The PhoneBoy Blog » politics

The 19 Senators Who Voted To Censor The Internet | Techdirt

PhoneBoy — Fri, 19 Nov 2010 06:30:59 +0000

From The 19 Senators Who Voted To Censor The Internet:

This is hardly a surprise but, this morning as previously announced, the lame duck Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously voted to move forward with censoring the internet via the COICA bill — despite a bunch of law professors explaining to them how this law is a clear violation of the First Amendment. Whats really amazing is that many of the same Senators have been speaking out against internet censorship in other countries, yet they happily vote to approve it here because its seen as a way to make many of their largest campaign contributors happy. Theres very little chance that the bill will actually get passed by the end of the term but, in the meantime, we figured it might be useful to highlight the 19 Senators who voted to censor the internet this morning:

My senators (Cantwell and Murray) aren’t on this committee. Not that I think they wouldn’t vote for this bill if given the chance. But I can guarantee that Feinstein (who was on this list) made some enemies in California with this vote.

Of course, the government fails to understand that the Internet routes around this kind of censorship. Always has, always will.

This work originally came from The PhoneBoy Blog and is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.
Fingerprint: e37ac627f3d973694c212ff9430d215a

The Complex, Multi-faceted Net Neutrality Debate

PhoneBoy — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 06:27:42 +0000

A little more than a week ago, l met with Chris Guttman-McCabe, Amy Storey, and David Redl of CTIA. This time around, the subject was net neutrality and how it should apply to mobile network operators. The operators have significantly more challenges to work through than wireline operators. While, in my mind, these unique challenges do not completely give the wireless operators a pass, the rules–assuming the FCC decides to apply them to the wireless operators–do need to take into account the special challenges wireless operators face.

Capacity

Wireline Internet providers can capacity plan their network fairly easily. They know, with a fair degree of certitude, how many customers that could potentially use their service at any given time. All they have to do is count the number of houses they can potentially serve at a DSLAM or cable headend and supply the appropriate amount of bandwidth. Done.

Wireless is a different story. Sure, they can make educated guesses based on the number of people in a given area, and get the appropriate towers and backhaul set up, but the reality is: that can change at a moment’s notice. Consider what happens to AT&T’s network during any high-tech trade show at Moscone Center, or worse, when a large number of people congregate in a rural area where the mobile phone networks aren’t set up to handle that many people.

In the case of Moscone Center, you’d think, given how often problems occur there, not only would AT&T have microcells throughout Moscone, but fiber backhaul to serve it. However, getting more bandwidth out to the sticks to an area that doesn’t usually see a lot of traffic is difficult to damn-near impossible.

The iPhone presents a unique challenge in all this. It uses the network like no other phone did before it. It’s as if each iPhone represents a half dozen (or more) users of conventional mobile phones in terms of usage. You get a bunch of people on iPhones showing up in one location on any one network, it will become a steaming pile of fail. We blame AT&T today–the “exclusive” carrier of the iPhone in the US–but if Verizon, Sprint, or T-Mobile get the iPhone, their network will become a steaming pile of fail, too. Mark my words on this, folks.

The fact is, wireless carriers have limited bandwidth and can’t sufficiently estimate the usage–especially with high-usage devices like the iPhone. While more spectrum and more backhaul are clearly needed, these things won’t come quickly. As a result, the mobile network operators have to do some level of network management. The FCC principles aren’t against this, but they do want providers to be very transparent about how they manage their networks.

Handsets, Applications, and Net Neutrality

The other thing that gets dragged under the “net neutrality” debate is what happens on handsets in terms of applications. One could say the FCC overstepped its bounds when it called Apple and AT&T to the carpet over the Google Voice app rejection. The other thing that gets dragged in is the concept of handset exclusivity and what handset makers want to allow (or not) on their handsets.

For me, it’s really simple: the network operators should not be allowed to dictate to end users anything beyond the technical specifications needed to connect to (and not harm) the network. Applications are not part of this specification. It’s Carterfone, but for wireless handsets and totally within the jurisdiction of the FCC to enforce.

In terms of what handset makers choose to do on their handsets, including (dis)allowing applications or certain types of uses, that’s the handset makers domain and, in my opinion, completely outside the FCC’s jurisdiction. There are two exceptions to that: the radios within mobile phones (which are FCC territory) and the locking a handset to a specific carrier (an extension of Carterfone principles). In fact, it should be illegal to lock a handset to a specific network.

Handset Exclusivity

Handset exclusivity is a non-issue for me. If a carrier wants to make an exclusive arrangement to sell a particular handset (with optional handset subsidy) or a handset maker wants to make a deal with a particular carrier to be the exclusive operator, that’s fine by me. The only exception to that rule I would make is that the handset must also be available at an unsubsidized price and not locked to a specific operator.

What is interesting, however, is that Apple is finding by dropping the “exclusive” arrangements with mobile phone operators, they are actually increasing their overall market share. This makes a ton of sense for an iconic device like the iPhone. By tying it to a specific network, they are reducing the number of potential customers who will by iPhones. Once there are multiple choices for carriers, more people will buy them.

While there are some who will choose to go with a specific network to get a specific device, say AT&T for the iPhone, the fact is, most people won’t make that jump. In some cases, they can’t because, say, AT&T doesn’t offer service in their area, or because they know that Sprint has absolutely garbage coverage where they need it most. It still comes down to the network.

Conclusions

More spectrum and bandwidth are needed. The amounts are debatable, but clearly more is needed. Anything that can be done to normalize the spectrum we’re using with the EU would be awesome!

The FCC cannot dictate to handset makers what kinds of restrictions they can put on their application software. This issue is outside the FCC’s regulatory domain and should be left to the handset makers, or at the very least to the FTC, which does have jurisdiction over this area. However, handsets being locked to specific carriers should be illegal.

Handset exclusivity? Sure, as long as I can buy it unlocked for full price and take it elsewhere.

