-
Verizon Wireless Tries To Grow The Mobile Web By Breaking It
Mobile data and web use has grown by leaps and bounds over the past year or two. One new stat says mobile data revenues are growing five times faster than voice (albeit from a much smaller base), while Facebook recently said it has 15 million active mobile users. Some operators are trying to capitalize on this interest by deploying transcoders that take standard desktop pages and transform them into something understood by more basic phones' web browsers and that can be displayed on their small screens. That's all well and good, since users often complain about the differences between the mobile web and the "real web", and their inability to surf the same sites on their phone as they do on their PC, although the transcoders often do a pretty poor job of making sites very friendly to mobile users.
One way around this is for web developers to create mobile-specific versions of their site, so they have more control over what's presented to mobile users, and many use auto-detection so that both mobile and PC users can access the relevant content at the same URL. So enter Verizon Wireless, with its long history of really grasping the mobile web, which has now deployed a transcoder. The problem is that the transcoder breaks much of the auto-detection used by mobile web developers, resulting in their work to create mobile sites being rendered useless for Verizon users, who are then served a transcoded version of their PC site. Verizon and its vendor, Novarra, say the transcoder partially follows guidelines being worked on by the W3C to cover transcoders -- the process for which started after another Novarra install, at Verizon parent Vodafone, caused similar problems. It's worth pointing out that Novarra has a representative on the W3C committee working on the guidelines, so they should be familiar with them. It's also worth mentioning that Sprint rolled out a similar transcoder earlier this year, however, they responded to feedback from the mobile web community and changed it to avoid breaking auto-detection and other problems.
On one hand, it's hard to get frustrated with Verizon for finally taking some positive steps to make the entire web available to its mobile users, even if transcoders don't always deliver the best results. On the other, it's particularly annoying to see them think that the way to do this is to undo much of the work done by web developers and content providers to make their content better for mobile users -- not to mention it's disingenuous for Verizon and Novarra to suggest they're following the W3C guidelines, as not only are they a work in progress, but forging user-agents and breaking auto-detection contravenes them. In any case, for Verizon, it's hard to see how providing users with a lackluster mobile web experience will help grow its data business. Frustrating users with poorly transcoded versions of sites, rather than versions that have been thought through by developers for mobile users, seems a poor choice. And if they really want to unleash the "desktop" web on their users, why not offer them something that does a good job of transforming it for mobile, like better browsers such as Opera Mini?Carlo Longino is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Carlo Longino and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.
Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
 
-
Dear Trademark Filers: You Cannot Get Trademarks Based On Barack Obama's Name
With the election of Barack Obama last week, some observers have noted the not-surprising rush by folks over the past few months to try to file for trademarks built off of Obama's name, including Barack Star, Obama -- O Baby! and (my favorite) Pet Barack (a play on the old "pet rock"). Of course, the USPTO has shot all of these down as not actually being approved by the President-Elect, while noting that any products using such trademarks would likely confuse people into believing they were approved by him.
Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
 
-
Canadian Regulators Say Bell Canada's DSL Throttling Is Fine
Earlier this year, you may recall that Bell Canada started traffic shaping its DSL even at the wholesale level -- and did so without bothering to tell any of its resellers. That meant that various resellers of Bell Canada, which had promised customers an open network, were suddenly lying, without even knowing it. These reseller ISPs protested, and Bell Canada responded by telling them to shut up and deal with it. The other ISPs protested to Canadian regulators who have now sided with Bell Canada, claiming that the traffic shaping is not discriminatory, because it impacts all reseller ISPs the same way. Of course, that's not the type of discrimination the ISPs were complaining about...
The whole thing does seem quite questionable, as Bell Canada effectively changed the terms by which it provided service to its reseller ISPs, without any notification, let alone negotiation. Yet, because Bell Canada is effectively a monopoly as a provider of DSL, the ISPs have no competitive options to which they can turn. It sounds like the regulators could be convinced to examine other aspects of Bell Canada's traffic shaping plans, but for now, it's given the go-ahead on having them force all resellers to provide traffic-shaped DSL, even if they had promised not to traffic shape.
Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
 
