Blog @ MoreWhat.com

In the latest of a series of real and symbolic blows to the American left, Air America Radio, launched as the liberal answer to conservative talk radio, has announced that it will cease operations this week and declare bankruptcy.

Need anyone say more? It’s tempting, but no.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

In a recent post (rant) published on this blog the target was telecom and electronics in general and specifically wireless communications e.g., cell phones and the lack of attention paid to voice service. Just as vendors ignore recent revelations of hacking encryption techniques that expose vulnerabilities customer service has been largely ignored with Google’s launch of Nexus One as the excerpt and link below indicate. But also in the previous rant on this blog the notion that fools rush in explains why the lack of due diligence by those purchasing the latest and greatest allows vendors to be so arrogant.

Customers who have already bought the Nexus One—especially an unlocked one at full price for $529—feel they should be able to call a customer support line instead of waiting on Google to respond via e-mail, whenever that may be. Google has said that it may take days to answer inquiries online, but that’s not fast enough for dissatisfied customers.

Having a small percentage of the consuming public display the gotta have it mentality in years past served the rest of us well. It was like sending up a test balloon to see if new technology delivered. But over time that small group has become large contributing to the proliferation of poor products and services.

In spite of all that Nexus One has going for it, not everything is perfect. As of this writing, there are no accessories, yet. Even though the phone supports what seems to be very robust car and home docks, there are no signs of them being sold. There’s nary a shipping screen cover or silicone case, if such things are important to you. All you have is the micro USB connector and a 3.5mm headphone jack. And for the money, Google could definitely have included a much bigger microSD card than 4GB. Even the Droid came with a 16GB card

Just a day apart the articles referenced above from Ars Technica act like good cop, bad cop. Pan the customer service and then extoll the virtues of Nexus One with a muted discussion of its shortcomings. For the price, none of those problems should exist. But again, since fools rush in, there is no pressure for vendors to offer value for the money.

News Analysis: Google is one of the most respected and admired brands in the computer industry. But glaring problems with the early stages of the Nexus One smartphone rollout betray a lack of careful planning as well as a lack of experience in handling the introduction of a major new mobile hardware product.

The appraisal by Eweek is not as soft as Ars Technica. And it includes a ten point list suggesting how this will hurt Google. Too bad it is not likely to alter the habits of the gotta have it folks that allow this situation to exist in the first place.

Google’s Nexus One phone may have been one of the most anticipated devices of the last few weeks. But since the smartphone’s launch last Tuesday, it has left a string of unhappy customers in its wake.

Nexus One has been plagued by consumer complaints including spotty 3G connectivity, a high early termination fee, poor customer support from Google and problems with the touchscreen.

The review from Wired is on point as well. And it is a reminder about this blog’s continuous and primary complaint about wireless voice services. They take a back seat to all other features offered by cell phone vendors. We all get geeky from time to time but the fact remains a cell phone is exactly that. A cell phone first where voice communication should be the first priority. And ti should not cost hundreds of dollars to get one.

Can’t exit this post without a comment on the evil tech empire to compare and contrast. The Consumer Electronics Show was held again this year and apparently the current Darth Vader of IT, Steve Ballmer picked up where Bill Gates left off.

When Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer took the stage at the Consumer Electronics Show Jan. 6, the tech world was expecting something major.

Just about every announcement Ballmer made during his keynote involved relatively minor product upgrades.

The lemmings still flock to Microsoft. And in fairness to MS, you can now find them flocking to Google and most other vendors as well. Will it ever stop?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Battle of the network late TV hosts was caused by the network, one network, NBC. And scandal ridden David Letterman is not involved. It seems the whole thing was started by affiliate gripes about NBC’s time slot arrangement as indicated below.

Feeling pressure from affiliates, who have been griping for months about how Leno’s 10 p.m performance is hurting their late news and bottom line, NBC is scrambling to put together a strategy to appease them and keep Leno on the payroll.

Now it seems Conan O’Brien will jump ship over the situation.

“For 60 years, The Tonight Show has aired immediately following the late local news,” O’Brien said. “I sincerely believe that delaying The Tonight Show into the next day to accommodate another comedy program will seriously damage what I consider to be the greatest franchise in the history of broadcasting. The Tonight Show at 12:05 simply isn’t The Tonight Show.”

The part O’Brien omits from the excerpt above and possibly any statement he has made is how the ‘franchise’ was built with the likes of Paar and Carson. That was the Tonight Show. This is not.

The opinion that no one will care about is offered here. In reverse order, O’Brien may be a capable TV host but nothing about his version of the show lives up to the history of it. Jay Leno is also quite capable. And he’s more likeable than O’Brien. While he maintained some aspects of the ‘franchise’ it appeared he had a tendency to inject a bathroom humor style of jokes as his episode progressed.

Steve Allen was first. Carson was King. Allen was impeccable and a ground breaker as were Paar and Carson. The same cannot be said of what followed. Putting Leno and O’Brien back where they were would probably be a good idea but won’t likely happen.

Let it die just like NBC has done with anything they touched over a number of years.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Another reason for a Blog @ MoreWhat.com rant on telecom was exposed launched during the week. Google may have had an idea but it seems it has been reduced to a candidate for loser Letterman’s stupid human tricks segment. How many stupid humans will get tricked by this scheme? Hey folks, hurry out an buy a $530 cellphone or rope yourself into a T-Mobile version with contract for $180. For $80 per month you get 500 minutes with unlimited texting and web. That’s less than 17 minutes of voice phone time on average per day. And this is the latest offering for a phone?

Google’s Nexus One Pricing Details and Terms of Sale Leaked
Brennon Slattery, PC World

A day after Google confirmed its Android media event next week pricing details and the terms of sale were leaked for its highly anticipated Nexus One smartphone. Gizmodo broke the story with Nexus One site screenshots that show the phone on sale for two prices: a subsidized T-Mobile edition for $180 or an unsubsidized version for $530.

No one should really have to explain what’s wrong with this or the following story.

GSM is the most popular protocol for cellphone telephony on the planet, with billions of users worldwide. But the standard encryption procedure used by most GSM carriers is only 64-bit, and academic researchers had spotted flaws in it starting over a decade ago. Now, in an effort to get carriers to take security seriously, a researcher is publicizing a brute-force attack on the encryption that he expects will be combined with work on the GSM frequency selection algorithm to create a cheap and easy method for eavesdropping on cellular calls. Despite initial progress on the effort, the cellular industry remains unimpressed.

(There were subsequent reports about more flaws being exposed along with how to do it while this post was being prepared to be published.)

GSM, Global System for Mobile communications, is the dominant protocol. Why? Most likely because it suits the purposes of telecom companies and as is the usual case the consuming public rarely if ever applies due diligence to buying decisions. So what you say?

