Tech Zoo

AT&T uses Microsoft Surface to sell phones

2008-05-22T22:20:38Z

AT&T Inc., the nation's largest wireless carrier, today debuted Microsoft Surface at its Chinatown store as part of the company's initiative to use Microsoft's new surface computer at its retail stores to help customers figure out which device is right for them. If you haven't seen Surface before, it's literally a touchscreen computer about the size of a tabletop computer that can also sense devices that are placed on it. For those unfamiliar with AT&T's new flagship store in Chinatown: The store opened March 31 and boasts 5,000 square feet, making it the largest one in the mid-Atlantic, costing the company more than $1 million to renovate. It also turns out that corner _ 7th & H Streets _ is the busiest intersection in Washington, according to Colin Martin, AT&T's executive director of sales, who said about 100,000 people a day pass through the area. AT&T is Microsoft's first launch partner for its Surface computer, which isn't yet available to consumers. The company's Chinatown store has four of them. "With Surface you bring all of the elements together that's important to a person in the sales process," Mr. Martin said. Here's how it works. The computer's home screen is an interactive AT&T coverage map that lets consumers search all parts of the country to make sure the company's network gets a signal where they plan to use the device (they can even narrow it down by whether they need AT&T's third-generation network). The advantage here, company representatives say, is customers no longer need to remember a certain zip code when checking if there's coverage. (See the video below.) Then, a customer chooses from one of the company's eight most popular devices and places it on the computer. The phone is immediately recognized (through an optical chip, although I'm told AT&T is working with Microsoft to get the computer to "see" and recognize the back of the handset without a chip). A menu pops up, allowing customers to choose from information on features, accessories and rate plans. (See video below.) "It allows the salesperson to have technology at their fingertips," said Andrew Austin, director of AT&T's retail sales operations. The company decided about a year and a half ago to use technology _ TVs, touchscreens _ instead of brochures in its stores, he added. Consumers can place two devices on the computer and get a side-by-side comparison of features. (See picture below.) In addition to the Surface computers, the store has decked out its main windows with a polymer material that allows it to project videos onto the glass (while not obstructing the view). For those of you who remember the Benetton era, the company chose to bump the front doors over to the left so that people walking up the escalators from the Metro would get a moviescreen-like view of AT&T logos and happy people playing around on their handsets. — Kara Rowland, technology reporter, The Washington Times

Web access for rent

2008-05-21T23:46:51Z

I'm not sure about you, but I've certainly been in this position before: You're going on a trip on which you absolutely need to be online. But the destination you're visiting either doesn't have Internet access, or, you need to be wired away from the hotel. Your only option? Buy a mobile broadband card from a wireless carrier — and sign a two-year contract. Last summer, Tom Dolan experienced the aforementioned scenario when he rented a house in Cape Cod. With no choice he signed up for a Sprint mobile broadband card, entering into a two-year agreement only to cancel the service upon his return. Over some beers and hamburgers, Mr. Dolan and partner Matt Walsh realized this could be the prelude to a business. And thus RoVair was born. The idea is fairly simple. You tell the company when you need the card and for how long and they send it to you, complete with return packaging. The cost ranges between as little as $5.95 a day when renting for a month or more and a maximum of $14.95 a day when booking for the minimum reservation of three days. (This is compared with $60 a month plus a two-year contract and the price of hardware if signing up with a carrier.) The company can have a hotel guest's wireless card waiting for him or her at the lobby during check-in, Mr. Walsh, RoVair's chief operating officer, says. "We realized that there is a huge demand for this," he says. "People pay for Internet access at home and in the office and don't want to pay for it a third time." The company has been in business since February and currently has about 200 cards from Sprint and Verizon rented out, Mr. Walsh notes. The average rental is for 12 days. Carriers' practice of forcing customers to sign up for contracts is one that at least some companies say will change when we reach the next generation of mobile Internet. (Although, keep in mind, contracts are what allow carriers to keep prices of the actual devices low.) Reminds me of a quote from Barry West, president of Sprint's WiMax business unit, Xohm. "We don't particularly enjoy the things we are required to do to make a return for our shareholders," Mr. West said recently at the Wireless Communications Association International conference. — Kara Rowland, technology reporter, The Washington Times

