There are so many reports of this nature that I literally can’t even. My vacation can’t come soon enough, but in reality I’m just going to be worrying about all of you staying safe in the face of widespread negligence and malfeasance. Read on if you dare:
AT&T employees took bribes to plant malware on the company’s network
TLDR: Pakastani hackers bribe ATT employees $1M+ over the course of 5 years to unlock phones and install malware and rogue devices on ATT networks.
More N.S.A. Call Data Problems Surface as Law’s Expiration Approaches
TLDR: Remember all that secret data collection the NSA got caught doing a few years back? They were supposed to delete that data, but Oops! they didn’t.
Yelp is Screwing Over Restaurants By Quietly Replacing Their Phone Numbers
TLDR: Yelp set up a shady deal with GrubHub to redirect customer calls through their hub instead of dialing the restaurant direct. Restaurants get charged a marketing fee for this sleight-of-hand.
Twitter may have shared your data with ad partners without consent
TLDR: Twitter may have inadvertently shared data on your viewing habits that it collected without authorization. And then used that data to show you more ads. “Oops.”
Democratic Senate campaign group exposed 6.2 million Americans’ emails
TLDR: Dumb campaign staffer puts unsecured spreadsheet online in 2010. Emails have been exposed for nearly 10 years.
Image courtesy of TAW4 at FreeDigitalPhotos.net
Lest you think the tech giant missed having a finger in this particular pie, Google surprised no one by debuting their own wireless carrier service earlier this week. Though the service is invite-only at the moment and only offered on Google’s own Nexus 6, they’ve negotiated a deal with both Sprint and T-Mobile to piggy back on their existing, nation-wide infrastructure to create a coverage area without having to build it. According to Google, the limited launch of this service is more of an experiment as opposed to a direct challenge of reigning champs ATT and Verizon. The major differentiator to their service? A low-cost, pay as you use it, data plan with data tethering, wi-fi calling that can also be used from other mobile devices such as tablets and laptops.
What this means for you:
Unless you have an invite in hand, you can’t jump onto the Google Wireless bandwagon yet, and if Google stays true to the “we’re just testing the waters” mantra, maybe not ever. But if Google can deliver a solid service for a fraction of the price that the big 4 carriers are charging now, it’s going to have repercussions on the entire mobile landscape. As they’ve done with Google Fiber, this particular foray into the bloody wireless markets is an exercise in forcing a change in the status quo where major carriers are squabbling over how to charge consumers more for less service. However, Google surely has an agenda that includes profit (they are publicy held), and you musn’t forget that the largest revenue stream for them is advertising and data mining. The mad scramble for dominance in the mobile data market is about as close as we’ll ever get to seeing a modern gold rush, and you can bet Google has been preparing to stake a claim since before you and I even knew there was “gold in them thar hills!”
Several technology manufacturers, including Broadcom (whose chips you probably have in several devices around your home and office) are planning to release in 2015 chips for a new networking protocol called G.Fast which can push bandwidth transmissions on twisted-pair copper lines to near fiber-optic speeds of one gigabit per second. Throughout the US and many other developed nations with significant communication infrastructures, internet speeds aren’t limited by technology but by physical wiring. The most common form of internet service in the US, Digital Subscriber Line (DSL), is delivered via the same wires that provide basic telephone service, that were, up until now, limited in how fast they could transmit data mainly by what amounts to a simple (but hard to overcome) physics problem: copper wires are susceptible to radio-frequency interference from adjacent sources, including each of the strands in a single pair that delivers the signal.
What this means for you:
Don’t rush out to cancel your existing internet service. G.Fast isn’t expected to make an appearance until 2016 at the earliest, and providers will still have to grapple with an issue that they have faced many times in the past: the full, gigabit transmission speed of G.Fast is still limited by distance, with the last leg not exceeding about 160 meters before the speed drops off drastically. This means that ISPs will still need to install equipment proximate to residences and offices, something that is costly and time-consuming to execute, and very few ISPs (maybe with the exception of Google and their Fiber initiative) have demonstrated a willingness to pursue until they are forced to (see ATT’s GigaPower counter to Google Fiber). However, the fact that this technology can utilize existing wiring that is available in just about every building in the US means that getting to gigabit internet speeds might not require companies tearing up streets and hanging from telephone poles to string the more expensive cables needed for fiber-based solutions. And you can bet that companies like ATT and Verizon will seize on any opportunity to compete with Google, especially when they can spend less money to field a competitive solution.
