Tag Archive for T

ISPs – Brits Speed U.S. Squabble

ISPs – Brits Speed U.S. SquabbleBritish Telecom has announced its plan to transform the UK broadband landscape from superfast to ultrafast. CircleID reports that the company plans to deliver much faster broadband for homes and small businesses via a widespread deployment of “G.fast” (G.9701) — a technology the company will pilot test this Summer. G.fast is aimed to help BT deliver ultrafast speeds of up to 500 Mbps to most of the UK within a decade. The deployment will start in 2016–2017, BT says.

US broadbandThe day before, the FCC announced that they have re-defined the meaning of broadband in the United States. Under the new definition, US broadband has changed from a measly 4 Mbps down and 1 Mbps up to an anemic 25 Mbps down and 3 Mbps up. There will be little impact for the end-user because this is just gooberment posturing. This will put the US in some low rank internationally. While the UK global telecom giant BT sets its sites on 500 Mbps. The FCC’s presser states that the ruling is meaningless. Their own document says:

… its 25/3 benchmark as a standard to measure the progress of broadband deployment. However, the benchmark is not a minimum speed requirement and does not prevent broadband service providers from advertising or describing slower service as broadband.

Republicans blasted the new definition of broadbandNot surprisingly, 100% of US ISP’s are against this redefinition of broadband the cable lobby is opposed to the FCC’s plan. Ars Technica reports that the Telecommunications Association (NCTA) wrote in an FCC filing Thursday (PDF) that, “Customers do just fine with lower speeds.”

In addition to the CableCo lobby’s opposition, PCWorld reports that Republicans blasted the FCC report and new definition of broadband.

rb-

The Register notes how little things have changed. Haters are going to hate. In 2008, Commissioner Robert McDowell opposed increasing the speed definition of broadband from 200Kbps to 768Kbps. McDowell today represents Washington DC law firm Wiley Rein and appeared last week in Congress arguing that the FCC should not introduce net neutrality rules.

Do you want Comcast in charge of the web? Support net neutrality.

Related articles

 

Ralph Bach has been in IT long enough to know better and has blogged from his Bach Seat about IT, careers, and anything else that catches his attention since 2005. You can follow him on LinkedInFacebook, and Twitter. Email the Bach Seat here.

Mobile Patent Troll Sues Everyone

Mobile Patent Troll Sues EveryoneSurprise, surprise there’s another mobile-related patent lawsuit. at GigaOM says this time the plaintiff is an obscure Delaware-registered limited liability non-practicing entity called Steelhead. The patent in question covers ‘mobile radio handover initiation determination’ – in other words, choosing which cellular base station has the best signal as the handset moves from one place to another.

Cell phonesThe defendants are a who’s who of the mobile world: Apple (AAPL), AT&T (T), Google (GOOG), HTCKyocera (KYO), LG (LGLD), MetroPCS (PCS), Motorola Mobility, NEC Corporation (6701), Pantech, Research In Motion (RIMM), Sony (SNE), Sprint (S), T-Mobile, Verizon (VZ) and ZTE (763). The article says these firms committed the mortal sin of allowing their mobile phones to act like mobile phones. But the interesting thing about this particular suit is the origin of the suit – or, more precisely, the reporting around that origin.

Mr. Meyer reports that U.S. Patent No. 5,491,834 comes from BT (BT). It was filed in 1993 and granted in 1996. The patent is still listed by the USPTO as belonging to BT. In its court filings provided by the author, (the Motorola/Google example is here), Steelhead notes that it “owns all rights of recovery under the ‘834 Patent, including the exclusive right to recover for past infringement.

aggressively monetizingThe author suggests that this case may not be BT “aggressively monetizing” its patent portfolio. BT told Mr. Meyer, “BT sold all of its rights to the patents last year. We have no involvement in Steelhead Licensing LLC’s litigation activity.

