Wal-Mart Broadband Looks A Lot Less Impressive Than First Envisioned

from the not-quite-what-you-expected dept

Three years ago, we discussed the possibility that Wal-Mart could eventually enter the broadband business. At the time, the discussion was around Wal-Mart using its massive network of stores to act as WiMax access points, coating much of the nation with wireless internet access. The idea didn't seem likely for a variety of reasons, and with the news that Wal-Mart actually is entering the broadband space, we can easily see why the WiMax plan never made sense for Wal-Mart. Rather than taking the route suggested three years ago, Wal-Mart is simply partnering with Hughes to resell satellite broadband access. As many people know, satellite broadband access is the last refuge for the broadband addict who simply has no other choice. The speeds aren't great, the latency is a huge pain, and the reliability is often a problem. So, there are already some hurdles to overcome. Second, unlike the original suggestion, Wal-Mart appears to have nothing to do with the offering, other than slapping its brand on it (and even then it's not entirely clear from the article how the service will be branded). That means that Wal-Mart won't be able to have much say in how the service is run. Even if the stories of Wal-Mart losing its technology edge are overrated, this deal is going to involve existing infrastructure and existing service models -- meaning that it won't shake up the industry very much at all. Basically, what was envisioned three years back was Wal-Mart routing around other providers and offering up something entirely new, which it could control. Three years later, the best the company can do is piggyback its brand on a weak legacy offering. That's hardly going to shake up the industry.

Filed Under: broadband, satellite
Companies: wal-mart

OnStar To Warn, Then Stop, Stolen Cars

from the wait-until-someone-hacks-the-system dept

GM continues to expand the features of its popular OnStar system with a new service that's been talked about for years, that would allow the company to automatically stop a stolen car remotely. The last time we spoke about such a concept, it was four years ago -- and there were a lot of people worried about the idea. However, that may have been because it was the police asking for the right to stop cars remotely, rather than an individual using a private service (and they were also interested in using it to control speeders). In this case, the service would first alert the car thief that it's known they're driving a stolen car (and potentially that the police are on their way), and that OnStar is about to stop the automobile. It would then slowly halt the car -- though the driver could stop the car themselves at any time. The police apparently are excited about the possibility of this ending some high speed chases (and certainly making it easier to retrieve the car), but you have to wonder what happens if the service is hacked or malfunctioned.

Filed Under: stolen cars, tracking
Companies: gm, lojack, onstar

Class Action Lawsuit Filed Over iBricking -- Violation Of Antitrust Law?

from the always-gotta-sue dept

While the last class action lawsuit over the iPhone was pretty ridiculous -- claiming that the rapid price drop was illegal -- this latest one may have a bit more substance behind it. One of the victims of the infamous iPhone iBricking update has now filed a class action lawsuit against Apple, claiming that the iBricking action was a violation of California law. The specific arguments are a bit complex, but basically, the guy is claiming that in locking the handset to one carrier, Apple violated sections of the Cartwright Act, which is designed to prevent companies from creating artificial market barriers on products they sell in order to boost the price. On top of that, the lawsuit notes that unlocking a phone for use on other networks is perfectly legal under last year's DMCA exemptions. Therefore, to then brick the iPhones that were unlocked violates the California law, saying that it's illegal to take actions that "substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly." It may be a bit of a stretch to say that applies in this case, and Apple can simply plead (reasonably) that the iBricking was not on purpose, and that the company has no requirement to support unlocked handsets -- but if this case actually does get some traction, Apple may need to be a bit more careful in future firmware updates.

