Talking On A Cell Phone Like 'Placing Your Face On A Toilet Bowl'

from the yeah,-but-is-your-toilet-3G? dept

A new study checked out the mobile phones of 200 doctors and nurses, and found that 95 percent of them were contaminated with bacteria, while 1 in 8 had the MRSA staph bug. These findings pretty much echo those of previous studies, and like those earlier efforts, this one doesn't really go into exactly how dangerous these bacteria-laden handsets are. Unless, of course, you count the comments by the head of a "microbial sterilisation systems company" -- who in no way has a dog in this hunt -- that "holding your phone to your mouth is as dangerous as placing your face on a toilet bowl." Somehow, that comment doesn't seem too convincing, even though it's fairly colorful. If handsets were really portable mongers of bacteria-based death, one would think these medical studies might make that clear, and doctors and hospitals would take some steps to address the problem.

Filed Under: bacteria, mobile phones

T-Mobile Takes Out Some Handset Unlockers

from the the-only-confused-people-here-are-us dept

T-Mobile has won damages and an injunction (via Phone Scoop) against several companies that were taking bulk quantities of its prepaid handsets, unlocking them, and then reselling them. The company calls such activity "prepaid phone trafficking," when it's really just exploiting a poor business model. As in other suits filed by other operators, it sounds like T-Mobile based this one on copyright or trademark claims, saying "Consumers are harmed and may be misled about the source and origin of their mobile phones... Because the phones may still carry T-Mobile's brand, consumers may believe they are purchasing handsets manufactured for T-Mobile and covered by original warranties." That's slightly counter-intuitive: T-Mobile says the unlockers made their money by buying handsets locked to the operator, then unlocking them so they could charge a higher price when they were resold. According to T-Mobile, the phones carried a higher price, weren't sold in original packaging and didn't come with manuals. They were also, presumably, accompanied by advertising playing up the fact that they could be used on any operator's network. All of this combined would seem to make it pretty clear to buyers that they weren't buying an original, "official" T-Mobile product. So where's the basis for the confusion claims?

Filed Under: legality, mobile phones, prepaid wireless, unlocking
Companies: t-mobile

European Parliament Committee Backs Further Hack Of Roaming Charges

from the the-answer-is-always-more-regulation dept

The European Union has been interfering in the market for international mobile-phone roaming rates for some, taking the populist position that the charges were too high, and forcing caps on the wholesale rates operators charge each other, hoping to drag down retail prices. But the effect was, as we predicted, baloon squeezing: while intra-Europe roaming rates fell, operators looked to boost rates paid by people from outside Europe and their domestic rates. What makes this situation particularly ridiculous is that it was one manufactured by the EU itself. When Vodafone expanded across the continent by buying German operator Mannesmann in 2000, it was essentially prevented by EU regulators from introducing any roaming products that utilized its competitive advantage. The regulators said that if Vodafone cut any of its international roaming prices, it would have to offer the same price to its rivals -- removing any motivation for the operator to cut prices and introduce new services.

The EU continues to try to regulate itself out of this self-created mess, the latest move being that a European Parliament committee has voted to further cap roaming charges on text messages and mobile data. The plan moves forward to the whole Parliament, and will be considered on the cusp of peak travel season, so the politicans can brag to their constituents that in this time of economic misery, they're moving to cut their vacation costs. But what they're really doing is further impeding the market by removing any incentive for operators to compete with one another -- just as the EU regulators did back in 2000. This was a situation created by overzealous regulation: had the EU allowed the likes of Vodafone to create products based on its competitive advantage, it's likely the market would have brought prices down on its own, and without the balloon-squeezing effect. But once the EU began interfering, that became impossible, since it in essence outlawed competition. Interfering in the market even more may be politically useful, but won't create lasting competition that will benefit consumers in the long run.

Filed Under: europe, roaming

Want To Create A Simple App To Tell You Where Someone Is Calling From? You Can't, It's Patented

from the promoting-the-progress-yet-again dept

Someone who prefers to remain anonymous, sent me a story that I hear all the time these days. He was getting annoyed with not knowing who was calling his Blackberry, so he figured he'd write a simple app to do a standard database lookup in order to pull up the info that would at least let you know where the caller was from, based on area code. It's the sort of thing that software programmers do all the time: see a need, write a simple program to solve it.