Microsoft suing software dealers for piracy

2008-05-06T20:47:40Z

Microsoft Corp. today announced a sweeping set of lawsuits against software resellers in four countries, including one against an Alexandria company, for distributing genuine but unlicensed Microsoft software. Defendants include software merchants in the U.S., Canada, Egypt and the Netherlands that the Redmond, Was.-based software giant says have reaped hundreds of thousands or even millions in profits from selling real Microsoft software that has been diverted from its intended use — in many cases, as part of a low-cost academic program called Student Media — to unsuspecting consumers. The software is real Microsoft software, in other words, but not licensed. It works, however, because the illegal resellers manufacture fraudulent product keys, according to Microsoft. "Software is being imported from overseas markets and then being sold to American consumers who believe what they're getting is fully licensed software," says Bonnie MacNaughton, a senior Microsoft attorney. "So the customers are essentially being deceived into purchasing software that doesn't provide them with all the rights that they think they're paying for." Ms. MacNaughton says the legal action was spurred by a groundswell of complaints" made by legitimate Microsoft resellers whose prices are being undercut as well as consumers who realize their software is unlicensed through the Windows Genuine Advantage program, which requires users to validate their software. "These illegal dealers make these enormous profits because they're only paying pennies on the dollar for software because they're not buying it with licenses," she says. One of the companies being sued for damages is Alexandria-based Pronet Cyber Technologies Inc., which operates the Web sites www.ussoftwarestore.com and www.pronetcd.com. The company's operator, Joseph Teshome, is also named in the suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. According to Micrsoft's complaint, Pronet advertises and distributes unlicensed Microsoft software, "including Student Media software imported to the United States without approval or authorization from Microsoft." The suit lists several instances in which investigators ordered software from Pronet, including Windows 98 and Windows XP Professional, that Microsoft says were found to be unlicensed. Pronet did not respond to a request for comment. Some software piracy stats: - In 2006, 35 percent of software installed on PCs worldwide was unlicensed, according to the 2007 Business Software Alliance Global Piracy Study - Globally, economic losses that year amounted to $40 billion (BSA) - A 10 percent reduction in software piracy would deliver 600,000 new jobs, $24 billion in tax revenues and $141 billion in economic growth across the globe, according to the 2008 IDC PC Software Piracy Impact Study — Kara Rowland, technology reporter, The Washington Times

More on the D block

2008-04-30T19:35:16Z

For those of you who didn't see it, my column today summarized a talk about the future of the so-called "D" block — a portion of wireless airwaves that have been earmarked by the government for the construction of a national public safety communications network. Quick background: The Federal Communications Commission set up a public-private partnership structure and put the spectrum up for sale in its recent auction of wireless airwaves. Only one company made a bid, which was far below the minimum price of $1.3 billion. So the FCC still has the spectrum and must now decide what to do with it — whether to keep the idea of a public-private partnership and, if so, how to set rules for it that would be attractive enough to get companies to bid on it. (And no, the government can't just build it since no federal funds have been allocated, hence the auction idea). Declan Ganley, the head of a company called Rivada Networks, in a talk yesterday gave an interesting perspective on the matter. He argued that that we don't need such a network and should use the existing wireless networks that already blanket the country, using technology like his company's portable communications cell to fill in where there are network gaps or capacity overloads. In response to Mr. Ganley's thoughts, I received an e-mail today from Charles Werner, fire chief for the city of Charlottesville, Va. Because my column is limited by space, I figured I'd include some of Mr. Werner's comments that are particularly germane here. "It's always interesting and frustrating to me when people who are not first responders tell those of us who are what public safety needs," said Mr. Werner, a 32-year veteran of fire-rescue services. He challenged Mr. Ganley's recommendation that public safety agencies strike agreements with commercial networks to leverage off their existing infrastructure. "Commercial offerings do not offer the reliability provisions, priority access and network pre-emption capabilities, customized customer care, or command and control elements that public safety communications require while the FCC's approach does," he said, urging the agency to proceed with another national public-private partnership framework. Mr. Werner concluded: "As someone who is accountable for ensuring the safety of my colleagues, who put their lives on the line every day, and my community, I am convinced that a fundamental change is necessary in the way emergency response communications is approached." — Kara Rowland, technology reporter, The Washington Times