From electronics in general to information technology and gadgetware the consuming public allows themselves to fall victim to the gotta have it mentality. Vendors do a great job of manipulating the release of the latest and greatest. The typical consumer invests in a product or service and at planned intervals the vendors introduce subsequent versions that often diminish the value of the previous offering. Just a redux of the old planned obsolescence and most continue to play along.

The report above is a classic example. Previous posts published on this blog on the topic of telecom and/or IT regularly point this out. Rather than focus on the primary purpose of a product or service and delivering superior performance in that regard, vendors hawk the bells and whistles that distract from failure to provide real value for the consumer’s money.

Gotta love the wireless industry response to the report featured here. Ya, so what? Some have migrated to 128 bit encryption but that is not the point. Although the sophistication required to crack 128 bit surely passes 64 bit by a long shot how long will it be until 128 is cracked? Would proactive measures avoid such vulnerabilities?

This minor rant fits nicely into comparable current events and a broader concern. The latest exposure of US national security vulnerabilities came shortly after a TSA or DHS announcement of how wonderful the system is working. That was followed by DHS princess Napolitano suggesting the system worked in spite of a near tragic terrorist attack. And like the ho=hum response of the telecom industry to cracking encryption Napolitano, et al had an equally ho-hum response on what to do about flawed national security.

In business, government, politics and the public mindset we really need to address critical issues in a responsible manner. There are certainly those acting responsibly on this planet but those who are not are becoming commonplace. Screwing the public to earn a profit is not what free markets are about. Lofty rhetoric concealing public sector misdeeds is not good governance. And unfortunately, public response to such conditions is woefully inadequate. Most often tragedy strikes before the public responds and its effect is short-lived.

As an update to this post just before publishing, a member of the Google organization, Matt Dunne, is running for governor in Vermont. Does anyone else see where this is going?

No shortage of potential New Year’s resolutions in this post. But then like most years the chance for responsible action on critical issues will go the way of most New Year’s resolutions.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

What is commonly referred to as information technology is a topic worthy of much discussion. There is no shortage of resources dedicated to this very theme. And there is no shortage of content lauding the benefit of all things techie including the bells and whistles offered by most vendors. But what is the state of IT in all its manifestations most notably the products and services offered?

The most frequent target of this blog when criticizing popular technology has been Microsoft. There are few who would defend the Darth Vader of information technology but the software giant is not alone with its failures. Just one passing shot on MS seems timely here. Even if Windows 7 becomes known as a reasonable operating system (no believers here) it does not reconcile the many years of marketing ripoffs that the vast majority of the consuming public willingly accepted. The view here is that even if Windows 7 is viewed favorably and for valid reasons it is a typical product life cycle strategy from Microsoft. Rip them off as long as you can and when that doesn’t work anymore give them something less annoying that may actually work.

The wireless industry is ripe for criticism but that will have to wait for a subsequent post. An accidental find in the news provides the perfect introduction to slam the so-called ’social networking’ phenomenon. The author of this post does not myspace, facebook or twitter or anything else social networking. Because social networking is not social networking. And who better to make the case in point than a co-founder of Twitter?

Twitter co-founder Stone, meanwhile, was called upon to defend his company against the charge that tweets are pointless musing while social networking sites are making people more isolated as they turn to their computer screens rather than meeting people in real life.

“I may send out a tweet that is seemingly of little value to most people like, ‘I am enjoying a beer at Logan International Airport in Boston’ and someone may say, ‘who cares?’,” Stone said. “But someone else who is walking through the airport and receives that tweet on their mobile in real time could join me for a beer, and we could come up with an idea for a company that is wildly successful and we will have turned that lead into gold.

“That is happening a million times a second because people are communicating publicly. It is untrue that we are becoming more isolated because of these tools, I think we are connecting more and we are finding new ways to do good.

What do you expect? When confronted with such a question a person in Stone’s position should be prepared to give an answer to support the marketing hype. So let’s analyze that statement from a practical point of view. How many ideas for ‘a company that is wildly successful’ occur every day? Given a ‘twit’ frequency of one million times a second you have a better chance of hitting the lottery than spawning ‘a wildly successful company’ by Stones own words. And the lottery is a losing proposition based on typical chances of winning.

Stone continues….

“A friend of mine asked me, ‘what do you hope people will say about Twitter in five or 10 years?’ and my answer to him, which I was surprised to hear myself say, was that I hope people will not consider Twitter a triumph of technology, instead that they will consider it a triumph of humanity.”

Does this marketing hogwash really require a response? Okay, here’s one.

Hey Stone, you and some others came up with yet one more way to attract enough traffic to a website for it to be successful. That’s it, nothing more. There is no redeeming quality to characterize this effort as anything else. In defense of this conclusion consider MySpace. Who did this enterprise benefit more, the general public or pedophiles? Yes, that appraisal may be extreme but the same can be said of Facebook or Twitter. They claim to be one thing and end up largely serving the benefit of those with less than altruistic intentions.

Most things IT simply carry an old philosophy in business. If they will buy it and you can sell it, go nuts. It has little to do with improving life through technology.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The land of fruits and nuts is a well-deserved moniker for the state of Schwarzenegger. Some call it America’s failed state. And now California’s First Lady is taking some heat off her husband by operating while under the influence of a cellphone. Will Arnold terminate her? Is Maria Shrivering? A report suggests this is the third time she has offended.

The only reason for this post is to point out stupid things in politics. Certainly the Shriver story fits. A report about other stupid things related to this story features a list of ‘idiotic laws’ recently signed by the Governator.

Here’s an excerpt……

The non-haha part of the story, aside from how it provides yet another example that nuisance laws are made to be followed primarily by people who look like criminals, is that Schwarzenegger this week, in the midst of his state’s ongoing financial free-fall, signed still another round of largely idiotic laws. A surface-scratching list: [follow the link for the list]

Let’s not forget to add the cellphone laws. Sure, we have to do something. Too many idiots are jeopardizing safety by texting or other use of wireless devices while driving. The problem is you cannot make life idiot-proof by passing laws to control idiots. You only look like an idiot for doing so.

From childbirth, assuming the new human has not been aborted, parents have a set of responsibilities regarding the child. Not the least of which is teaching it how to behave and act in a manner compatible with intelligent living. It is obvious and there are many examples of how this process has been a failure. Based on all the idiot laws on the books it would be reasonable to suggest failures in raising children require we outlaw having sex.