Except for the patents.

As he started to write the app, he figured he should take a quick look around to see if anyone else had done so... when he came across the fact that someone had written that app, but thanks to a patent threat, it had been shut down. In fact, the patent holder, Cequent, has sued a few others who dared to create such a simple database lookup app themselves. The patent itself describes an incredibly simple database lookup... yet, now no one else is allowed to create such an app.

The purpose of the patent system was to create the incentives for inventors to invent products that likely would not have been created otherwise, in order to help "promote the progress." Yet, when it's being used to prevent an engineer from writing a simple app that could have occurred to anyone, based on a simple database lookup, doesn't it seem like there's a pretty big problem?

Filed Under: apps, caller id, database lookup, patents

Verizon's Claims That Its Info-Sharing Plans Are Harmless Ring Hollow

from the that-which-is-made-not-immediately-full-of-clarity dept

Over the weekend, David Weinberger, one of the co-authors of The Cluetrain Manifesto wrote that he'd gotten a 45-page pamphlet of legalese from Verizon Wireless saying he could opt out of letting the company share "Customer Proprietary Network Information" with other groups. The rather broadly worded statement, which said the company could give info like call records to "affiliates, agents and parent companies," kicked up some fuss online. GigaOM says that this is the same issue that popped up in late 2007, when Verizon sent a similar notice to its customers. Verizon's PR bloggers say that now, just like in 2007, there's nothing to worry about -- in fact, the PR person went so far as to merely cut and paste his comments on the issue from two years ago. He says that Verizon won't sell customer's info to third parties; it just needs their consent to share it among the Verizon group of companies so it can offer people bundled services.

Given the way the company is communicating the issue -- a bill insert few people will likely pay attention to, written in a format that's pretty difficult, if not impossible, for most average people to divine any real meaning from -- it's hard to accept the explanation at face value. This is representative of the lack of transparency telcos and ISPs often take on privacy issues. Instead of clearly explaining themselves and what they're doing with customer data, they shroud their efforts in secrecy and legalese, then just say "there's nothing to worry about, just move along." If there really is nothing to worry about, why can't they do a better job of making that clear to the public? Their method of communication, and the way they explain themselves, simply increases consumers' skepticism and makes it look like they've got something to hide. In addition, making the system opt-out, rather than opt-in, doesn't help either.

Filed Under: cpni, information sharing, pr
Companies: verizon

Groups Again Take Aim At Cellphone Subsidies

from the teeter-totter dept

There's been a constant clamor over the past few years from some consumer groups that want to see mobile operators forced to stop locking handsets they sell, so that phones will be able to work with any compatible operator. The argument is that locking handsets to operators diminishes the competition among the operators, particularly when operators compete by getting exclusive deals on particular devices (such as the iPhone, which is locked to AT&T). But it's always seemed that the groups are looking to have their cake and eat it too: the locked devices and contracts operators use allow them to recover the subsidies they spend to drop the upfront costs of handsets. So if the groups want to do away with locks and other techniques that support the subsidies, that's fine, as long as they're also willing to accept higher device costs. But somehow, that part always gets left out, just as it has in stories covering the latest push by the groups (via MocoNews) and some smaller operators to get the government to outlaw handset exclusives. If these groups want to eliminate cheap handsets for consumers, they need to explain that -- or explain exactly how these regulations they want won't serve to lower service prices, but offset that with much higher device prices.

Filed Under: exclusivity, mobile phones, subsidies

BT Turns Its Business Customers' Networks Into Public Hotspots

from the changeroo dept

British ISP BT is apparently "updating" some of its business customers' WiFi hubs and turning them into part of its OpenZone hotspot network. Sounds great, until you realize they're simply pushing the software update onto some 200,000 or so customers' hubs, and leaving them to opt out if they don't want them to be used as public hotspots. What's even greater is the commercial arrangement, if business owners should decide they want to utilize the "service": they buy prepaid vouchers from BT, then can either give them away or sell them. That's right: they pay BT for their bandwidth, then have to buy vouchers to resell or give away, in essence paying for the bandwidth a second time. There's no mention of how the customers could offer a free hotspot, beyond the double-billing scheme. But hey, that's a crazy idea for a business owner, anyway, so BT's doing its customers a further favor by precluding it as an option.