Filed Under: antitrust, class action, iphone, unlocking
Companies: apple

Vonage Settles With Sprint... Prelude To A Sale?

from the maybe-possibly dept

Just a couple weeks after losing yet another patent lawsuit, Vonage has decided to settle its patent lawsuit with Sprint, agreeing to pay $80 million, covering both past and future licensing costs. The company is still fighting over Verizon's questionable patents. Again, it seems pretty silly that the company that actually figured out how to bring phone-based VoIP to the market in a way that people wanted now has to pay the incumbents who were unable (or unwilling) to do so. Of course, there's also been lots of talk that these patent lawsuits were really an attempt by the telcos to crush Vonage to the point where it was an easy buyout target. Thus, settling with Sprint, could open up the possibility of a Sprint purchase... but it probably would have just made more sense to do the buyout first before "settling," as the news of the settlement has sent Vonage's stock soaring. Based on that, don't be too surprised if Vonage reaches a bit deeper into its dwindling cash reserves to to pay off Verizon as well -- the resulting stock bump could effectively pay for the licensing fees. All in all, though, it does highlight how silly the patent system has become. The uncertainty over the suits hurts a company's stock and pushes companies to settle, even if they shouldn't. That's exactly what happened with RIM and NTP, and it looks like what happened here.

Filed Under: patents
Companies: sprint, verizon, vonage

FAA Seconds FCC On Grounding In-Flight Mobile Phone Calls

from the but-what-about-voip? dept

Over the weekend, a story out of the UK began to get some buzz, when an American FAA representative supposedly told a British newspaper that the FAA will not approve in-flight mobile phone calls after the agency received a ton of complaints when it publicly began considering the shift in policy. Of course, this is somewhat meaningless, because the FCC had already said no to the change in policy, and both agencies would likely need to agree before any change went into effect. So, for those of you (and we know there are lots of you) who were terrified by the idea that you might get stuck sitting next to someone jabbering away into a mobile phone for a cross-continent flight... rest easy. Well, rest easy until you realize that voice is just a form of data, and it's only a matter of time until internet access in the sky means the person sitting next you will be jabbering away via Skype for a cross-continent flight no matter what gov't agencies have to say about mobile phones in the sky.

Filed Under: airplanes, in-flight voice, mobile phones, voip
Companies: faa, fcc

Are 10% Of iPhones Sold To Unlockers?

from the are-10%-now-bricked? dept

Analysts from investment bank Piper Jaffray are making some news today after releasing a report claiming that 10% of iPhones are actually being sold to groups that are unlocking them and reselling them. They seem to be basing this on the fact that there are a bunch of folks going in and buying the maximum single allotment of 5 iPhones at a time. If this is true, the actual number of unlocked iPhones could actually be significantly higher, as many unlockers are buying the phone and unlocking it themselves. On the flip side, there could be other explanations for people buying 5 iPhones rather than to resell them unlocked. Either way, it should be clear that there's a fair amount of demand for unlocked iPhones, which again raises the question of why Steve Jobs ever agreed to an exclusive with AT&T.

Filed Under: iphones, unlock
Companies: apple

Apple's iPhone Walled Garden An Opportunity For Competitors To Make The iPhone The Next Hiptop

from the as-it-should-be dept

While we agree with some others that Apple's decision to focus on a walled garden approach to iPhone apps seems short-sighted, it certainly does open up an opportunity for competitors -- and those competitors seem to be realizing it. A bunch of companies are starting ad campaigns around their mobile phone offerings highlighting how open they are compared to the iPhone. That would be competition at work, and a response to anyone who may be suggesting that Apple should somehow be required to open up. Of course, touting openness is just one part of the story. It helps to also have some really good technology to stack up behind it, and on that front, most of the competitors still have a long way to go. That probably means that Apple's closed strategy won't hurt it very much in the short-term, but it does open up a huge opening for someone who can actually get closer to matching the iPhone on the technology side.

Apple could respond by opening up a bit more (and there's some indication that they're doing exactly that), but building up a strong developer community from the beginning would help keep the iPhone miles ahead of the competition. In fact, the iPhone craze is somewhat reminiscent of the hype surrounding Danger's Hiptop five years ago. It was launched on T-Mobile (under the "Sidekick" brand), but again as a closed platform. It took months for Danger to get a real developer program going, and even then it was pretty weak. Without a strong developer community, many other devices passed by the Hiptop, where it had had an early advantage. While Danger has been able to do okay with continual Sidekick updates, it never really reached its potential as one of the very first truly usable mobile data devices for the masses.