Don’t laugh. It could happen.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Sometimes it’s hard to know who you can trust. It would be foolish to proclaim that businesses never mistreat their customers. And no one is likely to express complete confidence in government as a champion of consumers. So the old term ‘caveat emptor’ is still relevant these days. The burden of buyer beware is well placed. We all need to take responsibility for the choices we make. But when the options are severely limited rendering one’s choices to the ‘only game in town’ the choice is not really a choice at all. You either accept what is available or decline to participate.

Here’s the rare personal example for illustration. This blogger has not subscribed to cable, satellite or pay-tv for almost a decade. The short version of why goes like this. I used cable tv for years. The price continued to rise. The content quality continued to decline. The couch potatoes helped support the trend by paying anything to watch nothing all the time. You know, 57 channels and nothing on. And this blogger realized watching less tv was probably a good idea on its own merits.

Cable tv companies were essentially petitioned to offer channel by channel pay schemes which never materialized. Programming became redundant as one successful channel after another spawned new channels based solely on previously successful formats. The programming schedules became several hours in length followed by repeats of the same programs for the remainder of the day. It was no better than broadcast networks and getting worse. The plethora of channels offered increased by leaps and bounds while one was hard pressed to find a few that were useful in some way.

Wireless human to human voice communication followed a similar price/quality conundrum for the thinking consumer. Actually talking to another person on a wireless telephone was lost in the promotion of other meaningless or non-essential services or bells and whistles. As if telecom was focusing on an old description of top salespeople they were trying to sell the sizzle not the steak. Prices have increased dramatically with wireless communications and savvy entrepreneurs have exploited the ‘gotta have it’ mentality with picture phones, net access with wireless phones and even convinced some consumers that texting was practical.

This blogger’s response to the ‘telephone’ situation is also about a decade old. Perhaps before it was fashionable the land line was abandoned in favor of a cell phone. As the costs continued to rise and service continued to decline this blogger opted for a pre-paid disposable phone where one buys airtime with cards or online. So as with cable tv, this blogger while not eliminating the use of a phone has greatly minimized the use of it. And as for internet access I have opted for broadband at the lowest price/speed available for my needs.

So what is the point in all this babble? Up to this point this blogger was in favor of the idea of net neutrality as he understood it. It appeared to me the argument against it by telecom companies was feeble. It appeared as the anecdotes above this was one more consumer ripoff waiting to happen where quality takes a nose dive and prices inflate dramatically. It also seems that ISPs could tackle the problem of users who take more than their fair share of bandwidth through other means.

But all that or other views on the issue may be moot. Not until Barack Obama’s FCC guy publicly expressed net neutrality a good thing did I question my position. You may think that unfair but given the performance of the Obama Administration, his liberal legions and controlled Congress to date a red flag has been raised. So some new research and study will be required for a follow up post on the topic. Until then you can read the excerpt below and follow the link for the rest of the story. And feel free to submit comments to enlighten or inform this blog(ger) on net neutrality’s status and true intent.

Genachowski, a Harvard Law School classmate of President Barack Obama’s and a fundraiser for his 2008 campaign, has been a big supporter of net neutrality. An Internet venture capitalist, he helped write the campaign’s tech policy as an adviser, which included solid support of such principles.

Telecom corporations have often chafed at net neutrality. They have lobbied against similar limits placed in the stimulus package, saying they represented unnecessary regulation that could impede private innovation.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

We, meaning all of us, do not spend enough time on the topic of security for information technology. Nor do we spend enough time, effort or money producing an effective, continuously advancing set of tools to combat malicious hackers and other cyber criminals.

So what should we do about it?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

An attack on hundreds of web sites in South Korea earlier this week continues to clog websites in the United States.

Officials say cyber attacks have affected U.S. government Web sites including those of the White House, departments of Homeland Security, Defense and Treasury and the Voice of America.
The attackers do not appear to be interested in breaking into computers to steal information but to give the impression that something is wrong with the entire system.

“These attacks are causing targeted websites to slow to a crawl or even stop working altogether,” says Jayson Street, an informational warfare specialist for the website Netragard.com in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

South Korean officials suspect the attacks originated in North Korea but they have been unable to confirm their suspicions. Finding out who is behind these attacks may be impossible.

The masterminds of these attacks spread a virus from one personal computer to another which directs data traffic to the targeted Web sites.

“When 30,000 or 40,000 computers ask for the same information at the same time, this becomes a real mess,” says Street. Even if an investigation finds the owners of some of those personal computers it could takes years to find the computer that originated the cyber mischief.

Many reports have warned the public about the threat of tiered pricing for internet service. It may be falling on deaf ears except those who were exposed to the idea for real by Time Warner.  If you remember the days when AOL was one of the few ISP’s when all was dialup that did not require long distance charges this should get your attention.

AOL is owned by Time Warner.  Many who remember the less than inspiring service from AOL in the dialup days should not be surprised by their parent corp making this move.

Time Warner Cable says it’s trying to charge a small minority of customers for using a large majority of bandwidth on its network, while critics claim the company is restraining broadband Internet usage and trying to boost profits.

“Cable operators know it’s only a matter of time before broadband access reaches the TV set, and that could be a disaster for the industry under its current pricing model,” said Michael Greeson, president of The Diffusion Group, a market research and consulting firm. “Internet usage is skyrocketing, and consumers have grown accustomed to an all-you-can-eat broadband subscription, so the cable companies are looking for a way to put this genie back in the bottle.”

You can argue all day but the simple fact is telecom services whether voice, data or anything else mysteriously have similar pricing and it is all too much.  The single largest problem causing that is the reluctance of consumers to object to excessive pricing.  In this latest story on the topic the public has not been impressed.  That is largely an exception to typical consumer behavior which acquiesces to vendor pricing.

What adds to this insanity is government spending to increase broadband access to rural and other underserved areas.  To subsidize areas of lower population density and in this case lower broadband profit potential with public funding for private enterprise costs is another boon for special interest….top ISPs and telecom companies.

In the past cable companies were reluctant to serve sparsely populated areas for lack of potential subscribers per mile of cable installed.  Voice telecom is moving away from physical plant being wire and pole bound to wireless and cell towers.  The service has become less satisfactory and more expensive.  The same is on the horizon for other telecom services.

Rather than let the buyer beware or let competition set the price the sheep will be led to slaughter (figuratively speaking) as they have lost their way and no not how to influence the market or specially connected interests who control the outcome.

Time Warner’s claim that a few users consume more than their fair share of bandwidth as the excuse for tiered pricing is lame.  If it were true the excessive price charged to the remainder of subscribers would cover costs associated with the few they describe. And cable operators’ form of internet access is markedly different from non-cable ISPs.  Like other items described in the reference above maybe that is Time Warners real problem.