Comments

6 October 2009, tom writes: years ago it used to be come to read articles that described a future where a radio transceiver would be located on every lamp post. now that the networks have becomes congested i no longer read about this option to increase capacity. first i really do appreciate the fastest possible network connection. but the rate being marketed by the wireless carriers are unrealistic. they need to look at the total demand picture. it may make quite a bit of sense to slow down the peak speeds of the data networks in order to serve the maximum number of customers. here in Denver cricket broadband is really become a popular option including as a wired replacement. the peak speed is around only 500 kbps. but the 5GB cap is a soft cap(they have the right to slow down your connection but no overage charges) and service while slow seems very consistent when compared to the major carrier network that always seem to slow down dramatically at certain times of the day. perhaps AT&T instead of providing 7.2 mbps should offer around 1 mbps to 7 times as many customers.

Net Neutrality and CTIA Straw Men

PhoneBoy — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 22:54:20 +0000

Read FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski’s speech on net neutrality and then read the CTIA’s response to it. I’m not sure these two letters are about the same thing. Here’s a quote from the CTIA response:

As a justification for the adoption of rules, the Chairman suggested that one reason for concern “has to do with limited competition among service providers.” This is at the core of our concerns.Unlike the other platforms that would be subject to the rules, the wireless industry is extremely competitive, extremely innovative, and extremely personal. How do the rules apply to the single-purpose Amazon Kindle? How does it apply to Google’s efforts to cache content to provide a better consumer experience? How about the efforts from Apple and Android, Blackberry and Nokia, Firefly and others to differentiate the products and services they develop for consumers? Should all product and service offerings be the same?

I will agree there is more competition in the wireless space than there is for wire or fiber-based Internet service. However, the examples that the CTIA is offering up as questions don’t really apply to the FCC’s domain. If anything, Google, Nokia, Apple and others are simply customers of the operators and these new rules would benefit them just fine.

The next paragraph in the CTIA statement says a lot more about what the carriers think about net neutrality:

Regarding spectrum investment, the Commission need only look at the results of the 700 MHz auction to understand the impact on investment. The C Block rules, which included an open requirement, had only two bidders, and sold for significantly less. The other licenses, which sold for significantly more, were sold with the promise that the spectrum would not be subject to the open rules. Now the Commission is considering changing the rules after the auction — impacting companies’ confidence in the auction process — just as carriers are facing a brewing spectrum crisis.

The reason this block of spectrum didn’t garner more money is because the operators are, surprise surprise, against net neutrality principles. They did not want to be subject to open rules, thus they didn’t bid on the spectrum. It speaks nothing about the ecosystem around the network (e.g. the device manufacturers, other service providers), which I expect would flourish under more open rules.

Whether or not the wired/fiber network connections have less competition than their wireless brethren, it doesn’t matter. The FCC is generally proposing to treat wired and wireless Internet under the same rules. “Robust competition” is not a valid reason for being exempt from these rules, should they come to pass.

Phone companies say ‘no’ to Net neutrality for wireless (news.cnet.com)
FCC chairman proposes ‘open internet’ rules (cbc.ca)
Mobile Carriers Tout App Stores to Fend Off Regulators (wired.com)
F.C.C. Chairman Proposes ‘Open Internet’ Rules (nytimes.com)
What to Expect From the New Net Neutrality Rules (gigaom.com)

There Oughta Be A Law Against This

PhoneBoy — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 06:03:14 +0000

Last weekend, I seriously flirted with the idea of getting an iPhone 3GS. Serious enough that I actually went into an AT&T Store, played with one for a few minute, and actually tried to buy one. But I couldn’t pull the trigger. Not that I didn’t want to, but AT&T did not allow me to.

Let me explain. In AT&T jargon, I am what you call a Corporate Responsibility User. In short, my employer pays the bill directly. Good thing, too, because my bill isn’t exactly cheap with the voice, data, and international calling/roaming addons that I have. The downside to this arrangement is that I am unable to purchase a phone from directly from an AT&T store, even if I pay with my own money.

The reason? Pretty much any phone I buy will involve a change of some sort to my account. As a CRU, I am not allowed to make any changes to my account. Heck, I can’t even call AT&T and complain about service issues as I can’t even get past the initial account check since I don’t have the “secret” information.

In the case of an iPhone purchase, the changes needed to my account would not affect the monthly rate. I have an unlimited data plan already. It would, however, add a contract, which is something I haven’t had on my line in a while. Working for Nokia does have some advantages, since I could get much better phones than AT&T was offering.

Even if I wanted to pay full price for the handset either directly from Apple or from AT&T, because pretty much any handset requires an account change of some sort, I am screwed. I cannot buy it from Apple or AT&T directly. I have to go through my employer, which I plan on doing for the iPhone 3GS within the next few days.

Can someone please explain why AT&T–or any operator for that matter–has to know what kind of handset I have? Shouldn’t handsets conform to the relevant standards and that be enough for the operators? How come this tying of phones to service provider isn’t illegal everywhere?

If an operator tried to tie a phone to a specific landline network, it would be illegal in the United States, thanks to the Carterfone ruling. How come when we add a wireless radio to the phone, that rule suddenly doesn’t apply?

I’m not saying that carriers can’t sell subsidized phones in exchange for a contract commitment. That’s their choice. But making it so I cannot buy a phone outright because it is inexorably tied to my service? It should be illegal.

