About Damn Time: Phone Makers To Standardize Chargers

from the finally dept

The mobile-phone industry has met up in Barcelona for its annual confab, and among all the new handset releases was some more compelling news: phone makers and operators have pledged they'll standardize on mini-USB chargers. While this is being touted as mainly an environmental decision, it's a situation where environmental, economic, and usability benefits converge. Presumably, many device makers will eventually stop shipping new chargers with phones, reducing their costs and cutting charger production; users will benefit from consistency across vendors and devices. Some countries, like South Korea and China, have previously mandated that phone makers use standardized chargers and other cables; now the rest of the world can enjoy the benefits, too.

Filed Under: chargers, mobile phones, standardization

Comedian Smashes Mobile Phone; Fearing 'Joke Stealing'

from the ok,-this-is-going-too-far dept

The concept of stealing jokes seems pretty ridiculous to us. Jokes are something that people pass around, and the real challenge is in how well you tell the joke -- not in the joke itself. Yet, it's no secret that some comedians have been going on tirades about joke stealing recently -- with one comedian in the UK, Lee Hurst, going so far as to smash someone's cameraphone during a show, after he accused the phone's owner of filming him to steal jokes (thanks to everyone that sent this in).

Talk about paranoid. It seems equally likely that whoever was filming it just wanted to show some friends. Besides, if you want to "steal" jokes, can't you do so simply by remembering them. Smashing someone's phone isn't going to stop that. Unless they invent one of those science fiction devices that erase short-term memory, no comedian will ever be able to fully stop others from making use of their jokes (and, in that case, I'd bet the comedian wouldn't do too well, since no one remembers his act).

In this case, Hurst plead guilty and paid a fine for destroying the camera... but says he'll do it again. Then he demanded stronger copyright protection over jokes and said he thinks YouTube should be banned:

"I don't regret what I did because the police wouldn't turn up to defend me, would they? It was in anger, but it is like having your tools stolen if your material is taken. We just need the same protection that is afforded to the cinema on copyright theft.... Ban YouTube -- it is the biggest piece of c*** ever."

Perhaps he really doesn't like that up-and-coming competing comedians are using YouTube to their advantage, while he's stuck wallowing in the past. It must suck not to be able to compete with upstarts who know how to embrace modern technology, but that's no excuse for getting violent.

Filed Under: comedians, copyright, jokes, lee hurst, mobile phones

Yet Another Patent Infringement Lawsuit Over The iPhone

from the keep-'em-coming dept

Remember back when the iPhone was launched, and Steve Jobs hyped up the 200 patents the company had filed around the concepts in the iPhone? We found that pretty odd, since most of the technology had been seen elsewhere before -- Apple just put it together in a consumer package. And, indeed, all of those patents certainly haven't stopped plenty of other companies from claiming that the iPhone was violating some other patent. And, now we've got another one, as two (related) Scottish companies, Picsel Research and Picsel Technologies, are claiming that Apple violates their patents, and (of course) are whining about the millions of dollars they invested in the technology.

Of course, if Apple had really "stolen" their ideas, don't you think they would have spoken up, say, two years ago when the iPhone was first announced? Now, one of the ridiculous aspects of patent law is that independent invention isn't a defense -- meaning that even though it's quite clear Apple developed its technology independent of Picsel, it doesn't really matter for the sake of the case. But, at the same time, that also means that it's equally meaningless how much Picsel invested in the technology. So, unless they want to allow Apple to point out how much it invested in the same tech (perhaps long before Picsel ever did), it might want to stop the whining about money spent.

Filed Under: iphone, patents
Companies: apple, picsel

Up Next, The Subaru App Store

from the click-click-vroom dept

Mobile-phone makers and operators are falling over themselves trying to launch their own application storefronts following the success of Apple's iPhone App Store. But they're not the only ones: Hughes Telematics, which makes in-car communications and computing systems, says the next generation of its technology, scheduled for release in 2010, will let people install apps in their cars. Ideas being kicked around now include a carbon-footprint calculator and remote-starting and monitoring software. There are lots of interesting possibilities here, but there's one stumbling block: most cars don't come with any ability to connect to the internet, making distribution difficult and limiting the apps' utility. Solving that issue would be huge, and open up a enormous opportunity for all sorts of new apps and features: streaming audio, traffic information, in-car music downloads and so on. Just as other platforms like mobile phones and computers have benefited from the addition of mobile data connectivity, so too will cars.

