Judge Rejects Gov't Request For Cell Tower Data, Noting Recent 4th Amendment Rulings

from the probable-cause dept

We recently wrote about a somewhat surprising ruling by the appeals court in the DC circuit saying that long-term use of a GPS to track someone without a warrant violated the 4th Amendment. What was surprising about this is that, while state courts had ruled similarly, the federal courts had almost universally ruled that such tracking was legal. While that case will almost certainly be appealed and seems to have a decent likelihood of ending up before the Supreme Court, it's apparently already impacting some rulings elsewhere. Chris Soghoian notes that a federal magistrate judge recently rejected the governments' request for historical cell site data from Sprint, because the government failed to show probable cause (as required under the 4th Amendment):

What's notable is that the judge admits to having approved similar requests in the past, but refuses to do so this time, as a result of that recent ruling, and noting that the reasoning highlighted that technology is changing the way many view things concerning privacy and surveillance:

The decision in Maynard is just one of several rulings in recent years reflecting a growing recognition, at least in some courts, that technology has progressed to the point where a person who wishes to partake in the social, cultural, and political affairs of our society has no realistic choice but to expose to others, if not to the public as a whole, a broad range of conduct and communications that would previously have been deemed unquestionably private....

As a result of such decisions, I believe that magistrate judges presented with ex parte requests for authority to deploy various forms of warrantless location-tracking must carefully re- examine the constitutionality of such investigative techniques, and that it is no longer enough to dismiss the need for such analysis by relying on cases such as Knotts or, as discussed below, Smith v. Maryland.... For the reasons discussed below, I now conclude that the Fourth Amendment prohibits as an unreasonable search and seizure the order the government now seeks in the absence of a showing of "probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation[.]"

Nice to see some judges recognizing this, though it remains to be seen how many others will agree... and how the Supreme Court reacts to all of this.

4 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Is There A Better Way To Text While Driving?

from the or-should-there-be? dept

Perhaps I'm strange, but I have to admit that I've never even considered sending a text message while driving. I will admit to reading a text message while sitting at a traffic light, but that's about the extent of it. Still, with more and more people seemingly unable to resist the temptation, is the best thing to do to fret and complain about this trend, or to try to come up with a technological solution? Is there a technological solution that would let people text safely? I'm not entirely sure, but it does seem a bit surprising that we haven't even heard of the equivalent of the "hands free" kit for texting. There are, of course, plenty of voice recognition offerings out there, but the quality still suffers (and most people still want to check over the results to make sure they work). I could see attempts at "augmented reality" where the screen on the phone shows what's happening on the road, but your focus would still be off. So, are there any technological solutions? My guess is that we're going to wait until we really get autonomous driving vehicles that have an "autopilot" mode before we reach a stage where any sort of texting while driving is safe.

86 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Does Checking Your Email On Your BlackBerry Count As Overtime?

from the according-to-some... dept

We've had plenty of stories over the years about how the whole barriers between "work" and "life" continue to blur, and that's causing problems in some areas. Two years ago, we noted that some employees were upset to have to sign documents making it clear that checking email on Blackberries would not count towards overtime work. Last year, we questioned if paying employees hourly wages still made sense in many cases because of situations like this. The issue has come up again, as a Chicago police officer is suing for overtime for use of his Blackberry during off-hours. Obviously, there are some jobs where paying hourly could make sense, but if it's a job that's going to require a Blackberry and regularly checking in, it seems like it shouldn't be paid hourly, but as an exempt employee that gets paid a straight salary.

44 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Apple Pulls Grooveshark From App Store, Because Universal Music Doesn't Like It

from the time-to-move-to-the-open-app-market dept

As a whole bunch of you have been submitting, apparently Apple yanked Grooveshark's iPhone app after receiving a complaint from Universal Music, one of the record labels who has sued Grooveshark, and is claiming that it has not properly licensed the music. Grooveshark has argued for years that what it's doing is legal, but multiple record labels have disagreed. Still, Apple wants to keep the major record labels happy, so bye-bye Grooveshark. Perhaps they should explore creating a web app and putting it on something like the OpenAppMkt, since that's outside of Apple's control...

