Blogs are the new black, according to Hitwise, who recently reported that 1.19% of all internet traffic in June this year was to blog sites.
Whether it’s the potential for a more diverse range of information, the search for amusement, varied opinion or the specific subjects blogs cover in comparison with dedicated sites, they’re clearly a big hit among web users in the modern age.
 |
 |
Anyone want to take a guess on when we’ll see the first laws proposed to ban the practice of walking-while-texting? We’ve already seen a few proposals that would ban walking and talking in a crosswalk. And, to add some fuel to the fire, some ER doctors are warning people who walk and text at the same time that it’s risky behavior. The doctors say they’re seeing a rise in reports of people walking and texting at the same time, leading to some sort of injury, including two people who were hit by a car after paying more attention to their phone than oncoming traffic. Since technopanics always seem to start with a news article, just wait for someone to propose a law against this — rather than insisting that perhaps it’s time to institute a little common sense.
Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
Wille Faler writes “Swedish blogger and civil rights activist Henrik Alexandersson has been reported for “freedom of speech” violations by the head of FRA (Swedish National Defense Radio Establishment), the government agency that is responsible for surveilling the contents, origins and destinations of all phone calls, internet traffic and text messages passing through swedish networks, regardless of suspicion or not. Alexandersson published a classified document on his blog some time ago that had been leaked to him, that proved how FRA had been conducting illegal surveillance against innocent Swedes for more than ten years. It is this offense that has landed him in trouble and deemed him a “threat to national security.” In other word, the messenger gets shot for whistleblowing about the illegal conduct of government agencies.”
It’s interesting that this comes so soon after Sweden passed a new law that lets the gov’t tap all forms of communication. While you can understand the government’s position, this definitely does appear to be punishing the whistleblower, which is all too common these days. Plus, of course, in attacking the guy who brought this info public, the Swedish government is all but guaranteeing that it gets that much more attention.
Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
While those who like to claim that the US broadband market is more competitive than it really is like to point to the rise of 3G wireless networks as proof, they almost always ignore the fact that those 3G networks come with insanely restrictive terms of service, that allow the providers to cut users off for almost any activity outside of email or web browsing. For example, using such a service for video and music has been prohibited in some terms of service. Sprint was the most open with their 3G wireless until recently.
Now AT&T is admitting that if it discovers users of its wireless broadband 3G service are making use of P2P apps, it will cut them off completely, and claims that it makes this clear in the terms of service. It hasn’t happened yet, but this bit of data will supposedly be used by a dissenting FCC commissioner this week to show that Comcast’s traffic shaping is pretty tame compared to other “rules” out there on network usage (ignoring the very different nature of the networks in question, of course).
This raises a number of questions: If AT&T’s biggest concern about P2P file sharing apps is clogging its 3G wireless network, why does it allow streaming apps to run on the iPhone? For example, one of the most popular apps on the iPhone is Pandora, whose customized streaming radio offering is super popular (and appears to work quite well). So is AT&T going to cut off users of one of the most popular apps on the iPhone? And how will AT&T respond when someone (inevitably, if they haven’t already done so) develops an iPhone app for P2P file sharing as well? This really just seems like AT&T slipping an excuse into the terms of service to cut off anyone they don’t like — but in the long run it may backfire as people get pissed off at AT&T for limiting what new devices like the iPhone can do.
Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
With most reports assuming that the FCC will vote in favor of some sort of wrist slap on Comcast for its traffic shaping this week, one of the things that doesn’t make sense is the folks who are cheering about this move who also fought like dogs to keep the FCC from implementing the broadcast flag. As you may recall, a few years back, the entertainment industry pushed for the FCC to mandate a broadcast flag that would allow it to define rules for whether or not its content could be recorded by DVRs. The courts rightfully determined that such a mandate was outside the scope of the FCC’s authority. However, an FCC ruling on net neutrality is basically covering identical grounds, yet many of the groups cheering this decision are the same who fought against the Broadcast Flag, claiming the FCC had no mandate.
Now, to be clear, the concept of network neutrality is definitely a good thing — but having the FCC suddenly put itself in charge of regulating such things (even if it’s regulating it in a reasonable manner) is really dangerous. Those who are celebrating this decision should be worried about what it means. Specifically, they’re going to have little leg to stand on when the FCC next tries to mandate something outside of its authority (which is almost certainly going to happen in the near future).
That doesn’t mean that the apocalyptic predictions from the industry will come true, however. Represented by a positively ridiculous and blatantly silly editorial in the Washington Post by FCC commissioner Robert McDowell, it’s pure rubbish to suggest that this ruling by the FCC means the internet might “grind to a halt” is totally unsubstantiated sensationalism that has been shown time and time and time again to be false. There isn’t a serious bandwidth crunch — and whatever potential crunch may be coming could be dealt with by some modest improvements in infrastructure, not necessarily by breaking network neutrality, which is more of an attempt to double charge for bandwidth than anything else.
