Sirius XM Not Happy With The FCC, Again

from the irony dept

Satellite-radio company Sirius XM has never been the best of friends with the FCC, thanks largely to the molasses-like speed with which the Commission moved to approve the Sirius-XM merger and the silly restrictions it attached to its approval -- measures which helped push the company into bankruptcy. The animosity is bubbling up again, as Sirius XM isn't happy that the FCC may soon allow some radio spectrum that's near the company's spectrum to be used for wireless broadband services. The spectrum in question is in the 2.3 GHz range. One chunk of it was auctioned off to telcos in 1997, and it's since been used for fixed backhaul transmissions for their networks, but the FCC (and the telcos) would like to see it used for wireless broadband services like WiMAX. An adjoining chunk is used by Sirius XM's network of terrestrial repeaters that complement its satellite signal coverage, and the company is concerned about those repeaters being overpowered and interfered with. This is the typical sort of posturing that comes out of any company who has spectrum that's "threatened" -- like broadcasters seeking to use regulation to stifle any competition from new technologies. The interference issues are important, but the FCC knows that, and typically works to ensure that they aren't a problem. What makes this objection from Sirius XM a little bit ironic, though, is that the the two companies have been cited in the past by the FCC because their terrestrial repeaters violated interference rules. Rules that allow for the more flexible use of spectrum -- while respecting interference -- are the best way forward for everyone, and like the NAB's spurious arguments against the Sirius-XM merger, the satellite company's objections should be rejected here.

Filed Under: interference, spectrum
Companies: fcc, sirius xm

Apple Sued For Patent Infringement Over One Of The Broadest Patents You'll Ever See

from the take-a-gander dept

So we see bizarre and ridiculous patent claims all the time, but this one really seems to go beyond any level of ridiculous, and I can't wait to see how patent system defenders explain this one. A company called NetAirus has sued Apple for patent infringement over a patent it applied for in 1999 and received in 2006 for a wireless handset communication system (patent 7,103,380) that is so broad and so generic, it's hard to see how it could possibly have been approved. Patents are supposed to be for specific implementations, not the idea, but if you read through the claims (there are just 14 of them), they seem to all cover very generic concepts that describe putting a mobile phone and a PDA on the same device -- a concept that was widely discussed in the mid-90s when everyone was using their PalmPilots, and wondering when they'd merge into mobile phones. It's really quite stunning that a patent so broad got approved. Please, patent system defenders, explain how the claims on this patent make sense.

In the meantime, though, this lawsuit really highlights the difference between an idea and execution. Having an idea and getting a patent is pretty meaningless if you don't actually build something. Apple built a product -- and not just the vague product described in the patent: they built something really impressive. Ideas mean little in the long run. Execution is everything. But when we allow companies to patent basic ideas and sue the companies that actually execute? You've set up a market that hinders true innovation.

Filed Under: iphone, mobile devices, patents
Companies: apple, netairus

T-Mobile, Leap Move Take A Different Tack On Mobile Broadband

from the all-you-can-eat-no-more dept

Lots of broadband operators around the world have been talking about how their networks can't keep up with traffic demands, so they'll have to shift back to usage-based pricing. In particular, US mobile operators AT&T and Verizon have led the rhetoric, even as they continue to launch the unlimited plans they say are such a problem. The head of one broadband provider in the UK recently said a switch to usage-based pricing, and away from flat-rate plans, was inevitable as soon as one operator in a market made the switch. He dismissed the idea that operators would seek to differentiate by sticking with flat-rate plans, or by taking any other pricing strategy than usage-based plans, ignoring the fact that consumers have grown accustomed to flat-rate offerings, and that the lack of clarity in usage, billing and pricing that per-unit plans are a big turnoff for them. Already, we're seeing some signs that the operator landscape may not be dominated by such groupthink, as T-Mobile and Leap Wireless have made changes to their mobile broadband plans that are out of step with many other operators. The two companies have changed the way the caps on some of their plans work: for instance, on T-Mobile, when a user reaches their 5GB monthly cap, they don't get hit with overage fees, the speed of their connection gets throttled, avoiding the uncertainty inherent in usage-based pricing. Perhaps it's not a perfect situation, but it does show that some operators aren't afraid to step out from the party line and explore different pricing models. It also builds some hope that when some providers do decide to regress to usage-based schemes, there will be some choices for consumers.

