Two People Arrested In England For WiFi Theft
from the laws-with-holes dept
We've been following stories about people being arrested for "stealing WiFi" for some time now, and we're still unsure of exactly what the crime is. If a person is accessing an open WiFi network without physically trespassing, should that be illegal, or should it be the network owner's responsibility to secure their network? Furthermore, how are people supposed to know what networks are okay for them to access, given the way many public-access networks use cryptic SSIDs? Anyhow, despite these questions, people continue to get arrested for using other people's WiFi networks, though it's been a while since we've seen it happen in the US. A couple of people have been busted in Singapore, where there's a specific law that could get you three years in the pokey for unauthorized access of a WiFi network. Now, two people in England have been arrested for WiFi theft, or more specifically, "dishonestly obtaining electronic communications services with intent to avoid payment." To be fair, one of the people sounds like he wasn't up to much good, since it was his sitting in a car with cardboard covering the windows that attracted attention to him. While the police say that using somebody else's WiFi can get a sentence of up to five years in jail under the UK's Computer Misuse Act, this seems like an area where the law doesn't do a good job of dealing with technology, since it's virtually impossible for users to tell private, but unsecured networks from public ones that they're allowed to access. If people don't want strangers using their network, there a plenty of steps they can take to prevent them from doing so. That seems like a more reasonable response than threatening WiFi bandits with jail.Yet Another 'Inventor' Of Wireless Email Comes Forward -- But Wants To Fight With Products, Not Patents
from the good-for-him dept
One of the more ridiculous patent lawsuits over the last decade (and one that's received enough attention that it may help push through some patent reform) is the NTP-RIM case, that ended up with RIM (a company that successfully developed a mobile email solution) having to pay $612.5 million to NTP (a company that simply bought some very broad patents, most of which were eventually were found to be invalid, from a guy who was unable to build a successful product for the market). After the case ended, the news broke of some pretty clear prior art in the space that had been kept out of the trial. Now, there's another guy who claims to have prior art predating many of the patents in the space. However, rather than get patents, the guy actually built some products -- and he's about to hit the market with the latest version of his mobile email service that will sync with all kinds of email accounts. He seems to relish the idea that any one of those companies with patents would try to sue him for his offering -- since he's got plenty of evidence going pretty far back concerning what he's been working on. What's great here is that this story highlights a few of the points we've tried to make concerning the problems with the patent system. First, with many products, there are many different groups working on similar solutions at around the same time, entirely independently. Giving one a monopoly on that solution is counterproductive to the goal of promoting innovation. Second, you don't need patents if you plan on just competing in the marketplace. This guy didn't rush to the patent office, but he worked on building a product that would satisfy the needs of customers, and know that even though there are bigger players in the market who could "copy" his ideas, he thinks he can stay ahead of the pack by out-innovating them. That doesn't require patents, it just requires knowing your market and continually innovating.Simplified Kid-Targeted Phones Flop
When the Migo and Firefly phones hit the market, there was a lot of discussion about how young was "too young" for a mobile phone. Lessons in other countries showed that 8-12 yr olds were active text messagers and enjoyed mobile phones, while parents liked the security of being able to reach the child. My experience with SK Telecom had taught me that kids this age actually 'demand' very cool, advanced handsets, but despite this, the US market decided to launch with the Migo and Firefly, two handsets with uber-simplified UIs, limited screens, no data functions, and no SMS. The phones only had the ability to call a few parent-approved numbers and 911. At the time of the Firefly launch, Mike called it "The Phone For Kids That Kids Won't Use", adding "the lack of a keypad for text messaging is seriously going to make kids wonder why they should bother with it at all." Not surprisingly, now, Cingular and Verizon are dropping both the Migo (VZW) and the Firefly (AT&T) from their retail distribution chains. Turns out Verizon is now addressing this demographic with an LG model which, you guessed it, supports text messaging. The LG also addresses safety concerns with a GPS tracking feature called "Chaperone".My take on phones for the youngest among us is this: sub 8 years old, kids tend to misplace and lose things, so you need a device that attaches to the kid like a watch or neck-loop device. This one can be limited in functionality, but it has to offer something to the kid. The Migo and Firefly might have a run at this age group, because they are less self-conscious about having a "dorky kiddyphone". 8-yrs old and up? Forget dumb devices - these kids know more about gadgets than you do, and they also know and care about what looks cool. Their device needs to look grown-up, but provide fun services, and then you can slip in the safety features under the radar. Why are kids so much more up-to-date on technology than adults? Click Read More for my take.
Looking Forward To EU Roaming Price Cuts? Get The Details.
International cellular roaming rates are notoriously high. Huge, surprise bills often await holidaymakers when they return back from a trip. The source of the problem is the very high rates that the host wireless carriers charge the inbound roamers, which get passed back to the subscriber's bill with a ~20% surcharge from the home carrier. With my Cingular phone, I frequently pay up to $4 per minute for calls in Europe. The EU government, in a bid to help their citizens and the free flow of people and commerce throughout the EU, has been working on regulations to limit the rates for roamers. Last year, Carlo Longino opined that using regulations haphazardly would amount to "ballon squeezing", in that the EU telcos would lower rates where required, but like a squeezed balloon, a bulge would appear elsewhere and carriers would raise rates in unregulated areas to try to make up the difference.Since then, the EU has settled on capping roaming rates for other EU subscribers in a move that regulators estimate will save EU subscribers €4.4 billion. But unfortunately, Carlo was right. Non EU citizens will will feel the balloon bulging. A recent report from Informa telecoms suggests the carriers will respond by increasing the roaming rates they charge non-European visitors. This looks a lot like the 2003 hotel room-phone charges that went up instead of down as a response to cell phones: some hotels simply gouged those who didn't or couldn't use a cellphone.
What's the net net? Contact your cellular provider before going abroad to find out what the rates are. Don't forget to ask about mobile data rates, too, if you use mobile e-mail. Beware that unless settings are adjusted, your Blackberry or Treo will likely connect to a local network as soon as you power on, and will start incurring data roaming fees whether you look at your e-mail or not. If you're staying for a while, consider picking up a local pre-paid SIM card for your GSM phone.