However, supporters of net neutrality may be making a big mistake in cheering on the FCC as it expands its authority in this area. The FCC has never been about protecting consumer rights, and granting them this authority (which the law appears not to do) opens the door to a lot more trouble down the road.
Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
Last year, we explained why full text RSS feeds make sense. You can read the whole thing, but the short version is that it makes it easier to read, and that means more people actually read the full stories and are willing to discuss them, share them and get others interested in reading as well. It just makes the reading experience that much better. We’ve always had full text RSS feeds, and we’re not about to change that. However, it appears that Google may be punishing sites that have full text feeds. A concerned reader pointed us to the news that the magazine Mental Floss has reluctantly ditched its full text feeds because Google banned the site and told them the only way to get back in was to get rid of the full text feeds.
The “problem,” according to Google, was that there were plenty of sites republishing Mental Floss’s feeds, and Google’s anti-spam algorithm supposedly uses that as an indication of spam. Of course, rather than figuring out which is the real site, it simply bans them all. This concerns me for a variety of reasons. The reason we publish a full text RSS feed is to make it easier for anyone to do what they want with our content — even if it’s republishing it. There are a bunch of sites that republish our RSS feed (some in the mistaken belief that such sites would get us upset at the “copyright infringement”). Those sites are harmless for the most part. Either they get no traffic at all, or they end up driving more traffic to us. That’s great. But, it’s a bit troublesome that Google might potentially disappear us from their entire index just because we publish a full text feed and someone else uses that feed exactly as they’re supposed to.
I could understand if the deletion of Mental Floss from the index was simply a mistake, and upon being alerted to it, they restored the site. But the fact that Google’s response was to tell Mental Floss to ditch the full text feeds is worrisome. What makes this even more ridiculous is that Feedburner, which is owned by Google, tells people that full text feeds are better. So, you have part of Google telling people to use full text feeds, and another part of Google punishing them for doing so.
Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
HMV is extending to its high-street stores a controversial VAT-avoidance scheme that it currently operates solely through the group’s website, which is based offshore. The move will offer shoppers discounts and free delivery on out-of-stock titles, at the expense of Treasury coffers.
The retailer is planning to install instore “HMV Delivers” kiosks in its 250 stores. Customers will be able to place orders for CDs, DVDs, Blu-ray Discs and console games and avoid the 17.5% VAT charged on conventional instore purchases.
The terminals bring a ballooning offshore tax ploy, already exploited by major music and DVD websites including HMV.com, to Britain’s high streets. The ploy is a fundamental challenge to the government’s direct taxation regime. If copied by other high-street chains and supermarkets, it could divert hundreds of millions of pounds from the Treasury. Woolworths is also testing similar terminals in three stores.
HMV’s new terminals offer “free home delivery” not from the group’s London distribution centre, but from its base on the Channel Islands tax haven of Guernsey. The extra expense of postage is paid for many times over by avoiding VAT.
HMV initially refused to answer questions on its Guernsey operations, telling the Guardian that VAT-free transactions were blocked on all store terminals. But sample purchases at a number of stores showed this was not the case. HMV then said that after trials of various pricing strategies in a few stores, it planned to restrict VAT-free purchases on terminals to products the customer is unable to find on shelves because they are out of stock. This will “remain a convenient, but very marginal channel for customers and sales,” a spokesman said. He added the main function of the terminals in the future would be to offer digital downloads.
The tax ploy, which is not unlawful, works by exploiting a VAT exemption on goods priced below £18 that are imported by individuals into the UK from outside the European Union. Known as “low value consignment relief”, it has been enshrined in European law for 15 years. But the arrival of online retailing has seen the relief, originally designed to ease the administrative burden on marginal trade, exploited on a scale that was never anticipated.
Initially, HMV was slow to exploit the VAT ploy on the web, seeing cut-price internet retailers as a threat to its stores. In recent years, however, the group has been catching up fast with the pioneers of the VAT relief scheme, such as Jersey-based Play.com. HMV.com gets 1m hits a week.
In March 2007, new chief executive Simon Fox put HMV Guernsey at the heart of his strategy to turn around the struggling retailer. He pledged to expand online sales through the group’s Channel Islands base from 6% of HMV’s UK sales, to 20% by 2010, and promised to double spending on marketing the website.
HMV told the Guardian its VAT-free sales for the last financial year amounted to about £50m. The loss to the Treasury in unpaid VAT was £8.75m.
