technology – J. Palmer

iPhone for every kid… Are you NUTS?!?

Ever have something you want to say, but can’t figure out a way to say it?
I’ve been sitting here, trying to figure out how to express my thoughts on something being discussed on friendfeed.
Words. Keep. Escaping. Me.
Oh, well. Guess I’ll just wing it, and post whatever I come up with.
If you follow Scoble, (heck, if you even know who Scoble is you likely know what I’m getting to, and don’t need any background on it. which, come to think of it, might be the entire point of this post…) you’ve heard about his trip to DC, his son talking to the FCC Commissioner, and his “technology agenda”. (and if you don’t know who or what I’m talking about, you might be a friend of mine, or just in the hundreds of thousands in the US who aren’t a member of the “bleeding edge” or whatever-in-the-hell it’s called.)
Long story short, Scoble wrote three little points which he feels need to be addressed by the US:

a Chief Science/Technology officer in White House cabinet
an iPhone-level device for every kid
a museum for science and technology

These three points help show that Robert Scoble may be nuts.
First, I need to crack a stupid joke that’s been bugging me ever since I read those words… Chief Science / Technology officer?
“Kirk to Spock, report to the bridge immediately!”
…sorry, but now that it’s out of the way, I can move on.
I do think that someone overlooking science and technology would be a neat idea, but isn’t that already taken care of in other departments? CDC, FDA, Surgeon General, and a few others cover medical science. EPA for ecological stuffs. FCC for electronics and communications.
I don’t know. Maybe he’s thinking more along the lines of having somebody for computer technology. Hmm… a cabinet of computer geeks… cabinet full of computer geeks… wait, shouldn’t that be a locker full of computer geeks? And what would this locker do exactly? Help enforce open standards? Neah, enforcing open standards would be eerily similar to dictating open standards, which would lead to a closed-like standard. Hmm… interoperability? No, can’t be that. That sort of stuff is being handled elsewhere on a global level, with organizations like IEEE, ICANN, and so on.
Sorry, Robert. I don’t see your vision here. Perhaps a better idea would be to create an organization of geeks with enough power to have a voice in speaking with the agencies we have in place. It might be a good idea to give them some good attorneys, too; so that they can also help out the little guy, if he ever gets caught in some sort of legal trouble relating to computers. Hey, I have an idea for a name for it, too! Let’s call it the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
Hey, even better, we can have organizations for all walks of life–for people with geeky interests elsewhere. Say, maybe we can have a group of geeks interested in communications. We can call that group something like, hmmm… i dunno…. how does the Amateur Radio Relay League sound? Neah, that’d never fly. I don’t think the FCC would ever listen to anything like that…
Oh, well. Point one was a good idea, but I don’t think it’ll fly.
So, on to… what was it? Oh, yeah… iPhones.
I’m sorry, iPhone-level devices. So, I guess that means iPhone-like. So, that’d be inclusive of Blackberrys and any other “smart-phone”, right? Okay, so let’s give our kids iPhones and Blackberrys. Um, but why? I hope not for the phone part of it… phones=$$$
…and, Robert, not many people have $$$.
I live in the quiet little town of Cynthiana. I say town, because even though she may be a Kentucky Certified City, she’s way too small to call a city. I guess, if I have to paint a picture of her size to anyone out there living in larger cities, she’d be about the size of a suburb. Sixteen to seventeen percent of our city is below the poverty line (which was just over $21k in ’07). Our median incomes are $20k-30k (women taking the lower end, and families–assumedly with more than one income–near the higher end). We don’t have a lot of money ’round these parts. Oh, and it gets a bit worse outside of town, where the majority of our children live.
So, with that in mind, I would have to say that the phone part of the iPhone-like device would be useless, as many would be unable to afford it. (not to mention that the majority of the area doesn’t have wireless coverage reliable enough for voice or data.) Kinda nixes that idea. But, you might still be on to something. Give the kids PDAs with WiFi, or even an iPod Touch. That works.
No. It doesn’t. Not that many have Internet access, and the majority of those that do have dial-up. While I’d love to show this in numbers, I can’t–at least not for Harrison County (where Cynthiana is located). I can provide a link to a survey conducted in 2007 which is representative of Kentucky as a whole. One pie-chart in the survey results shows that 35% do not have Internet access, 21% having dial-up, and the remaining 44% having broadband access. Later in the survey, a color coded map displays Harrison County being among the counties with “significantly lower than average” numbers in broadband access. It might be safe to assume that a WiFi enabled device might not go over so well with the kiddies, unless it was strictly used for school, where they would actually be able to use it.
Interestingly enough, however, Harrison County is toying with something close to your vision. (Less the WiFi and multimedia joys of an iPhone.) Harrison County has been playing with Palms.
So, Robert, while I think you’re nuts for uttering “iPhone”, I believe that your heart might be in the right place.
Personally, I would rather see a project hit our schools that would be similar to the OLPC. I believe that an XO or similar laptop computer would be much better for a child/student, and the agency supplying them. Here’s a thought: can you stick an XO in your back pocket, forget about it, and sit on it? or put it in your shirt pocket or holster/case on your hip and drop it in a toilet? (Not to mention, if you really want to aid the development of a child’s mind in computer technology, I would think you’d be more interested in giving kids a computer, rather than a computer device. More–at least for now–can be done with an actual computer.)
Finally (yes, finally; I’m growing tired of this topic, and need to report to the kitchen–time to fix dinner), a Science and Technology Museum? Um… Smithsonian, anyone? Not to mention there are other museums on more specific topics. Like aeronautics and military science? How about trying Wright-Patt (or–you guessed it–Smithsonian!). Space-flight? Try the US Space & Rocket Center (wait, they’re–*gasp*–Smithsonian affiliated!).
Or were you thinking something more along the lines of the DigiBarn? or the Computer History Museum? (and, doesn’t the <sarcastic voice>Smithsonian</sarcastic voice> have a part of ENIAC? and Deep Blue? and……)
SO…
…um, Robert, I liked your ideas, but, um… yeah… they were kinda off.