Facebook Chat reactions

2008-04-30T17:36:54Z

As most Facebookers surely have noticed by now, the country's No. 2 social networking site has added a chat function that, much like any other instant messaging system, lets users communicate in real-time with friends who are online. "The wall and inbox have been the primary ways to communicate, but when more immediacy is necessary — for example when making plans for lunch in half an hour or arguing over a foul call in the NCAA tournament — they might not be enough. Chat aims to fill this gap," Josh Wiseman, a Facebook engineer, wrote on the company's blog three weeks ago when Chat was launched. Longtime users probably recall the giant backlash when Facebook rolled out its newsfeed function a year or two ago. (Many cited privacy concerns, others were just irritated by it.) So far I haven't noticed a similar reaction to the chat mechanism. Out of curiosity, I asked several of my friends — all of whom were early Facebook adopters — for their thoughts. "If I am on Facebook it's not a prolonged thing where I could carry a conversation with someone," points out Victoria, who adds: "Facebook connects you to people you might have lost touch with, but get their number or their screen name and talk to them in the world that lies outside of Facebook." Of course, chatting on a social-networking site is markedly different from traditional instant messaging in that users are often "friends" with many people they don't even know. The few people online "are usually people I wouldn't normally chat with," notes Amanda. Natasha disabled the function as soon as she saw it there. "Too much! I don't really go on Facebook that much. I prefer Gmail for chatting. But I guess it's smart for Facebook to add that element, since you can do everything else on Facebook." Brenna, who now lives in Paris, said people there were previously confused by Facebook's lack of instant messaging. "No one here in France understood why it didn't have the chat function," she says, "because they use it to meet people like online dating. I told a lot of my students about it and they were like, 'Can you chat on it?' I said 'no.' They're like, 'Well why not, what's the point?'" There you have it. — Kara Rowland, technology reporter, The Washington Times

Senate committee votes to nullify FCC rule

2008-04-24T20:06:15Z

The Senate Commerce Committee, in a nod to opponents of media consolidation, today approved a bill that would overturn a recent Federal Communications Commission decision to relax a ban on ownership of a daily newspaper and a broadcast station in the same market. The resolution, which was introduced by consolidation foe Sen. Byron L. Dorgan, North Dakota Democrat, "disapproves" the FCC's cross-ownership rule. The bill has 25 cosponsors. The FCC in December eased its 32-year-old ban on cross-ownership, shedding the overall prohibition in favor of allowing it in the nation's top 20 markets under certain conditions: At least eight independent media outlets must remain and a TV station cannot be among the four-highest rated stations in the market. In justifying the move, FCC Chairman Kevin J. Martin, a Republican, noted the ban was more than three decades old and crafted before the advent of the Internet and other new media outlets. In addition, Mr. Martin said allowing cross-ownership would help the ailing newspaper industry cut overhead costs. But the measure was vehemently opposed by the five-member agency's two Democrats and others who said it would give a green light to media consolidation. At that time, Mr. Dorgan threatened a legislative veto; he is now making good on his promise. If approved, the resolution -- a companion of which is pending in the House -- says the FCC's new ownership rule "shall have no force or effect." Mr. Dorgan predicted the bill will pass the full Senate as well as the House, according to Broadcasting and Cable. Anti-consolidation advocacy groups, such as Free Press, praised the move. "Our best chance to stop big media has just cleared a big hurdle. The senate's defense of quality journalism, local news and diverse and independent voices couldn't happen at a more critical time," Free Press Executive Director Josh Silver said in a statement. — Kara Rowland, technology reporter, The Washington Times

As home sales go, so go related Web searches

2008-04-24T18:58:51Z

From the interesting but not-too-surprising department: An analyst at Hitwise compared falling prices for U.S. homes against U.S. Internet searches for "homes for sale" and found a very strong correlation. Heather Hopkins, a vice president of research at the firm, which tracks Internet data, measured search queries against pricing information from the National Association of Realtors for the last year. A line chart clearly shows the .92 correlation. "This is about as close to a perfect correlation as I've seen," she says in a blog entry. What's interesting, she notes, is the ability for Internet usage data to be used as an economic indicator — that is, the extent to which online search queries mirrors offline demand. As for April, Ms. Hopkins says: "Things are flat. The downward slide in prices and demand may have ended but we are unlikely to see a recovery just yet." Click here. — Kara Rowland, technology reporter, The Washington Times

