FCC Cracks Down On E911 Violations? Yeah, Right
from the the-best-kind-of-deadline dept
The FCC has announced that it wants to fine three mobile operators a total of $2.825 million (a staggering figure, we know) for their continued failure to meet E911 standards. The rules said that by the end of 2005, operators had to be able to locate 95% of their subscribers within a certain distance when they called 911, and these operators still haven't met the standard, apparently -- thanks in part to their use of handset-based location technology, and a good number of users who haven't upgraded their phones. Surely the FCC fines will make them move, right? Because all the other meaningless fines the FCC's doled out have really worked. While the FCC tries to look tough by "cracking down" on the operators, plenty of places still don't have 911 call centers that can actually use the location information -- in part because they frittered away the funds that were supposed to pay for call center upgrades on ballpoint pens and winter boots.Muni WiFi Takes A Beating
from the weak-signal-strength dept
Municipal WiFi's been having a rough time lately, as the ridiculous levels of hype that built up around it comes back to bite it in the backside. Things have taken a turn for the worse over the past week: EarthLink's deal with San Francisco (which garnered tons of hype) now looks like it's dead, while its deal in Houston looks like it's dying as the company pulls back from muni WiFi altogether. Meanwhile, city officials in Chicago have dropped their plans to get a vendor to build a citywide network there, after balking at demands that the city become the network's anchor tenant, and guarantee certain payments to the vendors. Elsewhere in Illinois, AT&T has decided not to move forward with plans to build a muni network in Springfield.All in all, it's not been a good week for muni WiFi and its backers. But does all this bad news spell doom for muni WiFi as a whole? Perhaps -- but the idea of municipal wireless in general still could hold some value. Muni WiFi is bound to fail when it's being judged by unrealistic expectations -- as so many muni networks are. Vendors and politicians have whipped up a frenzy around the networks, while a willing media lapped up the stories and fed them to an easily excitable public. The fact remains that there are plenty of useful applications of municipal wireless; delivering widespread public internet access, and making money from it, may simply not be one of them. Also, as we've stated before, WiFi -- a local networking technology -- may not be the best technology to use for covering large areas. WiMAX could hold some promise in this regard, while in terms of muni broadband in general, fiber is probably even better. And, as Rick Martin points out, many smaller communities are seeing more success with their muni WiFi efforts, an indication that smaller-scale installations are much more workable than huge citywide installations in places like Chicago and San Francisco. He also passes along the quote that muni WiFi is "the monorail of the decade" -- meaning it's the boondoggle du jour for local politicians. But as Martin also notes, that while the monorail has never really lived up to its hype as the solution to cities' public transport ills, the concept and some of the technology has lived on in the form of light rail and other transport projects. In the same way, while muni WiFi might be looking pretty poorly, the idea of municipal wireless, or municipal broadband, should live on.
