Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Atari Online News, Etc. Volume 12 Issue 33
Volume 12, Issue 33 Atari Online News, Etc. August 13, 2010
Published and Copyright (c) 1999 - 2010
All Rights Reserved
Atari Online News, Etc.
A-ONE Online Magazine
Dana P. Jacobson, Publisher/Managing Editor
Joseph Mirando, Managing Editor
Rob Mahlert, Associate Editor
Atari Online News, Etc. Staff
Dana P. Jacobson -- Editor
Joe Mirando -- "People Are Talking"
Michael Burkley -- "Unabashed Atariophile"
Albert Dayes -- "CC: Classic Chips"
Rob Mahlert -- Web site
Thomas J. Andrews -- "Keeper of the Flame"
With Contributions by:
Fred Horvat
To subscribe to A-ONE, change e-mail addresses, or unsubscribe,
log on to our website at: www.atarinews.org
and click on "Subscriptions".
OR subscribe to A-ONE by sending a message to: dpj@atarinews.org
and your address will be added to the distribution list.
To unsubscribe from A-ONE, send the following: Unsubscribe A-ONE
Please make sure that you include the same address that you used to
subscribe from.
To download A-ONE, set your browser bookmarks to one of the
following sites:
http://people.delphiforums.com/dpj/a-one.htm
Now available:
http://www.atarinews.org
Visit the Atari Advantage Forum on Delphi!
http://forums.delphiforums.com/atari/
=~=~=~=
A-ONE #1233 08/13/10
~ FTC Halts Domain Scam! ~ People Are Talking! ~ Deal for Dell Streak!
~ Adam: iPad Challenger! ~ Malware Call to Arms! ~ Here Comes MS' IE9!
~ More Craigslist Ire! ~ Best Buy To Have Tablet ~ eBay Rewards Program!
~ MySpace To Revamp Site ~ Microsoft Versus Mac! ~ 30 Million Wiis Sold!
-* Red Flags for Net Neutrality *-
-* Verizon and Google Outline A Vision *-
-* Google Insists Didn't Sell Out With Plan! *-
=~=~=~=
->From the Editor's Keyboard "Saying it like it is!"
""""""""""""""""""""""""""
I apologize for this week's issue hitting the streets and your mailboxes
late this week. I had an opportunity to get together with a couple of
friends that I've known since childhood, with their wives, for a late
dinner. I haven't seen these guys for five years, at one's wedding. One
friend, who moved to California about 20 years ago, was in the area with
his wife and son to check out colleges in the area. The other guy lives
in New Hampshire, and it's been awhile. So, even though my wife and I were
exhausted, we felt that this opportunity doesn't occur too often. So, we
all met in a northeast Massachusetts tourist-trap coastal town for dinner
and a couple of drinks. Enjoyable, but a quick night. We're going to try
again soon, if enough common events come about!
So, I'm going to beg off my commentary this week because it's really late.
Suffice it to say that the focus of my comments are based on the large
number of stories that appear in this issue surrounding net neutrality.
It appears that Verizon and Google have "joined forces" to push a net
neutrality plan.
I don't usually put more than a couple of articles in any one issue that
relate similar news stories, but this topic deserves to be fully viewed,
and as much information as possible be brought to the forefront. So,
take a look-see at the various articles and see if you'll come out with
the same conclusions that I've considered. Meanwhile, I'll work on my own
comments and relate them to you next week.
Until next time...
=~=~=~=
PEOPLE ARE TALKING
compiled by Joe Mirando
joe@atarinews.org
Hidi ho friends and neighbors. Well, another week has come and gone, and
there's not a heck of a lot to talk about in the NewsGroup.
So what have we got? The Gulf oil spill? No, the well has been capped and
there is currently no oil gushing from it, there's no news about the
environmental effects that are sure to eventually hit us, there are no big
storms in the Gulf right now to "swish" the petroleum around and mix things
up and make the cleanup interesting, and nobody seems to want to talk
about the thousands of people who's lives and livelihoods are affected by
this disaster. Yeah, you see heartrending bits on the evening news, but
there's always much more behind the scenes than there's time for during
the broadcast. And what about the health issues associated not only with
cleaning up the mess, but issues with living in the area; making a living
on the water with the crude oil and methane and massive amounts of dead
and decaying matter that's bound to be there for at least a while longer?
The spill has been called the worst man-made disaster ever, and I don't
know if that's really the case... yet. I mean, yes, we have just poured
more raw crude oil into the Gulf than has ever happened before, and there
will surely be repercussions for a long time to come: The dead flora and
fauna in the water, the possible loss of several species, loss of the
associated wetlands and the living things there, the health issues, the
cost of the cleanup, what to do with the millions of gallons of oil and
denatured 'gunk' (what do you do with what's left after all the volatiles
have been leached from crud oil?), how to go about deciding what gets
cleaned up first, etc., the best way to go about restoring what we can,
and what to tell ourselves about the 'stuff' that we can't remove or fix
or cover over.
Another issue is going to be getting people back to work in an already
faltering economy. There is a large cottage industry springing up right
now; people going to work cleaning up after BP. That includes fishermen
who can't make a living at the moment in the Gulf who are now lending
their strength to skimming oil slicks and deploying booms and collecting
up turtles and pelicans and whatever else needs to be done. I haven't
heard any concrete information on this, but I'd be willing to bet that
most of them aren't making enough money to cover the cleaning of their
boats after skimming through those slicks.
There are also other professionals involved: Lawyers (of course),
'experts' employed by states, the federal government and BP itself,
ranging in expertise from petroleum cleanup and testing of everything from
water quality to the fitness of seafood for sale to health issues. There
are probably several more disciplines involved that neither you nor I have
even begun to think of yet, but they're there, doing what they can to not
only make things better, but to make a living.
The "rebound" is going to hit for these folks when the the television
cameras dim and the reporters turn in their hotel room keys and the
corporate bigshots go back to Houston and New York and wherever else. As
reporting and interest in the spill wane and the jobs disappear, these
people are going to start finding it hard to jump from one job to another,
mostly because there will be fewer jobs to jump to. If the economy in
general hasn't 'bounced back', these folks are going to find it incredibly
hard... again.
Let's focus on the fishermen for a moment. Many of them count on seasonal
catches to provide them with income for the entire year. That includes not
only putting food on the table, but paying the mortgage and maintenance and
upkeep on equipment. Some will lose their boats, some will sell theirs to
whoever will/can buy them, but almost certainly at a loss. I mean, who's
going to pay full price for a fishing boat in the Gulf right now with the
moratorium on fishing? So even if things do get back to normal along the
Gulf coast, it's going to be an uphill battle to just get back to where
you were before the disaster.
Some will move on and move away, go on to other professions where they
can, subsist on whatever they can find, or live on the kindness of
relatives. We're seeing that already; people being forced to move away
because they can no longer make a living doing what they used to do.
I have no doubt but that the Gulf region will rebound. There are simply
too many rich people around who want their summer houses and beach-front
property as it was, and they want the ease of having all their associated
conveniences around them. No, this is not a "bash the rich" rant. It's
simply a statement of fact. They'll make things better for themselves,
either by pouring their own money into it or, more likely, getting the
government to pour our money into it. And that's not altogether a bad
thing. It has to be done regardless, and if someone with a high financial
profile get the ball rolling.
While I've never been a fan of the trickle-down theory or supply-side
economics, we do need to get things going somehow.
So far I've talked mostly about the concrete costs to the 'human
condition', but there are other issues we need to at least consider as
well. I mentioned the possibility of 'losing' several species. Species like
the brown pelican, several types of sea turtles (yes, picture Mr. Gibbs
smiling and saying "Aye, sea TURTLES"), and who knows about the other
forms of sea life like the blue fin tuna, and all that delicious shrimp.