While conservative principles and a free market philosophy are noble ideas even Sean Hannity said on his radio program this week that not all business operators are honest but most are. No argument here but it does fit well in the ending note of this post.

This is one case where there are bandits in the marketplace. Without adequate public complaints all it takes is one vendor to introduce a bad deal and that becomes the standard almost overnight.  Then the option to take your business elsewhere becomes moot. All the prices are then essentially the same and there is no competition.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

related stories:

They’re gone! After outcry, Time Warner uncaps the tubes

Time Warner Scraps Bandwidth Cap Testing

What Price Bandwidth? Time Warner Cable Should Not Back Off

Illegal file sharing sites is a topic that seems to never go away. The same could be said of malicious hackers and spam. And let’s not forget about those who want to rule the internet or tax it or overcharge for connection to it and use of it. But in terms of the specific story in this post, a writer being fired for illegally accessing a copy of a not yet released movie. What was he thinking?

Writer loses job over Wolverine
(from the BBC)

A US columnist is out of a job after posting an online review of an illegally downloaded copy of X-Men Origins: Wolverine.

Roger Friedman, who wrote the piece on his regular column, had worked at the Fox news website for 10 years.

Fox News said that the company’s representatives and Friedman “mutually agreed to part ways immediately”.

Here’s an interesting twist to the story.

Effects company denies leaking ‘Wolverine’
Friday, April 3 2009
By Lara Martin, Entertainment Reporter

An Australian visual effects company has denied leaking an unfinished workprint of X-Men Origins: Wolverine one month before its release.

What always accompanies stories in the main stream media and elsewhere are conflicting reports or widely differing estimates.

‘X-Men’ leak isn’t the real ‘Wolverine’
Tuesday, April 7th 2009
NY Daily News

Since word broke last week that a rough copy of “X-Men Origins: Wolverine” was leaked onto the Web, an estimated 75,000 people hoping to see a potential blockbuster early and for free have downloaded Hugh Jackman’s comic-book actioner, set for release May 1.

Aside from the comment that this is ‘not the real movie’ notice the ‘estimated 75,000′ part. It would be fair to assume they mean ‘not the real movie’ to indicate the leaked version is a working copy that will be edited before release.

‘Wolverine’ premiere may be in your town, or on your computer
07:45 AM PT, Apr 5 2009
LA Times

Wow, what is going to happen when “X-Men Origins: Wolverine” hits theaters on May 1?

More than 100,000 downloads of a nearly finished version of the film were snatched off of file-sharing websites this week after a copy of such a version of the 20th Century Fox film was leaked. The FBI is investigating and, believe me, the studio was badly rattled by the theft — this film, on paper, looked like it could be one of the biggest releases of 2009 but it has been encountering considerable turbulence for a movie still sitting on the runway.

You gotta love it. The 100,000 download estimate is from an item dated the fifth while the 75,000 estimate is from the seventh.

Wolverine Movie Bootleg: More than 1 Million Downloads
Monday April 6, 2009
AppScout

That leaked version of X-Men Origins: Wolverine has been online for about a week. And despite 20th Century Fox’s best efforts to curb its spread, the movie has been downloaded by more than one million users via BitTorrent.

But even better is the one million estimate offered on the date in between the other two. It may seem like a small thing and in this case it has the diminished value of who cares? Not so much who cares about the varying, correct or incorrect estimates but who cares about the movie? If you have an appreciation for storytelling or the cinematic experience, whatever that is these days, it is understandable you may be interested in this movie if the genre is your ‘thing’. But no matter what your interests or what you watch or how you fulfill the need to satisfy your personal demand for such leisure pursuits it is tough to argue that Hollywood and other sources for movies rarely fail to disappoint. The hype is also rarely justified after viewing the promoted offering.

To counter that conclusion readers are encouraged to submit their candidates for a list of spectacular examples of fine productions from the movie industry.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Oh joy, it’s Superbowl weekend. Could you hear cynicism in my typing? There are but a few reasons that can pass for legitimate cause to be excited about it. You are coach, player or in some way directly involved or a fan of one of the teams. Not just a fan for this game but a real fan. There are many excited for other reasons such as non-athletic remuneration or similar financial gains that do not count. Why? Because the event is or at least was promoted on the grounds that it was a venue to demonstrate who is the best team in pro-football. Blah, blah, blah he says. Maybe once upon a time but not now. Which leads to the next part of this post.

Television like so many other technologies promised a plethora of positive advantages for one and all at its infancy. While wandering around some quotes were found that should date to the early days of TV to demonstrate the disappointment here is not new or the result of any new disease or impediment on the part of the author.

“Television: A medium. So called because it is neither rare nor well done.” — Ernie Kovacs

“I find television very educating. Every time somebody turns on the set, I go into the other room and read a book.” — Groucho Marx

“I wish there was a knob on the TV to turn up the intelligence. There’s one called brightness, but it doesn’t work.” — Eugene P. Gallagher?

Thanks to the person responsible for the link found to provide these adorable tidbits. So how many of you know who those people are? Look it up.

Getting back to the point some other links expressed views similar to the ones which reside here. That was reassuring but solves nothing. If you check the offerings available on whatever arrangement you have for television viewing how much is really of interest to you? That old song that laments the idea of 57 channels and nothing on not only dates the song but makes the point. Over the years the number of venues for programming has only made the problem worse. More and more places to host less and less valuable programming and content. So what do we do now to make it all better? Go digital. Why? Because we can? What’s the point?

Do nothing noticeable or widespread to improve overall programming but let’s make the picture look better, maybe. Ya, that’ll solve the problem. That will make programming better. NOT. They have taken a page from other telecom industries most notably wireless communication and information technology. In each case a similar phenomenon occurred. With wireless voice services otherwise known as cell phones do not be concerned about whether or not competition resulted in a better value or bang for the buck for the customer. Oh no, add on bells and whistles like internet browsing, mp3 playing and on board cameras to justify the ridiculous price for service. Yes, for service that has ignored the primary purpose of personal communication devices. That is to speak to another human being. And text messaging is one of the biggest jokes. You can speak faster than you can text. It is more personal and presents a human to human connection. Offering it was for benefit of the vendor not the customer. You now can communicate without personal connection, take longer to do it and word for word pay more for it. Thank God you saving the vendor a boatload of money on the cost of doing business for their overpriced and substandard service.

With IT it is the same thing. Essentially the PC, Mac, whatever has not changed in its entire brief history. Sure, you get more bytes, faster connections, more space, more gadgets, etc. They have been portable for some time and also wireless. But do they really have more power? The power to deliver the promise often touted by people like the Darth Vader of IT, none other than Bill Gates. No, just more bells and whistles and improvement to what has been around for decades. There has been no technological leap to the next generation of architecture or performance in terms of what can be accomplished. And don’t answer that there are supercomputers, etc. That is simply the same technology on a much larger scale. That is, more scale, nothing new.