Comments

28 June 2009, Jason writes: Wait. You work for Nokia and you have/want an iPhone? Does not compute. ;)
28 June 2009, Sharon writes: Can you buy the full priced phone - no obligation, no plan and then use your existing SIM card? --Sharon
28 June 2009, PhoneBoy writes: I officially stopped working for Nokia in April when my division of Nokia was acquired by Check Point Software. No need to worry about NOT having a Nokia phone anymore. ;)
28 June 2009, PhoneBoy writes: I was not going to buy the phone no-obligation since I have no desire to pay $700 for a phone. Even if you do, you still have to go through some sort of activation process to use the phone. That process involves a carrier--in this case AT&T--making some changes on their end so the phone can be activated for use. Changes I can't make because I am a CRU. Even if they did let me walk out of the store with the phone in-hand, it would be a nice, shiny brick.
28 June 2009, Marc writes: I'm re-reading this and trying to get my head around your dilemma. My initial (albeit not complete) scattered thoughts on the matter - finding a relative who has AT&T service and have the iPhone added to their account initially...or perhaps getting a AT&T 3G-capable handset and swapping its SIM card with that of the iPhone...hmmmm. Once the phone is purchased (by whomever under a 2 yr agreement) after 30 days, you can break contract for 175.00 ETF. Heck, if the person who purchases it via the AT&T website is a new customer, by using the BING-assisted 35% off deal, (see TechCrunch post) you could save about 104.00 on the 3GS 32gb (and get Cashback after 60 days from purchase date) then cancel. The ETF is lowered 5.00 for every month that is completed. Ok, so numbers-wise, here goes: iPhone 3GS would then cost 300.00+ to purchase...plus 2 months service(140+ minimum)...then BING Cashback of 100.00+ (after 60 days)...then 165.00 ETF (after 2 months passed)...and you own the iPhone 3GS 32gb for about 515.00 invested when the dust settles. Once you then 'own' the phone out of contract, you could jailbreak it (if option to do so is ready and go to T-Mobile) or you could take a AT&T 3G sim from a handset that your company pays for and place it in the iPhone, no? Sorry if so scattered here, just wanted to help somehow.
28 June 2009, PhoneBoy writes: My entire point is that one should not have to go through all this trouble just to acquire the device. You should just be able to walk into a store, present your cash/check/credit card, and walk out with the device of your choice. This kind of transaction should not be complicated.
28 June 2009, Marc writes: 100% Agree. I especially don't like handing over my SS# for the credit check, as I've been told there are other ways to perform said check.
28 June 2009, Juergen writes: Actually, the reason is quite simple, at least to me who frequently gets asked "Why can't I buy $foo-phone, who cares what the corporate standard is": If anybody was able to buy what he likes, then you'd see a race start... A gets a shiny new Nokia, now B wants to have something better and gets a Sony, C thinks "I'm geekier, I want a G1", D gets an iPhone 3G, E gets the 3GS 16GB just to show that he can, now A thinks "Hey, my phone is lame, I want the 3GS 32GB NOW!!!1!1eleven!"...
29 June 2009, spg writes: it has been way too long that carterfone has not yet been implemented for cell phones. countries that have always sold service and phones seperately tend to have per minute rates at a small fraction of those that do the 2 year contract/sub. phone thing. but i believe the reality has as much to do with the american consumer accepting the practices of the operators as much as the actions of the oiperators themselves. you can save a ton of money going with the smaller unknown preapid MVNO's(such as pageplus or STI mobile) and using second hand unlocked phones. however in the USA almost no one would have a clue what you are talking about if you suggest they do so. in europe it is the small prepaid MVNO that have driven down prices for everyone. but over there the consumer has had a lot of interest in using them to save money.
29 June 2009, PhoneBoy writes: For the prepaid thing to work, you have to know what your usage patterns are so you know how frequently to top up and whether or not you're getting a good deal. I guarantee you most people have no clue how many minutes they use in a month. And, of course, you have to only want voice minutes. It is damn near impossible to get prepaid data at anything resembling a good price, not withstanding some of the tricks you've pointed out earlier that MAY or MAY NOT work ;)
29 June 2009, Sharon writes: Another option that worked for me when I tested the iphone (eventually I decided to hold my old BB) was to "get" an iphone and switch the SIM. No extra cost. No account modification. See also http://securitypie.com/unfortunately-i-cant-use-an-iphone/ --Sharon
30 June 2009, spg writes: my suggestion for thoose who do not know how much they use but think they may save on prepaid. switch to prepaid when the contract ends, than on the first month that they would be better of bundled switch back. many people will never get to that month, particularly if they go with an opoerator like pageplus. even if they definatly want a bundled package page plus now offers 1500 minutes plus 1500 texts per month for $39.99 this is much cheaper than the big players. also vigin mobile and boost both have unlimited nationwide plans for $49.99 per month. the only great data deal that i know of is STI mobile which i have personally on an unlocked formerally verizon smart phone and works great; it is even possible to tether.
30 June 2009, PhoneBoy writes: Verizon phones are "unlocked" from what I understand anyway. :) STI Mobile is a Sprint MVNO, Pageplus is a Verizon one. It might be worthwhile to get a cheap PagePlus phone for emergencies.
30 June 2009, tco writes: Back in the day @ CHKP this was not the case. The corporate account has been locked down. This is the choice of the company. Not really an AT&T thing.
30 June 2009, PhoneBoy writes: To some extent, that is the choice of the corporate sponsor (in this case, CHKP), but changing a device should involve changing the account in any way. The service (and device) are separate things. Can you imagine calling your local exchange carrier every time you changed the telephone handset in your house?
30 June 2009, spg writes: the verizon phone i use was actually never locked; but i did have to modify the PRL(primary roaming list) to match sprints and make a number of other 'flash' changes for the data to work properly. also since STI does not offically support phones not purchased through them(pageplus does though; they will assist with getting any CDMA phone working) it was neccasary to buy an sti mobile phone activate it and than move all the connection data including the ESN, ESID and MSID to my other phone. as far as STI is concerned i am still using the phone i purchased from them. i pay 0.19 cents per day for unlimited data. if you have any verizon phone lying around you can call page plus at any time to instantly activate it, there is no charge for activation and you get $2.00 in free airtime.
30 June 2009, PhoneBoy writes: You have just described, in a nutshell, everything that is wrong with the way phones are sold in this country. To make a phone purchased for one carrier work on another should not involve major surgery. You should be able to plug in a SIM card and go.
1 July 2009, spg writes: even in most of europe(italy is an exception - all sales of locked phones are banned) if you buy a carrier subsdiesed phone it is also locked to the carrier you bought it from. the big difference is that lots of people unlock the locked phones(there are plenty of shops both here and there that can do it in minutes or sometimes seconds for a small fee)as well as pay the full price to get one that was never locked or associated with any carrier. the main reason to do this is to use a bargin MVNO or even a major carrier that offering much cheaper pricing if you do not take a subsidiesed phone. this largly comes out of an old practice in europe where phone shops would often 'buy back' the phone when a customer signed a new 2 year contract esentially filling the customers pocket with cash. at one time this was very popular and largely something that drove the carriers to offer the cheaper plans for 'bring you own phone' customers. i have asked a couple times in phone shops here in the US if they would buy back my phone if i signed a two year contract thast included a free phnes and they locked at me like i was absolutely crazy. if enough people asked this question thing may start to change; i am sure the carriers would much rather offer device nuetral plans that are cheaper than to have store manager kicking cash back to customers who keep using there old phone.

