Kevin Martin Agrees To Drop Filters From Free Wireless Web
from the still-doesn't-have-much-support dept
M2Z's big plan to provide wireless internet to the entire country, if the FCC would just hand over free spectrum, never made all that much sense to us. Yes, the country could have a much better broadband infrastructure, and there are some interesting possibilities in the wireless space, but simply handing over a bunch of spectrum to a single startup company with a promise to provide free wireless to most of the country just seems like a boondoggle. There's little evidence that the plan would work or that it is even necessary. So, it seemed good that the plan went down in flames earlier this month -- though, most of the criticism was focused on the pointless requirement for anti-smut filters on the free connectivity.However, Kevin Martin is making some news today by telling everyone who will listen that he's willing to drop the filters part if he can get the rest approved. This is a little surprising from Martin, as he's been a pretty big anti-smut crusader in his role at the FCC, but perhaps he's looking to leave a legacy beyond "AT&T lackey" now that he's about to leave the FCC. It still doesn't appear that he has the support to push this through, but that could change. Still, it would be good if someone (anyone?) could explain why it makes sense to just give a single company this spectrum without any clear reason why it should get the spectrum or proof that it can provide what it wants to provide in a reasonable manner? We've seen tons of promises about broadband wireless over the years from upstarts and very few have gone anywhere. Before just handing over valuable spectrum to one provider, why not see if (a) it's actually necessary and (b) if the company in question can actually provide what it claims it will provide.
Filed Under: broadband, kevin martin, wireless
Companies: fcc, m2z
Much Ado About Nothing In Accusations Over Text Message Pricing
from the focus,-people,-focus dept
I'm hardly a mobile operator apologist, but the NY Times' Randall Stross is trying to make a pretty tiny molehill into a mountain by picking up on that old, dead story suggesting that mobile operators are somehow ripping users off with SMS text messaging pricing. As was noted when Senator Herb Kohl first tried to make an issue out of this, per message pricing is fairly meaningless, since most users of text messaging subscribe to bulk plans or even unlimited plans. Besides, if pricing really were a problem, then people wouldn't be text messaging so much. The fact that they're using it so much, suggests there really isn't that much of a problem with the pricing. Stross tries to focus on the actual "cost" to the carriers for sending a text message, which is tiny, but that, again, is rather meaningless. A year ago, Tom Lee pointed out just how silly such an argument is for text messaging. As mobile phones grow more and more sophisticated, if SMS pricing really is a problem, alternatives (such as mobile instant messaging) will grow as well, and SMS providers will need to adjust their pricing. If, however, consumers don't have a problem with the current system (and all indications are that they don't), then why is the NY Times even bothering?Filed Under: cost, text messages
Motorola Trying To Block Competitors From Hiring Workers It Laid Off
from the insult-to-injury dept
We already think that noncompete agreements don't make sense for companies, but Motorola may be taking the concept to a new level. Rather than trying to stop employees from leaving Motorola to go to a competitor, it's now trying to stop employees it already laid off from going to work for RIM. Motorola had already sued RIM earlier this year for trying to entice employees to jump ship, and this followed another suit by Motorola against Apple for hiring away an exec. Maybe rather than trying to prevent employees from going elsewhere, Motorola might want to focus on improving its own offerings and its own working conditions so that this isn't even a problem? But if it's laying people off, it seems rather ridiculous to then try to stop them from joining another company.Filed Under: hiring, laid off, noncompetes
Companies: motorola, rim
Anti-Driving-While-Yakking Tech Made Even Better By Adding Big Brother Insurance
from the two-for-one-special-on-things-you-don't-need-or-want dept
Researchers from the University of Utah -- home of our favorite ban-yakking-while-driving research center -- have come up with a new device they say can stop teens from using their phones while driving (via Phone Scoop). The device envelops a car key, and releasing the key to operate the car activates a radio in the device, which the researchers say forces the driver's phone into "driving mode," which only allows calls to 911 and pre-approved numbers, such as the driver's parents. Like earlier, similar ideas, there are a few bugbears: we're unaware of any phone that features such a mode, and it's unclear exactly why it's okay to be distracted by a phone call to one's parents while driving, but not by calls to other people. Singling out teens, when plenty of adults talk on their phones while driving, doesn't seem totally right, but never fear: the company commercializing the technology wants to hook up with insurance companies to use the device as a tool for Big Brother-style surveillance insurance that collects all sorts of data about drivers' behavior, then using the data to calculate insurance rates. While some insurance companies have shown interest in the anti-chatting technology, consumers have shown zero interest in Big Brother insurance, likely relegating this latest idea to the dustbin.Filed Under: driving while yakking, insurance, software
North Korea To Get 3G Network... Despite Mobile Phone Ban
from the how's-that-going-to-work? dept
You may recall back in 2004 that North Korea banned all mobile phones following a freakout after news of a train accident started to spread. Phones had started to become quite popular, especially with local businessmen (and even more so near the border where they would trade with the Chinese). However, for four years, mobile phones have been pretty much entirely banned. This was in striking contrast, of course, to South Korea, which has been on the leading edge of mobile phone technologies for a decade.However, it looks like North Korea may have finally realized that mobile phones are somewhat useful. It's granted a license to an Egyptian company, Orascom Telecom, to develop a mobile network. Of course, Orascom may find it difficult to really attract that many users, as the service will only be authorized for purchase by top government and military officials. Can't let the riffraff chat with each other, of course. And, of course, there's always the chance that, once built, the North Korean government will just claim the network as its own. While perhaps this is a step towards more communication in North Korea, so far it looks like the plan is to only use it for the government.