EBay Inc. tangles with Craigslist

2008-04-23T20:06:02Z

Online auctioneer eBay is taking Craigslist to court over claims that the San Francisco-based classifieds company took steps to unfairly dilute eBay's stake in the company. EBay purchased a 28.4 percent stake in the privately owned company back in 2004. This January, Craigslist board members Craig Newmark and Jim Buckmaster "adopted measures that, among other things, unfairly diluted eBay's economic interest in Craigslist by more than 10 percent," San Jose-based eBay said yesterday in a statement. EBay did not specify what those measures were and the company didn't return a message seeking comment. The lawsuit was filed yesterday in Delaware state court. Craigslist responded yesterday on its company blog under an entry titled "Tainted Love": "We are surprised and disappointed by eBay's unfounded allegations, which came to us out of the blue, without any attempt to engage in a dialogue with us," the company said. The post went on to cite eBay's status as a competitor, insinuating a hostile takeover bid. "EBay has absolutely no reason to feel threatened here — unless of course they're contemplating a hostile takeover of Craigslist, or the sale of eBay's stake in Craigslist to an unfriendly party." As for the allegations: "To be perfectly clear, eBay's stake in Craigslist has not been unfairly diluted as they have claimed." Last year, eBay earned $7.7 billion in revenues. Craigslist doesn't disclose financial information, but Classified Intelligence, a market research firm, estimates that the company made $55 million. Craigslist doesn't run ads or charge users to post; the site makes money by charging for housing posts in certain cities. — Kara Rowland, technology reporter, The Washington Times

"Net neutrality" for dummies (or normal people who don't get paid to write about it)

2008-04-22T20:10:41Z

Call it what you will — "Internet freedom," "net neutrality," "network management" — the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation held a hearing on the matter today titled, "The Future of the Internet." For those unfamiliar with the issue, it's a challenge to explain without oversimplifying or using subjective terms, but I'll try. There's a dispute between those who believe Internet service providers (ISPs) should ultimately have discretion when it comes to managing the flow of Web traffic over their networks. In doing so, ISPs have said, there are times when network engineers might slow down certain bandwidth-heavy applications to avoid a potential bottleneck that could impact multiple users. This, ISPs say, is reasonable "network management" that preserves the quality of a user's broadband experience. Not so, say so-called "open Internet" advocates who warn that giving ISPs that kind of discretion leads to a scenario in which ISPs discriminate against certain types of applications, either by slowing them down or through discriminatory pricing models. The Federal Communications Commission has held hearings on the matter, initiated after complaints against Comcast Corp. came to light alleging that the company blocked access to BitTorrent Inc. technology, a peer-to-peer file-sharing protocol. Those on the side of ISPs say the market is taking care of the problem and cite private initiatives among Internet providers and file-sharing companies, such as Comcast and BitTorrent, who recently agreed to collaborate on a solution the problem. Consumer groups and some Internet firms, however, support a federal policy that would ensure "neutrality" — a step they say is necessary to preserve the openness and freedom of the Internet. (Currently, there is no federal law mandating "net neutrality"; there is an FCC policy statement on the matter that I will get to in a minute.) Hopefully we're up to speed now. Today, senators heard perspectives from representatives of the FCC, the Christian Coalition of America, American Enterprise Institute, Writers Guild of America, an actress, Stanford University School of Law and the cable industry. FCC Chairman Kevin J. Martin, a Republican, noted that the media-regulating agency in 2005 adopted four principles that called for openness, stating that consumers should have the freedom to access to the lawful content, applications and devices of their choice. But there's been disagreement about the enforceability of those principles, which are labeled as a "policy statement." While Mr. Martin said he believes the commission has "ancillary authority" to enforce the principles, he noted at the hearing that Comcast disputes that authority and the matter hasn't come before the courts. In her testimony, Michele Combs of the Christian Coalition spoke in favor of congressional intervention, warning that, while the pornography industry could afford to pay more to ensure unhampered network access, the coalition and nonprofit groups could not. Robert Hahn, an economist at AEI, said regulation would be "downright dangerous" and implored lawmakers to let companies exercise pricing freedom to ensure "efficient innovation." WGA West President Patric Verrone and actress Justine Bateman described the Internet as a veritable antidote to media consolidation they say is hurting creativity in traditional mediums like TV. "Content is king, but those who control access to the king control the kingdom," Mr. Verrone said. Kyle McSlarrow, head of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, which includes Comcast, defended the role of ISPs and accused "net neutrality" supporters of describing a "world that is a complete fantasy." "Every single person here has a blog or a Web site or has content that has distribution and has enabled consumers, millions of them around this country, to view that content and no one is blocking them," he said. "We want as much content, we want as many applications to succeed as possible. That's what makes our broadband service attractive to consumers." Lastly, Lawrence Lessig of Stanford urged senators not to "sit around and wait until we see the discrimination and when we see the discrimination let's do something about it." — Kara Rowland, technology reporter, The Washington Times