Filed Under: broadband, mobile broadband, traffic
Companies: leap, t-mobile

Can Oprah Do What Driving-While-Yakking Laws Can't?

from the alternate-means dept

There's been a big push by politicians across the country (and around the globe, as well) to enact laws that ban the use of cell phones while driving. While using your phone while driving isn't a great idea, neither are these laws. They attack a very narrowly defined distraction, which is really just a small part of a bigger problem: overall unsafe driving. There are many other activities that are dangerous distractions to a driver, but going after each of them, one by one, is inefficient, when the real focus should be on making people more safe drivers in general. It also doesn't really help that these laws may not be effective in making roads any safer, and that their real focus is revenue generation, not public safety. Now, Oprah has jumped into the fray, devoting an entire episode of her show to the issue, and pushing viewers to sign a No Phone Zone pledge that says they won't drive while yakking or texting. So far, she's collected more than 300,000 pledges, and while they certainly aren't a guarantee that people will stop using their phones while they drive, that figure does illustrate Oprah's broad reach and her ability to shine some light on issues. Building awareness through educational campaigns like this, that have the goal of actually changing behavior, may be much more effective in actually making the roads safer than narrowly targeted laws that punish behavior after the fact.

Filed Under: driving while yakking, oprah, peer pressure

Startup Still Clamoring For Free Spectrum To Build Out Wireless Broadband

from the now-with-added-free dept

Back in 2006, a startup called M2Z Networks asked the FCC to give it a sizable chunk of valuable spectrum for free, and in exchange, it would set up a nationwide wireless broadband network to offer free (and slow) "family-friendly" service and pay the government 5% of the revenues from a paid premium service also running on the network. We were skeptical of the plan because of its aggressive rollout schedule and the network's slow speed ("512 kbps" -- keep that figure in mind -- for the free tier/3 mbps for the paid tier), but mostly because of the huge expenditure required to build out a wireless network covering 95 percent of the US population -- expenditure which would be very difficult to recover from a free, slow service. The FCC wasn't convinced, either, and rejected M2Z's proposal in 2007, though that wasn't the end of it. A congresswoman introduced a bill tailor-made for M2Z's specs, but it went nowhere. Still, M2Z lives on, and it's now looking for a chunk of stimulus funding to start building its network.

It doesn't look like M2Z has updated its plan at all since 2006, doing nothing to address any of the concerns, beyond replacing the need for private investment with a second government handout, on top of its free spectrum. In particular, they don't seem to have upped their targets for the speed of their network. What the company was proposing wasn't exactly fast in 2006, is pretty pokey now, and will be even less attractive by the time its network would get up and running. In addition, it's worth clarifying that the "512 kbps" M2Z talks about is arrived at by adding the 384kbps downstream speed plus the 128 kbps upstream speed they plan to offer. That's a new trick we haven't seen before, even in the world of "up to" broadband speed advertising.

Filed Under: fcc, free, spectrum
Companies: fcc, m2z

Apple To Face Antitrust Investigation Over Its iPhone Development Policies?

from the better-things-to-do dept

The FTC and the DOJ are reportedly holding talks over which group will launch an antitrust inquiry into Apple's policies regarding app development for the iPhone and iPad. Apple recently made a change to the terms of its iPhone SDK, barring developers from using third-party development tools. Apple claims it did this to ensure that iPhone apps are of the highest quality, but the real reason appears to be to push developers to only develop for the iPhone, and not other rival platforms. The behavior may be as annoying as it is unsurprising, but it's hard to see how this warrants antitrust action and government intervention. Apple isn't restricting access to that market completely, they're just forcing developers to use certain tools in order to participate in it. While Apple is trying to throw its weight around for its own benefit, what its doing may not necessarily be illegal -- but that doesn't mean it's a good idea either. This policy seems likely to fail in the marketplace more quickly than any resolution through government intervention could take effect.

Filed Under: antitrust, development, iphone
Companies: apple

Middle School Principal Tells Parents To Ban Facebook And Spy On Text Messages

from the nanny-state dept

A bunch of folks have been submitting this story of a New Jersey middle school principal sending an email to all parents telling them to ban Facebook for their kids and to spy on all of their text messaging habits. Because, apparently, at Benjamin Franklin Middle School, "trust" is not something they want to teach. We see this sort of overreaction to new things all of the time. In the past, school administrators have needlessly freaked out about such things as comic books, dungeons and dragons, walkmen and mp3 players. If the principal, Anthony Orsini, had just sent out a note saying "talk to your kids and pay attention to what they're doing online," it would have been fine. But, instead, he went all out:

It is time for every single member of the BF Community to take a stand! There is absolutely no reason for any middle school student to be a part of a social networking site!