Filed Under: chicago, muni wifi, san francisco
Companies: at&t, earthlink
iPhone Supposedly Gets Unlocked, AT&T Apparently Freaks Out
from the on-what-grounds dept
There were several reports last week that the operator lock on the iPhone had been broken, meaning that people might be able to use the device with service from a company other than AT&T. The first to emerge was from a New Jersey teenager, who came up with a complex method involving soldering and software; then two separate companies later said they had software-only unlocking methods. To be sure, these unlocking methods and services will only ever appeal to a small number of users, as most general consumers won't really care, or won't want to go to the trouble. With that in mind, it really doesn't seem like AT&T has much at stake financially, but that apparently hasn't stopped its lawyers from threatening one of the software providers. The company claims it got a call from a law firm representing the company, tossing around things like copyright infringement and "illegal software dissemination" in what appears to be an attempt at intimidating the company to keep them from releasing the software (particularly since the DMCA doesn't cover phone unlocking). It's worth reiterating that these are supposedly AT&T's lawyers, not Apple's -- but it's not clear what standing AT&T would have to sue, making this look like little more than a SLAPP situation. Apple's remained quiet on the matter, but it wouldn't be surprising to see the company close the loophole or re-lock the phones with one of its software updates, since it has a financial stake in iPhone buyers activating and using their phones on AT&T thanks to its revenue-sharing deal with the operator. Of course, it could take the more enlightened view that it doesn't want to frustrate and annoy the customers who would go to the trouble of unlocking their iPhones -- but if it were going to do that, it wouldn't have locked the device to AT&T in the first place.Filed Under: iphone, slapp, unlocking, wireless
Companies: apple, at&t
Jury Out On The Impact Of 700 MHz Spectrum Auction Rules
from the new-spectrum-same-players dept
The talk around the upcoming 700 MHz spectrum license auctions continues. After Google's CEO earlier this week said the company would "probably" bid in the auction, even though the FCC didn't implement the open-access provisions Google wanted, a couple of divergent opinions on the auction's impact on the telecom landscape have come out. On the one hand, former FCC bigwig Blair Levin says the auction isn't likely to result in a new nationwide mobile operator; on the other, a "source at a major cellular company" says the auction isn't attractive for incumbent operators. Who to believe? As usual, the truth in somewhere in the middle, but we're more inclined to take Levin's view of things. Incumbent operators will likely shy away from the 22 MHz of spectrum with open-access rules -- not just because they don't want to operate under the restrictions, but also because if the auction for those licenses fails to generate $4.6 billion, the open-access rules will be lifted, and the auction will start over. Once it hits $4.6 billion on that first go-around, though, operators will bid because there's simply too much spectrum on offer to ignore it. Their choice of technology could render the open-access rules useless, really -- after all, if they pick a proprietary or unpopular technology for their network, they'll be the only people selling compatible devices for it. When you get down to brass tacks, the incumbent operators are going to spend whatever's necessary to acquire the spectrum, despite what anonymous sources within them say. Spectrum in general is their lifeblood, and this 700 MHz spectrum in particular has too many positive attributes for mobile broadband for them to pass up. They'll bid aggressively to defend their turf, and if anybody is going to unseat them, it's going to take a hell of a lot of investment.Filed Under: fcc, open access, spectrum, wireless
Companies: at&t, frontline, google, sprint, t-mobile, verizon
Google CEO Says It Will 'Probably' Bid On Spectrum Licenses
from the here-comes-the-cash dept
Google has been making noise for some time about getting its hands on some wireless spectrum licenses. It's been behind a push to get the FCC to institute "open access" rules for license winners in the upcoming auction of 700 MHz spectrum, and the FCC implemented a couple of rather meaningless conditions to certain licenses in the auction. Google's main goal was to get the FCC to force license winners to offer wholesale access to their networks to anyone who wanted to buy it -- making it clear that Google's real interest isn't in acquiring spectrum licenses and building a network of its own, but rather having the ability to buy wholesale network access, and to do so in a competitive market. Google's push to get the FCC to create this market for free failed; now, Google's CEO says the company will "probably" bid in the auction. If Google were to win some licenses, it could choose to lease them to network operators in exchange for network access, with whatever conditions it wants to attach. This could achieve the same end result -- a marketplace with several bidders competing for Google's business -- as the getting the FCC to mandate open access. Obviously Google would rather have gone down that route than having to shell out several billion dollars for the licenses. Either way, don't expect Google to begin building its own physical network, but its motives in acquiring and redistributing access either as a virtual operator or in some other way are clear.Filed Under: fcc, open access, spectrum, wireless
Companies: fcc, google
Mobile Advertisers Recognizing The Benefit Of Not Spamming People
from the it-took-them-this-long? dept
For many years, there's been talk about the mobile advertising opportunity, with some advertisers practically drooling over the possibility of sending ads directly to users' mobile phones. It wasn't that long ago that the standard example used at many conferences and trade shows was how you'd be walking by a coffee shop and it would send you a text messaging offering you 20% off on a cup of coffee or a free bagel or something. Of course, that ignored the fact that probably 99% of the people hit with that message would consider it intrusive spam, especially if they were on the go. Luckily, though, some early complaints about such services (and the general anger towards spam, popup ads and other intrusive ads) has made it so many mobile advertisers have realized the focus needs to be on pull, rather than push. That is, as people are using mobile phones more and more for local information, there's tremendous value in putting advertisements that might be relevant to users as they're searching -- rather than simply bombarding them at random. The article does note some experiments with more intrusive push advertising, but set up in a way where the end users have a lot more control and say over the conditions under which they actually receive ads, in an attempt to keep them relevant. For once, it's good to hear of some restraint in the ad industry. Hopefully, it remains.Filed Under: advertising, mobile, spam
Can We Please Stop Arresting WiFi Users Using Open Networks?