Google celebrates National Small Business Week

2008-04-21T18:10:08Z

Folks from the Internet search giant are in Dupont Circle today at Free Range Studios demonstrating how small businesses can save time, money and headaches by using some of the same Google services they use in their personal lives in the workplace. Free Range Studios, a 23-person graphic design and communications firm with offices in the District and Berkeley, Calif., is one of about half a million organizations that rely on Google software for e-mail, document control, calendar and other services. "What we found is we need a way to keep us all on the same page," said McArthur, vice president at Free Range, which caters to socially responsible businesses and nonprofits. "It used to be whenever I was on the road, I would be scrambling to call five people; now a couple clicks and you've got everybody." The company's data, rather than being stored in-house, is out in the "cloud" — the World Wide Web — hosted on Google servers. McArthur says her company relies heavily on Google Docs to collaborate on training documents and other materials so that multiple people in different locations can access the same file. Of course, there's another benefit — Google Apps is free. (There is a premier edition, however, that includes telephone support and more e-mail space, among other features, but the basic software can be used at no cost.) "What we saw was a real opportunity to take some of our consumer products and bring them into the organizational context," says Jeff Keltner, Google's business development manager. There are several benefits of using hosted software, according to Mr. Keltner. In addition to Google's redundant data centers that ensure no information is lost or destroyed, companies simply have more capacity. "Ten thousand messages doesn't even show up as a blip on our screen because you're leveraging the Google infrastructure," he says. As for the traditional IT managers who might have a hard time accepting the notion of storing a company's data on the Web instead of in-house, "We think the mindshift will happen, where the cloud will seem like the safest place to put your data." After today's open house in Washington, the Google Apps team will be in Charlotte tomorrow, followed by Kansas City on Wednesday and Phoenix on Thursday. — Kara Rowland, technology reporter, The Washington Times

Oregon: Only we can publish our state laws

2008-04-17T17:01:40Z

State lawyers for Oregon have issued at least two cease-and-desist letters this month demanding that Justia.com and Public.Resource.org — both of which specialize in making laws and other public information readily available to Internet users — stop publishing its state laws. At issue are the Oregon Revised Statutes, the state's official codification of its laws, the publishing of which Oregon equates with copyright infringement. Here's a portion of the state Legislative Counsel Committee's letter to Justia, (which I obtained from document-sharing Web site Scribd.com): "Although the committee does not claim a copyright in the text of the law itself, the committee does claim a copyright in the arrangement and subject-matter compilation of Oregon statutory law, the prefatory and explanatory notes, the leadlines and numbering for each statutory section, the tables, index and annotations and such other incidents as are the work product of the committee in the compilation and publication of Oregon law." The state continues to accuse Justia of illegally displaying the copyrighted work product of the committee, noting that revenue from the sale and licensing of that work product is governed by state law. The state tells Justia it can link to Oregon's own Web site with the laws — it just can't publish them on its own Web site. I left a message for Justia and haven't heard back yet, but Carl Malamud of Public.Resource.org, which received a similar letter, voiced his thoughts to Boingboing.net earlier this week. Mr. Malamud said his site has sent two reply letters to Oregon disputing the state's assertion of copyright. In addition, he noted that the state's Web site "has over 500,000 HTML errors [and] does not meet Section 508 accessibility requirements." Tim Armstrong, a law professor at the University of Cincinnati College of Law, gave his two cents at Info/Law (blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw). Mr. Armstrong notes that federal government employees' works are in the public domain under the Copyright Act, but that doesn't cover state law. However, he cites consistent legal precedent supporting the conclusion that state laws aren't copyrightable. "As a policy matter, allowing a state (or anybody else) to monopolize publication and distribution of statutes is a terrible idea. It does nothing to incentivize the creation of new expressive works and prevents improvements in the accessibility of public domain materials," Mr. Armstrong writes. According to Mr. Malamud, Oregon isn't alone in its copyright claims over its laws, but it's one of the more aggressive states. "Justia and Public.Resource.org have decided this is an important issue to resolve and we are going to hold firm on this," he told Boingboing. The deadline to cease and desist is April 30. Stay tuned. — Kara Rowland, technology reporter, The Washington Times