Filed Under: app store, applications, cars, iphone
Companies: apple, hughes telematics

FCC Says Not So Fast To TV Stations' Itchy Switch Fingers

from the not-completely-surprising dept

The digital TV transition mess rolls on. After lots of TV stations said they planned to move ahead with the shutdown of their analog broadcasts, as the recently passed delay allows them to do, the FCC is now telling more than a quarter of them they can't do so without first meeting a number of regulations. The FCC contends (PDF alert, thanks to Fat Tony for sending it in) that 123 stations' plans to switch their analog signals off soon pose "a significant risk of substantial public harm," not because people who haven't figured out the switch was coming will miss Judge Judy and Wheel of Fortune, but because they need their TVs for access to "local news and public affairs."

The regulations say that one station in the broadcasters' metro areas must maintain analog service until at least the middle of April, but also that the stations must increase their "educational" programming about the switchover, and also provide both "local or toll-free telephone assistance, including engineering support" and "provide a location and staff for a consumer 'walk-in' center to assist consumers with applying for coupons and obtaining converter boxes, to demonstrate how to install converter boxes, to provide maps and lists of communities that maybe affected by coverage issues, and to serve as a redistribution point for consumers who are willing to donate coupons, converter boxes, televisions and for those in need of these items."

If this didn't involve the government, it would almost be remarkable. The government botched the converter coupon program, has caused more confusion with the delay, and now wants TV stations to set up call centers and walk-in locations to deal with it. What's even more galling is that stations will be forced to toss resources at an issue that effects a small sliver of the population: take the small subset of Americans that watch TV, but don't have cable or satellite, then the subset of those that haven't yet gotten with the program. From those few people that are left standing, will they be any more ready in June than they would be on the 17th, when the switchover was supposed to happen? And why should broadcasters have to devote so many resources to them, particularly when it's the bungled coupon program that's largely to blame?

Filed Under: confusion, digital tv, fcc
Companies: fcc

Apple Claims Jailbreaking An iPhone Is Copyright Infringement

from the jailbreak-this dept

Apple has remained pretty quiet, on the whole, concerning the fact that people "jailbreak" their iPhones to allow them to run non-Apple-approved software on the devices (or to use them on other mobile carriers). However, in responding to an attempt by the EFF to get jailbreaking (and other phone unlocking efforts) declared clear of any potential copyright claims, Apple has now officially said they believe that jailbreaking the iPhone is infringing on their copyright. This is troubling for a number of reasons. It's the same sort of argument that has been used by garage door opener makers and printer makers to prevent competition and interoperability -- which has been struck down repeatedly in the courts.

As the EFF notes, if jailbreaking is determined to be copyright infringement, it opens up a whole host of problems. Automakers could, conceivably create "software" in their cars that only lets you fill up at their approved stations. Breaking that "software" to allow for "interoperability" would then be seen as infringement. Hopefully the Copyright Office sees through this claim and makes it official that jailbreaking is perfectly legal. It's almost ridiculous that we even need to have this discussion. If you buy the device, it should be yours -- to do with it what you want, including putting "unapproved" software on the device.

Filed Under: copyright, dmca, jailbreaking
Companies: apple, eff

Why Does The Goverment Hate Satellite Service Providers?

from the Physics,-Economics,-and-Definition-of-'Fair' dept

Earlier this week, Rep. Bart Stupak, from rural Michigan, introduced a bill to require Dish Network and DirecTV (SatTV) to carry local TV channels in all US markets. Stupak said that the current practice of only carrying local channels for major population centers is unfair to rural citizens. But Stupak seems to miss two important economic and scientific factors against his wishes, as well as an understanding of competition and what is fair

Physics sets hard limits to how many channels of TV SatTV can broadcast from their existing satellites. And with the public now clamoring for more HDTV, SatTV is now desperately trying to shoe-horn more HD channels into the limited capacity they have, so they can compete effectively with cable (an important role). SatTV carriers must trade-off between content for the whole country, and content for local audiences. In the case of large metro cities, the audience size tips the trade-off towards local content. Yet Stupak seems to think that it's worth using up scarce nationwide capacity to carry local content for every town that has a TV station. Ridiculous. The needs of the many subjugated to the needs of the few?