Filed Under: hotspots, wifi
Companies: bt

NAB Cries To The Court About White Spaces Spectrum Plans

from the same-old-story dept

One of the better decisions to come out of the FCC during Kevin Martin's reign was the decision to free up the "white spaces" spectrum that lies in between TV broadcasts for other uses. The white spaces are unused spectrum that sit in between TV broadcasters' signals. They were important in analog broadcasts to keep stations' signals from interfering with each other, but they are less crucial in digital broadcasts (like the ones the US will eventually switch to). White spaces proponents say that they can effectively be reused by unlicensed devices that can seek out empty spectrum and use it to communicate, without interfering with licensed broadcasts, and the FCC concurred -- and, of course, made that a key part of its approval of the technologies. But as ever, the National Association of Broadcasters disagrees, and has sued to block usage of the white spaces, arguing it will interfere with their members' broadcasts.

We might be more sympathetic to the NAB's claim if it didn't have such a long and glorious history of trying to stifle anything that competes with incumbent broadcasters, and have such an annoying way of doing it. The FCC has put significant stipulations in place to ensure that white space devices don't cause interference, and despite the NAB's contention, the prototypes that failed in the testing process didn't do so. The FCC got it right by approving use of the white spaces with the restrictions and rules it put in place to tame interference; the NAB has once again got it wrong by trying to stifle innovation, and perhaps competition.

Filed Under: interference, lawsuits, spectrum, white space
Companies: fcc, nab

Price Ceiling For Mobile Voice Service Continues To Fall

from the a-good-kind-of-deflation dept

T-Mobile has announced that it's expanding its offer of a $50 per month unlimited voice service plan across the US, becoming the first of the country's four biggest operators to start to fall into line with the $50 voice ceiling. Given the constant price battles in the mobile industry, you'd expect the other major operators to follow T-Mobile, or lower the prices of their current unlimited offerings that also include text messages and data. But one interesting aspect of the T-Mobile plan is that it's only available to customers that have had T-Mobile accounts in good standing for at least 22 months, making it more of an effort to retain existing customers than attract new ones. This reflects the rapidly changing focus of the business from attracting new customers to also retaining current ones. One of the quandaries posed by US mobile operators was that, historically, they gave better deals and prices (especially on new handsets) to new customers than current ones, giving good customers an incentive to churn to a rival so they could get a free new device. This stance has changed over the last couple of years, as the industry standard contract length has grown from one to two years. Second, the T-Mobile offer reflects the company's standing in the market. Its quarterly net subscriber additions are falling, while the company's seeing a lot of competition at the low end of the market. This new plan is aimed at helping on both fronts.

Filed Under: mobile, pricing, voice
Companies: t-mobile

SMS Alerts Over Credit Card Transactions? Patented! Visa Sued

from the innovation-at-risk dept

Let's say you were an engineer at a major credit card company like Visa, and put in charge of watching over new technologies, and thinking about ways that you could make the credit card process better and more secure for card holders. It probably wouldn't take you all that long to come up with a variety of useful measures for checking to make sure certain transactions were legit -- such as alerting cardholders to transactions via SMS. That's nothing particular special or unique, but it's a nice obvious addition, thanks to the fact that SMS text messaging has now become popular. So, you go ahead and implement it... and promptly get sued by some small company that claims a patent on the "invention" of alerting cardholders of transactions by SMS. I'm sure the angry patent system defenders will be quick to show up in the comments claiming that Visa "stole" this "invention," but I'm having a really difficult time understanding how you can support innovation and allow this sort of result to happen.

Filed Under: credit cards, patents, sms alerts
Companies: cnsc, visa