BT claims the troll is not a shell front for the firm. A spokesperson for the telecom giant told GigaOM,  “BT doesn’t share in Steelhead’s licensing income”.

rb-

I have covered the mobile patent wars many times here. I don’t know why I find patent trolling so interesting to follow. Maybe it is the same reason I watch NASCAR highlights, for the crashes, or the buy a few Powerball tickets, just in case.

Maybe someday all the money spent on lawyers will actually go back to making things and creating jobs.

Kids squabblingShame on BT if this is a legit patent and they were not smart enough to enforce their claim when they had it. I’m no lawyer, it seems to me that mobiles that can’t find a cell tower to connect to don’t work.

Related articles

 

Ralph Bach has been in IT long enough to know better and has blogged from his Bach Seat about IT, careers, and anything else that catches his attention since 2005. You can follow him on LinkedInFacebook, and Twitter. Email the Bach Seat here.

Privacy on IPv6 Networks

Privacy on IPv6 Networks

Internet service providers, websites, and equipment vendors around the globe took part in the World IPv6 launch in June, Internet companies including AT&T (T), Cisco (CSCO), Comcast (CMCSA), Facebook (FB), Google (GOOG), Microsoft (MSFT), Verizon Wireless (VZ), and Yahoo (YHOO) decided to permanently turn on IPv6. A small fraction of Internet users and devices have started communicating via IPv6 networks, with more and more transitioning to the new protocol over the coming months and years. There are security and privacy implications in the switch to IPv6.

IPv6All kinds of devices will get new IPv6 numbers as the addressing format grows. The IPv6 addresses for these networked devices can be generated in a number of different ways and the choice of how they are created has potentially wide-reaching effects for security and privacy Center for Democracy & Technology explains. One of the original methods for assigning new addresses involved using a unique device identifier (known as a MAC address) as the suffix of the IPv6 address. This method creates a permanent, unique address for a device, potentially allowing any server that the device communicates with to indefinitely track the user.

IPv6 designers soon realized the potential security and privacy problems of MAC-based addresses; as a result, they created an alternate method known as “privacy extensions” or “privacy addresses” the article reports. The privacy extensions use a randomly generated number instead of a MAC address. In order to protect privacy on an IPv6 network, the random number is unrelated to any device identifier and in practice lasts no more than a week (and often much less time), ensuring that the user’s IP address cannot be used for long-term user tracking.

SmartphoneIt is up to operating system vendors to choose which IP address assignment method will be the default on their devices. The author says that some vendors have made good choices, particularly within the last year. Microsoft has long led the charge on IPv6 privacy, with privacy extensions on by default in all versions of Microsoft Windows since the release of Windows XP nearly a decade ago. Apple followed suit last year, with privacy extensions activated by default in all versions of Mac OS X since 10.7 (Lion) and with the release of iOS 4.3 for iPhone and iPad. Google did likewise in its Android 4.0 release last year.

The CDT says that as long as Internet users choose to upgrade their operating systems to the latest versions, they should be protected against perpetual security and privacy threats from IPv6 network address tracking.

rb-

mobile OS's send private information about their users to the networHowever, I wrote about reports from H.Security that mobile operating systems do not protect security or privacy on IPv6 networks. The report says mobile OSs send private information about their users to the network. The H.Security article says this is not a flaw in IPv6, rather it is lazy programming in some cases. The article points out that neither Apple’s iOS nor Android devices have the option to enable Privacy Extensions or the option to disable IPv6. apparently, the only thing smartphones need is a control option in the user interface to protect mobile OS users’ privacy and security on an IPv6 network.

Related articles
  • Romania Has the Fastest IPv6 Adoption Rate (maindevice.com)

 

Ralph Bach has been in IT long enough to know better and has blogged from his Bach Seat about IT, careers, and anything else that catches his attention since 2005. You can follow him on LinkedInFacebook, and Twitter. Email the Bach Seat here.