Fahrenheit 451

PhoneBoy — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 04:48:19 +0000

There are many books I have not read by the great Ray Bradbury, but one that I’ve heard about on and off over the years was Fahrenheit 451. The title comes from the fact that paper catches fire at 451 degrees Fahrenheit, and a lot of paper–in the form of books–are burned in this story.

Prior to reading the book, I watched the 1966 movie of the same name, which adapted the book for the silver screen. While the basic story is the same, the movie changed several critical elements of the story. While I found the movie to be good, the book was far better.

Despite the story being more than 50 years old now, it holds up surprisingly well. We’re still waiting for the mechanical hounds, televisions are as huge as walls and people walk around oblivious to the world with contraptions in their ears. There is more entertainment than you could possibly shake a stick at.

While there are several themes in this book, the one that resonated within me the strongest was the rage against conformity. Throughout the book, society was immersed in televised and auditory media designed to delight and entertain, not to provoke any serious thought. The educational system of this fictional future society reinforced this by keeping children busy with memorizing facts and activities, giving them no time to stop and think.

The reason books were burned was because they promoted independent thought–thought that might make people unhappy. This fictional society saw this as a bad thing. Books were made illegal and firemen–with a long history of putting fires out–were charged with actually starting fires–namely to burn books.

The fictional “conformed” society reminds me a bit of the blogosphere. While there are many, many voices in the blogosphere, there seems to be a lack of differing points of view. We call this the “echo chamber,” and I could not help but draw a parallel to the fictional society in Fahrenheit 451.

I think the echo chamber, among many other factors, has dampened my passion for writing. The reason I am reading actual books versus the same old stuff in the blogosphere is that I am trying to find some new ideas and reawaken some old ones. Sure, you can find new ideas online, but I think a change of venue from the computer screen to a book is part of the process.

In any case, this book is very good. Highly recommended read. Even though I am not a fast reader, I was able to finish this book in the course of a few hours. It will certainly give you something to think about

Comments

24 November 2008, Web 2.0 wake-up writes: [...] Boy has a snappy post up today. He’s appreciating Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451 while simultaneously blasting the same-old-same-old intellectual [...]

Nokia N800: What’s on YOUR Nightstand?

CTIA Against Spectrum Caps, Against Competition

PhoneBoy — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 09:15:14 +0000

The latest post on the CTIA blog didn’t make a lot of sense. They were arguing against spectrum caps. Of course, they did nothing to directly explain what spectrum caps are and instead chose to use a bunch of flawed analogies to describe it.

In short, there is a fixed amount of spectrum available for wireless carriers to use to provide service. All carriers. In order to ensure there are enough carriers providing service to have some semblance of competition, there are caps on the amount of spectrum a single carrier can control.

The main reason this topic of spectrum caps is even coming up is because of the Verizon Wireless/Alltel merger, which was recently approved by all the government agencies. Of course, the merger is without some conditions, one being that Verizon has to give up spectrum in over 100 markets in order to comply with spectrum caps. Makes me wonder who the CTIA is really representing here.

The first analogy the CTIA tries to draw is that the spectrum caps are a bit like “setting a computer cap based on a 1992 computer’s specs – it would be like adopting a cap of 4 MB RAM and a 40 MB hard-drive and saying that no new applications can be written requiring more than that.” Some pretty innovative computing came out of those dark ages. Sure, it requires a bit more work, but it’s possible.

The second analogy: it’s like saying no highway should be more than two lanes. Unlike a road, where cars are generally a fixed size, one can always make more efficient use of spectrum. Look at the 802.11 WiFi. The original 802.11 specification–that predates b, g or n–was 2mb/s. The current draft 802.11n can go 300mb/s. The same can be said of the mobile phone networks themselves. AMPS–the old analog spectrum–required a lot of spectrum, CDMA and GSM use spectrum more efficiently.

The final analogy they use: spectrum caps are a bit like “restricting the number of coffee shops a company could have in a given city.” This is somewhat true, but keep in mind that there is a limited, fixed amount of spectrum available for all carriers to use. What the spectrum caps do is ensure that no one carrier controls too much of the spectrum to allow multiple carriers to exist, i.e. not all coffee shops are Starbucks.

Let’s take the CTIA’s position on spectrum caps to its foregone conclusion: without any spectrum caps, a single carrier could conceivably control all of the spectrum in a given market. Given there is only a fixed amount of spectrum available for mobile telephony, spectrum caps ensure it is possible for multiple providers to provide service in any given area. So how is lifting the spectrum caps helping competition exactly?

I will agree this is not the most optimal solution, but while I tend to think universal service is important, I think that mandate can be filled without lifting the spectrum caps,thus preserving competition. What do you think?

Comments

11 November 2008, spg writes: i agree. lifting the caps will only stifle competition. mergers could be approved with the condition the new monster company could not bid on any future spectrum in the given areas. that would make the next batch of spectrum available to a new competitor with the incumbent driving up the price.
11 November 2008, spg writes: correction: i meant to say: 'without the incumbent driving up the price'
12 November 2008, Aaron Huslage writes: I think that the CTIA is right in one respect. Due to technological advances, the caps make no sense anymore. But I would take it a bit farther in saying that selling licenses to airwaves makes no sense anymore. The FCC should become an agency that regulates open airwaves, not closed ones. There is no reason that "interference" should exist anymore given our current technologies. Having said this. They can't lift the caps and they can't open the airwaves until companies decide to cooperate on their own.
17 November 2008, Kenneth writes: I agree... it doesn't make sense to me.
21 November 2008, PhoneBoy writes: @huslage you're right that interference should be a thing of the past. We have technological solutions to this problem. Unfortunately, there is a LOT of legacy gear that isn't so smart.