Image courtesy of David Castillo Dominici at FreeDigitalPhotos.net
Telecommunications giant AT&T disclosed on June 13 that three employees of one of its vendors used their privileged access to hack a server containing sensitive customer data, including Social Security Numbers, birth dates and cellular phone numbers. Thus far, AT&T hasn’t revealed how many are affected by this breach, and for the moment it appears that the hackers gained unauthorized access for the purposes of unlocking older generation AT&T phones for use on other carrier networks. The breaches happened in April, but AT&T is only just now notifying affected customers.
What this means for you:
Unlike previous data breaches, the exposed customer data hasn’t appeared for sale (yet!) on the internet black market, but AT&T is offerring a free year of credit monitoring as a mea culpa to its affected customers. If you were affected by this breach, you should have already received a notice from AT&T of the potential exposure. This latest breach demonstrates an important point about security: no matter how much you invest in protecting your perimeter, serious threats may already be behind your “firewall”. As an individual, there is very little you can do to help AT&T be more secure, but you can take your credit history and activity seriously, and always keep your eyes peeled for unusual activity on any online account, regardless of whether they are financial services or not.
A secret war is being fought in the internet industry right now, but unless you are a die-hard student of all things tech, you might not even know it’s taking place. The more conspiratorial-inclined among us accuse the mainstream media of avoiding coverage of this debate because of their close ties to the opponents of net neutrality, but it’s also a very complex, “unsexy” topic that is hard to explain in easily digestible soundbites.
The principles of “network neutrality” have been the subject of hot debate for over a decade now, but as of yet, there has only been one highly publicized incident of a company actively “violating” the basic tenet of net neutrality, which is that all data on the internet should be treated equally, both in terms of accessibility (can I see it?) and how quickly it loads. For Americans, censorship is a hot-button topic, so the accessibility issue isn’t normally included in the ongoing debate. What’s at stake is whether internet service providers like Time Warner, Comcast and AT&T can charge content providers (NetFlix, Google, Spotify) more because they use so much data, and if those companies refuse to pay the premium, would their bandwidth be throttled, lowering the quality and/or value of the service itself.
Another aspect of this debate is whether the US Government (or any government, for that matter) should regulate the internet like a utility. Both sides of the net neutrality fight are of mixed opinion on this. Some argue this would encourage (enforce) competition in the ISP market, and would allow oversight into ensuring net neutrality was observed, but as many others have pointed out, this didn’t work so well for the telecomm industry the first time we tried this. The other thorny facet of this issue is the plain fact that the internet is not owned nor controlled by any one country, though it could be argued that the US holds a “majority stake” in its creation and continued wellbeing.
What this means for you:
Today, the FCC has presented a plan that many feel completely undermines network neutrality by providing a “regulated” means for ISPs to create “fast lanes” of service into which content providers may opt, and if they do not, presumably their content would be delivered via the “normal lanes”. If no one opted into the fast lanes, this would be a moot point, but as you all know, in business, those who get to the finish line first win, and everyone else, regardless of whether they finish at all, lose. Even the most altruistic of companies (Google maybe?) are willing to get their claws out when it comes to competing, and being slow on the internet is the difference between being Facebook or being MySpace.
In my opinion, network neutrality is a concept worth understanding at minimum, and if you take the long view on improving our civilization, an important principle that should be upheld. Competition is what made America great once, and it is what created the amazing technology we have now, including the internet. Creating tiers of accessibility and quality within a service that most would view as a fundamental need (if not right) might end up creating a version of the internet (at least in America – imagine the irony) that is the antithesis of internet that is spreading information, freedom and equality around the world.