HMV’s parent company, HMV Group, incurred a total UK corporation tax bill for the same 12 months of £11.4m. More than £8 in every £10 of sales from HMV.com for the last financial year related to VAT-free purchases. Of the 200 bestselling CDs and DVDs available on HMV.com, 196 titles qualify for VAT exemption.
Analysts at Lehman Brothers, the group’s corporate broker, have suggested HMV will have to grow web sales to more than £200m by 2010 if Fox is to meet his target of generating 20% of earnings online. The Guardian estimates HMV’s Guernsey website may be costing the Treasury more than £30m a year in lost revenue in two years’ time.
The British government has put pressure on authorities in Jersey, who have taken actions against a small number of operations deemed to have set up in the island purely for the purposes of exploiting the relief. Officially, ministers and the tax authorities have for years had VAT relief operations under “close review” and have said they will consider cutting the £18 threshold or removing exemption from CDs and DVDs.
Last month, the Treasury’s financial secretary, Jane Kennedy, was asked in parliament to clarify the scale of low value consignment relief not just on CDs and DVDs, but on health food supplements, contact lenses, flower deliveries and all product categories. She pointed to official estimates in 2006 of around £90m a year in unpaid VAT - a figure tax campaigners believe is out of date, and too low.
Nevertheless, home delivery exports to the UK have become a major industry in the Channel Islands. Retailers are struggling to find staff and warehouse space on the islands to meet demand. Of the seven CD-selling websites most visited on the internet in the UK, as defined by web traffic monitoring firm Hitwise, all exploit import VAT relief.
HMV does not advertise the difference between many of their store prices and those available in VAT-free, home-delivery web deals. Here are examples:
Desperate Housewives
Series three DVD: instore, £27. HMV.com, £17.99. (All HMV.com prices include home delivery).
Prime Suspect
10 DVD boxed set: instore, £25. HMV.com, £17.99.
Brothers and Sisters
Series one on DVD: instore, £30. HMV.com, £17.99.
There Will Be Blood
DVD: instore, £14.99. HMV.com, £12.99.
Harry Potter: Years 1-5
10 DVDs. Instore, £25. HMV.com, £17.99.
Coldplay: Viva la Vida
CD: instore, £10.99. HMV.com, £8.99.
Duffy: Rockferry
Instore, £10.99. HMV.com, £8.99.
Paul Weller: 22 Dreams
Instore, £9.99. HMV.com, £8.99.
|
|
After reading articles about the net’s latest security problem, I made sure I installed the Microsoft update. Result: I could not access any web pages until I rolled my computer back, at which point everything was fine.
Jane Knight
JS: The bulk of this week’s mailbox came from Zone Alarm users who lost their internet access following last week’s Windows Update. The update was part of a netwide security effort led by Microsoft, Cisco and Sun to deal with a fundamental design flaw in the Domain Name System (DNS) discovered by Dan Kaminsky. The DNS translates memorable names (eg, doxpara.com) into the numbers used to route traffic (eg, 66.240.226.139). Anyone who can control that can send visitors to almost any site they like. Basically, hackers could take over the web.
The project involved patching or upgrading many of the net’s DNS servers and routers as well as server and PC operating systems, and it went astonishingly well. Zone Alarm seems to have been the only major failure, and the company quickly produced a patch. If you don’t have that, a workaround is to set Zone Alarm Internet Security to “medium”.
However, Zone Alarm users should uninstall Windows Update KB951748 from Windows XP, restart their PC, apply the Zone Alarm patch from
download.zonealarm.com then reinstall the update. KB951748 can be uninstalled using the Add or Remove Programs applet after ticking the box at the top that says “Show updates”.
The problem could affect products from more than 80 vendors and potentially all operating systems. Kaminsky has put a DNS checker on his website so that people can find out if their DNS server is vulnerable.
I’m concerned that Zone Alarm had all these problems while other firewalls seemed to cope OK. Are there any other free personal firewalls you can recommend?
Sally Taylor
JS: The DNS fix randomises the source port used for DNS queries: it seems the Zone Alarm firewall assumed they’d come from only one port. That may well be a one-off problem, and if you’re otherwise happy with the product, you may not gain anything by switching. This is particularly true if you have the paid-for version rather than the cut-down free version.
However, I prefer the Sunbelt-Kerio Personal Firewall for Windows XP. This starts as the full product but turns off its advanced features after 30 days, and nags you unless you pay for it. Comodo and Jetico also offer decent free firewalls. The final choice is partly a matter of taste.
I am looking for a very light portable printer to replace an old Canon BJC80 for conferences and fieldwork. Is there anything new out there cheaper than the new Canon Pixma iP100?
Dan Rigby
JS: Not that I know of. Sadly, all the Canon BJC ultraportable printers seem to be unavailable, and the Canon Pixma iP90v and iP100 look like the best alternatives. They’re about the same size as the BJC but heavier - it weighs 4lbs instead of 3lbs. HP has rivals such as the OfficeJet H470 Mobile Printer but at similar prices. Does anyone have any other suggestions?