1963 Short From Muppets Jim Henson for Bell System

1963 Short From Muppets Jim Henson for Bell System In the wake of the recent The Muppets movie, AT&T (T) re-discovered a film by Muppets creator Jim Henson. He created the film for The Bell System nearly 50 years ago. CNet author Edward Moyer says the film gives a hilarious glimpse of Mr. Henson’s earlier days – and of the youthful years of computing.

AT&T posted the 1963 short “Robot” on the company’s ATTTechChannel section on YouTube, addresses the anxiety felt by humans in regard to machines and computers. The article says the film was “made for an elite seminar given for business owners, on the then-brand-new topic–Data Communications,” AT&T explains on the YouTube page. And the company continues:

The organizers of the seminar, Inpro, actually set the tone for the film in a three-page memo from one of Inpro’s principals, Ted Mills, to Henson. Mills outlined the nascent, but growing relationship between man and machine: a relationship not without tension and resentment….”

Displaying his mastery of slapstick, comic timing, and sound effects, Henson uses his humorously menacing star, “Computer H14,” to reassure viewers that they need not be alarmed: humans remain in control according to CNet.

Related article

 

Ralph Bach has been in IT long enough to know better and has blogged from his Bach Seat about IT, careers, and anything else that catches his attention since 2005. You can follow him on LinkedInFacebook, and Twitter. Email the Bach Seat here.

Super-Fi OK’d by IEEE

Super-Fi OK'd by IEEEI usually don’t have a problem getting a wireless signal where in my Bach Seat. However, there are some areas where I coordinate technical services that don’t get wired or wireless Internet. In these rural areas, where AT&T (T), Verizon (VZ), Sprint Nextel (S), and Comcast (CMCSA) and their fellow travelers fear to tread because they can’t make a buck in these areas, some help may be on the way from the IEEE.

IEEE logoIn 2009, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) started the development of IEEE standard 802.22, which addressed the need for broadband wireless access in rural areas, those where it is not economical to deploy a wired infrastructure. In July 2011, the IEEE announced that it has published the standard titled: “IEEE 802.22-2011 Standard for Wireless Regional Area Networks in TV Whitespaces” (PDF).

The IEEE press release states: “This new standard for Wireless Regional Area Networks (WRANs) takes advantage of the favorable transmission characteristics of the VHF and UHF TV bands to provide broadband wireless access over a large area up to 100 km (60 miles) from the transmitter. Each WRAN will deliver up to 22 Mbps per channel without interfering with reception of existing TV broadcast stations, using the so-called white spaces between the occupied TV channels.”That part of the spectrum, known as white spaces, sits between broadcast TV channels and will become available when broadcast TV stations switch from analog to digital in 2009.

VHF and UHF TV bands to provide broadband wireless accessThe White Space Coalition led by Microsoft (MSFT), Google (GOOG), Dell (DELL), and other tech titans strongly support the use of the white spaces in the U.S., going up against strong opposition lead by Michigan’s own John Dingell and big media like the NFL, MLB, NASCAR, NBA, NHL, NCAA, PGA Tour and ESPN who say unlicensed devices in the TV bands would interfere with their signals.IEEE 802.22 reportedly will not interfere with TV broadcasts, because it incorporates advanced cognitive radio capabilities including:

rb-

I met Mr. Dingell about a dozen years ago, at a school to encourage the politician to support schools when the USF started the eRate program for schools. I recall Mr. Dingell telling me he could not support eRate because he did not trust the FCC to get it right. At least he is consistent.

I believe there is a very good chance this technology will never be a commercial success. The wireless carriers will squash this technology like they have squashed municipal wi-fi and community fiber networks. The improved speeds and coverage areas are a threat to their limited 4G coverage and they would lose out on their monthly pound of flesh capped rate-limited data plan.

It will be up to us in the public sector to implement this technology for our clients.

What do you think?

Will Super-Fi ever see the light of day?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Related articles:

 

Ralph Bach has been in IT long enough to know better and has blogged from his Bach Seat about IT, careers, and anything else that catches his attention since 2005. You can follow him on LinkedInFacebook, and Twitter. Email the Bach Seat here.