Can We Stop Daylight Saving Time Already?

PhoneBoy — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 07:42:03 +0000

I have never understood why one needs to change the clock twice a year to “save daylight.” You have the same amount of daylight, you’re just timeshifting it. You’re not saving it.

I was lucky enough to live in Hawaii for a few years. One of the benefits of living there, besides the fact my allergies were a non-issue, was that there was no Daylight Saving Time. I didn’t have to change the clocks twice a year. Time just was.

And that’s the way it should be. Especially since we can’t agree on when to do it. Since I’ve been alive, the Daylight Saving rules have changed twice, and yes I was old enough to be conscious of both changes

Different countries have different rules, of course. Some sensible countries like Japan and China don’t bother with this Daylight Saving rubbish. Let’s just enact permanent Daylight Saving Time and get on with it!

Comments

3 November 2008, cribbagegeek writes: I disagree - the LAST thing I want to see is permanent DST. I want them to leave well enough alone and do away with DST and leave us on NORMAL TIME!!! DST is just wrong.

Codeweavers: Give It Away Today

PhoneBoy — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 08:49:36 +0000

If you’re a Mac or Linux person and you want to run Windows apps without a Windows license, then the folks at Codeweavers have a deal for you. Today–and today only–until midnight GMT-5, you can get your own, fully functional copy of Codeweavers Crossover Linux or Mac for free.

Why are they doing this? It was a publicity stunt. The folks at Codeweavers challenged George Bush to do something to improve our lot in his last months of his presidency. Whether he was ultimately responsible for gas prices plummeting a buck over the past month or not is irrelevant, but the folks at Codeweavers saw that one of their goals was meant and they are keeping to their word.

The Codeweavers Crossover product is a commercial version of Wine, which is an open-source project that allows Windows executables to run on non-Windows systems. It’s not perfect, since it is a cleanroom implementation of the Windows API and they haven’t got bug-for-bug compatibility yet. However, it does run some specific applications like Microsoft Office reasonably well. It also runs Internet Explorer, which is useful in and of itself.

The main thing you get with Crossover is a much nicer installation process for Windows applications. It knows about the most common applications and is able to configure itself for an optimal installation. It makes the application installation process a bit easier.

The other amazing part about about this is that you also get a year of support with this freebie. This entitles you to technical support as well as a year of updates on the product. Quite righteous!

Reducing Roadblocks For More Towers

PhoneBoy — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 20:54:12 +0000

While I am known not to agree with the CTIA on a great many things, I do like to point out when I think they’re going in the right direction. A recent post talks about a problem that all consumers face on some level–poor coverage.

In many cases, poor coverage can be tracked to one thing and one thing only: a lack of towers. Mobile network operators spend years trying to get approval from local authorities–even in cases where no new towers are being built! There’s no reason for approvals to take that long.

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 actually addresses this problem already, but there are loopholes in the laws that are being exploited by some municipalities to restrict the building of towers. The CTIA wants four changes:

Specific timeframes a state or locality must act on wireless facility siting requests: 45 days for colocation requests, 75 days for other types of siting requests.
If the relevant party fails to act on these applications within the appropriate timeframe, the applications are to be deemed granted by default, unless the delay can be jsutified by the state or local zoning authority.
Ensure that zoning decisions don’t have an effect that prohibits additional entrants from providing service in a given area.
Preempt local ordinances and state laws that subject wireless siting applications to unique, burdensome requirements, such as those treating all wireless siting requests as requiring a variance.

You can read the text of the request here (warning: PDF file). It’s generally god stuff there.

Comments

27 September 2008, spg writes: its a very complicated issue actually. there is alway the questions of whether a high rise towers is needed or if micro/pico cells placed within the area could do the job; but at a different cost. there are also many methods of using smart antennas that can cover large areas/subscriber numbers with fewer towers. we probably need all of these together with more towers and spectrum. of course there is also the debate about carriers sharing towers. it lowers capitol cost that could potentially lower calling rates; but at the same time could result in a less competitive atmosphere that could have the opposite affect on rates.
28 September 2008, Skype Blog auf Deutsch writes: [...] Reducing Roadblocks For More Towers [...]
9 October 2008, PhoneBoy writes: I think it makes sense to share towers where it is feasible, but it is only one part of the solution, you are right.

CTIA Opposed To Arizona’s Cellphone Users Bill Of Rights

PhoneBoy — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 08:01:54 +0000

It seems like I’ve been ragging on the CTIA quite a bit lately, but these guys make it so easy.

In what turns out to be absolutely no surprise to anyone, the fine folks at the CTIA–the
industry association for the mobile operators in the U.S.–are opposing Arizona Senate Bill S-1010: The Cellphone Users Bill Of Rights. Why might they be doing that? Let’s see what the CTIA association president Steve Largent says:

The truth is that when you attempt to regulate a modern, high-tech industry as if it were a 1970’s public utility service, you wind-up hurting the people you’re seeking to protect. Just imagine the cost increases and customer confusion that would ensue if wireless carriers were forced to abandon their national calling and data plans, advertising campaigns, billing and customer care systems in order to set-up and comply with dissimilar regulations in 50 - or even two - different states.

Are they really asking for anything that would affect that? Let’s see what S-1010 is asking for:

44-1799.72. talks about a lot of what the carriers already provide voluntarily: provide detailed coverage maps, a detailed list of charges, taxes, fees, included minutes, contract length, etc.
44-1799.73. restricts contract length to not more than 12 months, requires written notification of any changes to service with the 30-day out clause, and allows subscribers to get out of contracts when the providers violate a provision of the contract.
44-1799.74. requires some billing practice changes: only things that are actual state, federal, and local taxes can be listed under a taxes section of the bill, roaming calls must be billed within 60 days and provide the location the call was made from, itemized bills can be asked for on request for no cost, subscribers aren’t to be held liable for use of wireless service if their handset if lost/stolen and it is promptly reported to the service provider, and subscribers can’t have their services terminated while there is a billing dispute.
44-1799.75. requires providers to obtain written consent from subscribers before giving their name/phone number to any sort of directory service and must disclose to customers that they may be charged for unsolicted calls/text messages from telemarketers.
44-1799.76. requires providers that provide warranty exchange not to require a contract extension when a handset is replaced, must provide new (not refurbished) phones on a warranty swap, and must provide proof of reason for not honoring a warranty swap.
44-1799.77. requires providers to submit detailed reports to the state Attorney General twice a year on:
- Blocked calls
- Dropped calls
- Known dead zones/coverage gaps
- Predicted Street-level Signal Strength