from the thanks dept
We've had a bunch of stories over the last few years of people getting arrested for using open WiFi access and we still can't understand what crime has actually been committed. Unfortunately, yet another person in the UK has now been arrested for using an open WiFi network, after police saw him sitting on a wall with a laptop and asked him what he was doing. Apparently, in the UK, they consider it a violation of a communications law and a computer misuse law, but neither makes much sense. If the guy isn't physically trespassing and the owner of the WiFi has it open, then what's the problem? You can't assume that the owner wanted it closed. If they did, they would have closed it. It's the access point owner's own fault if they're not securing the WiFi. Since all it is is radio waves, we're again left wondering if police will start arresting people who use the light shining from inside a house to read something out on the street. After all, that's basically the same thing: making use of either light or radio waves that were emitted from within the house, but are reaching public areas.Filed Under: freeloaders, open access, wifi
After All That Fuss, AT&T No Longer Claiming It Has The Fewest Dropped Calls (Perhaps Because It Doesn't)
from the why-let-facts-get-in-the-way dept
We've joked about ever mobile operator claiming it has the "best" network in some way or another, with each using slightly different descriptions to explain how their's is the best. Sprint and Cingular apparently got into a legal spat about the whole thing, with Cingular wanting the courts to say that claiming it had "the fewest dropped calls" is accurate. Eventually, the Better Business Bureau had to weigh in on which silly marketing claims Cingular could use. The latest, however, is that following all of this legal positioning, AT&T (the rebranded Cingular) is dropping the ad campaign that claims "the fewest dropped calls" perhaps because it's not a claim that can be substantiated well. A variety of studies have shown AT&T's wireless service ranking pretty low on the reliability scale. That said, the whole "dropped call" thing is becoming less and less of an issue. All of the various mobile operators have greatly improved their networks over the last few years, and dropped calls seem to be increasingly rare on any carrier. Sure, they still happen, but with much lower frequency -- so perhaps AT&T is phasing out the campaign because it's just not a big deal to most people any more.Filed Under: mobile operators
Companies: at&t, cingular, sprint
Faking Death To Get Out Of Mobile Phone Contracts
from the you-think-maybe-there's-a-problem? dept
The introduction of local number portability was supposed to force mobile operators to improve their customer service, since now it would be easier for upset customers to simply jump to a competing carrier. Instead, it seems to have only increased the use of early termination fees that the mobile operators charge if you leave a contract early. To be fair, often these ETFs come into play when the customer has purchased a heavily subsidized mobile phone -- which sounds fair. However, the number of irate mobile users who find themselves facing huge bills just because they want to switch mobile operators suggests that the practice isn't doing much good for the reputations of mobile operators. In fact, it's so bad that some folks are willing to play dead in an effort to fool mobile operators into canceling the contract without charging the ETF -- though, as we've noted in the past, there have been times when even death wouldn't get you out of paying. It would seem to make sense for mobile operators to be a bit more understanding. Verizon Wireless, to its credit, prorates early termination fees, so the closer you are to the end of your contract, the less it costs. It's unclear why the other mobile operators haven't come up with anything similar. Perhaps they really think that locked-in but pissed-off customers are better than happy, loyal customers.Filed Under: contracts, early termination fees, mobile operators
Companies: verizon wireless