While I've mentioned only the creatures that are interesting to us (either
because they're cute or they taste good), there are bound to be many
others just as deserving of a place in the Gulf, From sharks and all kinds
of fish all the way 'down' to the lowly plankton upon which the whole
system depends.
And what if, horror of horrors, the damage from this catastrophe gets
carried around Florida and into the Atlantic? Sure it might get diluted
and spread out and be no major trouble to anyone, but it could also fowl
the water, poison feeding and breeding grounds, and make survival tough on
both wildlife and any hapless human who needs to make their living from
them. And imagine the international implications. It's bad enough that
there's a chance that the spill could impact not only American states, but
most of the countries on the east coast of North and Central America, not
to mention the very slim possibility of it somehow impacting countries in
South America. Can you imagine how Venezuela would react to having its
coastline mucked up by someone else's oil company?
But above and beyond all that, I wonder if we've learned anything from all
of this. Perhaps.. just perhaps we can salvage something from this
disaster if we learn something from it. Perhaps something about how
mechanical equipment reacts under the tremendous pressure of having a mile
of water above, perhaps something about following safety guidelines no
matter what, perhaps maybe we'll even learn something about ourselves...
about conserving where we can and working smarter instead of simply adding
more coal (or more oil) to the fire to get more, more, more energy. Well,
here's hoping.
Well, that's it for this week, friends and neighbors. Tune in again next
week, same time, same station, and be ready to listen to what they are
saying when...
PEOPLE ARE TALKING
=~=~=~=
->In This Week's Gaming Section - Nintendo Wii Sells 30 Million Units!
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" 'Madden NFL 11' Still Best!
'Bioshock Infinite' Being Prepped!
And more!
=~=~=~=
->A-ONE's Game Console Industry News - The Latest Gaming News!
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Nintendo Wii Sells 30 Million Units
Nintendo said Wednesday that the company has sold 30 million of its
Nintendo Wii gaming consoles in the U.S. alone 45 months after its
launch in Nov. 2006, making it the fastest-growing console in history.
The Nintendo Wii, lacking the graphical horsepower of the rival Sony
Playstation 3 or Microsoft Xbox 360, has been priced to move, at $199.99.
That, in turn, has led to record holiday sales and numerous instances of
shortages early in the console's life. In part, Nintendo said that's
because the console appealed to a diverse audience.
"More than any other video game system in history, Wii has expanded the
world of video games to new audiences," said Cammie Dunaway, Nintendo of
America's executive vice president of Sales & Marketing. "This milestone is
another reminder that people want fun games they can play with others - all
at a value-minded price."
Nintendo said the company's holiday game lineup included Metroid: Other M
on Aug. 31, Samurai Warriors 3 on Sept. 27, Kirby's Epic Yarn and Wii Party
this fall, and Donkey Kong Country Returns, FlingSmash and PokÃPark Wii:
Pikachu's Adventure for the holidays. That's in addition to New Carnival
Games from 2K Play in September, NBA JAM from EA Sports in October,
GoldenEye 007 from Activision and Just Dance 2 from Ubisoft this fall, and
Disney Epic Mickey from Disney Interactive Studios and Sonic Colors from
SEGA during the holidays.
According to NPD, the top three games for the console through June are Wii
Play, Mario Kart Wii, and Wii Fit, with the Wii Balance Board accessory.
'Madden NFL 11' Not Perfect, Still Best
The 22-year-old Madden NFL video game franchise returns with another
championship-caliber effort, capturing the Vince Lombardi trophy but
falling short of the cherished undefeated season.
EA Sports, which is owned by Electronic Arts Inc., once again finds a
way to up the series' incredible visuals and Sunday experience, and
developers have made running fun again while adding a great new
play-calling mode to speed up the time it takes to get through a game.
But "Madden NFL 11" ($59.99; Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3) is held back a
bit by disjointed play-by-play announcing that is hard to ignore.
Football teams are most effective when they can establish the run, and
EA Sports comes through here.
The game scraps the long-used sprint button (why would you not want to
go fast?) in favor of a dual-stick control that makes juking and
spinning toward the goal line more intuitive and enjoyable.
For two decades, my impatience for video game yardage has prompted me to
call an inordinate number of pass plays. This control adjustment has
fixed that.
Another welcome improvement is GameFlow, which allows gamers to play a
football game while leaving the coaching to others. It's far superior
than the previous "Ask Madden" method.
Just click a single button and a suitable play for the situation is
called. A coach calls the strategy into your helmet's headset (the main
speakers or your Xbox 360 headset) and you just run the play.
Sure, the artificial intelligence play callers are going to make some
puzzling decisions, but so do real-life offensive and defensive
coordinators. And gamers who really want control are going to pick their
own plays.
Even with GameFlow, you can always opt to select from the full playbook
or call an audible at the line, and more extensive pre-game adjustments
can be made in the Game Planning menu. Just bump and drop the popularity
of certain plays in particular situations in a process like rating songs
for a customized online radio station.
The visuals in "Madden NFL 11" pop off the screen.
Coaches and players look more like their real-life counterparts, and the
sun and halogen beams entering the stadiums create more realistic
shadows and lighting effects.
"Madden" expanded its pre-game cut scenes with shots of players sitting
in locker rooms, stars in suits walking off team buses and fans lining
up to grab a beer or hot dog.
On the field, players engage in those now overly filmed get-psyched
pre-game bounce sessions, defensive players jump each other to celebrate
a beastly hit and coaching assistants give a player some Gatorade during
timeouts.
The stadiums look great, and graphical improvements with both the
sidelines and crowds are evident. Fans wear a variety of NFL gear, but
the collective crowd's color palette is exclusively matched to the
teams' palette. Would an occasional random yellow or red shirt at a
Colts-Eagles game hurt anyone?
Crowds engage in team specific chants such as "J-E-T-S Jets," "Go Pack
Go" and "Tampa ... Bay." I've been waiting for the latter for 20 years.
Other in-game improvements include better downfield blocking and
refinements to many of the catching and running animations.
Where the game really falls short is in the play-by-play announcing.
In an attempt to boost the broadcast excitement level, EA Sports hired
Gus Johnson, a top-notch veteran announcer who does a fantastic job on
Sundays.
But his game calling comes through here as ridiculously fragmented and
choppy, as the voice inflections in strung-together phrases are way too
diverse.
A loud and excited "Braylon Edwards" is followed by a subdued "making
his first reception of the game." Excitement builds with a boisterous,
"He's wanting to go deep with it," followed by a way softer, "He's taken
down at the 20," without ever noting that it was a catch. It's just not
natural.
I got so fed up with this that I decided to turn off the commentary,
which revealed another sound issue I had been overlooking. I could hear
no stadium announcer chronicling the play, ball carrier, tackler and
yardage. The odd thing is a specific volume control setting for the
stadium speakers that says it scales the volume of the PA announcer.
Confusing.
On the positive side, Cris Collinsworth's color commentary is solid and
unbutchered, as his bits are recorded in full sentences.
One new multiplayer offering this year is online team play, which allows
three-on-three action with one controlling the quarterback, one handling
the running backs and the third guiding the receivers. This is a nice
addition.
All-in-all, "Madden NFL 11" is once again the best NFL football video
game on the market, and that's not just because it's the only NFL
football video game on the market.
Fans of the series commit to buying a new title each year, and there are
not enough reasons to skip this year.
Three-and-a-half out of four stars.
Irrational Games Prepping 'Bioshock Infinite'
2K Games revealed Wednesday that its Irrational Games studio is currently
developing the next installment in the "BioShock" franchise, dubbed
"BioShock Infinite."
The game, which is being developed for the Xbox 360, the PlayStation3, and
Games for Windows, is expected to hit stores sometime in 2012.
The game is set in 1912 where a man is on a mission to rescue a woman from
Columbia, a city in the sky.