So back to the Superbowl. Like most sports it was once a game. Now it is mostly a matter of how much money can we make with it and an endless list of excuses for gangsta athletes, sidestepping education for a big contract, taxpayers buying sports venues for teams and no longer any relationship to the positive attributes of sports that once built character and other qualities with real benefit to society.

You can expand this discussion to many other details in ‘modern’ life. In politics it is all about the money. Who gets the pork? Who gets the appointment? Who gets what from whom and for how much? You vote for mine and I’ll vote for yours. In science and related business it is much the same. This is what I have to do to get the grant to support my career. Who will pay me and how much of a whore do I have to be to get there? In education the story differs little. And on and on it goes.

So you tell me how we’re going to fix it? Or at least where do we start?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Less than one month before the announced and ‘planned’ switch from analog to digitial for television signal transmission in the US the Congress is deciding in their divine wisdom that the February 17, 2009 deadline must be delayed. As Senate Democrats have worked hard to pass the legislation requested by President Obama to postpone the DTV transition until June, Republicans have been working on legislation of their own. Good luck finding evidence of a roll call vote on the topic at either house.gov or senate.gov. (at least at the time this post was being prepared) The delay would push the Feb 17 deadline to June 12. Some in Congress are worried that running out of coupons, millions on a waiting list and more money for the gov’t subsidy being tied up until the initial ones are used indicate many are not ready for prime time with digital converters.

Companies like AT&T and Verizon who paid $16 billion to license the soon to be vacated public airwaves used for analog broadcasts will have to have licenses extended and public broadcasting states the delay could cost them $22 million. The coupon program probably cost about $2 billion already and Congress is looking to spend another $250 million with this delay. Some reports suggest the switch was intended to open up the airwaves to accommodate public safety uses. So why did private companies spend billions to license the vacated space?

As commentary on this blog stated before this whole project is a mess and was handled poorly from the beginning. With the recent developments it appears those comments were not entirely off base. And these are the same people trying to convince you they have the answer for saving the economy with bailouts and stimulus packages. So how confident are you now of the chances that will be successful?

Here’s what else was found on this topic:

S.328
Title: A bill to postpone the DTV transition date.
Sponsor: Sen Rockefeller, John D., IV [WV] (introduced 1/26/2009) Cosponsors (3)
Latest Major Action: 1/26/2009 Passed/agreed to in Senate. Status: Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.MAJOR ACTIONS:

1/26/2009 Introduced in Senate
1/26/2009 Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.

3 . National Digital Television Consumer Education Act (Introduced in House)[H.R.299.IH]
4 . DTV Converter Box Rebate Act of 2009 (Introduced in House)[H.R.508.IH]
5 . Digital TV Transition Fairness Act (Introduced in Senate)[S.25.IS]
6 . Digital Television Coupon Improvement Act (Introduced in House)[H.R.339.IH]
7 . DTV Delay Act (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by Senate)[S.328.ES]
8 . To provide additional coupons for the digital-to-analog converter box program and to expedite delivery of coupons under such program. (Introduced in House)[H.R.661.IH]
9 . TV Converter Box Coupon Program Relief Act (Introduced in Senate)[S.300.IS]

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

January 23, 2009

ROCKEFELLER ANNOUNCES COMPROMISE ON DTV DELAY BILL

~Compromise Incorporates Adjustments to Aid Broadcasters and Public Safety Officials~

Washington, DC – This evening, Senator John D. (Jay) Rockefeller IV (D-WV), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, announced a bipartisan compromise to the DTV Delay Act introduced last week.

The amended DTV Delay Act will retain the extension of the digital transition date to June 12, 2009. Additionally, the agreement extends the Federal Communication Commission’s (FCC) auction authority to pay for the costs of the delay, reaffirms a broadcasters’ right to make the transition before June 12, permits the FCC to award vacant spectrum space to public safety officials, and fixes the converter box coupon program.

Senate consideration of the DTV Delay bill is expected next week. Senator Rockefeller inserted the following statement into the Congressional Record in support of the DTV Delay Act:

On February 17, 2009—less than one month from today—our Nation is scheduled to make the transition to digital television, or DTV. On this day, full-power television stations across the country will stop broadcasting in analog and switch to digital signals.

The way I see it, right now we have a choice. We can do the DTV transition right or we can do it wrong. Doing it right would mean that as many as 21 million households across this country do not lose access to news, information and emergency alerts. Doing it right would mean that every consumer who relies on over the-air television is aware of the steps they need to take to ensure continued reception and receive the assistance they need to prepare for the transition in their home. And doing it right means that no one across this land wakes up on February 18 to find that their television set has gone dark.

But the shameful truth is that we are not poised to do this transition right. We are only weeks away from doing it dreadfully wrong—and leaving consumers with the consequences. It is no secret that the outgoing Administration grossly mismanaged the digital television transition. The coupon program that was designed to help consumers defray the cost of converter boxes to ensure the continued functioning of their analog television sets has a waiting list of over two million. This number will multiply to millions more in the weeks ahead. Making a difficult situation even worse, we also face the frightful specter of converter box shortages.

On top of this, consumers are aware of the transition, but confused about its consequences. One study suggests that while recognition of the transition is widespread, an alarming 63 percent have major misconceptions about just what steps they need to take to prepare. Calling centers at the Department of Commerce and Federal Communications Commission are ill-equipped to deal with the avalanche of calls that are expected on February 17 and in the days and weeks after. Consumers will be on their own, forced to navigate through the messy rubble of a botched transition.

I believe we can and should do better. Doing better means more than cobbling together the failed efforts of the last Administration. Doing better requires more attention and more resources. But above all, it will require more time—to get the DTV transition right.

This is why last week I introduced the DTV Delay Act. I asked the Senate to delay the date of the transition from February 17 to June 12, 2009. This will give us the time we need to develop an approach that puts consumers first and provides them with the assistance they need.

In the interim, I have been working with the distinguished Ranking Member of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, Senator Hutchison, to modify and improve the language of my earlier bill in an effort to broaden support and speed its passage.

I rise again today to introduce, now with my good friend Senator Hutchison, an amended version of the DTV Delay Act. This version incorporates adjustments to help manage the transition in affected communities, including a provision that makes clear that despite this date change the transition needs of broadcasters and public safety officials will be respected.