18 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Now That The Ringtone Market Is Collapsing, Are There Lessons For Those Who Are Jumping On The App Bandwagon?

from the this-won't-save-your-business dept

Back in 2003/2004, both the music and the mobile industries became infatuated with ringtones. These short snippets of music were selling for 2.5 times (or more) what a single (full) music file was selling for, and the market was growing rapidly. Of course, some of this was due to incredibly shady practices, such as tricking people into thinking they were buying a single ringtone, when they were really signing up for a monthly subscription. However, from the very beginning of the ringtone revolution, we were amazed at how many folks in the industry talked about ringtones as a savior. As we pointed out in 2004, it wasn't hard to predict that ringtone sales would peak and fall. First of all, it would become increasingly easy to take music that people had from elsewhere (authorized or not) and convert it to a ringtone, and secondly, it wouldn't be all that long until unauthorized ringtones became easy to set up as well.

But the industry has a way of overhyping a fad that's happening "now," and betting it will be its savior.

And, of course, exactly what was predicted way back when is now coming true. The ringtone market has been on the decline for a few years now, as people realized they didn't need to pay exorbitant prices for a tiny snippet of music anymore.

This is why we should think carefully whenever we hear people claiming that "app stores" are the new saviors of various content industries (or, for that matter, the mobile industry). While app stores are a bit more defensible than pure ringtones, it's likely to still face the same basic trajectory, as people realize that apps are just data, and there are increasing opportunities for more open solutions to route around locked-down versions. People seem to think there's some sort of magic in "apps," but they're really just the same sort of digital content that has been hard, economically, to monetize long term. There are ways to do it, but simply assuming that apps alone will be the answer is likely to end in disappointment.

30 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Google vs. Google On Wireless Net Neutrality

from the we-were-for-it-before-we-were-against-it dept

While I still think that uproar over Google and Verizon's "deal" "agreement" "pinky shake" "policy framework" statement on net neutrality is quite exaggerated given that no one has accepted it and the framework is more or less meaningless, it is amusing to watch the reaction to all of this. Lots of folks who perhaps leaned too heavily on Google to push for a certain position are now screaming about Google's move to the dark side. I don't believe that either. Instead, this seems like a calculated business decision of the kind that Google was bound to make sooner or later, and one which might not mean anything.

On the flip side, Google is trying to defend itself against these attacks by pushing back on a few points. Unfortunately for Google, there's a wonderful search engine called Google, which can be used to dig up things said by a company called Google in the past. Over at Broadband Reports, Karl Bode has noted some of the... changing sentiment of Google policy lawyer Richard Whitt. For example, in the latest blog post defending the Verizon agreement "framework" (sorry), Whitt explains why they think it's okay, for now, not to apply any sort of neutrality rules to mobile networks. He first admits that they've pushed for openness safeguards in the past, but feel this is an acceptable compromise for a few reasons:

First, the wireless market is more competitive than the wireline market, given that consumers typically have more than just two providers to choose from. Second, because wireless networks employ airwaves, rather than wires, and share constrained capacity among many users, these carriers need to manage their networks more actively. Third, network and device openness is now beginning to take off as a significant business model in this space.

But... here's the very same Richard Whitt in 2007 (pdf), making the argument that mobile providers were already abusing mobile networks and required more openness:

wireless providers block many common Internet applications and services outright, frequently do not allow network attachment of any device but their own, and reserve the right to terminate service arbitrarily for using other services that do not conform to a short and vaguely-defined list

As Bode notes, nothing has magically changed to make this competitive market any better. Instead, what's changed is Google's heavy investment in the mobile space:

So what changed? Google did. In 2007, Android wasn't a major mobile OS, and Google didn't have multi-billion-dollar wireless advertising relationships with Verizon and AT&T. You'll also recall that Google had hopes of bypassing the carrier retail experience completely -- hopes that flamed out rather spectacularly with the death of the Nexus One and their online phone store. The policy shift is clear and indisputable, as is the motivation: Google doesn't want consumer protections (be they privacy, or network neutrality) to impact wireless ad revenues.

Again, none of this should be seen as a surprise, but just a reminder that, in the end, Google is going to do what it believes is best for Google. There's nothing wrong with that -- it's just that, in the past, Google tended to realize that what was best for consumers was also best for Google. Now... it doesn't seem quite as sure of that. I think this is generally a mistake that Google may come to regret. Even if this agreement (damn) "policy framework," really amounts to nothing much, this move is convincing many people that Google might no longer believe that supporting consumers is the best view, and that may lead to more backlash than the company realizes.