mpaa, dtv, and a pointless rant…

I read an interesting piece of garbage a short while ago. The MPAA is petitioning the FCC to allow the industry to take advantage of using a method to protect “new releases” when broadcast on television.
I can’t say I blame them for trying.
Of course there’s a bunch of people in a tizzy over it, claiming that the idea of having a movie protected in such a way that they can’t record it on their DVR is ridiculous. Understandable.
Neither of those points are what I came here to write about, though. What I wish to mention is a silly little claim in the MPAA’s petition.
“Granting the limited waiver will further the digital transition.”
Okay… how? I mean, really. Think about it. The content that the MPAA wants to protect would be broadcast on services like cable and satellite–services which do not affect the end viewer of the content to begin with. The FCC isn’t all that worried about cable viewers not being able to pick up a local “over-the-air” station, because all the DTV issues lie on the cable provider’s end.
Also, here’s an interesting thought. the MPAA stated in the petition that the broadcasts would be in HD, thus a move might get more people to buy HDTV equipment. Ok, fine — but the FCC really isn’t pushing HD either. If they were, then why am I watching SDTV signals through a converter for my soon to
be “obsolete” television?
I don’t know why that simple statement bothered me. It’s just so…. stupid.

…rambling on about cell phones an termination fees.

I’ve seen a story pop up a few times now on a proposal Verizon is making with the FCC over Early Termination Fees. The gist of it is that Verizon and other carriers want to re-word the rules so that the “fees” become “rates”. This would enable the charges to be controlled by the carriers without having any regulation by individual states. The carriers would plan to change these new rates to a determined figure which would be prorated for the remaining term of the contract. The idea also keeps the carriers from becoming involved in class actions over said fees. (at least, that’s what I’ve read)
I do not see where this move would be beneficial to the public.
A few years ago when I was selling phones and service, both Verizon and Cingular were already doing this. (If I remember correctly Verizon charged $175 and Cingular charged $250.) After reading these stories, I must assume that the reason these charges were already being prorated was due to something that Kentucky had already put into place.
A move to change fees to rates could potentially do more harm than good by eliminating a state’s regulatory power.
I hope the FCC figures that out.
…and as a side note, with regard to how early terminations were handled where I worked:
In an instance where a customer shopped an “agent” instead of a “corporate” location the customer might’ve faced contractual obligations with the agent in regards to an early termination. We were an agent.
When a customer terminated a contract within the first six months, our store was charged a “termination fee” of sorts; our commission earned for the sale was pulled. Not a good thing. The commission covered our equipment costs. We’d buy a phone at near-retail, then mark the price down to “contract-price” and cover the difference using commission. So, in an effort to recoup that cost should termination come, customers would enter into a separate agreement with us, in which they agreed to pay us a termination fee. (cheesed off several people–mainly those who were too busy playing with their new toy while terms were being explained.)
…and the point?
I dunno, I really can’t remember now.
—
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/TECH/ptech/05/21/cell.phone.fees.ap/
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080521/ap_on_bi_ge/cell_phone_fees
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080521-wireless-industry-negotiates-to-duck-costly-class-actions.html