Let me repeat that - there is absolutely, positively no reason for any middle school student to be a part of a social networking site! None....

Actually, there are plenty of reasons why a middle school kid might be a part of a social networking site: it's called communicating with their peers. That doesn't mean parents should let their kids use them entirely freely, but a blanket ban is clear overkill by someone who apparently doesn't understand how these things work.

Please do the following: sit down with your child (and they are just children still) and tell them that they are not allowed to be a member of any social networking site. Today!

Let them know that you will at some point every week be checking their text messages online! You have the ability to do this through your cell phone provider.

Let them know that you will be installing Parental Control Software so you can tell every place they have visited online, and everything they have instant messaged or written to a friend. Don't install it behind their back, but install it!

He goes on to then urge parents to contact the police any time their child gets a message they don't like:

If your son or daughter is attacked through one of these sites or through texting - immediately go to the police! Insist that they investigate every situation. Also, contact the site and report the attack to the site - they have an obligation to suspend accounts or they are liable for what is written.

That last line, saying that the sites are liable is simply not correct, but why let facts get in the way of a good rant.

Orsini then goes on to explain that he's absolutely positive that social networks will be found in studies to be damaging to kids:

It is not hyperbole for me to write that the pain caused by social networking sites is beyond significant - it is psychologically detrimental and we will find out it will have significant long term effects, as well as all the horrible social effects it already creates.

Of course, similar things have been written about every "new" thing that the older generation in society doesn't get -- including the waltz ("we feel it a duty to warn every parent against exposing his daughter to so fatal a contagion"), movies, videos games... and chess ("chess is a mere amusement of a very inferior character, which robs the mind of valuable time that might be devoted to nobler acquirements, while it affords no benefit whatever to the body"). I assume, we can add Orsini's quote to the other quotes about those other things soon.

Basically, it looks like Orsini has fallen prey to yet another moral panic. He claims that it doesn't make sense to teach "responsible" computing, because middle school kids can't handle it. It appears that many kids in his school disagree, and are quoted in the article saying so. Clearly, many kids will abuse social networks and the will bully others. But doing a blanket ban certainly won't work, and is just someone overreacting because he was unable to handle some kids acting poorly. It's an attempt to prevent kids from doing stuff, just so that the administrators might get a little "security" from kids being kids.

Perhaps the principal of the Benjamin Franklin Middle School, should pay attention to Ben Franklin's words:

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Filed Under: facebook, new jersey, parenting, sms
Companies: facebook

Apple Needs To Offer More, Less Porn, Depending Who You Ask

from the wiggles-and-jiggles dept

Apple's recent scuff up in the media over banning a Putlitzer prize-winning cartoonist from the application store only served to once again highlight Apple's inconsistent and seemingly arbitrary application store approval process. It also directed people's attention to the fact that Mark Fiore certainly wasn't the first person to have an application banned for strange things like "ridiculing public figures," which violates Apple's iPhone Developer Program License Agreement. In fact, there have been 16 applications banned for this most grievous of offenses, and as is usually the case with Apple, the company spent most of their time ignoring questions about why content continues to be inconsistently blocked.

This latest scuff up about Apple gate-keeping also gave some people a platform to once again complain that Apple shouldn't be blocking access to pornography. While Apple's PR department can't apparently answer a straight question about their app approval process, Steve Jobs did personally take time to respond to one user's e-mailed porn concerns by telling him to go buy an Android phone:

"Fiore's app will be in the store shortly. That was a mistake. However, we do believe we have a moral responsibility to keep porn off the iPhone. Folks who want porn can buy and (sic) Android phone."

