issues, with a larger group of handset and application providers.

Particularly, the Android move is to ensure that an assortment of niche devices powered by Google’s platform will have a home on the Verizon Wireless network. The company should begin to feature an increasing number of programs and incentives for an increasing number of handset makers and wireless application developers. Meanwhile Verizon will begin to slash the high costs associated with developing phones with the Samsung and LG types. As a result, the number of phone models actually supported by the company (currently at around 50) is set to drop significantly by 2012 even as the total number of models running on the network will escalate.

As the most profitable U.S. cellular business, Verizon Wireless also has the most impetus to begin the process of expanding a revenue base limited to subscribers who are content to choose from 50 or so the company’s handsets. Spurred by a shrinking number of first time customers it is fast becoming critical to find ways to attract subscribers from rival carriers and open access policies are a good start towards that end. Along the same lines, the aforementioned Vodafone LTE announcement is key to the company’s strategic play for subscribers who, in the past, shunned Verizon Wireless for carriers that enable easier roaming. The goal is to extend the availability of “America’s most reliable network” to both sides of the Atlantic to boost the value proposition of becoming a Verizon wireless customer.

Verizon’s open evolution is a response to the limited growth opportunities faced by US mobile carriers in the face of market saturation (250 million across the country already have cell phones). Over the next 2-3 years what is now a rumbling from consumers will expand into smoldering demand for choices on wireless networks that reflect the nature of those provided on landlines. In effect the company realizes that it must adapt to an open-centric marketplace to compete and survive over the long haul, not just in the upcoming 700 MHz auctions. In doing so, Verizon has begun the transformation from staunch gatekeeper of a closed network into the heart of a more open wireless ecosystem.

Filed Under: android, open, spectrum, wireless networks
Companies: verizon wireless

AT&T Does Nothing, Convinces Reporter It Has Now 'Opened' Its Network

from the nice-trick dept

When Verizon Wireless announced last month its plans to "open" its network some people noticed very quickly that what Verizon Wireless was announcing didn't sound any different from what GSM operators, like AT&T and T-Mobile already had. It was just that the GSM operators hadn't come up with the PR gimmick to call it "open." Since they already had it though, it didn't take a genius to figure out that it wouldn't be long before they declared their networks open as well. And, that appears to be exactly what AT&T is doing -- but somehow, it appears that AT&T's marketers have convinced a USA Today reporter that it's somehow changed its policies and is "flinging" its network "wide open." The article starts off breathlessly announcing that "starting immediately" people can use any device on AT&T's network. Of course, the reason it's "starting immediately" is because, um, you've been able to do that ever since they launched their GSM network years ago. Basically, absolutely nothing happened here except that AT&T's marketing crew declared that AT&T's network is now open, and convinced USA Today to report it as if it were a big deal. If there was any change at all within AT&T, it's that retail store employees are now supposed to admit that you can use other devices on the network, rather than pretending you can't. Not quite as exciting as "flinging the network open," though.

Filed Under: gsm, open networks, wireless
Companies: at&t, verizon wireless

Congress Rushes Through Law To Protect The Children... And Make Open WiFi A Huge Liability

from the congress-folks-at-work dept

Congress was apparently busy on Wednesday moving forward with incredibly bad laws that are designed to look good to certain constituents, but are highly questionable in real terms. We already discussed the new PRO IP bill, but the House also rushed through approval of the SAFE Act, which is one of those ridiculous bills that everyone feels compelled to vote for to "protect the children." Only two Representatives voted against the bill (and, yes, for his fans, one of them was Ron Paul). As Declan McCullough's report makes clear, the backers of this bill rushed it through Congress for no clear reason. They used a procedural trick normally reserved for non-controversial laws -- and made significant changes from an earlier version, never making the new version available for public review prior to the vote.

So what's so awful about the law? Well, like most "protect the children" legislation, it goes way overboard in terms of what people are expected to do, and like most legislation having to do with technology, seems utterly clueless about how technology works. The bill would require anyone providing an "electronic communication service" or a "remote computing service" to record and report information any time they "learn" that their network was used for certain broadly defined illegal activities concerning obscene images. That's double trouble, as both the illegal activities and the classification of who counts as a service provider are so broadly defined. McCullough notes that anyone providing an open WiFi network, a social network, a domain registry or even a webmail service probably qualify under the law. Glenn Fleishman describes what the law could mean in practice, points out that anyone who runs an open WiFi network for the public is now basically required to snitch on anyone they think may be doing anything deemed "illegal" in this act, including viewing or transmitting certain obscene drawings, cartoons, sculptures, or paintings. As Fleishman notes, it "sounds like viewing an Abercrombie and Fitch catalog could qualify." Even worse, part of the snitching is that beyond sending a report and the images to the gov't, you're supposed to retain the "illegal" image yourself -- which would seem to open you up to charges of possession as well if you somehow screw up (if you follow everything exactly to the letter of the law, you are granted immunity).

If you don't snitch on anyone suspected of viewing or transmitting these images, then you, as the network "operator" are suddenly liable for huge fines. Honestly, the liability is so big that anyone offering WiFi is probably better off no longer doing so. This is one of those laws that politicians love to pass, because they think it makes them look like they're protecting children -- when all they're really doing is creating a huge and unnecessary headache for all kinds of service providers, from open WiFi operators to social networking sites to webmail offerings. But, of course, it moves forward -- with no public scrutiny and no discussion -- because almost no politician wants to allow a politician to accuse him or her of voting "against" protecting the children.

Filed Under: congress, protect the children, safe act, wifi

Wireless Showdowns That Compare Apples And Oranges

from the better-than-what-now? dept

WiMax has been having some troubles lately, but there's still a half decent chance it will eventually be useful. However, with some suggesting that recent WiMax tests show it's better than the competition (via Broadband Reports), it's worth digging into the details a little bit. The actual report (pdf) doesn't seem to compare it to very much "competition." It merely compares it to WiFi -- which is not and was never meant to be a competitor to WiMax. WiFi is a local area solution. WiMax is a wide-area solution. They're very, very different. It would be a shock if anyone ever discovered that in a wide-area wireless offering that WiFi performed better than WiMax, because that would mean WiMax was in serious trouble. Also, this is how WiMax performed under special circumstances, on a small scale, with a special permit from the FCC. Besides, the issue has never been about getting a WiMax access point to work. The real problem that people are having with WiMax is getting it deployed and working on a wide-scale in a cost effective manner that people will use -- none of which this particular test dealt with. So, we have a small-scale deployment that basically works better than a technology that wasn't even meant to compete in the space. It's like comparing a Ford Pinto to a skateboard and announcing that the Pinto is better for driving across the state. That's true, but it hardly means the press should declare the Pinto as the best solution out there.

Filed Under: ball state university, wifi, wimax