CenturyLink Won't Provide DSL, Wants To Block Competitor From Getting Fed Funds To Offer Wireless

from the if-we-won't,-no-one-can... dept

It's no secret that many ISPs prefer to have a monopoly. We've seen it over and over again in efforts to block competitors from getting into the space, while at the same time they lobby the government for more rights of way and other benefits. The latest example is CenturyLink (a combination of CenturyTel and Embarq) in North Carolina. The company has made it clear that it won't provide DSL to certain "low density" areas. And if that's what it wants to do, fine. But, it shouldn't then try to block those who do want to offer broadband, such as Electronic Solutions Inc., which Broadband Reports notes has applied for federal broadband stimulus funds to offer wireless broadband services in those areas. Yet, CenturyLink has filed a complaint with the government saying that because it offers broadband in "some or all" (see what it did there?) of the areas ESI wants to provide service in, CenturyLink is suggesting that the feds shouldn't give ESI the money it's asking for.

Now, this is a case where accurate data on broadband penetration might be helpful, but when Connected Nation keeps winning contracts to provide such maps -- and Connected Nation is set up by the same broadband incumbents who don't want competition, guess how accurate those maps will be?

Filed Under: broadband stimulus, competition, monopoly
Companies: centurylink, esi

NY Times Seems To Recognize That Nokia's Patent Fights Have Nothing To Do With Innovation

from the it's-just-a-big-pissing-match dept

When Nokia first sued Apple for patent infringement over the iPhone, we noted that it appeared like yet another case of a company getting beat in the market suddenly whipping out some patents to sue over. This seemed to anger the usual bunch of patent system defenders -- along with a group of Nokia defenders -- but it appears that others are noticing as well. The NY Times has an article discussing Nokia's sudden aggressiveness in the patent realm, noting that the company has been facing some business troubles, and it's notable that its patent aggression seems to have shown up at just the same time as its own performance trouble. Funny that.

Of course, this is a major issue. As with so many high tech areas today, there are giant patent thickets. It's effectively impossible to launch a product that doesn't violate dozens, if not hundreds, of patents. And (despite claims to the contrary) it's got absolutely nothing to do with companies "stealing" from each other. It's got plenty to do with companies making the next logical step in the innovative process, and coming up with products that meet what the market wants. But with patent offices around the world being willing to hand out patents on minor changes, it's impossible to actually build a useful product that doesn't violate patents. This has nothing to do with innovation. At this point, patents are just a weapon that can be flung against anyone who does innovate if you can't compete.

Filed Under: patent thicket, patents, wireless
Companies: nokia

Maine Wants Mobile Phones To Carry A Cancer Warning... Despite Lack Of Evidence; [Updated: SF Too]

from the yeah-that'll-help dept

There have been ongoing arguments and conflicting studies for years over whether or not mobile phones can cause cancer. However, we had thought that the general scientific consensus was that mobile phones have such weak radiation that it is extremely unlikely to have any meaningful impact on causing cancer. Yet, that doesn't stop the worries that have long been associated with (almost always unscientific folks) when it comes to wireless signals. The latest such situation involves a politician in Maine pushing for a law that would put cancer warning labels on mobile phones.

But here's the thing: even if these warnings were put on phones, what would it do? Would people really stop using their mobile phones or make any behavioral adjustment just because of these labels? There might be a few people, but I'd imagine that those who already are sure that mobile phones cause cancer have already acted accordingly. Update: And... just like that, comes the news that San Francisco is considering the same thing.

Filed Under: cancer warning, maine, mobile phones, radiation

Verizon Wireless Denies It's Charging People Phantom $1.99 Fee, Despite Tons Of Complaints

from the this-won't-end-well dept

For a little while now, Broadband Reports has been doing a good job highlighting how Verizon Wireless has been charging a phantom $1.99 fee for "accessing the internet" even when users claim they did no such thing. Despite a growing amount of press coverage, Verizon Wireless had been silent on the issue. However, once David Pogue at the NY Times reported on it, finally the FCC got involved and asked Verizon Wireless to explain. The company apparently delayed for a while and then sent a reply (pdf). While much of the press coverage focused on a separate question (about why Verizon Wireless had doubled its early termination fees), what may be more interesting is the company's non-response to the phantom $1.99. It basically said it doesn't do what lots and lots of people are saying it does. David Pogue noticed how odd this is and why Verizon Wireless is not being upfront:

How about the 400 people who chimed in to say, "Me too!" in the comments of my original post? Are they all idiots? How about me? I found several of those $1.99 charges on my own bills. How about the Verizon whistleblower who has begged his managers to change this greedy scheme, and been told to shut up? Is he mistaken?