I seem to recall that most of this is already being done by the carriers, or would require very minor chanegs to existing practices. The most likely part of this they object to is the restriction on contract length. At least that’s what folks at the Media Freedom Project are complaining about. To quote their letter:

The cost of a cellphone is subsidized significantly by the service provider because of the length of contract; those costs can be recaptured over time. Without that incentive, attracting customers without a corporate subsidized phone would be difficult and cost consumers significantly more to enter the cellphone market. Or, if a provider still wanted to provide a subsidized phone, the monthly service fee would have to account for that initial outlay, therefore significantly cost consumers more on a monthly basis.

Everyone thinks handsets are too expensive, and thus we have to roll their cost into a 2 year agreement so people can afford them. How about for folks in Indonesia, India, and other places? In these locations, handsets can be purchased starting at under $50 US–without a carrier subsidy. And you know what? Even in these poor places, some people still manage to buy high-end Nokia phones–without a subsidy.

I’m sure a $50 handset could easily be rolled into a 1-year service agreement quite easily–if handset manufacturers sold them in the U.S.. I’m also sure that if people really want a nicer handset, they’ll pay the difference. They do for many other things.

Now if the CTIA wants to amend their “Consumer Code” to limit contract length and require open handset policies–allowing consumers to use any compatible handset on any providers network–then I’m all for it. They will have to change those rules if they don’t want those rules–or worse–written into law for them by local, state, or federal bureaucrats.

Comments

21 January 2008, Matthew Stevens writes: The real issue is the carriers don't want to be forced to do anything that gives the consumer real rights. They like the power of being able to do whatever they want, how they want leaving little the consumer can do or say about it but complain to deaf ears an blind eyes. Giving consumers a level playing field or even the upper hand is the last thing they what, especially since this kind of legislation spread to other states potentially becoming even stricter. Ever other major industry that does business has had to deal with this inevitablility, they are just the latest one. If anything this sort of legislation is long over due with consumers abandoning landlines at a record pace. In many households it makes more sense to pay for only mobile service when families are increasinely mobile. A higher rate plan is still cheaper than having a home phone that's rarely used. It makes more economic sense to get more from a service that suits your even if it does cost slightly more. Case in point: For a while we had to have a landline for DSL service. That phoneline sat there rarely used most of that year. For the cost of the most basic line, no features, not even CID or any service that cost even $.01 more. That $15 basic never line that gives you a mere 25 calls a month. Granted those calls were unlimited local calls that in the end cost $30 with all the fees and taxes. For $30 a month a much higher wireless plan be added or select more services, such as data or messaging via includes all extras that were a la cart with landline provides or bundled at ridiculously high rates. That same $30 can buy unlimited messaging for the family and still save $10 is some cases or add a few hundred minutes. Nearly all the carriers have increased their prices in some regard of their own accord long before this kind of regulation came into play. Take the cable industry since deregulation consumer prices continue to rise year after year despite the promise of lower rates after deregulation. Nulling their main arguement about price increases. I typically frown upon more govermental involvement since most of it rarely helps the people its mean to serve, this case in an exception to the usual.
21 January 2008, spg writes: i say forget about all these little details. there are two monsters that need to be addressed. #1 - all add on fees need to be rolled into the monthly price except for genuine state or federal taxes. #2 - misleading vocabulary needs to be banned in particular use of the word 'unlimited' it should be prohibited to use that word in conjunction with any type of 'fair use policy' also in the same size print should be clear what is 'unlimited.' for example 'unlimited mobile 2 mobile in your local calling area' should be all in the same size print. not 'unlimited calling' with the rest in microscopic print deep inside the six page contract. let me also add that discretionary fair use policies where the operator has a choice of being nice and letting overages slide or recalculating your bill to charge outrageous fees for the minutes beyond the allow fair use are the worst of the bunch. this should be not only banned but criminal. while i would prefer not to have subsidized phones and two year contracts i would leave that more to consumers to demand. through out Europe years ago it was consumers(not operators) who came up with the idea of walking into there local cell phone shop, asking to speak to the owner/manager and ask them what kind of cash kickback that could get in place of the free telephone. it was these sort of grey market back room deals that went on for years in nearly every cell phone shop in places like germany, france, and all over europe that eventually led to the current practice of offer highly discounted price plans for those who are not interested in a subsidized phone.
22 January 2008, Cellular Phones » CTIA Opposed To Arizona’s Cellphone Users Bill Of Rights writes: [...] David-Baptiste Chirot wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerpt [...]
22 January 2008, Cellphone News - Get the latest Cellphone News » CTIA Opposed To Arizona’s Cellphone Users Bill Of Rights writes: [...] Opposed To Arizona’s Cellphone Users Bill Of Rights unknown wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptindustry association for the mobile [...]
22 January 2008, PhoneBoy writes: @kk The main reason we still have a landline is 911. Well that and we can get a landline with all the features AND long distance for about $40/mo. @spg I wish they offered that kind of deal here, or at least the per-minute plans they offer businesses.
22 January 2008, CTIA Opposed To Arizona’s Cellphone Users Bill Of Rights writes: [...] CTIA Opposed To Arizona’s Cellphone Users Bill Of Rights for example ‘unlimited mobile 2 mobile in your local calling area’ should be all in the same size print. not ‘unlimited calling’ with the rest in microscopic print deep inside the six page contract. let me also add that discretionary … [...]
22 January 2008, Cost Of Day Care writes: [...] CTIA Opposed To Arizona’s Cellphone Users Bill Of Rights [...]
28 January 2008, Gregory writes: A user bill of rights? As if a person had a right to extract resources from others or a company. Amazing how the masses wish to use coercion whenever possible--and little do they understand the effects in an economic sense. Sure, even if this passes, the company will make raise other fees to compensate for loss revenue. End of the day? You've severely limited the ability of a free person to enter into a voluntary contract and just changed the rules of the game with the same ending.
28 January 2008, PhoneBoy writes: @Gregory Have you read a mobile phone contract anytime in the past several years? Do you have any idea how one-sided these contracts are? Mobile network operators in North America push really hard on these two (or, in Canada, three) year contracts. They don't promote their prepaid offerings with the same gusto as a contract. It is often impossible to purchase a phone, particularly through indirect dealers, without a contract attached. Heck even at T-Mobile corporate store, I was unable to purchase one of their contract phones outright and use it on prepaid. If the mobile network operators and resellers want to change the way they operate without legislation, I'm all for it. While they are making some changes--AT&T seems to be doing the best job at this--it's not happening quickly enough. Legislation is the only tool the average joe has against these large companies.
29 January 2008, Gregory writes: The average joe does not need to shop at that store or purchase that service. And, in retort, I read almost everything I voluntary agree to when I enter into a contract. I ask very salient questions whenever I sign my name--ask the salesman at my gym or when I buy things on credit. And why should a company advertise to your subjective ideals? The government's job is not to stand as leverage to sate what a Joe Smchoe wants from a company; it is to protect that Smchoe's right to freedom and liberty from coercion and fraud. Both force and fraud I'd agree with you on; but when you sign a contract you have the obligation to honor it if it is legally signed. It just amazes me today how intolerant people are. And before you recoil out of confusion let me explain. Anytime you use force on another (besides self-defense) you are being intolerant. Tolerance is not this ideal that you respect or even understand another. It is allowing it to continue peacefully without intrusion.
29 January 2008, PhoneBoy writes: @gregory I would argue that you don't actually sign a mobile phone contract, at least not in the same way I sign a contract to, say, join a gym. There's usually no pen and paper involved, and they mobile network operators reserve the right to change the terms of service at any time, usually with an out clause when they do. There are arguments as to what constitutes a "material change," though, as Sprint recently change their pay-per-use SMS rates and specifically said this wasn't a material change. I might argue that these legal tactics that are being employed in Arizona are "self-defense." Try getting around without a mobile phone these days. If you don't like one mobile carrier, where are you going to go? They all implement the same, basic, consumer-unfriendly policies. If people want to enter into a two-year contract willingly, it's their choice. I guess what frustrates me is that people either don't know, or are unwillingly to believe there is a better way to do mobile phone service. Because of the stranglehold the mobile network operators have over the device manufacturers and the channel, the barriers to changing this paradigm are high. I will agree with you on the tolerance thing. The lack of tolerance is the cause of so many problems worldwide.
29 January 2008, Gregory writes: My biggest beef is that when you understand economics in this situation you realize that you can't legislate to the desired change. AT&T for example is taking the lead in some things, not because of benevolence, but because of competition. The less the government gets involved in distorting the markets and lets markets grow and include viable alternatives, the more the cell phone service providers are competing to win us as customers. That, my friends, is how we win.
29 January 2008, PhoneBoy writes: @Gregory They may be taking the lead because they fear legislative action also. We can't rule that out. I would much rather see the market evolve without the congress critters getting involved. Just not happening fast enough for some. Carterfone took several years before it had any major impact on the way people consumed their landline telephone service. I suspect that the changes that the mobile network operators are going through now will probably take about the same amount of time to trickle down to Joe Public.