A trailer for "BioShock Infinite" transported users to Columbia, where
we assume the role of former Pinkerton agent Booker DeWitt, and must
rescue Elizabeth, a young woman imprisoned there since childhood. From a
first person point of view, we see that DeWitt is being brutally
attacked by a Big Daddy. He is soon thrown from his sanctuary in the sky
and begins to fall. A woman saves him briefly, but not before she is
grabbed by the rebellious Big Daddy.
"In order to explore the floating city of Columbia, we needed an
entirely new engine. To bring Elizabeth to life, we had to build
brand-new animation and AI systems," Ken Levine, creative director of
Irrational Games, said in a statement. "To create wide-ranging indoor
and outdoor firefights at 30,000 feet, we had to rethink, rebuild, and
expand the BioShock arsenal. The only thing gamers can be certain of is
this: the rules of the BioShock universe are about to change."
Rage Set to Release in September of 2011
After debuting gameplay footage at E3, ids Rage quickly jumped to the
top of the list of 'most-anticipated' titles. Besides just looking fairly
incredible, and besides the impressive pedigree of id Software and
publisher Bethesda, Rage also will debut the brand new id Tech 5 engine.
Originally debuted at Quakecon 2007, Rage has had the industry's attention
for quite awhile. Besides the fact that the company that created the
first-person shooter genre is releasing a new game, the proprietary engine
that they created for this game is also attracting developers who have been
using id's software engines for years.
As more footage of Rage is released, it will soon have the attention of
gamers everywhere as well, but we will have to wait until September 13 of
next year to experience the results of ids newest creation.
Set in a post-apocalyptic wasteland, the first-person shooter takes place
on an Earth devastated by an asteroid. Beyond that, not much is known, but
expect to hear more in the coming months.
=~=~=~=
A-ONE's Headline News
The Latest in Computer Technology News
Compiled by: Dana P. Jacobson
Verizon, Google Outline Vision on Internet Yraffic
Phone and cable TV companies that provide Internet access should be barred
from slowing down, blocking or charging to prioritize Internet traffic
flowing over their regular broadband lines, Verizon Communications Inc. and
Google Inc. said in a policy statement released Monday.
But the companies left room for broadband providers to charge extra to
route traffic from premium services such as remote medical monitoring
and smart-grid controls over dedicated networks that are separate from
the public Internet.
Verizon and Google laid out their vision in a policy proposal that they
hope can serve as a framework for Congress and the Federal
Communications Commission in drafting so-called "network neutrality"
rules. Such rules are meant to ensure that phone and cable providers
cannot favor their own services or discriminate against Internet phone
calls, online video and other Web services that compete with their core
businesses.
Although broadband providers such as Verizon and Internet-content
companies such as Google are at opposite ends in the increasingly bitter
debate over such rules, the two companies have been in talks for months
to try to identify common ground.
Their proposal comes just days after the FCC declared an impasse in
negotiations to craft an industry-wide compromise on the thorny issue.
FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski is seeking to adopt net-neutrality rules
that would ensure that broadband subscribers could readily access all
legal online content, applications, services and devices.
The proposal from Google and Verizon would give the FCC authority to
enforce those rules for wired networks by prohibiting broadband
providers from discriminating against or favoring Internet traffic. The
proposal would allow the agency to impose a penalty of up to $2 million
on companies that violate the rules. Wireless carriers, which have more
capacity constraints, would not be subject to the restrictions, although
they would have to disclose their network management practices.
In a conference call with reporters, Google CEO Eric Schmidt and Verizon
CEO Ivan Seidenberg said their proposal would preserve the openness of
the Internet, but still give phone and cable TV companies room to
experiment with "managed" services that could send video, games and
other bandwidth-hungry applications over separate systems.
Jen Howard, a spokeswoman for Genachowski, had no comment.
But several public interest groups were quick to denounce the proposal.
In a statement, Free Press Political Adviser Joel Kelsey said the plan
would "transform the free and open Internet into a closed platform like
cable television" and "lead to toll booths on the information
superhighway."
Gigi B. Sohn, president and co-founder of the group Public Knowledge,
added that the proposal "sacrifices the future of the mobile wireless
Internet as this platform becomes more central to the lives of all
Americans."
Public interest groups were particularly disappointed with Google, which
has led the push in recent years for strict net neutrality rules that
would require broadband providers to give equal treatment to Internet
traffic. Net neutrality supporters argue that this encompasses more than
just barring phone and cable companies from blocking or degrading traffic.
They also insist that broadband providers should not be able to charge
extra for priority access on their systems because doing so would create
a two-tiered Internet with a fast lane for online companies that can pay
more and a slow lane for everyone else. The proposal outlined by Verizon
and Google, they say, violates this principle.
But Schmidt rejected this point, stressing that the proposal would not
allow any paid prioritization of traffic over the public Internet.
"Google cares a lot about the open Internet," he said. "The open
Internet made it possible for our two founders ... to turn a very
powerful idea into this phenomenal business that Google represents today."
Verizon and other Internet providers, meanwhile, maintain that onerous
net neutrality rules would discourage them from continuing to invest in
their systems. After spending billions to upgrade their lines for
broadband, they say, they should be able to operate those systems as
they see fit and earn a healthy return by offering premium services.
Broadband providers also insist that they need flexibility to manage
traffic so that high-bandwidth applications don't hog capacity and slow
down their networks for everyone else.
Google-Verizon Net Neutrality Plan Exempts Wireless
Following a rash of rumors in the last week about what they were
discussing, Google and Verizon Wireless on Monday unveiled a joint
policy proposal for Net neutrality. Under the proposal, a broadband
provider can prioritize some kinds of online content to willing
customers, wireline Internet remains neutral as to content, and wireless
is unregulated.
In a joint statement posted simultaneously with the opening of a press
conference by Google CEO Eric Schmdt and Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg,
the two companies said it is "imperative that we find ways to protect
the future openness of the Internet and encourage the rapid deployment
of broadband." Schmidt noted that the announcement was about a "joint
policy," not a business arrangement.
The companies said their "principled compromise" is guided by two main
goals - allowing users to choose content, applications and devices, and
encouraging investment and innovation in the broadband infrastructure.
Those are the twin, opposing arguments about Net neutrality - that
users need access to any Net content, without some content being
prioritized or charged at the carrier's whim, while carriers want to
ensure that they have the financial resources to continue building a
broadband infrastructure that can handle increasing volumes of traffic.
In the Verizon-Google Legislative Framework Proposal laid out Monday,
wireline Internet service providers would be prohibited from preventing
customers from sending or receiving any lawful content, running lawful
applications, or connecting any lawful device.
Broadband providers would be required to be transparent about their
conditions, and to disclose "in plain language" the nature of their
offerings. The framework states, however, that providers are permitted
to engage in "reasonable network management" to reduce network
congestion, ensure security, or ensure "service quality to a subscriber"
according to best practices by an unnamed, "widely recognized Internet
community governance initiative or standard-setting organization."
The framework also says a provider offering broadband Internet service
consistent with the above principles could also offer "additional or
differentiated services" that could "include traffic prioritization."
Google and Verizon said these could include real-time medical
telecommunications, a smart grid, or new gaming services - but a clear
distinction between the additional, prioritized services and the open
Internet was not drawn. For instance, could the prioritized services
include Google's YouTube videos? Schmidt said Google's services would
remain in the open Internet.
To address this issue, the framework asks that the Federal
Communications Commission publish an annual report on the "effect of
these additional services, and immediately report if it finds at any
time that these services" threaten the provision of an open Internet.
The agreement says the FCC would enforce consumer protection and
nondiscrimination requirements on a "case-by-case" basis - without
rule-making authority over this framework - and could issue a fine of
up to $2 million for "knowing violations."
Off the table in the framework are wireless broadband services, which
the companies say is because the industry is "still developing." Only
the transparency principle would apply to wireless, and the U.S.