A file sharer's bill of rights

2008-04-15T20:56:24Z

Comcast Corp. and Pando Networks Inc. — in a move that could take some of the wind out of "net neutrality" advocates' sails — today said they are teaming up to create a "P2P Bill of Rights and Responsibilities" for users of peer-to-peer file-sharing services and Internet service provdiers (ISPs) alike. Philadelphia-based Comcast, which is being investigated by the Federal Communications Commission over complaints it blocked access to BitTorrent Inc., a file-sharing program, last month said it plans to work together with the industry to change its network management practices to make them application-agnostic. That announcement came on the heels of an FCC hearing on the issue of reasonable network management. Let's stop for a second and make sure everyone is with me. At issue is how much leeway ISPs like Comcast have in organizing Internet traffic along their pipes. File-sharing programs — often consisting of large video files — suck up more bandwidth than traditional data traffic, a move that led Comcast engineers to slow access to those programs so as to not slow down overall traffic along their networks. ISPs have defended their rights to manage Internet traffic along networks they own. On the other side of the issue, you have Internet firms like Google Inc. and consumer advocacy groups calling for "net neutrality," or a regime that would ban any kind of traffic discrimination. In other words, all Internet traffic would be treated equally. Currently there is no law mandating "net neutrality" as such, although legislation has been introduced in Congress. The FCC has adopted principles that call for openness but that also recognize the right of ISPs to manage traffic in a reasonable manner. Back to today's announcement: Pando and Comcast said they will work with industry experts, ISPs, P2P companies and content providers to create a bill of rights that could serve as a best practice for the industry by clarifying "what choices and controls consumers should have when using P2P applications as well as what processes and practices ISPs should use to manage P2P applications running on their networks." Comcast also said it will analyze the data flow when downloading a file using Pando's technology, measuring speed, bandwidth consumption, distance and geography as a means to figure out a way to optimize the use of P2P applications. Incidentally, the FCC has another hearing on the issue of network management this Thursday at Stanford University. — Kara Rowland, technology reporter, The Washington Times

Silk, velvet, crystals and a cell phone

2008-04-03T19:56:01Z

Sarah Vernall is here at CTIA all the way from New Zealand to show off her designs for cell phone carrying cases. Available in silk, leather, velvet and with some decked out in Swarovski crystals, the cases come with straps or snap onto one's belt. For those who question the practicality of such a product, she acknowledges that people put phones in briefcases or purses during the day, but she says it's far more convenient to use one of her "Tu Chic" accessories when going out on the town to avoid stuffing multiple devices in your pockets or bringing a huge purse. They're not available in the U.S. yet. — Kara Rowland, technology reporter, The Washington Times

For those of you who are wondering...

2008-04-03T19:51:27Z

...The answer is yes: Everyone here is on a cell phone, everywhere, all the time. (I even saw a woman walk out of the ladies room, phone pressed against her ear, gabbing away.) — Kara Rowland, technology reporter, The Washington Times

The touch of a finger

2008-04-03T18:49:46Z

The promise of fingerprint-sensing technology has yet to be realized — or even broached — in the U.S., but it's apparently popular in Japan, where wireless subscribers with fingerprint-enabled phones can simply scan their phone when making a purchase or banking. AuthenTec, whose technology is embedded in 8 million units in other countries, is hoping to get a U.S. carrier to sign on. In addition to securing their phones, consumers can use the fingerprint-sensing technology so that a different command is entered with the swipe of a different finger. — Kara Rowland, technology reporter, The Washington Times