Don’t Fsck With Bloggers

PhoneBoy — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 08:27:21 +0000

Sam Sethi picked the wrong blogger to lie to–repeatedly. That blogger was Oliver Starr. Apparently, he hasn’t been paid since Blognation was started. Repeated promises of payment and funding were made, but nothing came of it.

Reading the comments on the TechCrunch story about this, you see a couple of the other Blognation editors in other countries “towing the party line” and essentially saying “we’re still writing.” You also have some back and forth comments between Sam Sethi and Oliver Starr.

Startups are hard, but if what Oliver Starr is saying is correct, he has a contract. You pay your contracts or else you suffer through the court of law–and the court of public opinion in the blogosphere. And that’s one thing us bloggers can do, it’s blog our experiences and participate and shape the conversation.

I’d love to hear fellow Blognation blogger Marc Orchant’s take on all this. Heck, I’d like to hear anything from Marc. He’s still unconscious according to the last update from Oliver. Bad things come in pairs, I guess.

Comments

6 December 2007, An Open Letter to Sam Sethi | StarrTrek writes: [...] To Sam Sethi, Some Thoughts | How To Split An Atom - December 5th, 2007 Pingback from Don’t Fsck With Bloggers - December 6th, 2007 Pingback from Sam Sethi and the Smoking Guns at mobilejones - [...]

Emperors and Pirates

PhoneBoy — Sat, 17 Nov 2007 01:22:14 +0000

Looks and sounds an awful lot like School House Rock…

WPvideo 1.10

Direct link to video

Comments

17 November 2007, jthousand writes: How true it is. Loved it!

Pirate Bay Gets Pwned

Why Isn’t Copying DVDs Easier?

PhoneBoy — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 08:01:51 +0000

I want to be clear: I’m talking about regular DVDs, not Blueray or HD. I’m also not talking about making copies for my friends, or other people on the Internet. I’m talking about making a copy for backup purposes.

One simple reason I want to do this: the kids aren’t exactly “gentle” with the DVDs. For example, this Curious George DVD is insanely scratched and “stops” after a certain point in the movie in both our home and car DVD player.

Prior to trying to make a copy of the DVD, I wanted to make sure the DVD was going to work. I used a program called Handbrake on my Mac to turn Curious George into something I could watch on the computer. I figured if it could go through that process and result in a functioning movie, a copy of the DVD could likely be made. Sure enough, I got about a 1 gigabyte mp4 file that plays perfectly fine.

I have a Linux machine running Xubuntu 7.10 with dual DVD burners and a small supply of dual-layer DVD blanks. Should be easy to make a copy of a DVD on this gear, right?