Filed Under: mobile phones, north korea, wireless
Companies: orascom
Subsidized Laptops With Locked In Wireless Broadband Contracts
from the good-or-bad? dept
A few years back, after noting the trend of laptop companies to start building in cellular data modems into their laptops, we wondered when it would reach the stage where mobile operators would subsidize the cost of a laptop, just as they subsidize the cost of mobile phones in many cases. In early 2006, we started to see such subsidized laptops go on sale in Europe, with the mobile operators selling the laptops directly for well below list price, as long as you bought into a long term data plan. The whole idea seemed a bit strange, as mobile operators have long ranted long and hard about how much they hate, hate, hate subsidies, and how they wish they could do away with them. So, why add them to laptops?However, the idea has now traveled over to the US as well, in a deal between Acer, Radio Shack and AT&T allowing people to buy an Acer netbook for just $100, so long as they agree to a 2 year $60/month contract for an AT&T mobile data plan. It's still a little confusing as to why the mobile operators are agreeing to this, following so many vehement arguments against mobile phone subsidies, but perhaps they're finally realizing that those subsidies aren't such a bad thing when they get people using their services. Still, how long will it be until buyers start complaining about early termination fees for laptops like they do for mobile phones?
Filed Under: contracts, netbooks, subsidies, wireless broadband
Companies: acer, at&t, radio shack
Mobile Operators Say Inauguration Will Tax Systems, Provide PR Fodder
from the no-i-can't-hear-you-now dept
Apparently there are going to be a lot of people in Washington, DC, next month, for Barack Obama's inauguration. With up to 4 million visitors coming to DC, a city with a population of 1.1 million, there's the potential for a logistical mess. But at least one group is getting out ahead of things: the nation's wireless operators, which want to assure everybody that they're beefing up capacity ahead of the event... just like they do before every Super Bowl and other events where there are predictable swells in network traffic. So, even if you aren't traveling to Washington for the inauguration, rest assured that the country's operators are looking out for you, just in case. And, of course, that they're not missing out on any chance for some PR -- even if it really just highlights their own capacity limitations. One question, though: will any of them come back after the event to detail just how many calls didn't go through on their networks during the inauguration because of capacity constraints?Filed Under: capacity, inauguration, mobile operators
AT&T And T-Mobile Pay Up For Not Being Truthful About Voicemail Hackability
from the caller-id-spoofing dept
Many mobile phones' voicemail systems have worked on the basis of checking the caller ID of the incoming caller -- and if it matched the number of the voicemail box, it would automatically push the caller through to the admin interface. The idea was that if the owner of the box was calling, he or she shouldn't have to put in the passcode to get to the messages. The only problem with this was that, if anyone could spoof your caller ID, they could access your voicemail. After a few high profile such voicemail attacks, many mobile operators urged customers to change their voicemail preferences to require a passcode, no matter what. Still, there were some operations out there, that went under names like SpoofCard, Love Detect and Liar Card, that would spoof a caller ID to get access to a voicemail box. The company behind them has been fined, but what may be more interesting is that T-Mobile and AT&T were also both fined for apparently being misleading about their susceptibility to the hack.That seems a bit strange, and the article is woefully short on details, unfortunately. Pretty much anything is hackable given certain circumstances, and it always seems a bit odd to totally blame a hacking victim for being hacked. So it would be good to know why T-Mobile and AT&T, in particular, were fined in this case. Did they not even allow passcodes to be enabled for those who wanted to avoid this potential hack?
Chill Out On The Texting While Walking Bans, Says Professor
from the voice-of-reason dept
At the University of Virginia, there's a professor who studies "the historic relationship between pedestrians and motorists." Lately, he's been looking at pedestrians texting on their phones while crossing the street, and he says that the phenomenon really isn't anything new, rather it's just the latest iteration of a historically recurring issue. He points out that a century ago, people crossing the street with their nose buried in a book were causing problems. The historical example is a little extreme, but it's valid nonetheless. Banning all sorts of activities, like talking on the phone while crossing the street, really isn't likely to be effective, as the professor notes. He points out that jaywalking laws didn't do much to stop people from crossing the street anywhere they liked, that in fact it was the stigma of being called a "jaywalker" (along with, presumably, the danger of getting run over) that had the biggest effect. He suggests calling people who text while they cross the street "textlemmings". That doesn't seem especially likely to catch on, but the underlying point is that, sadly, you can't ban stupidity, and laws banning things like texting while walking, don't really make people safer, and won't save stupid people from themselves. If you're already not paying attention to traffic while you walk and text, why would you suddenly pay attention to a difficult-to-enforce law?Filed Under: texting, textlemming, walking