Let me be clear. This legislation is not perfect. But it represents a turning point—a start. The record will reflect that I have spent years advocating a different course. I voted against the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, which set this hard date for the transition deep in the winter. I voted against this bill in both the Commerce Committee and during its consideration by the full Senate because it fell short of a real plan for minimizing consumer disruption. I voted against this bill because it failed to spend any resources building a national interoperable public safety communications network in the spectrum vacated by analog broadcasting. Voting “no” was by no means a popular thing to do. In fact, I was one of only three “no” votes in the Commerce Committee.

Last year, I introduced and the Congress passed the SAFER Act. This legislation provided the Federal Communications Commission with authority to extend analog television broadcasting so that essential public safety announcements and DTV transition could be viewed in the days following the February 17 transition. I now believe that this is not enough. It is a meaningful bandage, but the situation we face requires more intensive care.

Mr. President, the DTV Delay Act will not fix all of the problems associated with the transition. More work needs to be done to ensure that consumers are aware of the transition and get the help they need. But it gives us all the time to do the transition right. Time to develop a new plan, time to implement a new set of ideas to manage the transition, and time to make sure that in the switch to digital signals no American is left behind. Senator Hutchison and I are committed to making sure every American is able to manage the DTV transition without undue hardship. We are working on initiatives to be included in the economic recovery package. If we are able to make substantial progress on the administration of the transition this should be the last delay we have to seek. Barring unforeseen emergencies, we should not have another delay. I know the Obama Administration shares our commitment to getting this right so that we can avoid any further delays.

So we have a choice, we can proceed with the DTV Delay Act or weeks from today we can survey the wreckage of a failed effort to transition to digital broadcasting, complete with angry consumers, converter box troubles, and calling centers overwhelmed with consumer complaints. Worse, should a tragedy strike, we face the prospect of millions of consumers without access to television, without a lifeline for news and information that may be necessary to protect them from harm.

Again, we have a choice. And I know what I choose. I choose that we delay this transition because I believe we owe the American people a successful migration to digital television. Today will be the second time that the Majority Leader has sought consent on the DTV Delay Act. We simply can’t keep coming back again and again to delay as time is running out. We must act now because we will not have the ability to address consumer needs if we wait much longer.

I ask my colleagues to do the same. I warn those who would stand in the way, who dismiss my sense of urgency, that should they force us to keep to our current course, it is the American public who will bear the brunt of their opposition. We owe our citizens so much more than this. So I ask my colleagues to join me and support the DTV Delay Act.

###

Imagine that.. Someone is interested in taking Bill Gates and his legacy, Microsoft, to task for laying off American workers. The complaint from US Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa ties the current financial crisis and the trend of increasing unemployment to companies who abuse the H-1B visa program of hiring foreign workers for American jobs.

Political life in Washington may be as fragile as anything else vulnerable to the impact of severe economic downturns. Where was all this angst over visas and foreign workers during the summer of 2007 when Congress and the White House tried to pass McCain/Kennedy shamnesty? There’s hardly a difference. A primary responsibility of the federal government is to defend its citizens from foreign attack. Whether that is from the typical source of armed forces of another country or countries, the sinister terrorism from radical groups without a well-defined geopolitical base or an economic invasion on our shores and borders from foreign sources the task is understood. You protect your own citizens first and once protected then and only then do you extend assistance to those who are not citizens.

One could say better late than never except these occasional expressions from elected officials are more often political in nature and for their vested interest and not yours. Senator Grassley is an elected official with some volatility. Similar to a company’s stock which responds wildly and unpredictably to changes in the market. But this recent press release and letter from the Senator does have some usefulness. To bring some attention to both inequities in the labor market as well as a renewal notice that immigration policies including visa programs and offshore outsourcing are by no means dead issues. With the election of the most liberal senator in the US to the Office of President of the United States you can bet the farm on the fact the issue of amnesty will rear its ugly again this year or next.

For Immediate Release
January 23, 2009
Grassley Works to Ensure American Workers are Priority

WASHINGTON – Senator Chuck Grassley today said that in a time of economic downturn, American workers must be a top priority for American companies. Grassley reiterated those words after he sent a letter to Microsoft urging the company to make efforts to retain qualified American workers during the recently announced lay-offs.

Microsoft employs thousands of people through the H-1B visa program. This temporary work visa program allows American companies and universities to employ temporary foreign guest workers who have the equivalent of a U.S. bachelor’s degree in a job category that is considered by the U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services to be a “specialty occupation.” The purpose of the h-1b program is to help companies hire foreign guest workers on a temporary basis when there is not a sufficient qualified American workforce to meet those needs. However, the program is not intended to replace qualified American workers.

In October 2008, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services released an internal report that found the H-1B program has more than a 20 percent violation rate. The fraud identified in the report included jobs not located where employers claimed, H-1B visa holders not being paid the prevailing wage, forged documents, fraudulent degrees, and shell businesses. In one instance the H-1B position described by the employer was “business development analyst.” However, it turned out that the H-1B visa holder would be working at a laundromat doing laundry and maintaining washing machines.

Grassley has been a leader in the effort to improve the H-1B visa program. In the 110th Congress, he introduced a comprehensive H-1B and L visa reform bill with Senator Dick Durbin that would give priority to American workers and crack down on unscrupulous employers who deprive qualified Americans of high-skill jobs. He has also asked questions of both American and foreign based companies about their use of the H-1B visa program.

Here is a copy of the text of Grassley’s letter

January 22, 2009
Mr. Steve Ballmer
Microsoft Corporation
One Microsoft Way
Redmond , WA 98052-6399

Dear Mr. Ballmer:

I am writing to inquire about press reports that Microsoft will be cutting approximately 5,000 jobs over the next 18 months. I understand that the layoffs will affect workers in research and development, marketing, sales, finance, legal and corporate affairs, human resources, and information technology.

I am concerned that Microsoft will be retaining foreign guest workers rather than similarly qualified American employees when it implements its layoff plan. As you know, I want to make sure employers recruit qualified American workers first before hiring foreign guest workers. For example, I cosponsored legislation to overhaul the H-1B and L-1 visa programs to give priority to American workers and to crack down on unscrupulous employers who deprive qualified Americans of high-skilled jobs. Fraud and abuse is rampant in these programs, and we need more transparency to protect the integrity of our immigration system. I also support legislation that would strengthen educational opportunities for American students and workers so that Americans can compete successfully in this global economy.

Last year, Microsoft was here on Capitol Hill advocating for more H-1B visas. The purpose of the H-1B visa program is to assist companies in their employment needs where there is not a sufficient American workforce to meet their technology expertise requirements. However, H-1B and other work visa programs were never intended to replace qualified American workers. Certainly, these work visa programs were never intended to allow a company to retain foreign guest workers rather than similarly qualified American workers, when that company cuts jobs during an economic downturn.

