Submission + - /etc
pschmied writes: slash ee-tee-cee
slash et cetera
slash et-cee
slash et-sizzle-cowboy-neal-era
Submission + - T-Mobile's WiFi-phones: Non-Standard? (markwelch.com)
markwelch writes: "Can somebody tell me if I'm right or wrong in concluding that T-Mobile's WiFi phones are using a proprietary standard that's not fully compatible with 802.11 standards?
_____
Last week, my wife and I changed our cell-phone service and bought Nokia 6086 phone from T-Mobile, because of their offering of WiFi calling capabilities.
What they told us (and today, telephone sales AND in-store staff repeated this) was that these phones would work with any WiFi router using the 802.11 standards. Our experience was quite different: most of our calls were "dropped," and we could not reliably connect to our WiFi network. Yesterday, I paid Comcast $100 to come out and replace our wireless router with a Comcast wireless gateway.
Today, T-Mobile's "Hot Spot at Home" support staff acknowledged that its implementation of WiFi telephony is non-standard and proprietary. The service will only work reliably with routers which have been specifically designed to implement T-Mobile's proprietary standard (currently, only LinkSys and d-Link offer such routers). Connections with other WiFi networks are possible, but intermittent at best.
It also turned out that our home lies in a "weak signal" zone for T-Mobile, so that when calls were dropped from WiFi, the phones were usually unable to hop over to a T-Mobile wireless connection, and therefore the calls were dropped. We also found that even when we disabled all wireless networks, our calls were still dropped due to the poor T-Mobile signal. (Of course, the T-Mobile web-site and in-store sales staff both showed maps proclaiming excellent signal strength at our home.)
We'll be returning the T-Mobile phones and cancelling their "service" later today, once we transfer our phone numbers back to AT&T/Cingular.
Analysis: As a cynic, I'd normally assume that this was simply a "bait and switch" tactic, designed to force more people to buy T-Mobile's proprietary routers. But there's more confusing data to consider:
It appear that T-Mobile wants to alienate customers who want WiFi. Why would this be?
Kill Wifi Telephony: Ah, yes. T-Mobile charges for wireless telephone service, based on "minutes used." Its financial interests are not well-served by converting customers to free WiFi calling. But its consumers were demanding WiFi, and so it offered a service — not to capture new customers, but in an attempt to "ruin WiFi's reputation."
This is reminiscent of the bizarre "electric car" strategy: two automakers (GM/Saturn and Honda) offered electric cars for sale in California, but limited production, set absurdly high pricing and lease restrctions, and suppressed all marketing efforts. Then, when consumers defied expectations and demanded more electric cars, the companies stopped selling them, and when the leases expired, they were repossessed and actually crushed.
The goal: get cell-phone users to say, "Gee, Ma, those WiFi phones just don't work reliably. They're crap. We'd better stick with 'real' wireless telephone service at much higher rates."
T-Mobile is engaged in fraudulent misrepresentations when it claims that its WiFi phones will work with standard WiFi networks and routers. It should stop making those misrepresentations, and advise customers that the WiFi phone feature will only work reliably with routers designed specifically for T-Mobile's proprietary standards. As intended, this makes T-Mobile's phones less attractive — but without damaging the reputation of WiFi telephony in general.
http://www.markwelch.com/perspective/t-mobile-frau d.htm"
_____
Last week, my wife and I changed our cell-phone service and bought Nokia 6086 phone from T-Mobile, because of their offering of WiFi calling capabilities.
What they told us (and today, telephone sales AND in-store staff repeated this) was that these phones would work with any WiFi router using the 802.11 standards. Our experience was quite different: most of our calls were "dropped," and we could not reliably connect to our WiFi network. Yesterday, I paid Comcast $100 to come out and replace our wireless router with a Comcast wireless gateway.
Today, T-Mobile's "Hot Spot at Home" support staff acknowledged that its implementation of WiFi telephony is non-standard and proprietary. The service will only work reliably with routers which have been specifically designed to implement T-Mobile's proprietary standard (currently, only LinkSys and d-Link offer such routers). Connections with other WiFi networks are possible, but intermittent at best.
