April 2011

[Commentary] I plugged my phone into my computer and opened an application called Lantern, a forensics program for investigating iPhones and iPads. Ten minutes later, I'm staring at everything my iPhone knows about me.

About 14,000 text messages, 1,350 words in my personal dictionary, 1,450 Facebook contacts, tens of thousands of locations pings, every website I've ever visited, what locations I've mapped, my emails going back a month, my photos with geolocation data attached and how many times I checked my email on March 24 or any day for that matter. Want to reconstruct a night? Lantern has a time line that combines all my communications and photos in one neat interface. While most of it is invisible during normal operations, there is a record of every single thing I've done with this phone, which also happens to form a pretty good record of my life. Figuring that I've got nothing to hide or steal, I'd always privileged convenience over any privacy and security protocols. Not anymore. Immediately after trying out Lantern, I enabled the iPhone's passcode and set it to erase all data on the phone after 10 failed attempts. This thing remembers more about where I've been and what I've said than I do, and I'm damn sure I don't want it falling into anyone's hands.

It would seem there is a relatively simple solution to the wireless data deluge faced by mobile operators: shift the traffic that is tying up their networks to Wi-Fi hotspots whenever possible.

This is not a radical idea. Over the years, T-Mobile USA has launched several programs with similar objectives. Consumers with Wi-Fi-enabled phones can sometimes do this switchover themselves. But most carriers have not instituted automatic traffic offloads between their networks and Wi-Fi due to the complexity of building such a system. And many consumers don't take the time and effort to move between 3G/4G and Wi-Fi, even when they know Wi-Fi is available and represents a cheaper alternative to cell connections. The boom in smartphones and bandwidth-heavy mobile video is changing all this.

Forbes has learned that three of the four largest U.S. carriers are testing technology from Tel Aviv-based startup WeFi that lets them point subscribers’ smartphones to private and public Wi-Fi networks whenever practical. If the operators formally adopt the program, as WeFi anticipates, consumers should see a change in the way their handsets navigate networks. That, in turn, should translate into savings in the number of data bytes consumers use and, thus, in the amount they pay their carriers each month — particularly given the recent trend toward tiered rather than unlimited data plans.

[Commentary] AT&T's proposed acquisition of T-Mobile USA will shine a light on the Federal Communication Commission's view of the wireless industry's "state of competitiveness." Given the rapidly changing communications landscape, it might also be a good time to consider what the role of the FCC should be over the next decade. If the FCC were to ask consumers what they want, the answer would be pretty simple: anytime, anywhere high-speed network access, from any device, at an affordable price. Is today's FCC, in focus and approach, aligned with these needs? Let's look at this across three key criteria.

1. Wireless Industry Structure: Isn't it better to have fewer, really good networks than a larger number of mediocre ones? I'd bet consumers would give up choice for "better network, sooner."
2. Spectrum Policy: The FCC has failed to define, with any level of precision, how much, how soon, to whom, and by what process, more spectrum will become available. AT&T/T-Mobile is a strong statement that if the FCC won't move the discussion, then the market will. Spectrum auctions remove dollars from wireless investment and send them to the US Treasury.
3. Service Pricing: How many complaints has the FCC really received about mobile Internet pricing? It would be presumptuous for the FCC to assume that the merger will lead to higher prices.

Lowenstein concludes: "I'd encourage the FCC to balance consumer demands for "more network, sooner," against the needs for a healthy industry structure and strong U.S. competitive position, in a time where the market has given us the most innovative period in communications industry history, with more to come."

The British Broadcasting Company’s news broadcasts, whether on the radio or on television, exude authority and command respect around the globe. The corporation has also made extraordinary cultural contributions to Britain over the decades, through nurturing talent, sponsoring major musical events and broadcasting television shows like “I, Claudius,” “Monty Python’s Flying Circus” and “Fawlty Towers.” Britons call it, affectionately, the Beeb, and sometimes “Auntie,” for its traditional role as the last word on everything. But despite all that, or perhaps because of it, the BBC seems at times to be an all-purpose whipping boy, an easy target for casual joking and at times naked derision from the country’s political establishment.

As British Prime Minister David Cameron’s Conservative-led coalition government embarks on a grueling austerity program, it has accused the BBC of “extraordinary and outrageous waste.” Media companies — especially those of the Rupert Murdoch media empire, the BBC’s chief competitor — have been quick to join the critical chorus. Much of the criticism has to do with the license fee of £145.50 (about $240) that is levied annually on every British household with a television set. The fee brings in £3.6 billion a year, about 80 percent of the BBC’s total income. The mandatory charge makes Britons feel, rightly, that they own the BBC, and emboldens them to complain loudly and often.