Even more amusing is that Pogue contacted the Verizon Wireless PR person who had initially scolded him for not getting a comment from the company for his original story:

"I'm going to let the letter to the F.C.C. speak for us," he said. "I'm not able to comment further."

"But you're saying that you don't charge that $1.99 fee!" I told him. "Yet it's happened to hundreds of my readers, and it's happened to me. So what are we missing?"

"I'm going to let the letter to the F.C.C. speak for us."

"But it just says Verizon isn't doing it!"

"I'm going to let the letter to the F.C.C. speak for us."

Comforting, right? It amazes me that companies actually think this sort of approach makes sense, when it's almost guaranteed that the details will eventually come out. Update: FCC isn't buying Verizon Wireless' response.

Filed Under: denial, phantom fees
Companies: verizon wireless

HTC Sends Cease & Desist To Developer Who Made Similar Android Widgets

from the can't-compete? dept

Tim K alerts us to the news that phone maker HTC has sent a cease & desist nastygram to the developers of an Android widget that certainly had a similar look and feel to HTC's own Sense UI. Except, many people claim that this newer widget, from LevelUp Studios, was actually better. LevelUp apparently has no interest in fighting this, and are ditching the widget, but it seems that they could have a decent argument here. The bigger question, though, is why HTC is bothering? I'm actually a big HTC fan. My last two mobile phones have both been from HTC, and I had been expecting my next one to be from HTC as well. But this sort of bullying for no good reason makes me wonder why I'd want to support a company like that. Honestly, what was HTC "losing" by letting this widget be created? This seems like bullying just for the sake of bullying.

Filed Under: android, cease & desist, mobile apps, widgets
Companies: htc

As AT&T Complains, People Notice That It Has Decreased Infrastructure Investments, But Wireless Revenue Is Way Up

from the ooops dept

Don't mess with a fake CEO. That's the lesson of the week. At the beginning of the week, "Fake Steve Jobs" (aka Dan Lyons) got a lot of attention for his rather funny fake phone call with AT&T boss Randall Stephenson where he tells him to fix his wireless network that has been receiving so many complaints from iPhone users. As that post got more and more attention, FSJ came back with another satirical idea: Operation Chokehold. The idea is that at noon Pacific time today (Friday, the 18th) iPhone users around the country should turn on the most data intensive apps they have and run them for an hour, to signal their displeasure with the problems with AT&T's network.

Remember, this is a fake online persona who has blogged outrageous satire for years.

But AT&T apparently took it seriously, calling it irresponsible and pointless. And then, the FCC got into the game, again calling it irresponsible and warning of public safety concerns. Of course, all this has done is draw a lot more attention to the whole thing.

But even more interesting? It got people to actually look at the details of AT&T's operations, and its "woe is me" position on its wireless network. Except... well, the numbers tell a story AT&T doesn't want you to hear. Specifically, they keep making more and more in the way of money, but they're spending less and less on investment in its wireless network. While there's obviously a lot more that goes into those sorts of numbers, the numbers don't make AT&T's claims sound particularly convincing (Update: Email from AT&T PR wants to reinforce the fact that the numbers shown include more than just direct network investment, such as real estate, call centers and IT support. They also claim that the real numbers -- the ones we don't see -- are going up, but provide no evidence. Of course, why AT&T reps don't comment on this post and explain that to people... remains unknown). While we agree that creating a denial of service attack is not a good idea, AT&T's response to all of this has only sunk the company in deeper. It's making a ton of money, and its network sucks... and despite claims of fixing it, they've been spending less and less on the network. It seems like that's a lot more irresponsible than worrying about a random fake CEO.

Filed Under: dan lyons, fake steve jobs, infrastructure, wireless
Companies: at&t

Does Google Need Permission From Philip K. Dick's Estate For The Nexus One?

from the seems-a-bit-ridiculous dept

There's been plenty of buzz over the past few days about Google's alleged plans to offer a phone of its own design (built by HTC, potentially sold both directly and by T-Mobile, if not others), which has been dubbed the "Nexus One." I didn't write anything about it, because there didn't seem much to write about at this point. I'm always happy to see more competition in the market, though, and if the phone is really good, that's obviously a good thing. But one thing did catch my eye. The NY Times is noting that the name "Nexus One" appears to be a play on how Philip K. Dick named the replicants in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, which was subsequently turned into the still popular movie Blade Runner. In both stories, the replicants are "Nexus-6" devices, being the sixth generation of that type of robots. It's a fun little homage by Google and an obvious play on the fact that its operating system is called Android.