It also turned out that our home lies in a "weak signal" zone for T-Mobile, so that when calls were dropped from WiFi, the phones were usually unable to hop over to a T-Mobile wireless connection, and therefore the calls were dropped. We also found that even when we disabled all wireless networks, our calls were still dropped due to the poor T-Mobile signal. (Of course, the T-Mobile web-site and in-store sales staff both showed maps proclaiming excellent signal strength at our home.)
We'll be returning the T-Mobile phones and cancelling their "service" later today, once we transfer our phone numbers back to AT&T/Cingular.
Analysis: As a cynic, I'd normally assume that this was simply a "bait and switch" tactic, designed to force more people to buy T-Mobile's proprietary routers. But there's more confusing data to consider:
- T-Mobile has "rolled out" this service relatively quietly; it's mostly marketed to people who ask about WiFi. When I called for information, it was hard to get any meaningful data about the service or phones. When I visited the store, the WiFi display was not prominent, and the sales staff emphasized the limitations of the phone.
- Strangely, T-Mobile offers only two very limited telephones for use with WiFi — even though most cell-phone makers have designed and shown much more advanced models. (For example, one of the two phones has a 1.3-megapixel camera and no memory-card slot; the other has a 640x480 camera.)
- And now, T-Mobile has revealed that its phones use a proprietary variation of WiFi that won't work reliably with standard 802.11 wireless networks, but only with special routers designed to T-Mobile's specification.
It appear that T-Mobile wants to alienate customers who want WiFi. Why would this be?
Kill Wifi Telephony: Ah, yes. T-Mobile charges for wireless telephone service, based on "minutes used." Its financial interests are not well-served by converting customers to free WiFi calling. But its consumers were demanding WiFi, and so it offered a service — not to capture new customers, but in an attempt to "ruin WiFi's reputation."
This is reminiscent of the bizarre "electric car" strategy: two automakers (GM/Saturn and Honda) offered electric cars for sale in California, but limited production, set absurdly high pricing and lease restrctions, and suppressed all marketing efforts. Then, when consumers defied expectations and demanded more electric cars, the companies stopped selling them, and when the leases expired, they were repossessed and actually crushed.
The goal: get cell-phone users to say, "Gee, Ma, those WiFi phones just don't work reliably. They're crap. We'd better stick with 'real' wireless telephone service at much higher rates."
T-Mobile is engaged in fraudulent misrepresentations when it claims that its WiFi phones will work with standard WiFi networks and routers. It should stop making those misrepresentations, and advise customers that the WiFi phone feature will only work reliably with routers designed specifically for T-Mobile's proprietary standards. As intended, this makes T-Mobile's phones less attractive — but without damaging the reputation of WiFi telephony in general.
http://www.markwelch.com/perspective/t-mobile-fra
Submission + - Google Throws Lead Paint on Movie Download Market 6
An anonymous reader writes: As promised Google shut down its video store Wednesday — and its DRM made sure all movie files purchased from the store ceased to funtion. This has sparked a firestorm of negative commentary from the Digerati who see it as pure theft. Cory Doctorow called it "...a giant, flaming middle finger, sent by Google and the studios to the customers who were trusting (as in dumb) enough to buy DRM videos". John Dvorak called it "old bait-and-switch tactics" where vendors make promises, but build-in the ability to reneg on those promises if they choose to do so later. Both Dvorak and Doctorow call for the judicial system to step in, but MP3 Newswire says that the abuse to consumer trust will do more damage to the paid download market than anything the courts could inflict. "As a consumer, if you purchase a digital movie file online only to have it unexpectedly repossessed you will probably think twice before ever buying any such download again. If you do consider it again it certainly won't be for the same price as before. Experience made these downloads worth far less to you. So what are feature film downloads that can be revoked at any time worth in the market place? To some Google Video customers the value of a movie download dropped all the way down to zero."