Then Stupak also seems to ignore the economic argument that these SatTV enterprises are businesses trying to stay afloat. They are not public services. And the SatTV companies need to deliver a product that can attract a sizeable audience, or the service will be a sure money loser.

If Stupak thinks it's fair to force SatTV to provide product for small towns, they why not force the same of the NFL or airlines? Shouldn't we also require the NFL to put a team in any town that wants one, or is the NFL unfairly discriminating against rural America? And airlines should be required to have flights to every airport, too, right Rep. Stupak? Sir, these aren't public services, nor charities. Your Bill would increase costs to all of us, and reduce available services to the nation by redirecting resources to sparsely populate areas.

I've said it before, and I know I'll get hate responses when I say it again, but there are trade-offs people make when they choose to live in the city, OR in the countryside. Tough. We city folk trade off fresh air, open spaces, bucolic lifestyles, good schools, flora, ample space and land, open roads and more. Rural people sacrifice retail options, entertaiment services, Internet access, and more. Life is full of trade-off decisions. Not everyone makes the same choices, and that IS fair...in fact it should be celebrated and called freedom.

Does the government just dislike satellite services for some reason? Mike has steadily covered the impact of a slow government approval of a Sirius-XM merger. While the merger definitely reduced competitors in the sat radio space, that space is NOT the market in which those two companies operate. If they go broke in part because of gov't meddling, we will only then see a significant reduction in competition in the much wider portable audio entertainment industry, which is the actual market under consideration.

In toto, SatTV has been a fantastic boon for rural dwellers, offering them a range of entertainment options that were never before available outside of major cities. This is the upside of a distribution network that targets the whole country with one signal. The downside is a reduced capacity for local programming. As a bonus to rural dwellers, although satellite Internet isn't great, at least it gives you an option. In town, SatTV delivery market, especially back in the day when cable was unchallenged by the telcos. Aren't satellite services, recent arrivals on the scene, competition engines, and a market success story? Why would the congressman want to squeeze this winner until it can't breathe?

Filed Under: bart stupak, michigan, satellite tv

BART WiFi -- Is It Different Than Muni WiFi?

from the VoIP-at-80mph dept

BART, the regional train service for the San Francisco Bay Area, announced this week that it was going forward after a pilot project to provide public WiFi access on its train lines under a partnership with WiFi Rail, Inc. BART expects to cover 104 miles of track and 43 stations by 2011. Since BART is government-run, this plan is inevitably discussed in the context of the (mostly) failed muni-WiFi plans we heard so much about from 2004-2007, but the BART plan has some key differences which will help it succeed where blanket WiFi coverage failed.

Here are 10 reasons why it sounds like a good plan; 5 based in technology and 5 based in business:

1. BART intends to cover a manageable, finite area. The space in trains can easily be covered using WiFi as the delivery technology.
2. BART has full control of the delivery area, no lease rights, light posts, or permissions are needed.
3. Although BART uses WiFi as a delivery technology, it really is a fiber network, and Wi-Fi is only used to connect to subscribers the last few yards, because WiFi is so ubiquitous in consumer electronics. The fiber "future-proofs" the network, whereas the Wi-Fi can be relatively cheaply updated to newer standards or protocols if required. Other existing rail solutions tend to use cellular or satellite backhaul, which has nowhere near the capacity of fiber optics, has dead zones, and doesn't work underground. These cellular/WiFi hybrid solutions will find it hard to compete with future cellular direct-to-consumer offers.
4. BART has rights-of-way for the core network all along their rail lines. It can easily install and manage its own backhaul (fiber) as well as the delivery (WiFi) network.
5. The fiber/WiFi hybrid network will work in the tunnels and underground. No other wireless technology will be able to compete, without explicit permission from BART to go into its tunnels.
   