It actually is fairly easy, except for one small step: installing the CSS libraries. Because the CSS libraries are restricted due to reasons I don’t claim to understand or support, they are not included in the default Ubuntu distributions.

Once that was loaded, k3b was able to utilize the libdvdcss2 libraries and allow me to make a legal, backup copy of my DVD. I can’t remember if it’s included in Xubuntu or if I loaded it previously, but it was about as easy as it gets on Linux.

I can’t help but feel like I am doing something “wrong” in order to do something I am legally entitled to do: make a backup copy of something I purchased. Why can’t this be easier? Any insights are welcome here.

Comments

15 November 2007, Martin Schultz writes: Using DVD shrink in windows this is a piece of cake. It copies the DVD so regular unprotected Video-ts files you can burn with any dvd burner, it can even shrink (compress) a dual layer DVD to fit on a single lay disc.
15 November 2007, Ricky writes: I do this, too, somewhat, though frankly, I've found it easier to simply download the movie via torrent rather than go through the hassle of ripping it. Isn't that sad? It has to do with combatting piracy, and all that jazz.
15 November 2007, Irfon-Kim Ahmad writes: *Is* it hard, or did you choose a hard approach? It seems like Popcorn can do this on the Mac trivially, and someone mentioned an app that can do it trivially on Windows.
18 November 2007, PhoneBoy writes: @martin: I don't use Windows for this stuff. Next. @ricky: Bittorrent FTW. @irfan: I ended up doing it in Linux because I have--or had when I wrote this--two DVD drives in this machine. I didn't know about Popcorn on the Mac. Hm...

Talking On The Phone Doesn’t Cause Accidents–Who Knew?

PhoneBoy — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 07:01:44 +0000

It seems that politicians like to try and do what’s best for us by protecting us from ourselves. They pass things like seatbelt laws–wear one or we can ticket you. The latest, of course, is the series of state laws forbidding or restricting the use of mobile phones while driving.

The latest salvo in the war against the evil mobile phone says that while mobile phone use has increased over the past 20 years, there hasn’t been a commensurate increase in the number of accidents. Maybe it has something to do with the fact we’ve been talking while driving since before there were cars. Whether it’s a phone or a person sitting next to you, it’s the same level of distraction.

It’s probably a good idea to keep both hands on the wheel while driving, thus the idea of using a headset or handsfree device would be worthwhile. However, I have yet to find a decent headset.

Via Engadget Mobile

Comments

22 September 2007, Matthew Stevens writes: I hear nothing but good things about the Jawbone BT headset. Might want to check into it. It'll likely be my next headset should my Logitech break.
1 October 2007, skanery antywirusowe writes: Thanks

Nokia Applauds FCC Decision To Require Open Access in 700MHz Spectrum

PhoneBoy — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 07:14:31 +0000

It’s nice to see my employer is happy with the recent decision by the FCC to require companies that purchase spectrum in the upcoming 700MHz actions to actually permit any compatible device to connect. While I certainly applaud that as a consumer (not speaking for Nokia), I would like it even more if they applied these principles to the existing wireless spectrum. It’s called the Carterfone rules, as I’ve written about before.

It would be nice if I could figure out the right person(s) to discuss this with in Nokia. Believe me, I bring it up every chance it’s appropriate. Clearly this press release, which I will include after the jump, indicates that “open access” in the U.S. is something the company supports.

Do you want to be able to use any compatible device on the wireless networks? Let me know your thoughts in the comments.

Nokia applauds FCC decision to require “open access” for U.S. 700MHz spectrum
July 31, 2007

Decision to benefit consumers by promoting greater competition and innovation in U.S. wireless industry

Helsinki, Finland – Nokia applauds the FCC’s decision to implement rules requiring a portion of the 700MHz spectrum being auctioned next year to be made available for “open access” for devices and services. This decision represents an acknowledgement by the FCC that U.S. consumers should have access to a broader choice of innovative wireless devices and services.

“Nokia believes that the Commission’s rules are an important step towards meeting consumer demand and driving further innovation as mobility and the Internet converge,” said Nokia CEO Olli-Pekka Kallasvuo. “We commend the FCC and Chairman Martin for taking the initiative to promote even greater competition and innovation in the U.S. wireless industry.”

Recognizing that all consumers have a need to communicate and share, Nokia is dedicated to offering a wide choice of mobile devices to consumers around the world. These innovative products include everything from simple, rugged phones that bridge the digital divide for first-time owners in emerging markets to fully-featured devices that deliver e-mail, music and video, GPS navigation, television and more to an increasingly connected and mobile population.

About Nokia

Nokia is the world leader in mobility, driving the transformation and growth of the converging Internet and communications industries. Nokia makes a wide range of mobile devices and provides people with experiences in music, navigation, video, television, imaging, games and business mobility through these devices. Nokia also provides equipment, solutions and services for communications networks.

Media Enquiries:

Nokia Americas

Communications

Tel. +1 972 894 4573

Email. communication.corp@nokia.com

www.nokia.com

The PhoneBoy Blog » politics

The 19 Senators Who Voted To Censor The Internet | Techdirt

Related Posts

The Complex, Multi-faceted Net Neutrality Debate

Comments

Related Posts

Net Neutrality and CTIA Straw Men

Related articles by Zemanta

Related Posts

There Oughta Be A Law Against This

Comments

Related Posts

Fahrenheit 451

Related articles by Zemanta

Comments

Related Posts

CTIA Against Spectrum Caps, Against Competition

Comments

Related Posts

Can We Stop Daylight Saving Time Already?

Comments

Related Posts

Codeweavers: Give It Away Today

Related Posts

Reducing Roadblocks For More Towers

Related articles by Zemanta

Comments

Related Posts

CTIA Opposed To Arizona’s Cellphone Users Bill Of Rights

Comments

Related Posts

Don’t Fsck With Bloggers

Comments

Related Posts

Emperors and Pirates

Comments

Related Posts

Why Isn’t Copying DVDs Easier?

Comments

Related Posts

Talking On The Phone Doesn’t Cause Accidents–Who Knew?

Comments

Related Posts

Nokia Applauds FCC Decision To Require Open Access in 700MHz Spectrum

Related Posts