-
Parody Is Still Fair Use Last We Checked
The EFF is representing a NYC activist who is protesting redevelopment efforts for New York City's Union Square. The woman, Savitri Durkee, set up a website parodying the website of Union Square Partnership, a group that is pushing to heavily redevelop Union Square. Such a parody is certainly a reasonable and lawful way of making a point and protesting USP's actions. However, USP basically fired off multiple shots against Durkee to get the site taken down, starting with a DMCA takedown notice to Durkee's hosting company, followed by a copyright lawsuit against Durkee and a claim with WIPO that the domain name Durkee used violated their IP, and demanding that it be handed over to USP. As the EFF notes, parody is protected under fair use doctrine, and it seems quite clear that USP is doing all this to stifle Durkee's right to speak out against USP's redevelopment efforts.
Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
 
-
Could You Google Bomb Google Flu?
Google got a lot of attention recently for the launch of Google Flu Trends, which looks at aggregate data on searches related to the flu, to see if it can act as something of an early warning system for where there are flu problems. It's an interesting use of the data, and it will be worth watching what else can be done with this sort of data over time. However, Ed Felten raises an interesting question: can Google Flu Trends be manipulated? The idea is that, right now, it may be accurate, but the very fact that people know Google is tracking this information, could create incentives to game that info -- in the same way people have tried gaming Google in other ways for years, using tricks such as Google bombing. While you might not think there would be that many reasons to manipulate Google Flu Trends, there could be reasons to do so. Google is being somewhat secretive of how Flu Trends is set up, so perhaps that makes it more difficult to manipulate, but it does point to an interesting issue in using data in this manner. As soon as you've set up a system to measure the data, and made that public, is the data still reliable?
Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
 
-
All-Star Witness List In Lawsuit Over Constitutionality Of RIAA Lawsuits
Last month we had mentioned how Harvard Law professor Charles Nesson was taking on the RIAA's strategy of suing music uploaders by claiming that the laws the RIAA was relying on were unconstitutional. That case ("the Tenenbaum case") started moving forward this week, and the Associated Press had a story at the beginning of the week, which about fifty people submitted (with some angrily wondering why we hadn't written about it). We didn't write about it because it was basically the same story we had covered in October.
However, there is some interesting news in the case, as Ray Beckerman has posted the proposed witness list put forth by Tenenbaum's legal team and it is quite the star-studded list. It's becoming quite clear (if it wasn't already) that this is a case where a bunch of different folks in the "copyfighting" realm are converging to confront the RIAA's legal strategy. The list includes:
- John Perry Barlow (former songwriter for The Grateful Dead, founder of the EFF, and well known digital thinker)
- Prof. Johan Pouwelse (technical and scientific director of European research project P2P-Next)
- Prof. Lawrence Lessig (needs no introduction, I imagine, for folks around here)
- Matthew Oppenheim (who has a somewhat murky relationship with the RIAA, at times representing the RIAA, and at other times insisting he does not represent the RIAA)
- Prof. Terry Fisher (a director of Harvard's Berkman Center and author of Promises to Keep, an early book looking at how the internet was changing the entertainment industry, and how it's business models need to change)
- Prof. Wendy Seltzer (well known copyfighter, law professor, former staff attorney at the EFF and founder of the Chilling Effects site)
- Prof. John Palfrey (Harvard law professor, co-director of the Berkman Center, author of Born Digital)
- Prof. Jonathan Zittrain (Harvard and Oxford law professor, co-director of the Berkman Center, author of The Future of the Internet)
- Andrew Grant (former antipiracy specialist at DRM company Macrovision)
That is quite the all-star list. This case is going to be a fun one to watch.
Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
 
-
Guns N' Roses Loves Online Music, On Its Own Terms
It will be great when Guns N' Roses' Chinese Democracy album comes out -- if only because it'll end 14 years of speculation and hype, and maybe we'll stop hearing about it for a while. It's scheduled for release on Sunday (and will be available only at a single chain of stores, thanks to an exclusive agreement), but the band is already streaming the record on its MySpace page. This comes after the band got the FBI to investigate a blogger who posted some songs from the album online a few months ago; the blogger was eventually arrested, and recently plead guilty in a plea bargain. So, like so many people in the music business, it appears that GNR love the power of online music as a promotional tool, as long as it's on their own terms. Having the guy who posted the songs prosecuted did nothing to stem the tide of illegal downloads of GNR songs, while his actions helped to promote the band and their work. Furthermore, what's the real difference between streaming the songs on MySpace, and having them freely available elsewhere online? Those who are so inclined can still find a way to convert the streams into downloaded files, while the streams could just point some users to download the album via BitTorrent, where it's readily available.Carlo Longino is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Carlo Longino and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.
Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
 
|
Information 