Submission + - First Person Perspective Pinball Machine
pigeontheory writes: The Furminator is a First Person Perspective Pinball machine based on the Terminator 2 Pinball Machine. The construction is a pinball machine housed into a large box built onto a height adjustable pole and fits on the head of the player! Unlike an ordinary pinball machine, the player's head becomes immersed into the machine with a completely different kind of view than a typical pinball player would see. Since the playing field is all the player can see, the flippers are controlled by trigger buttons on two joysticks. There are several static cameras capturing all aspects of the game for observers to see. At 50 cents a game for five balls, you will either get an overwhelming rush of pinball or a huge headache!
Submission + - BBC Corrupted (defectivebydesign.org)
eneville writes: "
Today the BBC made it official — they have been corrupted by Microsoft. With today's launch of the iPlayer, the BBC Trust has failed in its most basic of duties and handed over to Microsoft sole control of the on-line distribution of BBC programming. From today, you will need to own a Microsoft operating system to view BBC programming on the web.
— Matt Lee."
Submission + - Sony BMG claims copyright on fair-use media (youtube.com)
An anonymous reader writes: Thy searching Youtube for scenes from the recent concert in Orlando where Beyonce fell on her face off the stairs in front of the entire audience, some of whom had cameras and recorded it... it seems that Beyonce + Sony BMG have gone on a copyright spree takedown claim on what clearly are fair-use clips. They even took down a 13-second clip that was posted an year ago, which contained a similar fall of Beyonce: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RL34UDPmeDU
Yet they clearly left untouched and online other full-length videoclips of Beyonce.
Also, try searching for "beyonce fall" or "beyonce falls" (WITH the quotes), Youtube returns slightly different results for each search.
55 second clip of the fall, still online, not sure for how long though. The close encounter with the floor is right at the start, lol:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nh0xrf4RU1Q
Here are a few other Beyonce fall scenes taken down by Sony BMG with false copyright claims on what is clearly fair use: (links taken from the youtube search results, might not be worth mentioning if the story is published, as they are dead/killed by youtube at the moment)
39 seconds-clip of fall taken down:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nT8zGLAXrhA
13 seconds-clip of fall taken down (different from the year old one mentioned above)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iMXR44yDK0
51 seconds clip of the fall, taken down by Sony:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JeYnQHx7RXQ
1 min 12 sec clip of the fall, taken down:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYHswb_fRcQ
2 minute-clip of fall taken down:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKJpbmnefVs
2 min 13 sec clip of the fall, taken down by sony:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfDGQzUn15E
2 min 5 sec clip of the fall, taken down:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=himR-qo2voA
Yet they clearly left untouched and online other full-length videoclips of Beyonce.
Also, try searching for "beyonce fall" or "beyonce falls" (WITH the quotes), Youtube returns slightly different results for each search.
55 second clip of the fall, still online, not sure for how long though. The close encounter with the floor is right at the start, lol:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nh0xrf4RU1Q
Here are a few other Beyonce fall scenes taken down by Sony BMG with false copyright claims on what is clearly fair use: (links taken from the youtube search results, might not be worth mentioning if the story is published, as they are dead/killed by youtube at the moment)
39 seconds-clip of fall taken down:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nT8zGLAXrhA
13 seconds-clip of fall taken down (different from the year old one mentioned above)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iMXR44yDK0
51 seconds clip of the fall, taken down by Sony:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JeYnQHx7RXQ
1 min 12 sec clip of the fall, taken down:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYHswb_fRcQ
2 minute-clip of fall taken down:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKJpbmnefVs
2 min 13 sec clip of the fall, taken down by sony:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfDGQzUn15E
2 min 5 sec clip of the fall, taken down:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=himR-qo2voA
Submission + - Poll - Chick-fight you would pay most money to see
An anonymous reader writes: Agent Scully vs. Col. Carter
Padme Amidala vs. T'Pol
Sue Storm vs. Dark Angel
Xena vs. Barbwire
Britney vs. Lindsey
Cowboy Neal vs. his junk-tucked reflection
Padme Amidala vs. T'Pol
Sue Storm vs. Dark Angel
Xena vs. Barbwire
Britney vs. Lindsey
Cowboy Neal vs. his junk-tucked reflection
Submission + - Timewarner DNS Hijacking
Exstatica writes: "It looks like Timewarner is taking botnets into their own hands. They've hijacked dns for a few irc servers. The latests being irc.vel.net, irc.mzima.net, and irc.nac.net all part of EFNet. Using ns1.sd.cox.net the lookup returns an ip for what looks to be a script that forces the user into a channel and issues a set of commands to clean the drones. There have been different reports of other irc networks being hijacked and other dns servers involved. Is this the right way to handle this? Is hijacking DNS illegal?"