Filed Under: iphone, walled garden

What Does It Mean When Most Mobile Content Execs Don't Use Their Own Services?

from the eat-your-own-dog-food dept

I vaguely recall a very similar study making waves a few years ago, but can't find any trace of it right now. However, a recent study of executives working in the mobile content space found that more than half of those surveyed don't actually use the mobile content they're pitching. Now, there can be plenty of questions about the methodology here, and it's not entirely clear from the wording if they asked specifically about the mobile content from that particular exec's company, or mobile content in general. However, when your own executives can't be convinced to use the product they're supposed to convince others to use, there's a problem. If anything, it suggests that there's been too much hype in "mobile content" and a bunch of execs have jumped on the bandwagon, not because of an interesting product, but because of the hype. That's unfortunate. Mobile content should be a big deal, but it's not as simple as some may think -- and if you have bandwagon-riding execs, a lot of time, effort and money is going to get wasted.

Filed Under: mobile content

GAO: FCC Gives Preferential Treatment To Lobbyists, Company-Sponsored Data

from the par-for-the-course dept

It's well known that folks at the FCC have a rather chummy relationship with the telco industry. After all, many of them either worked in the industry at one point or (more importantly) expect to get lucrative jobs in the industry after they leave the FCC. So it probably should come as no surprise to find out that the FCC tends to favor industry lobbyists and industry data to that of the consumers whose interests the FCC is supposed to be safeguarding. This is according to the GAO who has been doing a fantastic job highlight questionable government activity -- specifically with the FCC. In this latest report, there are two key things, both of which are quite troubling. First, the FCC often reveals important information to industry lobbyists, including information on new rulemaking efforts, votes and even how Commissioners intend to vote. This information is often not equally shared with consumer advocates, leaving them at a tremendous disadvantage. Second, in doing research for rulemaking, the FCC often relies on the data submitted to them, by industry representatives. And we all know how trustworthy that is likely to be. It's also probably worth pointing out that the GAO provided a draft of the report to the FCC and asked for comment, to which the FCC replied "no comment." Indeed. It appears no comment is really needed.

Filed Under: fcc, lobbyists, telecom policy

Invasion Of The TV Snatchers? White Space Devices Will Kill Us All!

from the a-little-over-the-top dept

The debate over white space spectrum has gone on for quite some time. Basically, the FCC handed out a ton of spectrum (for free, mind you) to TV broadcasters years ago. In order to prevent against interference, there's always been a requirement for some "buffer" space. However, as technology has improved, the need for this buffer space has decreased, and plenty of tech companies would be interested in making use of some of that basically unused spectrum by having it set aside as open spectrum. Earlier this year, some of those companies, led by Microsoft and Google, delivered a device to the FCC to test. Unfortunately, the device had some problems. However, the concept is sound -- and with some tweaking, it's quite reasonable that such a device could work without interfering with TV signals. But you wouldn't know that from broadcasters, who love to hoard their spectrum. Matthew Lasar writes in to note that in responding to the device, the broadcasters have gone way over the top in describing the horrible things that will happen if the white space is made available:

"Why would the FCC consider allowing millions and millions of these interference causing devices, like 'germs,' to spread throughout America with the ability to attack the TV receivers in people's homes, apartments, hotel rooms, hospital rooms, dormitories, etc., with no way for the owner of the TV set (the 'victim') to determine who was causing the 'illness' to his or her TV set?"

They also suggest that allowing this white space to be used would "risk the outrage of America's citizenry." Of course, it's important to remember that only a small percentage of TV watchers actually run this risk. The vast majority of TV owners in the US have cable or satellite TV -- meaning that they don't use the over-the-air broadcasts that use the spectrum in question. So, the "outrage" would be limited to the small group of people who still use over-the-air systems to watch broadcast TV and are close enough to a device that uses this white space in the unlikely situation when that device might temporarily interfere with their TV signals. But, apparently, with that tiny probability out there, opening up that white space is like a "germ" that will "attack" people's TVs, raising the "outrage of America's citizenry."

Filed Under: spectrum, television, white space