I’d like to get an iPhone to access my work emails. Unfortunately the IT department only supports BlackBerrys.
Richard Hickson
JS: Try asking if they support anything besides BlackBerrys. If they support Microsoft Exchange “push email” and synchronisation features, then these work with devices that have ActiveSync This includes some Windows Mobile, Nokia and Palm Treo phones, and the new iPhone 3G. If they support non-BlackBerry devices via BlackBerry Connect, this works with some Windows Mobile, Nokia and other phones, but not the iPhone, at the moment. However, IT departments generally like to eliminate variations, because standardisation simplifies support and therefore saves money. If they only support BlackBerrys, it might not make financial sense to change to the system to support a single iPhone.
· Jane McNicol wanted to move her iPod libraries to a new PC. On the Ask Jack blog (blogs.guardian.co.uk/askjack), Doctor reminded her that “if you do not intend to use your old PC, remember to de-authorise that machine as Apple will only allow you to have five machines authorised at any one time”. He also mentioned Xilisoft’s iPod Rip, “a brilliant piece of software that will transfer all your files from your iPod into your iTunes library” (xilisoft.com/ipod-rip.html).
Get your queries answered by Jack Schofield, our computer editor at jack.schofield@guardian.co.uk
|
|
There was a fascinating article in the NY Times this past weekend about how the city of San Francisco is embracing “smart parking” technology — basically installing special sensors on the ground in 6,000 of its 24,000 metered parking spots. The idea is that the sensors will report (from one to the next and then onto a central computing system) where there are actually spots available — and people will be able to discover where to go via electronic street signs indicating open spots or even via their mobile phones. It should make for an interesting experiment at the least. Beyond the hassle of just finding an open spot, the article notes that in some places a significant component of street traffic can be attributed to people just trying to find a parking space. Of course, if there’s still too many people looking for spots, it’s unlikely that these sensors will alert people in enough time. By the time they find the open spot, they’re likely to find someone else already beat them to it. Still, this does seem like a step in the right direction in terms of using information to better deal with at least some traffic congestion problems.
Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
For a few years, we’ve been covering the various lawsuits over mobile phone unlocking, mostly involving the company TracFone. TracFone focuses on the “prepaid” mobile phone market. That is, rather than selling long term contracts to people with various total minutes, it just sells phones with a certain number of minutes already on them that can then be re-upped at the buyer’s discretion. However, like typical mobile phone service providers, TracFone subsidizes the price of the phone in order to make it seem quite cheap (sometimes as low as $10 or $15). The idea is to hook people and make money on selling the minutes. However, there’s no requirement that people buy more minutes.
What’s happened, of course, is that people figured out a huge arbitrage opportunity. They buy TracFone phones on the cheap, unlock them, and then resell them for a higher price (often outside the country). The problem here is TracFone’s choice of a business model. It decided to subsidize the phones and it set up a business model that doesn’t require people to sign a long term contract or ever agree to buy more minutes. However, if you listen to TracFone tell the story, this is a case of felony interference of a business model, and anyone unlocking those phones must be stopped.
For a while it was abusing the DMCA for this purpose — using it to claim that the unlocking was circumvention of copy protection. Of course, that’s exactly how the DMCA is not supposed to be used — and that was made even more clear when the Library of Congress explicitly carved out an exemption for mobile phone unlocking, making it quite clear that this is perfectly legal. TracFone has whined about this, but it still doesn’t amount to much more than that the company just picked a bad business model.
However, the situation keeps getting more bizarre. Some folks involved in one of these arbitrage opportunities were eventually arrested for terrorism, after US officials assumed that anyone buying so many prepaid phones must be planning some sort of attack (don’t ask). This had companies in the space suddenly claiming that this action of unlocking prepaid phones was a national security threat (seriously). What’s scary is that some officials seem to believe it.
It turns out that TracFone actually is winning a bunch of the lawsuits it’s filing, using both questionable copyright and trademark claims. However, the real kicker is that one man is actually facing jailtime for this. It’s a little unclear from the wording in the article, as the jailtime may actually be as a result of him ignoring a judge’s order to stop the practice of reselling unlocked TracFones — but it’s still not clear why it’s illegal to unlock these phones that were legally purchased. The DMCA exemptions say that unlocking a phone is perfectly legal, and as long as the phone was legally purchased, it’s now the possession of the buyer, who should be allowed to tinker with the software and resell it without having to worry about lawsuits or (worse) jailtime. Yes, TracFone is upset that it wipes out their business model, but the law isn’t designed to protect their own poor choice of business models.
Permalink | Comments | Email This Story