Submission + - 1 in 3 users surf with Firefox (computerhilfen.com)
nicor2k writes: "With 27.8% nearly every third surfer in europe uses the free Firefox browsers. In countries like Finland and Slovenia the usage-rate is above 50%, which makes Firefox to the number one browser there. These are the results of Xiti Monitor, who where measuring usage statistics for one week now. Even with new Internet Explorer 7, the usage rate of the Microsoft browser went down from 73.3% to 66.5% now in europe. Following are the Firefox, Opera and Apple's Safari, which is now also available for Windows. Less used in europe is the Firefox in Denmark and the Netherlands, both countries only having about 15% Firefox-users. more...."
Submission + - Jaman Hacks Apple TV
An anonymous reader writes: Jaman.com have reportedly hacked AppleTV to bridge the gap between IPTV on the PC and the TV and to allow on-demand, hi-def content to be shown on your HDTV via a set-top box (such as AppleTV).
Unlike Joost and some of their other competitors, Jaman focuses on international and indie content and allows users to talk about, explore, find and recommend content from Jaman's extensive library (which is growing rapidly). In fact, much of Jaman's content is not available in any other way, and with set-top boxes such as Apple TV, you can now enjoy it anywhere — your living room/media room or anywhere you have access to a laptop or PC.
In addition to the AppleTV solution, Jaman is in talks to partner with variety of internet TV device providers to bring high-def movies and shorts to other platforms and set-top boxes.
How does it work?
A suitably modified AppleTV will support the Jaman AppleTV plug-in. This plug-in, once loaded, provides a menu option to synchronize with your Jaman media player so that new movies and other media automatically load onto your AppleTV box and are available for viewing through your flat-screen or other home theater display.
The rights management for your Jaman (and for that matter Apple) content works exactly as it would on your computer, e.g. rented Jaman movies expire after seven days.
For the first time, HDTV meets IPTV.
Submission + - Scientology Fun in the UK
An anonymous reader writes: Here in the UK we're going to have a scientology expose on national TV!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6650545. stm
Submission + - Canada: No more Mr. Nice Guy
doggod writes: "The last time you took a trip to Canada, no doubt your experience at the border was just a guy asking you a few innocuous questions like: "Where are you going?", "How long are you staying?", "Do you have any firearms?", etc. According to an article in the San Francisco Chronicle, those were the good old days.
Now, courtesy of an interconnection to the US databases, they're checking everyone, and anyone who has ever run afoul of the law — big deal, small deal, recent past, distant past, it all doesn't matter — will be doing a u-turn at the border.
For example, people are being refused entry who engaged in fraternity pranks 30 years ago. Some of them are now jet setters who are accustomed to smooth sailing anywhere and everywhere. Not Canada. Not now. People are asking what's behind the crackdown: The Canadian border people are saying it's not a crackdown — these laws have been on the books for a long time, you just got away with your "crimes" before.
They've allowed a little loophole, though. If you've been nice for quite a while, they're willing to forgive you and let you back in so you can resume spending your greenbacks. All you need to do is fill out an "Approval of Rehabilitation" form and send it in with a non-refundable payment of C$200. They'll shuffle it across some desks for "a month to a year, depending on the circumstances", and then they'll send you a permanent get-out-of-jail-free card that you'll be able to flash at the border and sail right through.