Image courtesy of Stuart Miles / FreeDigitalPhotos.net
If you were someone who worried that Facebook was taking over the world, one market segment at a time, it would seem that the smartphone front is safe, for now. As part of the launch of its new pseudo smartphone OS “Facebook Home” back in April, the social media giant had also announced a partnership with HTC to sell the “HTC First” with the application suite pre-installed, essentially creating the official Facebook Phone. Unfortunately, Facebook’s foray into pseudo-OS development received a mostly tepid to slightly-negative response from the public, and HTC’s First faired little better. According to some analysts, as few as 15,000 units have been sold since it’s launch.
AT&T, betting big on the First and Facebook, appears to have a serious overstock problem due to the lackluster market response and has slashed the phone’s price to $.99 (with contract, of course) from the original launch price of $99. Unfortunately for the carrier, they signed a display contract that requires them to continue providing valuable shelf space for the First, despite the phone’s lack of popularity, so the price slash is an obvious desparate move to clear space for better selling phones.
What this means for you:
It’s too early to make any sort of prediction, but Facebook seems to be entering the awkward stage of life as it struggles to find relevance with an increasingly cynical/sophisticated user base while pursuing profit for shareholders disappointed by flops like the Facebook Home app. One of the interesting dynamics that is still very poorly understood is the changing demographic of Facebook’s core audience. The same population segment that helped Facebook rocket to world dominance is now entering into a distinctly different phase of life (college students are now parents and employees), and the next generation of users are young enough to view Facebook as the place where their moms and dads (and grandparents!) “do the ‘net.” The next generation of internet users are very fragmented and intent on experimenting with new platforms that rise and fall with rapidity, and many view Facebook as yesterday’s news. Still, with billions of users worldwide, Facebook has a long way to fall before any other platform, no matter how new or exciting can ever fill its shoes.
The controversial CISPA (Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act) proposal has passed committee review and is heading to the Senate for a vote, despite a clear warning from the Obama administration that it would VETO the proposed law. Unlike the equally controversial SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) backed by media companies and defeated through vigorous and coordinated protests from the technology industry, CISPA has divided the technology industry. Many large companies like IBM, AT&T, Oracle and Verizon backing it, while other, equally sizeable companies like Facebook, Microsoft, Google and dozens of activist organizations oppose the bill on the grounds that it doesn’t do enough to protect the privacy of US citizens.
What this means for you:
In case you are confused as to how CISPA might impact you or your business personally, here’s a summation of what the bill proposes: This law would allow telecommunication companies to share data with governmental agencies for the purposes of combatting terrorist or criminal activity, overriding any local laws that would prohibit such sharing. According to supporters, law-abiding citizens should have nothing to worry about, but opponents contend that on top of very weak protections for citizen privacy, there is nothing in the bill that would protect citizens from potential abuse by the various intelligence agencies who could amass an inconceivably comprehensive database from the information gained by CISPA. Regardless of which side of the privacy fight you stand on, it behooves you as a US citizen to be aware of where you stand on this issue, as well as encouraging everyone around you to participate as they can in helping our government come to terms with this problem.
Image courtesy of Stuart Miles / FreeDigitalPhotos.net
Analysts are predicting that Apple will iterate on its popular smartphone in June, releasing the iPhone 5s that will have minor hardware and software upgrades to entice the bleeding edge Apple faithful. If the pattern seems familiar, it’s because Apple did the same thing with the iPhone 4s which followed its predecessor, the “4” in less than a year. It’s unclear whether the iPhone 5s launch will have the same impact as the 4s, which debuted with the popular but buggy “Siri” service. More importantly, Apple-watchers are predicting that the Cupertino company will debut a “lower cost” version of their iPhone in September, specifically to combat Android’s growing market share. An unlocked iPhone typically sells well north of $600 brand new, whereas Android devices can be bought off-contract for less than $300, which is where analysts expect the budget iPhone to land in the pricing wars.
What this means for you:
While most folks are usually more than satisfied with 2-3 year-old iPhones, if you’ve been waiting to upgrade, Apple’s pattern of hardware release usually means that the “s” version of an iPhone is a good investment. If you are still rocking an iPhone 3, the 5s will be a very nice upgrade with a noticeable improvement in speed and functionality. If you are one of the few that tries to avoid AT&T’s and Verizon’s financially-questionable 2-year contracts and you don’t want to plunk down six bills or more for an unlocked 5s, hold on to that older iPhone for a couple more months to see if Apple makes good on the low-cost iPhone in September of this year.