Government Accountability Office would issue an annual report on the
"development and robustness of wireless broadband Internet access
services." No enforcement provisions are specified.
Given Google's leading position in the community backing an open
Internet, the reaction of consumer advocates to the proposal could help
or hurt its reputation. Media Access Project's Andrew Jay Schwartzman
told The New York Times that the "plan raises as many questions as it
answers." He noted it did not disclose a standard for resolving consumer
complaints, and he said the proposal that nondiscrimination of content
would not apply to wireless makes "this arrangement a nonstarter."
Google-Verizon Net Neutrality Pact: 5 Red Flags
Google and Verizon unveiled a proposal to maintain an open Internet while
creating room for a broadband network of premium services. The proposal has
no legal standing whatsoever, and is basically a policy paper on network
neutrality for consideration by Congress and the Federal Communications
Commission. Network neutrality is the principle that broadband providers
should not be allowed to discriminate or restrict Web traffic based on its
content.
Regardless of the legal standing, this proposal is backed by two major
technology corporations involved in the network neutrality debate. That
means the proposal could influence discussions about the future of
broadband Internet access in the U.S.
So far, reaction to the proposal has been highly critical. Citizen interest
group Public Knowledge said the proposal "shouldn't form the basis of
legislation in Congress or of rules by the FCC." The headline "Google Goes
'Evil'" lead the Huffington Post's coverage of the proposal.
FCC Commission Michael J. Copps believes the Google-Verizon proposal is
a call for the FCC to assert "authority over broadband telecommunications.
(PDF)" to protect the interests of users. While Paul Misener, Amazon's
vice president for global public policy, told The New York Times the
Google-Verizon proposal "appears to condone services that could harm
consumer Internet access."
There are many concerns and questions surrounding the Google-Verizon
proposal. Here are five things that are top of my mind.
Verizon, and presumably other broadband providers, want the right to
maintain a so-called private Internet to provide new services that don't
exist yet. Some examples of what private broadband services could be
include health care monitoring, educational services, gaming and other
forms of entertainment. This private service would be separate from the
regular Internet.
In theory, this sounds like a fair idea since a carrier's private network
wouldn't infringe on the existing Internet we have today. But how would
this play out in practice?
Would Verizon, for example, be able to tell Blizzard Entertainment - the
company behind online games like World of Warcraft - that its services
must be on the private network because it takes up too much bandwidth on
the regular Internet?
Are there other, less direct ways broadband providers could pressure online
companies to move to the private network?
By all accounts, wireless Internet (3G and Edge cellular service) is the
fastest-growing means for accessing the Internet. So why does the
Google-Verizon proposal leave wireless access out of the network neutrality
debate? The proposal says the wireless industry is too "competitive and
changing rapidly" to be included in any net neutrality agreement.
But if safeguards aren't put in place now, what happens when wireless access
becomes the dominant way to access the Internet? In fact, that future may be
here sooner than you think. A recent study by Morgan Stanley predicts more
people will be getting online via mobile devices than PCs within 5 years.
What happens to network neutrality then?
The Google-Verizon proposal says broadband providers "would not be able
to discriminate against or prioritize lawful Internet content." I have
to wonder if by "lawful Internet content" what these two companies
really mean is "any content but torrents," also known as peer-to-peer
(p2p) file sharing.
It's no secret that broadband carriers have a grudge against p2p file
sharing and wouldn't mind if it disappeared. Vuze, a company that makes
p2p software, has claimed in the past that all U.S. broadband carriers
disrupt p2p traffic. Broadband carrier Comcast has battled against file
sharing in recent years claiming the file sharing protocol slows down the
network for all users.
It's also no secret that many users on p2p networks are trading copyrighted
files such as major Hollywood movies, TV shows, video games, music and even
digital scans of comic books.
But p2p can be used for legitimate purposes as well. Activist group the
Yes Men recently released their documentary "The Yes Men Fix the World"
as a publicly available torrent file. Michael Moore did the same thing
for "Slacker Uprising" in 2008, and the CBC (Canada's public broadcaster)
has also experimented with distributing content via torrents.
For all the criticism and bad press it gets, torrent protocols are an
efficient and useful way to distribute content (legal or otherwise). So
how would the Google-Verizon proposal effect p2p file sharing? Would
access to sites like The Pirate Bay or other torrent databases be
restricted based on accusations that most of the content it points to
isn't "lawful"? Also, how deeply would broadband carriers be monitoring
p2p traffic to watch out for unlawful content on their networks?
The Google-Verizon proposal appears to make room for a two-tiered
Internet: the public Internet we use today and a private one for premium
services. That raises the question about what happens to the regular
Internet in the long term? Would broadband providers be compelled to
maintain and upgrade their regular Internet services? Could carriers cap
regular Internet speeds at a certain level, and then force users over to
the proposed private service if they wanted better broadband speeds? How
does an open or so-called public Internet survive when corporations have
financial incentives, such as private networks, to ignore it?
Finally, how much is this going to cost the regular end user? If this
proposed framework succeeds and carriers are able to offer private
services, what are the costs going to be? Would fees be structured like
cable packages, as some reports have suggested, where you buy one plan for
entertainment services like gaming and another for services like health
care monitoring? Or would services be provided a la carte, where you just
pay for the access you want?
The aim of the Verizon-Google plan is to maintain an open Internet and
for "continued investment in broadband infrastructure." But is a proposed
two-tiered broadband system that ignores the growing popularity of
wireless access really a good way to maintain open Internet access for
all? I'm not so sure.
Net Neutrality: Reading Between the Google-Verizon Lines
Google and Verizon unveiled a joint proposal advocating net neutrality -
sort of. When net neutrality opponents band together to embrace the concept,
it's prudent to pull back the curtain and look more closely at the details
and motives behind the plan.
The New York Times may have been off the mark in prematurely reporting
that Google and Verizon were double-crossing the ongoing FCC net
neutrality negotiations with secret back-room deals. However, the reports
may actually have been more truth than fiction because ultimately the two
parties emerged from those secret meetings with a self-serving plan that
sabotages those efforts.
Let's use an analogy. Assume that the FCC called a meeting to declare
pizza the best food ever. Then Google and Verizon meet on the side and
call a press conference to declare that pizza is, in fact, the best food
ever. Awesome! We all agree. Right? Well, when you look at the details,
Google and Verizon are declaring pizza the best food ever as long as it
doesn't have pepperoni and it is only eaten indoors while sitting on
folding chairs. All other scenarios are still open to interpretation.
If Google and Verizon are in favor of net neutrality, why not simply get on
board with the FCC plan? The more important questions are: "Why is the FCC
asking the industry it is tasked with regulating what the regulations
should look like?" or "Why should we let the fox propose a plan for
protecting the hen house?".
Involving Verizon, Comcast, and other broadband Internet providers - wired
or wireless - is like inviting Al Qaeda, North Korea, and Iran to work out
a plan for defending the nation, or inviting BP, Exxon-Mobil, and Shell to
work out details to protect our environment from the perils of offshore
drilling. We have government agencies that are supposed to manage these
activities. Negotiating a compromise with the industry that is supposed to
be regulated violates the agency's responsibility to the nation.
FCC chairman Julius Genachowski and the rest of the FCC should be ashamed
that they chose political expediency over the best interests of the nation
by calling the net neutrality negotiations in the first place. Doing what's
right is rarely popular, and the FCC definitely shouldn't expect the
industry to welcome oversight with open arms.
The FCC has a job to do. That job is to regulate and oversee communications
by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable. It doesn't need additional
authority from Congress to execute those duties, and it doesn't need the
permission or cooperation of the parties it is tasked with overseeing.
The Google-Verizon "net neutrality" plan is a thinly - and poorly - veiled
attempt to appear to embrace the principles of net neutrality while
not-so-secretly laying the groundwork for doing the exact opposite.