37 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Research Claims Hackers Could Figure Out Your Smartphone Password Via Screen Smudges

from the oh-come-on dept

There's all sorts of interesting security research being done out there, but sometimes you just sort of shake your head. A new report has come out that folks with fancy new smartphones that have large touchscreens may face a threat because the smudges left on the screen could indicate passwords. It certainly makes for a good headline... but... seriously? Has this ever happened? Doubtful. How likely is it to happen? It seems exceptionally unlikely. I recognize the importance of exploring different potential security vulnerabilities, but this one seems a bit far-fetched.

52 Comments | Leave a Comment..

RIM Works Out Deal In Saudi Arabia, Causing Many To Wonder If They Can Trust Their BlackBerry

from the well,-you-never-could-before... dept

With last week's news that the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia were going to block access for BlackBerry users over the inability to spy on RIM's servers, the news over the weekend that Saudi Arabia is testing three local servers that would alleviate the need for a ban has many wondering how secure their BlackBerry communications really are.

Of course, the more pertinent question may be how secure BlackBerry communications have ever been. One of the big complaints from the UAE and Saudi Arabia (and others) is that they believe RIM already lets certain governments access content flowing across their network. And, of course, no one seems willing to come out with a straight answer one way or the other on whether or not that's an accurate statement. However, as the NY Times article above makes clear, whether or not governments really do have access to RIM's network probably isn't as meaningful as some believe, since there are multiple different potential points of access for anyone wishing to monitor messages. About the only thing that is clear is that if you're communicating online, it's probably best to assume that, sooner or later, someone other than the intended recipients will probably see it.

21 Comments | Leave a Comment..

IBM Trying To Patent Cure For Obama's BlackBerry Woes

from the isn't-that-convenient dept

theodp writes "Appearing Thursday on The View, President Obama lamented that his BlackBerry was no fun anymore, noting that only about 10 people had his BlackBerry personal e-mail address. 'I've got to admit it's no fun because they think it's going to be subject to the Presidential Records Act so nobody sends me the juicy stuff,' he ruefully added. Coincidentally, the USPTO disclosed on Thursday that IBM has a patent pending for a Cellular Telephone Using Multiple Accounts, which provides multiple SIM card slots to address the problems faced by 'an elected official [who] may be under legal restraints regarding the nature of calls which may be made from a particular telephone.' Without its invention, explains Big Blue, 'an official may use one telephone for calls in an official government capacity; another for calls to a re-election committee; and another for purely personal use.' IBM ran to the patent office with details of the new 'invention' (image) just days after Obama was told he could keep his BlackBerry for personal use, but would have to use an NSA-approved phone for anything government related."

30 Comments | Leave a Comment..

United Arab Emirates And Saudi Arabia Banning Blackberry Usage

from the can't-be-monitored dept

Ash Crill alerts us to the news that the United Arab Emirates has announced plans to ban the use of Blackberries, and that Saudi Arabia has announced its intention to do the same. The issue is one we've seen before. The way the Blackberry works is all the data is encrypted and sent through RIM's servers. This pisses off governments who want to spy on the data. RIM, in the past, has noted that it has no way of spying on the email, even if some governments claim to have figured it out anyway (a claim that seems somewhat dubious as that same government later demanded RIM break the encrytpion again). It appears that a lot of folks in the UAE are quite upset about this -- especially as parts of the UAE (Dubai in particular) have spent the last decade plus trying to present themselves as an ideal place for foreign business activity.

12 Comments | Leave a Comment..

An Open iPhone App Market That Doesn't Require Jailbreaking... And Which Apple Can't Stop

from the html-it-up dept

In all of the fuss, hype and obsession over the iPhone/iPad app store, people seem to forget that when the iPhone first launched, it had no app store and no ability for third party developers to create native apps. Instead, Steve Jobs suggested the high quality Safari browser on the iPhone meant the end of native apps, as everything could and should just be done in HTML. And yet, a year later, Steve Jobs totally changed his tune, the iPhone app store was launched, and suddenly this obsession with everything "apps" began. Of course, the media industry fell in love, because they thought that they could regain an element of control, thanks in part to Apple's incredibly arbitrary iron fist over what got into the store.