In a move that is strongly reflective of its overseas ownership, T-Mobile has announced that its customers now have the option to purchase cellular services without having to commit to a contract. Unlike the US, a large majority of European and Asian cell phone subscribers routinely purchase cell phone services on a monthly basis as opposed to the 1 and 2-year contracts familiar to most Americans. T-Mobiles new pre-paid plans start at $50/month for unlimited voice, texting and data, with a couple of small catches: data may be unlimited, but access to T-Mobile’s high-speed data network is capped at 500MB for the $50 plan (Increased to 2GB for $60, and truly unlimited for $70/month). The other gotcha? Pre-paid plans will no longer subsidize the cost of expensive phones that can be gotten for “free” with 2-year contracts, at least not in the manner with which you may be familiar.
What this means for you:
Of the major carriers in the US, T-Mobile is in fourth place in terms of market, and they trail third-place carrier Sprint by a large margin. Lacking the marketing muscle to go head to head with Verizon and AT&T, T-Mobile is attempting to disrupt the US market by offering plans that are common-place and popular overseas, but still relatively untested in the US. Many analysts believe that the US cellular market will grow to mirror its overseas counterparts, but that convergence is still at least 2-4 years away.
One of the key differences in T-Mobile’s plan is how they plan to allow consumers to still “subsidize” the cost of new phones. In a traditional 2-year plan as offered by the major carriers, the cost of a new phone is incorporated into the monthly subscription fee, and presumably at a rate that pays off the phone in two years time. T-Mobile offers a similar deal with their pre-paid plan, but instead of offering a single monthly amount, they actually break out the cost of the monthly payment for your new phone.
Why is this important? With T-Mobile, once you have finished paying off the phone (which can be done on their 2-year schedule, or sooner should you decide to just buy out the remaining balance), your monthly bill will be reduced to just the amount owed for services. With the traditional contract offered by the big carriers, your monthly bill will stay the same even though you have paid off your phone. This is no big deal if you decide to switch carriers, but they are banking on the fact that you might not. So far, this has paid off, given the popularity of this type of contract, but maybe T-Mobile can bring disrupt enough of the market to put some strain on the Verizon/AT&T duopoly in place in the US.
(Full disclosure: I’m a T-Mobile customer on 2-year contract, paying down my brand-new Nexus 4. I’m paying approximately $80/month which includes a monthly payment of $20 for my phone.)
You might not have realized this, but in 2012, US Copyright Office let an exception to the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) expire that suddenly made it illegal to unlock a cellphone you owned, for the purposes of using it with a different carrier. Passed in 1998, the DMCA covers many areas of modern technology, but the exception essentially allowed consumers to unlock phones like the Apple iPhone themselves, as opposed to purchasing a (much more expensive) unlocked phone or asking/paying the carrier to unlock the phone for you after you’ve paid for the phone through a subsidized contract. Though the exception lapsed late last year, the Whitehouse and the FCC have both issued statements urging Congress to legalize unlocking.
What this means for you:
In the US, unlocking your smartphone doesn’t have quite the same value as it does in other parts of the world, primarily because the two largest carriers operate networks that use two different technologies that are not found in any one phone. For example, if you had an AT&T iPhone, you can’t unlock it and move to Verizon, because the actual hardware will only work on GSM networks (Verizon is a CDMA-based network) but you could use it on T-Mobile’s network. The carriers aren’t really interested in seeing the exception renewed, primarily because it narrow’s consumer choice and “locks” unknowning customer with technology that, while simple to crack, is technically illegal to actually do without the carrier’s permission.
The issue rarely surfaces for most consumers anyways, as the carriers offer “free” or heavily discounted phones (with a multi-year contract, of course!) to “new” customers, so most opt to get something shiny and new, versus unlocking their 2-year old phone. The issue here is really more centered around protection of consumer rights and the fact that if you own something, you should be able to do whatever you want with it as long as it isn’t impacting the well-being of others. Unfortunately, the Whitehouse and the FCC can’t do anything about the DMCA or renewing the exception because the Copyright Office is governed by Congress. And we all know how productive they’ve been lately.
Image courtesy of Stuart Miles / FreeDigitalPhotos.net