Google and Verizon have a profit motive and a fiduciary obligation to
their shareholders. They would fail in their obligations if they didn't
do everything possible to minimize regulation and maximize profit.
Profit motive and corporate greed are a conflict of interest for doing
what's right. The FCC, and the nation, should read between the lines and
reject the Google-Verizon proposal out of hand.
Net Neutrality Advocates Blast Google, Verizon Plan
Net neutrality advocates claim Google and Verizon's joint policy proposal
for an "open Internet" will do more harm than good when it comes to keeping
networks as open to all data. Critics claim the proposal is "worse than
feared" and if adopted will result in users paying premium rates to access
content such as critical health care services and access to online gaming
platfoms.
In a press conference Monday the two Internet giants detailed a plan
that would require all broadband connections to be content neutral,
preventing service providers from blocking or degrading Web traffic.
While on the surface the proposal looks like Google and Verizon are
looking out for the best interests of the Internet as a whole, many feel
that the companies have a hidden agenda.
The biggest sore spot identified by leading net nuetrality experts
centers on Google and Verizon's notion that some Internet traffic should
be treated differently than other types of traffic. Things such as
"advanced educational services, or new entertainment and gaming options"
Google and Verizon argue these services should get preferential
treatment. Many see this as Google and Verizon attempting to take steps
to create a pay-to-play tier of higher bandwidth and more reliable
Internet service. The end result might be either content providers or
consumers will have to pay more for access to a premium version of the
Internet.
Sherwin Sly, Deputy Legal Director of Public Knowledge, a Washington DC
based public interest group concerned with digital culture, criticized
the idea that Verizon and Google would make a proposal in the first
place: "The agreement outsources the FCC's powers and authorities to the
very industries these rules are supposed to oversee." Having Verizon and
Google make rules about the Web is comparable to having Ford or GM makes
rules about auto safety. Public Knowledge has issued a petition on its
site to the FCC calling it to "take action now to protect innovation,
competition and American broadband consumers" and not allow broadband
companies to make rules of their own.
Free Press, a nonprofit organization working to reform the media, issued
a statement calling the proposal "worse than feared" and urging policy
makers to reject what they call "fake net neutrality." The Free Press says
that the framework of the proposal "opens the door wide open for ISPs and
deep-pocketed content companies to engage in practices that will turn the
Internet platform into something that more closely resembles the closed
cable TV model."
While Free Press say the proposal is disguised "as a reasonable path
forward" it feels that if adopted the path will instead "lead to toll
booths on the information superhighway" where users have to pay to get
to get to "premium" content they want to see. "The Google-Verizon pact
isn't just as bad as we feared - it's much worse. They are attacking the
Internet while claiming to preserve it. Google users won't be fooled."
Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee,
suggests that traditional broadband connections will be obsolete in a
few years and that the "transparency rules" suggested in the proposal for
wireless carriers will simply allow Americans to "visibly watch" free and
open Internet disappear.
Green also suggests that Verizon's large investment in broadband may be
a motive for it to keep it alive in a world where wireless is quickly
taking over. If only broadband Internet is open, it would stand to
reason that more people would in turn want broadband.
Green's committee has started an emergency online petition to Google
simply titled "Don't be evil - stand up for the free and open Internet."
The petition has currently been signed by more than 300,000 people and
contains an open letter to the company:
Dear Google,
As a Google user, I am telling you, 'Don't be evil.' The deal between
Google and Verizon is evil, because it threatens the open Internet,
which hundreds of millions of people rely on every day. Live up to your
founding motto, walk away from this deal and save the Internet.
Sincerely,
[Add your name]
FCC Commissioner Michael Copps posted the following statement on the FCC
Website: "Some will claim this announcement moves the discussion forward.
That's one of its many problems. It is time to move a decision forward - a
decision to reassert FCC authority over broadband telecommunications, to
guarantee an open Internet now and forever, and to put the interests of
consumers in front of the interests of giant corporations."
Understanding Verizon, Google, and Net Neutrality
The Valley hubbub today is all about the antics of two of its most powerful
titans: Google and Verizon - and a plan theyve floated around the idea of
net neutrality, the long-simmering idea that would protect popular online
sites and services from being charged extra by ISPs and data carriers, and
in turn would ensure that consumers dont have to pay extra to access those
sites.
On Monday, Google and Verizon put forward a "joint policy proposal" for
their vision of an open Internet. The online posting expands upon the
two companies "statement of principles" released late last year.
Many of the ideas put forward - seven points are outlined in all - are
innocuous, including notions about enforcing anti-discriminatory
practices, disallowing prioritization and blocking of Internet traffic.
But its ideas No. 5 and 6, almost thrown out casually, that have people
all in a tizzy.
Heres why.
Suggestion 5 suggests that while the "regular" Internet should be subject
to all the rules preventing discrimination of Web traffic and the like,
companies should be allowed to build "additional, differentiated online
services" in addition to the ones offered today. While the Google post goes
to great lengths to suggest this is not a way to circumvent the rules, the
prospect of having to deal with (and pay for) a second (or third or fourth)
Internet is daunting. More troubling: The standard rules would not apply on
this shadow Internet, leaving companies free to develop their own services
that did not fall under FCC rules, creating a free-for-all that could be an
outright nightmare for users - and an expensive one at that.
Think of it this way: If Google and Verizon had their way, you could be
paying for standard Web service, Web video, Skype, online gaming, and
even email all separately, because they could all be "differentiated"
enough to merit special treatment.
Suggestion No. 6 is easier to understand. Verizon and Google recognize
that the future isnt really in copper and fiber being piped into our
house, but in wireless. They want special rules for the wireless world,
and the suggestion is that virtually none of the net neutrality
suggestions would apply if a cell phone or radio were involved. Thats
scary.
While everyones up in arms, it is important to remember that Google and
Verizon - while powerful - have no policy-making ability in Washington,
and their suggestions are exactly that: Ideas that are good for Google
and Verizon, and perhaps not so much for the rest of the world. In fact,
the FCC has already expressed some dismay with the bloviating,
suggesting that its more interested in protecting consumers than the
coffers of two tech titans.
Google-Verizon Pact Proves Need for Real Net Neutrality
The Internet is abuzz with reports that the sky is falling and the end
is near following the Google-Verizon proposal for "net neutrality".
On the contrary, Google and Verizon did the Internet a huge favor by
demonstrating exactly why net neutrality is necessary, and creating a
backlash strong enough to drive Congress and the FCC to do the right
thing.
Throughout the struggle for net neutrality, the major Internet industry
players that oppose the concept have ironically been the major catalysts
proving just how much a written regulatory framework for net neutrality
is needed. Comcast, AT&T, and now Google and Verizon continue to do
their cause more harm than good.
Comcast drew first blood in the net neutrality battle by violating the
principles of the Broadband Policy Statement established by the FCC in
2005. Intentionally choking peer-to-peer networking traffic, and giving
other Internet traffic preferential treatment on the Comcast network drew
attention to the cause and illustrated why the FCC should have stronger
oversight to protect national and consumer interests.
Last fall, AT&T reversed its policy banning VoIP (Voice over IP) apps
from using its 3G wireless network. The rejection of the Google Voice
app, and the restriction of the Skype app to only Wi-Fi demonstrated
that an unregulated broadband industry will act out of greed and
self-interest - closing out competition and stifling innovation.
AT&T trumpeted the move as evidence of how well the industry polices
itself and why net neutrality is unnecessary, but the reality is that
the specter of net neutrality is what drove AT&T to reverse its policy.
Had there not been an ongoing debate and threat of regulatory oversight,
AT&T would have been happy to continue restricting access to its network.