And yet... in all of that, it seems that many people forgot that original promise of apps all just being created in HTML. Indeed, if you look beneath the surface, you would realize that many iPhone apps really are just made in HTML and then compiled into being native iPhone apps. Using HTML alone, you can access many of the phone's features and certainly create all sorts of apps. But still, there has been general anger over Apple's mercurial gatekeeper activities. Back in January, we noted that Google had remembered the ability to create apps via HTML and had simply routed around the App Store. It made us wonder why others weren't doing it too.

While there have been a few "independent" app stores for the iPhone, they've all required jailbreaking the phone. And while that's now officially legal as per the Library of Congress, it's still not something your everyday iPhone user wants to do. So I've been somewhat fascinated by a new offering that's launching today called OpenAppMkt, which effectively creates a brand new app market for iPhones all via HTML (both the openappmkt app itself, and all the apps in it are HTML based). The experience is very much like the regular app store, with the small exception of having to tap the "add to home" button:

While many of the initial offerings in the OpenAppMkt are free, it does let developers charge for their apps as well. Effectively, this is an entire "app market" for the iPhone that simply routes around Apple as a gatekeeper, and there's really not much that Apple can do to stop it. And, of course, since the apps in the OpenAppMkt are just HTML, it likely won't be difficult for OpenAppMkt to extend this to other platforms as well, such as Android (even though Android's much more open market means that there's less of a reason to developers to use OpenAppMkt for Android).

Overall, this fascinates me for two reasons. First, it's good to get more people realizing that HTML is already pretty damn good at creating app-style experiences, without having to create special compiled code and, second, it's a really clever way to totally route around Apple as a gatekeeper (without requiring a jailbreak), and is a reminder that even on "closed" systems, openness will often find a way.

67 Comments | Leave a Comment..

UK Gov't Review Says Google WiFi Sniffing Didn't Sniff Anything Significant

from the moving-on... dept

It's been funny watching the usual anti-Google forces try to make something bigger out of Google's accidental WiFi sniffing via its Street View vehicles. As has been explained in detail, it's not hard to understand how the data was collected accidentally. Even though it is bad that Google didn't realize this, there is no indication that Google ever did anything with the data, or that any sensitive data was collected. After all, if you're doing something sensitive online, it's hopefully via an encrypted channel -- and most email and all banking sites would be.

But, of course, lots of governments are "investigating." I fully expect some less-technically savvy government groups to get confused about this and still condemn Google, but the UK's investigation has found that Google did not collect sensitive data:

The ICO said in a statement: "On the basis of the samples we saw, we are satisfied so far that it is unlikely that Google will have captured significant amounts of personal data."

It added: "There is also no evidence - as yet - that the data captured by Google has caused or could cause any individual detriment."

16 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Surprising New DMCA Exceptions: Jailbreaking Smartphones, Noncommercial Videos Somewhat Allowed

from the didn't-expect-this dept

Well here's a surprise. The US Copyright Office finally used its obligated DMCA exemption rulemaking process to support exemptions that protect consumers. As you may recall, every few years the US Copyright Office is obligated, by law, to listen to requests for specific classes of work that should be exempted from the DMCA's anti-circumvention clause and then recommend that the Library of Congress adopt certain exemptions (if it so chooses). Usually the exemptions are extremely limited and do little to protect consumers. In fact, in the past, the EFF has argued it wasn't even worth requesting exemptions for consumer issues, saying the process was "simply too broken." This year, however, they did participate, and actually got some things through.

Included in the rulemaking were exemptions that say jailbreaking smartphones is legal, saying:

"When one jailbreaks a smartphone in order to make the operating system on that phone interoperable with an independently created application that has not been approved by the maker of the smartphone or the maker of its operating system, the modifications that are made purely for the purpose of such interoperability are fair uses."