   Now on to the marketing reasons:
   
   
6. It's clear that commuters on a train may have some demand for connectivity. Sure, some prefer to sleep or read, but some will want to work or play online. These people are often captive, seated, and bored - a great target market.
7. Further, the density of bodies on a train makes for a better market than muni WiFi's parks and streets. Population density is like catnip to telecom providers.
8. BART is intelligently offering flexible pricing. Unlike the telcos one rate of $60/month with a two year contract, BART will offer annual, monthly, and daily plans immediately, and there is talk of a 2-hour price, and even a 3 minute, ad-supported freebie. BART seems to be smart about removing the barriers for trial and familiarization. The prices seem a bit high, but the range of choices and the lack of commitment are nice.
9. BART can use the network for its own operations: for train telemetry, for surveillance cameras, security, etc. This amortizes the cost and makes the business case better.
10. BART can use the system to pump real-time content and advertising to screens in stations and in trains. Train displays will show location-sensitive ads and information based on current location, and time of day.

Some of the potential negatives are, as mentioned, the price is still too high. The market will likely push them down, and hopefully, the business can withstand that. But captive audiences may reluctantly pay. The contract with WiFi Rail, Inc. has raised eyebrows in that it has a 20-year duration. That does seem awfully long for a technology deal -- even if it is optical fiber-based. Future-proof tech is one thing, but 20 years! Hopefully BART has escape clauses in the deal if the vendor should disappear or fail to perform sometime in the next two decades. Muni WiFi failed because it tried to make the technology do something it wasn't intended to do. But in this case, appropriate technologies are being used correctly, trials were run, true costs are understood, and hopefully other rail operators will be considering similarly structured solutions worldwide.

Filed Under: muni-wifi, railroad wifi, wifi
Companies: bart

Did Google Leave Multi-Touch Out Of Android At Apple's Behest?

from the chilling dept

Apple's made a lot of noise lately about the strength of its patents covering the iPhone's multi-touch interface and the lengths to which it will go to defend them. Most recently its harsh talk was aimed at Palm, whose new Pre device also features multi-touch. VentureBeat is now reporting that Google left support for multi-touch out of its Android OS -- because Apple asked it to, and Google didn't want to jeopardize its relationship with the company. VentureBeat sources the claim to an anonymous "Android team member", while a recent multi-touch hack for the G1 device was made by uncommenting several lines of code. This would indicate the capability was in the OS, but later "commented out", meaning it was left in the code, but preceded with an instruction for it to be ignored by the device. If this is true, it's scary to think that companies would make these sorts of arrangements in which one competitor gets to determine the features of another's products. Competition benefits everyone: consumers get the benefit of innovative new products, while companies get spurred on to continue development and continue raising the bar. Setting up an environment in which people need permission to innovate really doesn't help anybody -- even Apple, who apparently now believes it's got more to gain by keeping competition out of the market, rather than by focusing on innovation of its own. Is multi-touch really so important that Apple needs to make all of these defensive moves? Or has the company run out of the sorts of ideas that have kept it a step ahead of its rivals?

Filed Under: android, competition, multi-touch, patents
Companies: apple, google

No, In-Flight Internet Is Not A Terrorist Threat

from the panic-stations! dept

The New York Times noticed over the weekend that some US airlines have begun offering in-flight WiFi, and that not everybody's happy about it (via Wolfe's Den ). There are the usual comments about passengers being annoying by making loud VoIP calls or not turning down the volume on YouTube videos, but inserted in is the unchallenged statement from a flight attendants' union spokesman saying it fears "terrorists plotting a scheme on a plane could use Wi-Fi to communicate with one another on board and with conspirators on the ground." As Glenn Fleishman points out, this is only slightly ridiculous. If you're a terrorist, you're hardly likely to se a ban on in-flight phone use as an impediment to communications, while the airplane's WiFi system doesn't enable any on-board communication that wouldn't be possible with other technologies like Bluetooth, or even ad-hoc WiFi networks. There are plenty of more legitimate reasons to dislike in-flight WiFi, but the suggestion that it's making planes unsafe is a fairly hollow one.

Filed Under: in-flight, internet access, terrorism