Now, Google and Verizon come along like wolves in sheep's clothing -
developing a proposal to very narrowly define net neutrality, and with
enough built-in intricacy and double-speak to leave the door wide open for
industry players to interpret net neutrality to fit their needs. Putting
"net neutrality" lipstick on that pig didn't really fool anyone, though,
and ultimately Google and Verizon helped the FCC cause for real net
neutrality and did the general public a favor by proving why it's needed.
If net neutrality were a game of chess, though, the industry players may
have outwitted the FCC and dodged increased regulatory oversight of
wired and wireless broadband simply by dragging things out. If the
Republicans win back seats during the mid-term election - as is widely
expected - corporations with deep pockets will have more friends in
Congress and the FCC will have a more difficult time making the case for
doing the job it was chartered to do.
The FCC Notice of Inquiry (NOI) seeking public comment and feedback on
reclassifying broadband service to increase FCC oversight ends tomorrow -
August 12. The FCC should ignore the Google-Verizon proposal, and forget
about negotiating the future of the Internet with companies that stand to
gain the most from an unregulated Internet, and simply march forth based on
the wisdom and insight gathered during the NOI process.
Google Insists It Didn't 'Sell Out' with Net Neutrality Plan
Amid a storm of opposition from consumer groups and some Internet-based
companies for its joint proposal with Verizon Wireless on how to handle
Net neutrality, Google is now defending its position. On Thursday, the
search giant sought to shoot down what it described as six "myths" about
the proposal.
"On balance," the statement on the official Google Blog said, "we
believe this proposal represents real progress on what has become a very
contentious issue." The statement was posted by Richard Whitt,
Washington telecom and media counsel for the company.
The first myth, the company said, is that it has "sold out" on Net
neutrality. On the contrary, the company said, it has been "the leading
corporate voice" on this issue over the past five years. It noted that
there currently are "no enforceable protections" at the Federal
Communications Commission or elsewhere against the "worst forms of
carrier discrimination against Internet traffic."
In that climate, Google said, it decided to "partner with a major
broadband provider on the best policy solution we could," one that is
not perfect but that "locks in key enforceable protections for consumers."
The second myth cited is that the proposal is a "step backward" for an
open Internet. Whitt said the proposal would give the FCC the ability to
preserve an open Internet for the first time, although the agency would
be prohibited from imposing regulations. Some observers have noted that
the proposal appeared to confine the FCC to answering consumer
complaints and filing observational reports.
Another myth, Google said, is that the proposal would eliminate network
neutrality for wireless. Google said "in the spirit of compromise" it
agreed to allow wireless to remain "free from regulation" for now. The
company acknowledged that it had previously argued that "certain
openness safeguards" be applied to wireless as well as wireline.
The reason behind the exception for wireless, Whitt wrote, is because it
is a heavily competitive environment, often with two or more service
providers available to every customer, and there is limited capacity
because there is limited over-the-air bandwidth.
One of the biggest red flags to consumer groups and various Net
companies is that the proposal seeks to let providers offer specialized
services to customers outside of the "regular Internet." These could be
special gaming services, banking or medical telecommunications,
although, as many observers have noted, the differences between these
services and the Internet were not made clear.
Google countered that it included "key protections" in the proposal to
shield the public Internet, including full compliance by providers with
consumer protections and nondiscrimination standards before the
specialized services could be offered. Also included, it said, is a
distinction "in purpose and scope" of these services so that they do not
replace the "best effort Internet," and the ability of the FCC to
monitor the offers and intervene in some unspecified way, if needed.
Google dismissed the idea that it's working with Verizon because of its
partnership with that company to promote Android-based devices. It also
argued that the proposal is not two big companies "legislating the
future of the Internet," but simply two companies offering a
"legislative framework" to Congress for consideration, with the hope
that others will weigh in.
FTC Halts Domain-Name Registration Scam
A U.S. judge has ordered a halt to a Canadian operation that allegedly
posed as a domain-name registrar in an effort to collect fees from
thousands of U.S. consumers, small businesses and nonprofits, the U.S.
Federal Trade Commission said.
Judge Robert Dow Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois, Eastern Division, has ordered defendant Steven Dale to pay
nearly US$4.3 million in a default judgment the FTC released Monday. Dow
issued a settlement order for a Toronto business and three other
individuals in the lawsuit brought by the FTC in May 2008, the agency
announced.
Dow issued the settlement order and default judgment in March, but the
documents were made public Monday.
The FTC had accused a business called 1646153 Ontario of sending fake
domain-name invoices to small businesses and other organizations, with the
letters listing the existing domain name of the targeted firm's website or
a slight variation on the domain name, such as substituting.org for .com.
The invoices appeared to come from the targeted organizations' existing
domain-name registrars and instructed them to pay for an annual "website
address listing."
The invoices also listed search engine optimization as part of the
service from 1646153 Ontario, which did business under several names,
including Internet Listing Service.
The invoices led the targeted customers to believe they had to pay the
fees to maintain their domain-name registrations, the FTC said in a
press release. Other customers paid the invoices based on the claim that
the search optimization service would "direct mass traffic" to their
sites and that their "proven search engine listing service" would result
in "a substantial increase in traffic," the FTC press release said.
Targeted customers who paid the invoices did not receive domain-name
registration services, and the search optimization service did not
produce additional traffic for their websites, the FTC said in its
complaint.
Dow issued a temporary restraining order against several of the defendants
in May 2008. The settlement order and default judgment released Monday end
the FTC's lawsuit.
The orders bar the defendants from misrepresenting that they have a
preexisting business relationship with consumers, and that consumers owe
them money. The orders also prohibit the defendants from saying they
will provide domain name registration and search optimization services.
The settlement order, entered against defendants Isaac Benlolo, Kirk
Mulveney, Pearl Keslassy and 1646153 Ontario, includes a suspended
judgment of $4.3 million, the amount of money the defendants made
through the operation. They will turn over $10,000, based on their
inability to pay more, the FTC said.
Charges against Ari Balabanian and Data Business Solutions were dismissed
by the court at the FTC's request.
Craigslist Asked To Shut Down 'Adult Services' Section
Craigslist came under fire again Monday when a human rights group took
out an ad that detailed the ordeals of two women it described as survivors
of Craigslist sex trafficking, and asked the site to shut down its adult
services section.
In a blog post response, Craigslist co-founder Jim Buckmaster expressed
concern about whether or not the perpetrators had been arrested, but said
that "criminal misuse of the site is quite rare."
The ad, which was funded by the FAIR Fund and formatted as a letter to
Craigslist co-founder Craig Newmark, discussed the abduction and forced
prostitution of two women who identified themselves as AK and MC. It was
published in The Washington Post and The San Francisco Chronicle.
AK said she met a man in 2009 who pretended to be her boyfriend but soon
revealed he was a pimp. "He put my picture on Craigslist, and I was sold
for sex by the hour at truck stops and cheap motels, 10 hours with 10
different men every night," AK wrote.
MC said she was forced into prostitution six years ago at age 11 by a
28-year-old man.
"All day, me and other girls sat with our laptops, posting pictures and
answering ads on Craigslist," MC wrote. "He made $1,500 a night selling
my body, dragging me to Los Angeles, Houston, Little Rock; and one trip
to Las Vegas in the trunk of a car."
The women said that Craigslist is the Web site of choice for traffickers
because "it's so well known and there are rarely consequences to using
it for these illegal acts." They asked that the site shut down its adult
services section.
In his response, Buckmaster asked if the perpetrators were behind bars.
"If Craigslist was misused, we want to learn more so we can improve our
preventative measures," he wrote. "If anyone committing such crimes has
not yet been apprehended and prosecuted, we want to do everything in our
power to assist the police in making that happen."
He asked them to provide any information about the men to Craigslist's
legal department.
Still, incidents described by AK and MC are a rarity, he said.