Separately, it approved getting around DRM on DVDs for use in non-commercial or educational video works. This is a blow to Hollywood, which in the past has tried to suggest that if educational institution want to use a fair use clip from a video, they should just set up a video camera on a tripod pointed at a TV screen playing the DVD. That said, the Copyright Office made it clear that these uses are very limited, and must be for purposes of "criticism or comment," and the maker of the new work must show that the circumvention is "necessary" to make the video work, saying "where alternatives to circumvention can be used to achieve the noninfringing purpose, such noncircumventing alternatives should be used." That seems extremely limiting, since you can almost always claim that some sort of alternative could be used.

The EFF also notes that the Copyright Office renewed one good exemption from a previous rulemaking, while clarifying what it covered, where it noted that unlocking a mobile phone to take it to another network is not violating the DMCA.

There were some additional classes approved, including video game DRM, in certain cases, where the DRM is being broken for the sake of security testing. They also approved getting around DRM in the form of computer dongles when those dongles are considered "obsolete," defined as "no longer manufactured or if a replacement or repair is no longer reasonably available in the commercial marketplace." This one is also basically an expansion of an earlier ruling. The final one is also more or less a repeat of earlier rulemakings, concerning allowing ebooks to be read aloud for the blind -- even though the Copyright Office recommended against it, the Librarian of Congress included it anyway.

Separately, it is notable what was requested and rejected, but we'll do a separate post on that later.

28 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Is MMS Just Like Limewire? New Lawsuit Against AT&T, Verizon, Sprint & T-Mobile Says So...

from the say-what-now dept

Regular Techdirt commenter Max Davis (who I believe may be involved in this lawsuit) passed along the news that all the big US mobile operators have been sued -- including AT&T, Verizon Wireless, Sprint and T-Mobile -- under the claim that their MMS platforms are really illegal file sharing networks, and that these operators are no different than Limewire or Gnuttella. Yes, seriously -- the email Max sent repeatedly refers to MMS and Limewire as if they were the same. Here's the complaint:

Honestly, the whole lawsuit seems ridiculous. Here's the crux of it:

Defendants, and each of them, enabled the transfer/transmission and publication of this copyright protected content via mobile devices by building and implementing a peer to peer file sharing network with the dedicated purpose of enabling end users to share multimedia files via this MMS network. Defendants, and each of them, profited from these activities by charging the transmitter and receivers of this content a fee or flat rate for the transfer/transmission that resulted in the publication of said content. Despite charging the transmitter and receiver a fee for the delivery of this copyrighted content, Defendants, and each of them, failed to compensate the holder of the copyrights for this content that was necessary in generating the MMS data revenue. Furthermore, Defendants, and each of them failed or refused to provide a system where an adequate accounting of the transfer/transmission and publication of this copyrighted content could be made.

Basically, this company, Luvdarts, made MMS content, and it got distributed via MMS. Since recipients of MMS can forward the MMS data they receive, such content got forwarded around. Since the mobile operators receive revenue for MMS data, Luvdarts is effectively claiming that they are profiting off the infringement of Luvdarts content. This makes no sense. It's like saying that any email provider is infringing on the copyrights of email writers by letting recipients forward emails. You know those chain emails that get passed around? Imagine if one of the authors of those then sued all the big email providers. It would get laughed out of court. Hopefully, this lawsuit gets laughed out of court too.

The one oddity is that the lawsuit claims that the mobile operators do not qualify for DMCA safe harbor protections, because they're "not service providers" as defined in the DMCA. Specifically:

The transmission of this MMS data is not covered by the exemption for Internet Service Providers as set forth in 17 U.S.C. §512 because the wireless carriers are not Internet Service Providers as defined by §512 while providing a dedicated MMS network for multimedia file sharing.

Really? If you haven't read your §512 lately, why not go take a look and explain how a mobile operator offering MMS is not covered. It certainly seems covered by the definition:

Definitions.--
(1) Service provider--
(A) As used in subsection (a), the term "service provider" means an entity offering the transmission, routing, or providing of connections for digital online communications, between or among points specified by a user, of material of the user's choosing, without modification to the content of the material as sent or received.
(B) As used in this section, other than subsection (a), the term "service provider" means a provider of online services or network access, or the operator of facilities therefor, and includes an entity described in subparagraph (A).

Help me out. Where are mobile operators offering MMS features excluded? Looks like yet another frivolous lawsuit. But, of course, Luvdarts is demanding the statutory maximum of $150,000 per infringement, and claims "9,999 to 100,000 counts of infringement" (broad enough range there?). Good luck, Max.