And yet... the estate of Philip K. Dick is not pleased. The article notes (surprisingly) that Motorola paid George Lucas for the rights to use "Droid" for its Android phone, but no one spoke to the Dick estate, who now claim they are "shocked and dismayed." Really? Shocked? Isa Dick Hackett, Philip's daughter is claiming:

"We were never consulted, no requests were made, and we didn't grant any sort of permissions."

Perhaps that's because Google doesn't need permission from you to do such a thing. Of course, since Google hasn't made any official announcement on this, there's still a good chance they could change the name, just to avoid having to deal with an angry and misguided family member who doesn't like the idea of anyone paying tribute to her father without first paying up. You have to imagine there must be some other science fiction author out there who would be thrilled to have Google promoting his or her work, rather than whining about getting permission (i.e., "payment") for the use of a name.

Filed Under: nexus one, philip k. dick
Companies: google

No, Sending Spam Text Messages Is Not The Same As Hacking Someone's Phone

from the misusing-computer-fraud-law dept

There's just something about the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act -- the "anti-hacking" law in the US -- that seems to leave it open for abuse in lawsuits. This is the law that was used to convict Lori Drew. Even though the judge eventually tossed the ruling, it showed how the broadly-worded law could be applied in dangerous ways. Still, at least some attempts at twisting the law aren't getting very far. For example, a woman in Minnesota tried to use the law against a company that sent her spam text messages she never requested, and discovered that in order to bring a case under a law, you have to actually show that the law was broken:

Plaintiff brings three possible claims: (1) a claim for obtaining information from her phone; (2) a claim for transmitting information or code through her phone; and (3) a claim for "accessing" her phone.

Information Claim: The court rejects the information-based claim because there's no information that WSOD allegedly obtained through accessing the plaintiff's phone. Plaintiff analogizes to websites and argues that any time someone sends a message to a mobile phone, information is "obtained" in the same way that information is obtained any time someone accesses a website. The court rejects this analogy, finding that "there is a fundamental difference between viewing websites and communicating with wireless devices such as cell phones by sending text messages." Even if the transmission of an unwanted text message somehow resulted in the "obtaining of information," the court concludes that there's no loss as a result of defendant having obtained the information.

Transmission Claim: The transmission claim requires plaintiff to allege that WSOD caused the transmission of code or information and as a result "intentionally caused damage without authorization" to plaintiff's device. The complaint fails on both counts. There wasn't a credible allegation of damage (there was no allegation of impairment to the machine) or of WSOD's intent to cause the damage.

Access Claim: The court rejects the access claim since plaintiff does not adequately allege that the unauthorized access was intentional.

So, nice try, but no dice. Someone sending unsolicited text messages to your mobile phone may be annoying (and potentially illegal under other laws), but it's not hacking under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

Filed Under: computer fraud and abuse act, hacking, spam

Apple Launches Nuclear Patent Counterstrike On Nokia

from the just-like-Thomas-Jefferson-envisioned dept

We've discussed in the past how many large companies now view patent accumulation as something of a nuclear stockpiling technique. That is, if you accumulate enough patents, other large companies won't sue you for patent infringement, because you'll just sue them right back for infringing on your patents. As ridiculous (and obviously against the basis of the very patent system) as this is, it has certainly limited some patent lawsuits between large tech companies. But every so often, a nuclear battle breaks out. Earlier this year, Nokia, jealous over the success of the iPhone, sued Apple. Apple, of course, has bragged about all those patents it holds on the iPhone... so... the obvious next step has occurred, and Apple is lobbing back charges of patent infringement against Nokia. In the end, the two sides will probably work out some sort of settlement, but the whole process is a huge waste of time and resources. Wouldn't we all be better off if they just focused on competing in the marketplace by creating better products?

Filed Under: mobile phones, nuclear strike, patents
Companies: apple, nokia

AT&T's Bait And Switch On iPhone Unlimited Service: We Screwed Up, So Now You Have To Pay More

from the well,-that's-convincing dept

There's lots of buzz going around concerning the news that an AT&T exec has admitted that to deal with the companies own inability to build out a strong cellular network (angering tons of iPhone users), that it's planning to put in place caps and charge more to high-end users. Of course, this is pure bait and switch. The company sold people on an unlimited data plan, failed to invest in its network, and pushed high bandwidth apps on people. And, of course, it's worth noting that while they now want to charge high bandwidth users more, they don't say anything about the low bandwidth users. No one gets a discount. AT&T is making a ton of money off of the iPhone. It could have -- and should have -- invested more of that into network upgrades. Now it's blaming its most loyal users -- the same ones who it recommended high bandwidth apps to -- and expecting that everyone will be happy with that? AT&T may discover that people start looking for other alternatives if they dump the unlimited data offering that they sold people.

Filed Under: bait and switch, iphone, unlimited
Companies: at&t