As a former miscreant myself (I smoked marijuana in the '60s, and the cops found some on me — Oh dear!), I downloaded the form and started filling it out. That's when I discovered there was much more to it than that. I had to furnish attachments with the form, and these included a full transcript of the 1966 trial, an FBI fingerprint clearance card, and he's-a-nice-guy letters from the cops in every state in which I lived for the last ten years.
I had been planning on driving my motor home through Canada to Alaska this summer, but now I've scratched those plans. I've sent off for all those attachments (at a total additional cost of about US$70), but it seems highly unlikely that all those bureaucrats would produce all that work in short enough order for me to make the 2007 traveling season. I'm now planning on doing a US tour instead. Maybe in 2008 I'll do Alaska — assuming I get my card by then.
No word yet on whether any of the places along the Alaska Highway (or the many other popular tourist destinations) that depend on US tourists for their livelihoods are noticing a downturn in their visitor counts. I have a feeling we'll be hearing about it in the months to come, though."
Now, courtesy of an interconnection to the US databases, they're checking everyone, and anyone who has ever run afoul of the law — big deal, small deal, recent past, distant past, it all doesn't matter — will be doing a u-turn at the border.
For example, people are being refused entry who engaged in fraternity pranks 30 years ago. Some of them are now jet setters who are accustomed to smooth sailing anywhere and everywhere. Not Canada. Not now. People are asking what's behind the crackdown: The Canadian border people are saying it's not a crackdown — these laws have been on the books for a long time, you just got away with your "crimes" before.
They've allowed a little loophole, though. If you've been nice for quite a while, they're willing to forgive you and let you back in so you can resume spending your greenbacks. All you need to do is fill out an "Approval of Rehabilitation" form and send it in with a non-refundable payment of C$200. They'll shuffle it across some desks for "a month to a year, depending on the circumstances", and then they'll send you a permanent get-out-of-jail-free card that you'll be able to flash at the border and sail right through.
As a former miscreant myself (I smoked marijuana in the '60s, and the cops found some on me — Oh dear!), I downloaded the form and started filling it out. That's when I discovered there was much more to it than that. I had to furnish attachments with the form, and these included a full transcript of the 1966 trial, an FBI fingerprint clearance card, and he's-a-nice-guy letters from the cops in every state in which I lived for the last ten years.
I had been planning on driving my motor home through Canada to Alaska this summer, but now I've scratched those plans. I've sent off for all those attachments (at a total additional cost of about US$70), but it seems highly unlikely that all those bureaucrats would produce all that work in short enough order for me to make the 2007 traveling season. I'm now planning on doing a US tour instead. Maybe in 2008 I'll do Alaska — assuming I get my card by then.
No word yet on whether any of the places along the Alaska Highway (or the many other popular tourist destinations) that depend on US tourists for their livelihoods are noticing a downturn in their visitor counts. I have a feeling we'll be hearing about it in the months to come, though."
Submission + - MRT Issues Cease & Desist to Microsoft, Apple,
The_DoubleU writes: Media Right Technologies is sending out Cease and Desist letters to Apple, Microsoft, Adobe and Real Networks. The reason? For not using MRT's DRM in their products to protect digital content.
From the press release
Is this the end of the John Doe lawsuits?
From the press release
Under the DMCA, mere avoidance of an effective copyright protection solution is a violation of the act.
....
MRT and BlueBeat have developed a technological measure which effectively controls access to copyrighted material.
....
Therefore, Media Rights Technologies (MRT) and BlueBeat.com have issued cease and desist letters to Microsoft, Adobe, Real Networks and Apple with respect to the production or sale of such products as the Vista OS, Adobe Flash Player, Real Player, Apple iTunes and iPod.
....
MRT asserts Apple, Microsoft, Real and Adobe have produced billions of these products without regard for the DMCA or the rights of American Intellectual Property owners, actively avoiding the use of MRT's technologies.