47 Comments | Leave a Comment..

If You're Going To Steal Something, Perhaps Avoid A Phone Demoing A GPS Tracking Program

from the protip dept

These days, lots of smartphones have apps for tracking the location of the phones, so stealing one of them is probably becoming increasingly risky for thieves. But, still, in a move that didn't bode well at all, Horatio Toure supposedly used his bicycle to ride up to a woman in San Francisco carrying an iPhone, and snatched it out of her hands. The only problem? The woman had it to demo a new "real-time GPS tracking program." It took all of about 10 minutes for the police to track down Toure, about a half a mile away. Nice work.

28 Comments | Leave a Comment..

People Aren't Buying Blank CDs Any More, So Collection Agency Demands Media Levy Expanded To Mobile Phones

from the well,-if-you-bet-on-obsolete-technologies dept

We've always found the concept of blank media "levies" to be strange. They're a kind of "you must be a criminal" tax, that aims to shoehorn in an unworkable business model in a way that highly distorts an actual market. But, of course, then people become reliant on that distorted market as well. So I find it somewhat amusing to see an article pointing out that content creators in Sweden are now "losing out" on revenue from blank CD levies, because people no longer buy blank CDs and DVDs (who needs 'em any more?). The article, of course, was pushed by the organization that collects and distributes the levy, Copyswede, as part of its effort to expand the levy to internet connections and hard drives and such:

We don't currently receive any revenue from hard drives or telephones despite legislation decreeing that fees should apply to any products that are particularly suitable for piracy. The pattern we think we're seeing is one of piracy moving to external hard drives and USB flash drives while telephones are being used for storage...

And what makes you think you should automatically get free money from people using these technologies when the content creators you represent fail to adjust or adapt at all? But rather than adapt, Copyswede is just taking the position that more technologies should be taxed and the market should be distorted further. The plan is to tax mobile phones 100 kronor (about $14), because having the government step in and force people to give you money is, you know, a lot easier than actually having to work for a living.

43 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Removing iPods And Mobile Phones From Students Is 'Discipline Theater'

from the won't-actually-help dept

I remember a few decades back, when I was in high school, our principal announced that her biggest concern and top focus was stopping kids from bringing walkmen cassette players to school. This was in a school where there were all of the more typical high school issues, including drugs, weapons and violence. The whole thing seemed so ridiculous. But, apparently, little has changed. We've seen lots of stories over the years, of course, about bans on mobile phones and iPods and the like. But, apparently, banning mobile phones and iPods from schools is becoming government policy in the UK. At that link, Bill Thompson notes the incongruity between things like mobile phones and iPods compared to other things that are banned (such as weapons and fireworks). But, of course, the reasoning is different. The thinking on phones and MP3 players is to keep kids from getting distracted, and to help teachers keep the attention of kids. In theory.

In a rather apt analogy, Thompson calls the whole thing "discipline theater," akin to "security theater" found at airports:

It will do nothing to improve behaviour in schools where teachers are not respected by their students.

However, it could have a negative impact in other ways, as it enforces the idea that schools are places where "technology" is something out there, a word processor or spreadsheet on a desktop PC to be used for a particular purpose, instead of something that permeates all aspects of our daily lives and is becoming increasingly important.

He also points out that many schools are currently using such mobile devices in innovative ways within the classroom, and setting up a process to keep them out seems backwards. It's too bad that the first reaction of so many people is just to ban such technology rather than (a) looking at ways to use it in a helpful manner or (b) understanding why the technology sometimes acts as a distraction.

33 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Aren't There More Important Things For Congress To Focus On Than The iPhone's Crappy Antenna?

from the grandstanding dept

We haven't really written about the whole Apple iPhone antenna thing because, really, who cares? As the NY Times pointed out, it's just a phone. It's a nice phone, by all accounts, and the antenna problems seem like they could be pretty annoying, but there wasn't much for us to comment on that wasn't already covered by a thousand other blogs. However, you know things have reached silly season when even our Congressional reps are getting involved. Senator Chuck Schumer, who can grandstand with the best of them, has decided that this antenna issue is an issue for Congress to be concerned about, and has penned a letter to Steve Jobs ("Dear Mr. Jobs,") to come forward and explain the issue. Of course, Schumer sent the letter after Apple had already scheduled its press conference for later this morning where it's expected that something (no one's quite sure what) will be resolved about the antenna. But, really, what role does Congress have in this at all? The story is getting plenty of attention from all over the place already. It's not like Congress can help shine a light on it. All this appears to be is Schumer stepping into a headline because it's a hot topic. Sometimes it makes you wonder if Congressional Reps & Senators now have their press people monitoring the Twitter trending topics for issues grandstand-worthy....