dtv and cta requirements…

If you read the last post, I mentioned that I had noticed that WKYT had taken down their weather subchannel, leaving in it’s place a note stating something to the effect that they got caught by an FCC SNAFU, and wouldn’t be putting it back up until they got things ironed out. Out of curiosity, I searched a bit and found a forum where someone had said it was most likely due to the Children’s Television Act (CTA). So, this morning, I set out to search the FCC, to find the dirt on the CTA and how it effects digital television broadcasts (DTV).
From what I took from the FCC said on DTV, stations broadcasting subchannels, or multiple “streams”, must comply with the prior rules of three hours per week for the regular broadcast, with an additional half-hour of children’s educational/informational (E/I) programming for every twenty four hours broadcast on any other stream. I did not, however, see where the FCC mandates that the additional E/I content be aired on the stream in question. From what I read, the FCC is encouraging the stations to experiment with the new capabilities of multicasting, and that the stations can even dedicate one stream to E/I programming to fulfill the CTA requirements. (My interpretation could very well be wrong.)
However, should my interpretation be correct, it may be possible for WKYT to add more content to either the primary broadcast (the CBS affiliate programming) or the second stream (the CW programming). Personally, I would like to see WKYT attempt to adopt a fourth subchannel, and dedicate it to E/I programming.
I did find an interesting bit in what the FCC said in regard to certain exceptions to the rules. A station can rebroadcast the main signal over another stream either simultaneously or time-shifted without the need of broadcasting additional E/I content. This is logical, since the “rebroadcast” would already contain the initial requirements. So, a station could broadcast the main programming on a secondary stream, have it shifted to such a point where children’s programming was knocked out of the required block, and the station would not be in violation of the rules. I don’t see where any station would want to do so, but it could be done.
…and I have no idea why I find any of this interesting, nor do I really think anyone else does. So why did I write any of this in the first place?
…and, should you want to see if I’m completely wrong in my understanding of the rules, here’s what I read:
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-221A1.doc or view it in scribd form!
http://www.lasarletter.net/drupal/node/212

Turned Off iPhone Gets $4800 Bill from AT&T

Um, I don’t think I want an iPhone anymore…

Turned Off iPhone Gets $4800 Bill from AT&T
Tech.Luver writes “Jay Levy says he has been stung by Apple’s iPhone pact with AT&T after he took an iPhone on a Mediterranean cruise. They didn’t use their phones, but when they got back they had a 54-page monthly bill of nearly $4,800 from AT&T Wireless. The problem was that their three iPhones were racking up a bill for data charges using foreign phone charges. The iPhone regularly updates e-mail, even while it’s off, so that all the messages will be available when the user turns it on. “”

New Bill to Clarify Cellphone Contracts

While I believe that wireless contracts aren’t that difficult to understand (commonly it’s misconceptions and misinterpretations of the customer’s), I believe that this bill would be very helpful. Having the ability to terminate within the first thirty days of service, without facing termination fees is a great idea–the only trick, however, is that consumers would surely have to face the pains of having a non-refundable deposit if their equipment wasn’t returned in the same condition it was sold–otherwise the prices of handsets will have to be a little bit more expensive (where they are typically sold at a cheaper rate, where a discounted price is offered where the commitment for service is made)

New Bill to Clarify Cellphone Contracts
theorem4 writes to tell us that US Senators today unveiled legislation designed to empower cell phone customers across the nation by providing more protections and guaranteed options. “The Cell Phone Consumer Empowerment Act of 2007 will require wireless service providers to share simple, clear information on their services and charges with customers before they enter into long-term contracts; a thirty-day window in which to exit a contract without early termination fees; and greater flexibility to exit contracts with services that don’t meet their needs.”

Wheelchair Controlled by Thought

Wheelchair Controlled by Thought
macduffman writes “New Scientist reports on another development in interfacing with the central nervous system. The system “eavesdrops” on signals sent from the brain to the larynx, so even people who lack the muscular control to vocalize a command can operate it. The potential applications of this technology are as varied as human imagination, among them: allowing a person who has lost speech capability to vocalize again.” From the article:”The wheelchair could help people with spinal injuries, or neurological problems like cerebral palsy or motor neurone disease, operate computers and other equipment despite serious problems with muscle control. The system will work providing a person can still control their larynx, or “voice box”, which may be the case even if the lack the muscle coordination necessary to produce coherent speech.”