MRT and BlueBeat have developed a technological measure which effectively controls access to copyrighted material.
Therefore, Media Rights Technologies (MRT) and BlueBeat.com have issued cease and desist letters to Microsoft, Adobe, Real Networks and Apple with respect to the production or sale of such products as the Vista OS, Adobe Flash Player, Real Player, Apple iTunes and iPod.
MRT asserts Apple, Microsoft, Real and Adobe have produced billions of these products without regard for the DMCA or the rights of American Intellectual Property owners, actively avoiding the use of MRT's technologies.
Is this the end of the John Doe lawsuits?
Submission + - EUROVISION way of selling DRM-ed music
Sasha Svitlica (Netherlands) writes: "Shameful way music is being sold on Eurovision Song Contest website
Eurovision Song Contest website is selling digital music (all songs of this years competition). What is bad is the way how they do it:
They sell 192Kbit/sec WMA DRM music for 1.29 per song + 0,26 transaction costs per order.
What is wrong with this picture?
First: The price. Usual price is 0.99 per song with no transaction costs — Eurovision site asks 1.29 per song + 0.26 transaction costs
Second: The DRM. They are using the most restrictive DRM that exists (Windows media) which enables only 20% of the digital music players to play this music. Also this music is not possible to burn on CD
Third: They are selling music while the mission of Eurovision is to PROMOTE music.
Fourth: Music is being sold by CMC Entertainment A/S from Denmark. The biggest irony being that it was Denmark that was bashing Apple for using DRM in the first place. Now we know that was not about rights of consumers at all. It was about money!
More information on:
http://www.eurovisiondownloadshop.tv/Eurovision07/
Terms of sale are here:
https://www.eurovisiondownloadshop.tv/Eurovision07 /terms.eng.html"
Eurovision Song Contest website is selling digital music (all songs of this years competition). What is bad is the way how they do it:
They sell 192Kbit/sec WMA DRM music for 1.29 per song + 0,26 transaction costs per order.
What is wrong with this picture?
First: The price. Usual price is 0.99 per song with no transaction costs — Eurovision site asks 1.29 per song + 0.26 transaction costs
Second: The DRM. They are using the most restrictive DRM that exists (Windows media) which enables only 20% of the digital music players to play this music. Also this music is not possible to burn on CD
Third: They are selling music while the mission of Eurovision is to PROMOTE music.
Fourth: Music is being sold by CMC Entertainment A/S from Denmark. The biggest irony being that it was Denmark that was bashing Apple for using DRM in the first place. Now we know that was not about rights of consumers at all. It was about money!
More information on:
http://www.eurovisiondownloadshop.tv/Eurovision07
Terms of sale are here:
https://www.eurovisiondownloadshop.tv/Eurovision0
Submission + - SecondLife Crackdown: Accusations of Child Porn
sboutwell writes: From Secondlife's BLOG http://blog.secondlife.com/2007/05/09/accusations- regarding-child-pornography-in-second-life/#more-9 52
Recent crack downs and required IDENTITY information updates are coming because of Recent accusations of KIDDIE PORN and Child Adult Sexual Play in Second Life.
From their Blog: On Thursday May 3, we were contacted by German television network, ARD, which had captured images of two avatars, one that resembled an adult male and another that resembled a child, engaged in depicted sexual conduct. Our investigations revealed the users behind these avatars to be a 54-year-old man and a 27-year-old woman. Both were immediately banned from Second Life.
More details on all of this as well as Secondlife's official response can be found on their BLOG.
Recent crack downs and required IDENTITY information updates are coming because of Recent accusations of KIDDIE PORN and Child Adult Sexual Play in Second Life.
From their Blog: On Thursday May 3, we were contacted by German television network, ARD, which had captured images of two avatars, one that resembled an adult male and another that resembled a child, engaged in depicted sexual conduct. Our investigations revealed the users behind these avatars to be a 54-year-old man and a 27-year-old woman. Both were immediately banned from Second Life.
More details on all of this as well as Secondlife's official response can be found on their BLOG.