38 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Sprint Realizing That Data Caps Turn Customers Off

from the about-time dept

Back when Sprint joined other mobile carriers in issuing a 5 GB limit on its EVDO connection, I was among those who noted that it was disappointing that the company sold me an "unlimited" service, and then changed the terms on me unilaterally. It also changed the way I used my EVDO card, making it significantly less useful and valuable for me. I don't want to be thinking about how much data I'm using (and it was especially difficult without a detailed system of tracking how much data you were using). I remember once, while traveling, I accidentally left the EVDO connection running over night, and got worried that Sprint might cut me off. It's just not worth it, and I've actually been thinking about dumping Sprint once my contract is up.

Apparently, I wasn't alone in thinking this and Sprint has noticed. With its new WiMax network, it has stayed away from talking about any caps, and has now admitted that the reaction to the EVDO caps is part of the reason why. They're afraid that, just as they're trying to convince people to use the WiMax network, they'll get scared off by caps. The problem, of course, is that these mobile broadband providers are fighting against themselves on these things. They want to convince the world that these networks are useful -- and to do that, you have to show all the cool things that you can do with them. But, if they haven't really invested enough in the networks, they can actually run into some congestion problems, and so they can't encourage you to use them too much. Hopefully, the investment into WiMax (or, potentially moving on to LTE) will mean that such congestion problems are mostly a thing of the past, and that it's not worth implementing caps.

That said, Sprint's admission of how people responded to the EVDO caps should be a clear warning to ISPs that keep trying to implement broadband caps or metered broadband. Doing so imposes additional costs that you might not have considered, such as the mental transaction costs your users face in determining if it's even worth using your network. Of course, ISPs should know this already. We already have a detailed case study in that AOL only really took off after it switched from hourly billing to an unlimited flat-rate. Why some ISPs want to go back to make their product less valuable is beyond me.

40 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Motorola Does Openness Wrong; Bricks Your Droid X If You Tamper

from the that's-not-open dept

Part of the key selling point of the whole concept of Android-based smartphones was that they were open to tinkering. Apparently, Motorola thinks somewhat differently about that. paperbag was the first of a whole bunch of you to point to variations on the story that Motorola has put a thing called "eFuse" on the Droid X which will effectively brick your phone if you try to mess with the software.

If you look around, a lot of people who said they would originally buy a Droid X are saying they won't do it now, just on principle. Bricking a phone that someone bought, just because they want to change the software themselves is pretty abhorrent. Motorola's response to the concerns isn't winning over many people either. They flat-out say that if you don't like it, you should buy another phone:

We understand there is a community of developers interested in going beyond Android application development and experimenting with Android system development and re-flashing phones. For these developers, we highly recommend obtaining either a Google ADP1 developer phone or a Nexus One, both of which are intended for these purposes. At this time, Motorola Android-based handsets are intended for use by consumers and Android application developers, and we have currently chosen not to go into the business of providing fully unlocked developer phones.

The use of open source software, such as the Linux kernel or the Android platform, in a consumer device does not require the handset running such software to be open for re-flashing. We comply with the licenses, including GPLv2, for each of the open source packages in our handsets. We post appropriate notices as part of the legal information on the handset and post source code, where required, at http://opensource.motorola.com. Securing the software on our handsets, thereby preventing a non-Motorola ROM image from being loaded, has been our common practice for many years. This practice is driven by a number of different business factors. When we do deviate from our normal practice, such as we did with the DROID, there is a specific business reason for doing so. We understand this can result in some confusion, and apologize for any frustration.

I think they're missing the point. The fact is most consumers won't tinker with the underlying software of their phone, but if they do want to, they should be allowed to do so without having Motorola destroy the device.

73 Comments | Leave a Comment..