"Craigslist is used by more than 50 million Americans to facilitate
billions of interactions each month, and criminal misuse of the site is
quite rare," Buckmaster wrote. "We are dedicated to eliminating it
entirely however, and in this regard we have been working for years to
ensure that Craigslist is very much part of the solution to crimes such
as trafficking and exploitation of minors."
Craigslist made headlines last year after a man was arrested for
allegedly murdering a girl he encountered on Craigslist, spawning the
"Craigslist killer" moniker. Craigslist denied that the site was used for
nefarious purposes, but amidst pressure from various state attorneys
general, it agreed in May 2009 to ditch its "Erotic Services" section in
favor of a monitored "Adult Services" section. All posts to that section
are reviewed by Craigslist staff and cost $10 per ad.
Buckmaster suggested that MK and AC might have been victimized before
Craigslist switched to the stricter "Adult Services" model. It appears
that MC was trafficked in the 2004 time period; AC mentioned 2009, but
did not specify a particular month.
"Craigslist is one of the few bright spots and success stories in the
critical fight against trafficking and child exploitation," Buckmaster
said. "We've been told as much by experts on the front lines, many of
whom we have met with in person, and many of whom have shared helpful
suggestions we have incorporated in our approach."
In May 2010, Connecticut's attorney general, Richard Blumenthal, issued
a subpoena to Craigslist, asking the site to turn over evidence that it is
fulfilling its promise to get rid of ads for prostitution and other
illegal activity, as well as data on what it earns from adult ads.
Craigslist has had a rather icy relationship with Blumenthal, who is
currently running for the Senate seat being vacated by retiring Sen. Chris
Dodd. When the subpoena was issued, Buckmaster accused Blumenthal of
political maneuvering, and he appeared to get in another dig at Blumenthal
in Monday's blog post.
"Even politicians looking to advance their careers by publicly criticizing
us grudgingly admit (when pressed) that we have made giant strides, and
that Craigslist is virtually alone among advertising venues in vigorously
combating exploitation and trafficking," Buckmaster wrote.
Malware Call to Arms: Threat at All-Time High and Rising
McAfee recently published its McAfee Threat Report: Second Quarter 2010
revealing a variety of interesting and relevant details about the
current state of the malware threat. The McAfee report contains cause
for concern and demonstrates why it's more important than ever that
organizations not let their computer and network security guard down.
other portable storage devices, and social networking services, and they
are increasingly skilled at camouflaging attacks behind stories ripped
from the headlines to draw the most attention from gullible users.
"Our latest threat report depicts that malware has been on a steady incline
in the first half of 2010," said Mike Gallagher, senior vice president and
chief technology officer of Global Threat Intelligence for McAfee in a
McAfee press release. "It's also obvious that cybercriminals are becoming
more in tune with what the general public is passionate about from a
technology perspective and using it to lure unsuspecting victims. These
findings indicate that not only should cybercrime education be more
widespread, but that security organizations should move from a reactive to
a predictive security strategy."
To aid IT admins and information security professionals embrace
"offensive security", McAfee dedicated the latest issue of the McAfee
Security Journal to addressing the concept. McAfee sees the writing on
the
wall, and it is issuing a call to arms for the security industry to get
proactive rather than playing the victim.
"Cybercriminals prosper because they have very little reason to fear the
consequences," said Jeff Green, senior vice president of McAfee Labs.
"As security experts, it's time to take a hard look at what we do, how
we do it, and what our ultimate goals are. The tools and techniques of
cybercrime continue to grow in number and sophistication at alarming
rates. Every time we release a new statistic about the rise in malware
it points to our failure as an industry."
The McAfee Security Journal contains prescriptive guidance directing
organizations to use common hacker techniques to test their own software
and Web sites before the bad guys do. McAfee also urges security
professionals to cooperate more - sharing relevant information and
working together to take down major security threats.
"As we look at the evolution of risky domains and Web sites over
multiple years, we can't avoid the conclusion that the risk keeps
increasing in both volume and sophistication," said David Marcus,
director of security research and communications for McAfee Labs. "If we
want to stop being victims, then the good guys need to advance security
efforts as threats evolve."
Malware developers are adept at exploiting emerging technologiesand staying
one step ahead of attempts to thwart them. The reactive model of scanning
based on malware signatures is out of date and ready to collapse under the
weight of the sheer volume of malware threats. It's time for a new
strategy, and McAfee seems to have the right idea.
Dell To Sell Tablet for $300 with AT&T Contract
Dell Inc will begin selling its new tablet device called the Dell Streak
to U.S. customers later this week for $299.99 with a two-year AT&T Inc.
contract, and for $549.99 without, it said on Tuesday.
Dell said it would begin taking orders online on Thursday.
The company is hoping the five-inch tablet, which runs on Google Inc's
Android operating system, will help it take on Apple Inc's iPad.
Best Buy Working on a Tablet
Best Buy appears to be working on its own rebranded tablet, according
the company's chief technology officer.
On August 4, Robert Stevens, Best Buy's chief technology officer and the
founder of its Geek Squad, posted a pair of photos to his Twitter feed,
one of which showed a pair of tablets.
Stevens later noted that the two tablets were just form-factor mockups.
"It's just a form factor proto[type]. Not guts inside, but coming soon,"
he added.
Stevens later said that he had been "tweeting photos of tablets for
months".
As Stevens pointed out, Best Buy manufactures the Insignia brand of
devices, a line that takes third-party consumer-electronics products
from other manufacturers and rebrands them under its own logo. The firm
also asks third-party manufacturers to design versions of standard
products for its own stores; in 2008, Best Buy launched a "Blue Label"
program, its own brand for PCs. Finally, Best Buy also owns the Rocketfish
brand of networking products.
IPad Challenger Adam's Release Getting Closer
After wowing onlookers at the Consumer Electronics Show earlier this
year, the highly anticipated Adam tablet is out of the experimental
phase and could become available to users soon, perhaps by the end of
this year.
Bangalore-based Notion Ink, which makes the tablet, said Thursday in a
blog entry that the company is aiming to submit the device to the U.S.
Federal Communications Commission for certification by the second week of
November.
The product's release will depend on how long the certification takes,
wrote Rohan Shravan, founder of Notion Ink, in the entry.
The Adam tablet is known to be equipped with advanced hardware,
including Pixel Qi's transflective display and Nvidia's fast Tegra 2
chip. The Pixel Qi display can absorb ambient light to brighten screens,
which could help reduce power consumption to extend the battery life of
tablets. The Tegra 2 chip gives the tablet the capability to play back
full 1080p high-definition video, versus the 720p video Apple's iPad is
capable of.
The tablet could be priced between US$399 and $498 and come in four
models depending on the screen and wireless connectivity, Shravan wrote.
Models will ship with either Pixel Qi or traditional LCD screens, and
include Wi-Fi and/or 3G wireless connectivity.
Shravan said that launches in other countries depend on the number of
developers collaborating on application development for the device. The
device's profitability doesn't lie in the hardware but around its
ecosystem, Shravan wrote.
"When the best hardware can be clubbed with a massive ecosystem, you are
talking about a revolution," Shravan wrote.
The device will be available through an online store.
The "world is not small when it comes to shipping, but we will try to
reach wherever you are," Shravan wrote.
Here Comes IE 9: Beta Launches September 15
Number 9...Number 9...Number 9... Okay, now that I've got the obligatory
Beatles reference out of the way, Microsoft announced on its Windows Team
Blog that it will launch Internet Explorer 9 at a media event in San
Francisco on September 15.
Microsoft announced a "platform preview" of IE 9 back in March. The
Platform Preview was basically the IE 9 rendering engine presented in a
plain window - no toolbars, no extra features. IE 9 will feature better
support for new Web technologies such as HTML5 and CSS3. It'll also provide
hardware acceleration for rendering graphics and text on a Web page and a
faster JavaScript engine for better Web app performance, among other features.