Not that Google and the porn industry didn't appreciate the shout out, but porn isn't really as big of an issue as Apple's inconsistent approval process (which Jobs once again really doesn't explain). Apple already makes a very nice porn application called Safari for those interested. While Apple does ban porn, they've perhaps more annoyingly banned applications for being porn that weren't (like a swimsuit sales application). Meanwhile, even though Jobs says he has a "moral responsibility" to keep porn off the iPhone, the Parents Television Council this week proclaimed he's not doing a good enough job. The group personally, painstakingly cataloged everything they felt was filthy in the app store:

"Typical content has included items with names like "Shawna Lee Private Dance," which shows a porn starlet with her hand down the front of her bikini bottom fondling herself; "Love Positions Free," with a drawing titled "doggystyle," showing a couple having sex; "1001 Boobs Lite;" and "Tasty Pasties 18+ Amateurs" (at one point, the 11^th most popular "app" out of thousands on iTunes). All of these applications are free -- and available to children."

Of course if the Parents Television Council's findings show anything (aside from the fact the Council spent a lot of time looking at half-naked women) it highlights -- once again -- that nobody understands how Apple determines worthy content. Amusingly, the Council didn't bother to complain about the Android Marketplace, where users can freely get porn of all kinds -- not just the odd smattering of soft-core apps that passed Apple's incoherent muster. Not that trying to censor porn apps really matters, given the existence of something some people call "a browser," which provides people of all ages access to a universe of content of all kinds. Apparently, nobody can win in this strange equation, be it porn fans, porn opponents, developers, or Shawna Lee.

Filed Under: app store, porn
Companies: apple

Does HP Buying Palm Promise To Solve Any Problems?

from the hey-at-least-it-was-cheap dept

It's been rumored for several weeks now that Palm was up for sale, with a number of different companies supposedly taking a look at it, but news has come through now that HP has picked it up for $1.2 billion. Palm's business has been running downhill for a few years now; its worldwide market share has fallen from 3.5 percent in 2005 to 1.5 percent in 2009 -- despite the relatively warm welcome its Pre device received. The Pre was the first Palm phone to run its latest operating system, WebOS, which was supposed to help the company compete in a revitalized and highly competitive marketplace against the likes of Android devices and the iPhone. But that hasn't yet happened. The Pre (and the following device, the Pixi) hasn't grabbed significant market share, which compounds Palm's other problem: lack of a strong developer community for WebOS. That is actually sort of ironic, given that an older incarnation of Palm was probably better than anybody in the mobile space at cultivating a huge and loyal developer community, back in the days of Palm OS. So if scale and a lack of developers are the two biggest problems holding Palm back, does the HP deal actually do anything to help solve them? Maybe that's looking at the situation the wrong way: perhaps the point of this isn't for HP to fix Palm, but for Palm to bring something more to the table for HP. Like 1,500 patents.

Filed Under: deals, patents
Companies: hp, palm

Microsoft Suggests Android Violates Its Patents... But Gets HTC To Buy A License

from the say-what-now? dept

Ah, the patent games Microsoft plays. For years, it's spread FUD, claiming that open source operating systems, such as Linux, violate its patents -- though it has never detailed what patents or really sued anyone directly over those patents (though some have argued that it has done so with a couple patents tangentially). Now it appears that Microsoft is also claiming that Google's Android violates its patents. Of course, it's not doing so by going after Google. Instead, it's part of what came out in an announcement concerning Microsoft licensing certain patents to HTC specifically to allow HTC to run Android.

Seems a bit strange, right? Why should Microsoft have any say in whether or not HTC can put Google's Android operating system on its phones. The whole thing seems even odder when you realize that HTC was, for a long time, one of the major makers of smartphones running Windows Mobile operating system. But, the complicating factor here might be Apple. Apple, of course, famously went on the patent offensive and sued HTC over its Android phones a couple months ago. So now, with Microsoft doing this deal, it seems to very publicly be entering the patent fight between Apple and Google, which for bizarre reasons is playing out with HTC as the pawn getting bounced around between them all.

Of course, Microsoft's press announcement on this particular deal is hilarious in how disingenuous it is:

The licensing agreement with HTC underscores the important role IP plays in ensuring a healthy and vibrant IT ecosystem.

Uh, no. It underscores the exact opposite. It underscores just how totally screwed up the smartphone market is because of the absolutely ridiculous patent thicket that's been built up around pretty much everything that goes into a smartphone. This deal doesn't show "the important role IP plays." It shows how a big company that has nothing whatsoever to do with a particular fight can suddenly throw its weight around on the topic in an attempt to cause confusion in the marketplace and potentially scare off competitors. It's the exact opposite of what the patent system is supposed to do.

Filed Under: patents
Companies: htc, microsoft