It is imperative that in implementing its layoff plan, Microsoft ensures that American workers have priority in keeping their jobs over foreign workers on visa programs. To that effect, I would like you to respond to the following questions:

* What is the breakdown in the jobs that are being eliminated? What kind of jobs are they? How many employees in each area will be cut?

* Are any of these jobs being cut held by H-1B or other work visa program employees? If so, how many?

* How many of the jobs being eliminated are filled by Americans? Of those positions, is Microsoft retaining similar ones filled by foreign guest workers? If so, how many?

* How many H-1B or other work visa program workers will Microsoft be retaining when the planned layoff is completed?

My point is that during a layoff, companies should not be retaining H-1B or other work visa program employees over qualified American workers. Our immigration policy is not intended to harm the American workforce. I encourage Microsoft to ensure that Americans are given priority in job retention. Microsoft has a moral obligation to protect these American workers by putting them first during these difficult economic times.

Sincerely,

Charles E. Grassley
United States Senator

The following is an excerpt from Microsoft’s website on the testimony of Bill Gates at a Congressional hearing in May 2008

U.S. immigration policies need to allow American companies to hire the best talent. Gates calls on Congress to reform immigration policies to allow more highly skilled professionals to work for companies in the U.S. “At a time when talent is the key to economic success, it makes no sense to educate people in our universities, often subsidized by U.S. taxpayers, and then insist that they return home,” he said. “To address the shortage of scientists and engineers, we must … reform our education system and our immigration policies. If we don’t, American companies simply will not have the talent they need to innovate and compete.” Gates urges Congress and the White House to address this problem by extending the period that foreign students can work in the U.S. after graduation, raising the cap on H-1B visas, creating a clear path to permanent residency for high-skilled foreign-born employees and increasing the number of green cards. “The shortage of scientists and engineers is so acute that we must do both: reform our education system and reform our immigration policies.”

Funding for basic research should be increased. Gates believes basic research funding is an essential part of keeping American companies competitive and sparking new industries. “Even though we know that basic research drives economic progress, real federal spending on basic research has fallen since 2005,” he said. “I urge Congress to increase funding for basic research by 10 percent annually for the next seven years.” Gates said that federal funding for basic research supports the education of the next generation of scientists and engineers, and provides the raw material that U.S. companies transform into commercially successful products.

Here is one reaction by an elected representative obviously enamored by Mr Gates and a believer that the Darth Vader of IT brought worthwhile technology to the masses.

“Bill Gates has played a key role in our nation’s economic and technological growth for more than 20 years and I found his testimony today informative and compelling. I was most struck by Gates’ strong appeal to Congress to fully fund the America COMPETES Act. This new law makes a significant commitment to our country’s future by investing in math and science education and federal research. I will continue to vigorously advocate for funding of the America COMPETES Act,” said Rothman.

The excerpt below combined with asking government and the taxpayer to do his research for him are the things Bill Gates was really interested in.

I personally witness the ill effects of these policies on an almost daily basis at Microsoft. Under the current system, the number of H1-B visas available runs out faster and faster each year. The current base cap of 65,000 is arbitrarily set and bears no relation to U.S. industry’s demand for skilled professionals. For Fiscal Year 2007, the supply did not last even eight weeks into the filing period, and ran out more than four months before that fiscal year even began.

In summary the view from this blog is as follows. For regular readers the views here on Microsoft are known. As an example there are reports on another lawsuit against MS called ‘vista capable’ where customers are upset that hardware requirements for vista exceeded those stated or some such nonsense. While this blog detests the attitude of MS toward customers and the repeated crap software sold, if customers have not learned by now what they can expect from MS they deserve what they get. But that is not the central point of this post.

There was mention of funding research in the information provided. That’s nice. The question would be is it the taxpayer’s responsibility to pay for research or educating future employees? Is it fair for the private sector to benefit from those expenditures rather than fund their own research? There are technology transfer programs with the federal government whereby arrangements are made to move publicly funded research to the private sector. Is a fair monetary exchange made for those transfers? And for the last point is Senator Grassley’s latest expression of discontent to Microsoft just another politician trying to make points with voters?

As this post really relates to the current economic conditions and the mass frenzy to push bailouts and stimulus packages on the public dime something else needs to be said. Once government does something undoing it is nearly impossible and if it is possible there is much more pain and suffering involved than would have been present with precise and reasoned action. There is no need for speed since no one in Washington nor anywhere else can guarantee that any solution suggested will work.

If these spending programs are to be deployed then they should be done in such a way as they can be stopped on command and rather than huge outlays smaller amounts should be floated as test balloons to avoid even larger mistakes. The experience thus far with AIG and others in their arrogance to spend taxpayer money should be proof enough that planned spending will not work without deadly force as a protection. Just today CITI has decided to buy a private jet. Ya, they say it will not be paid for with bailout funds. Right. If you need bailout funds then you don’t have enough of your own money or you lied about needing bailout funds. In any event you don’t need to buy a private jet. Has this post made the point clearly?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Another report of how enthralled (had to add this, enthralled = beguiled, filled with wonder and delight) consumers are with electronics offerings from manufacturers. This post is another attempt to raise some issues regarding consumer electronics. Some long standing criticism from this blog toward those who market electronics and control the infrastructure on which much of it is used range from how internet access is manipulated between what is available, offered and how it is priced to similar issues living in other telecom areas like wireless communication. Have you noticed how cell phones are marketed and its relationship to the primary function of telephones. That’s right. Voice communication between humans has long been the need filled by telephone service. Text messaging, chocolate phones, camera phones and all manner of other bells and whistles have relegated speaking to another on the phone as an afterthought. Could it be that spending the money necessary to offer reliable and quality voice communication does not present the profit margin desired by the providers? Could it be the public has once again allowed the market to be driven by the easily manipulated younger demographic with all that loose change to spend being ‘cool’? The manufacturers know it. Ignore the more demanding demographic for the one you can manipulate and who may have the most discretionary income with the most liberal criteria for purchasing decisions.

The ridiculous nature of the coming switch from analog to digital broadcasts is a critical tipping point in electronics related markets that should require no explanation for using adjectives like ‘ridiculous.’ The reasonable method for introducing new products and services by offering value in terms of quality, utility, pricing and other factors has been supplanted by collusion between entities within the public and private sectors in the electronics industry just like the examples found in the current ‘financial crisis’ stemming from the subprime mortgage scheme and lack of regulation and oversight from Wall Street to Main Street to the halls of government.