We don't yet know what the IE 9 interface will look like, or what other
features it'll have, so we'll have to wait until next month for that.
MySpace To Revamp Site in Aim To Simplify
The once-dominant social network MySpace is revamping its home page. It's
looking a little more like its more popular and populous rival, Facebook,
even as it attempts to set itself apart.
In simplifying its user home page, MySpace is making users' stream wider
and more prominent. The stream is the constantly updated flow of status
updates and shared content, much like the news feed that is front and
center in Facebook.
MySpace also is consolidating recommendations, such as games, events and
"people you may know," into one section instead of scattering them
around the page. And users' photos, videos, music and events will be
combined under a "My Stuff" section on their home page.
The redesign is part of a broader overhaul of MySpace, as the site works
to stay relevant to its current audience and draw in new users,
including those who haven't visited in years.
In setting itself apart from Facebook - which in just a couple of years
dethroned MySpace as a media darling and Internet favorite - MySpace is
focusing on attracting younger users and helping them discover new things.
That has been the site's forte since its heyday, when teens flocked to
MySpace to find out about new music and design their often flashy,
jumbled home pages. Facebook, meanwhile has become especially popular
with the over-35 crowd.
MySpace President Mike Jones said the latest changes are in preparation
for a big overhaul in the fall, "so as we turn on the full relaunch it's
not a shock to the system."
The goal is to be relevant to 13- to 34-year-olds and help them discover
new people and new content.
EMarketer analyst Debra Aho Williamson called the redesign smart, a
clear departure from the MySpace of old that was a "cluttered, messy
catchall."
"Do I wish it happened sooner? Yes," she said.
But it didn't, and in the meantime Facebook has grown to 500 million.
MySpace, which is owned by News Corp., has more than 120 million users
worldwide.
"MySpace and Facebook really aren't even competing in the same category
any more," Williamson said. "Which is good. For MySpace to be successful
they need to carve out their own place."
MySpace remains a go-to place for many new musicians who want to
showcase their music and interact with their audience. If MySpace's
overhaul works, making music and entertainment front and center could
help it serve the same purpose MTV did a generation ago. If it doesn't,
it could go the way of another once-dominant network, Friendster.
Microsoft vs. Mac Redux: New Site Reignites Rivalry
Just in time for the back-to-school shopping season, tech's greatest
rivalry is back. No, I'm not talking about Apple vs. Google;
that's small potatoes. Long before Google launched its Android assault
on Apple and its iPhone, Microsoft and Apple were publicly doing battle
for supremacy in the personal computer market. And now, thanks to
Microsoft's latest campaign to mock the Mac, the rivalry has been renewed.
Microsoft this week added a new "PC vs Mac" section to its Web site,
which touts the advantages that Windows-based PCs have over Macs. The
multi-page site, which highlights the fact that Windows-based PCs can
"easily share" Microsoft Office documents and play Blu-ray discs, was
launched just days after a new report suggested that Macs have become
the computers of choice for incoming college students.
Forty-seven percent of college students who plan to buy a new laptop
planned to buy a Mac, the report, which was published on CNN.com
and based on figures from Student Monitor, a research firm that tracks
higher education computer purchases. Student Monitor notes that Dell
used to be the laptop brand of choice for college students, and says
that in the last five years, Dell and Apple have swapped places: "In
2005, 47 percent of students buying laptops chose Dells. In 2010, 47
percent are choosing MacBooks."
These numbers can't be making anyone in Redmond happy, and it's clear
they haven't escaped Microsoft's notice. The new site clearly touts
Windows features designed to appeal to college-aged students, as the
first topic in its itemized list of the PC's advantages is "Having Fun."
"When it's time to enjoy movies, games, and HDTV from anywhere in your
home, PCs are ready to play," the new site reads. "There are some things
you simply can't do out of the box with a Mac, like watch, pause,
rewind, and record TV like a DVR." This section of the site also
highlights the fact that "most of the world's most popular computer
games aren't available for Macs."
The site then goes on to tout the simplicity of the PC, noting that they
"just work." (Hey, that sounds familiar.) Only then does the site go on to
talk about the "working" capabilities of the PC, highlighting its ability
to easily share Office documents and give presentations. "If most of the
computers in your office or school run Windows, you may find it harder to
get things done with a Mac," the site notes.
Microsoft's latest attack on Apple isn't as high profile as some of the
earlier salvos in this bitter rivalry. A Web site alone (there's no word
on whether Microsoft plans to expand this campaign to print or TV spots)
isn't going to gain the attention of Apple's "switchers" ad campaign,
or its classic (but recently pulled) "I'm a Mac" ads. Nor is this site
going to gain the attention of Microsoft's "laptop hunters" ads.
But maybe it doesn't need to: Windows 7 is, after all, the fastest-selling
operating system in history, so Microsoft clearly is doing something right.
Still, it's clear that Microsoft isn't willing to sit back and watch Apple
gain any ground. That rivalry has always been fun to watch and I, for one,
am glad it's back. Here's hoping this site is just the first strike of
many to come.
Microsoft Page Aimed at Mac 'Switchers'
PCs just work, Microsoft argues in a new Web page that attempts to
convince Windows users not to switch to the Mac platform.
The site contains a list of talking points, including "Having Fun,"
"Simplicity," "Working Hard," "Sharing," "Compatibility," and "Choice".
It's a bit of propaganda, perhaps. But Microsoft recognizes who its
chief rival is, and has attacked it directly.
In the "Simplicity" section, for example, Microsoft says: "The computer
that's easiest to use is typically the one you already know how to use.
While some may say Macs are easy, the reality is that they can come with
a learning curve. PCs running Windows 7 look and work more like the
computers you're familiar with, so you can get up and running quickly."
Users might interpret other comments less favorably: "Apple's
productivity suite file formats won't open in Microsoft Office on PCs,"
Microsoft says in its "Simplicity" section. "This can be a real hassle
for Mac users sharing work documents with PC users."
EBay Rolling Out Shopping Rewards Program
EBay Inc. is rolling out its eBay Bucks shopping reward program to all U.S.
users of its online marketplace.
The program, which had been in a limited "beta" test, gives participants
a 2 percent reward on certain items they buy through eBay.com and pay
for using eBay's online payment service, PayPal. The rewards are issued
as quarterly gift certificates, which can be used within 30 days when
using PayPal to pay for items on eBay.
Participants can get up to $200 in eBay Bucks for each item bought on
eBay, and as much as $500 per quarter. If you bought a $100 vintage toy,
for example, you would earn $2 in eBay Bucks toward your quarterly total.
The program's adoption marks another move by eBay to improve the
shopping experience on its main site in hopes that it will attract and
retain buyers and sellers - something it has been focusing on by
implementing a slew of changes.
Marc Steffans, the program's senior manager, said eBay decided to expand
the program beyond the test Wednesday because it noticed that
participants often used their eBay Bucks very quickly after receiving
them to buy other things. That's a sign participants were pleased to get
rewarded for shopping, and it helps sellers, too.
=~=~=~=
Atari Online News, Etc. is a weekly publication covering the entire
Atari community. Reprint permission is granted, unless otherwise noted
at the beginning of any article, to Atari user groups and not for
profit publications only under the following terms: articles must
remain unedited and include the issue number and author at the top of
each article reprinted. Other reprints granted upon approval of
request. Send requests to: dpj@atarinews.org
No issue of Atari Online News, Etc. may be included on any commercial
media, nor uploaded or transmitted to any commercial online service or
internet site, in whole or in part, by any agent or means, without
the expressed consent or permission from the Publisher or Editor of
Atari Online News, Etc.
Opinions presented herein are those of the individual authors and do
not necessarily reflect those of the staff, or of the publishers. All
material herein is believed to be accurate at the time of publishing.