That is all the angst this blog author can withstand for the current post on this topic. It would be gratifying if the consuming public could muster enough discretion over their buying decisions as an aggregate to apply the needed pressure on suppliers to do the right thing. The vendors certainly won’t do it on their own. But then the same could be said about the public reaction to activity in government. And we all know to well how that usually works out.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Retailers around the country are reporting a slower-than-usual holiday shopping season this year. But 2008 has been a terrific year for those who love consumer electronics - whether they are buying or just looking.

Despite the current economic downturn, large consumer electronics chains like Best Buy are doing brisk business this year

During lunch hour at the Midtown Manhattan outpost of Best Buy, the largest consumer electronics chain in America, the checkout line is 30 people deep and counting. That’s no surprise to Nicholas Thompson, a senior personal technology editor at Wired magazine.

“It’s been a cool year,” says Thompson. “There has been lots of stuff introduced that’s faster, smaller, sleeker, cheaper, better than anything we’ve had before.”

Thompson adds that product design also has improved this year, partly as the result of Apple products.

“Apple makes beautiful things, and these things sell. So now everyone is making beautiful things!”

Wired Magazine editor Nicholas Thompson says that in 2008, the smart money for portable music players is on the Sansa Fuze

One of the new products that Thompson believes deserve high marks for both design and affordability is the Sansa Fuze. It’s one of dozens of handheld digital music players on sale here.

“It’s about $80, which is much less than it would have cost a year ago, [and] you can watch TV shows. You can watch movies. You can listen to music, and you can look at photographs you can put on it, all your little media files.”

Thompson soon heads straight for the camera aisle, where he unhesitatingly picks up a stylish Sony T700. Unlike most digital cameras, which have smallish viewing screens, the entire back portion of the T700 is designed for viewing photos. He says people often put their photographs online, but relatively few people trouble themselves with viewing.

“But if you have a nice screen on your camera, it makes it a lot easier to share your photos with your friends,” he says.

The T700 digital camera has a screen almost as large as a traditional photograph

Another important feature of the Sony T700 Thompson touts is its Smile Shutter technology, which is able to detect when a person the camera is aimed at smiles. It then shoots the photo without the user having to press a button.

Nearby, shoppers are snapping up a surprisingly small and simple looking video camera called the Flip Ultra.

“Video cameras used to cost $300 to $400,” recalls Thompson. “And for a lot of people, all you want to do is take a little video of your dog and stick it on YouTube. And why pay $300 for that?”

In contrast, at $129, the Ultra is relatively inexpensive. It also has what Thompson considers another virtue: almost no buttons.

“Buttons can sometimes be good, but they can also confuse you. This very simple, very nice present for someone.”

“Next in line, please” is a request this cheerful Best Buy cashier calls out hundreds of time a day

Video games are bigger than ever in 2008. Thompson’s favorite this year is the FIFA 09 virtual football game based on the teams in the World Cup.

“For example, say you want to be the United States, or you want to be Brazil,” explains Thompson, “You actually have the simulation of all the soccer players who play on that national team. And if Brazil plays the United States, Brazil wins!”

When this Voice of America reporter asks him just why Brazil is sure to win, Thompson is quick to laughingly opine, “Brazil is better!” He adds that in the football-oriented video games of the past, the players would all look the same

“… and they would kind of run in the same direction, kick as hard, run as fast as each other. Now everybody is an individual,” he says.

Samsung high-end, flat-screen televisions offer images that can be almost too realistic for comfort

Thompson says hard-core couch potatoes who want excitement from their electronic toys without exercise - even of the virtual kind - will love Samsung’s new top-of-the-line, large-screen flat televisions. The store’s demonstration model uses liquid crystal display technology enhanced with light-emitting diodes as backlights.

“The colors are truer. The blacks are a lot better, and it’s much easier to watch for a long time,” Thompson says. “You actually feel like you are in a movie theater even though are just sitting in your own living room.”

Soon, a chase scene from The Dark Knight, the franchise’s most recent Batman film, begins to play on the television monitor. But Thomson says that virtually zooming through the streets of Gotham City at 250 kilometers per hour in the Batmobile - while sitting in one’s own living room at the same time - is only one of the high-tech thrills in store for gadget lovers during the 2008 holiday season.

The reports on unauthorized access of ‘an inactive personal account’ of Barack Obama’s at Verizon Wireless is a good reminder of several issues. Everywhere you turn there are stories of identity theft and database breaches of personal information as well as one company after another offering protection from such problems. First, why should anyone trust a company offering the protection. Second, little is discussed in terms of what happens to those who commit the crimes or allow the crimes to occur through lax attention to security. Third, it would not be totally outrageous to agree that there will always be risks like these now that we are well into the digital realm. But that shouldn’t stop or slow the progress of effective solutions and response to the threats.

Whether before, during or after the election the people responsible for unauthorized access to personal accounts, active or inactive, should face more than disciplinary action from their employer. The consequences for choosing to perform these actions on any level should carry adequate punishment to present a disincentive severe enough to dissuade the tempted even if serious crooks are not convinced. But consequences for the serious professional or full time criminals need to be adequate to the task also.

Prevention is of course the preferred solution although illusive and we cannot simply avoid it because it is difficult. Those employing state of the art defenses should be shown some leniency when the efforts fail and those who neglect their responsibility should face penalties equivalent to that of the perps. If we are to continue on the path through ever increasing sophistication of technology our efforts to protect ourselves from the result of misuse must also be sophisticated. And based on stories of security breaches in recent years the problem seems more of doing nothing to protect rather than a failure of systems put in place.

Remember the laptops that mysteriously disappeared from the White House that were later determined to be taken home by government employees against restrictions or similar laptop problems within secure national labs? There are other stories as well as many related to espionage on one extreme to the current story about Obama ’s ‘non-issue’ inactive account from Verizon on the other. That of course assumes the report is accurate. What are the odds both Verizon and the President-elect, et al, would like to play this one down?

Malicious hacking and other unauthorized access to information of others should carry some serious penalties and periodic review of outcomes in all cases prosecuted and those which fell through the cracks for any reason. We need to get real good at defeating this type of activity. One problem is we need to be good at hacking people like terrorists and similar targets yet we need to keep ourselves from being victim to the very technology we need. Quite the dilemma wouldn’t you say?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

A U.S. mobile phone company says some of its employees gained unauthorized access and viewed an inactive personal account of President-elect Barack Obama.

In a statement, Verizon Wireless President and Chief Executive Lowell McAdam apologized to Mr. Obama. He said the device in question was a simple voice phone that did not have email capabilities.

Mr. Obama’s aides also said the president-elect’s voicemail messages and emails were not accessed.

McAdam said all employees who had access to the president-elect’s account have been put on immediate leave with pay. He promised the company will soon impose disciplinary action against those who viewed the account improperly.

Some information for this report was provided by AP and Reuters.