nolaconsulting's posterous

Why Did Amazon Ban WikiLeaks?

Amazon Web Services (AWS) kicked WikiLeaks off its servers for breaking rules designed to ensure websites use their own content and that it won't injure others, and not due to pressure from the U.S. government, Amazon said Thursday.

"AWS does not pre-screen its customers, but it does have terms of service that must be followed. WikiLeaks was not following them," Amazon said in a blog posting. "For example, our terms of service state that "you represent and warrant that you own or otherwise control all of the rights to the content… that use of the content you supply does not violate this policy and will not cause injury to any person or entity," it added.

A day earlier, U.S. Senator Joe Lieberman said Amazon stopped hosting Wikileaks after being contacted by the U.S. Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, a committee Lieberman chairs.

Wikileaks drew controversy for the continued publication of classified U.S. documents, including videos and documents about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. This time the classified documents in question were sensitive cables sent from and between U.S. embassies and the U.S. State Department. The cables contain embarrassing details about the U.S.'s relationship with governments around the world. U.S. officials had complained that information in the cables could compromise government personnel, while human rights groups had written to WikiLeaks asking them to exercise caution in the release and not name human rights defenders that might then face persecution by their governments.

Amazon noted that WikiLeaks was publishing documents it does not own and that, "it is not credible that the extraordinary volume of 250,000 classified documents that WikiLeaks is publishing could have been carefully redacted in such a way as to ensure that they weren’t putting innocent people in jeopardy," Amazon said in the blog posting.

WikiLeaks said it asked the State Department to name the documents that might compromise individuals, which the U.S. refused, according to notes the group published.

WikiLeaks also lambasted Amazon for its decision to kick it off AWS servers, saying it would now host its servers in Europe and questioning whether Amazon is fit to sell books.

"If Amazon are so uncomfortable with the First Amendment, they should get out of the business of selling books," WikiLeaks said via Twitter.

Amazon also made reference to the massive DDOS (Denial of Service) attacks against its servers, which WikiLeaks said reached 10 Gigabits per second on Nov. 30.

"There were indeed large-scale DDOS attacks, but they were successfully defended against," Amazon said.

WikiLeaks has released a slew of classified U.S. documents this year, hundreds of thousands of documents about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the U.S. State Department cables. More recently it said it would publish information from major U.S. banks to out corruption in the financial sector.

The head of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange [CQ], is currently being sought by prosecutors in Sweden over rape accusations, which his lawyers have denied. Interpol has issued a wanted notice for Assange, saying he is wanted for questioning in Sweden. WikiLeaks has characterized the charges as a way to shut him up over the release of so many classified government documents.

--
New Orleans Technology Services

Apple turned iPhone 3Gs into "iBricks" to boost iPhone 4

We all saw this one coming a mile away: Apple is finally being taken to task over iOS 4 performance on the iPhone 3G. In a lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of California for San Diego, plaintiff Biana Wofford alleges that Apple purposely crippled the iPhone 3G with its introduction of iOS 4 in order to boost iPhone 4 sales, and hopes to get her lawsuit elevated to class action status.

Apple originally marketed iOS 4 as a major upgrade for iPhone 3G and 3GS users. That operating system came out just days before Apple started selling the iPhone 4 to the public, but iPhone 3G users quickly learned that it wasn't what they had been hoping for. There were soon widespread reports of extremely slow and buggy performance of iOS 4 on the iPhone 3G, not to mention the fact that the iPhone 3G didn't get all of the features that came with iOS 4 in the first place.

According to Wofford's complaint, Apple knew that the update from iOS 3.x would turn her iPhone 3G into a "device with little more use than that of a paper weight." She also criticized Apple over the difficulty in downgrading to a previous operating system without having to become a "hacker"—indeed, it's no simple task for average users to roll back if they have already upgraded to the newest operating system.

"Even though Apple has actual knowledge of thousands of complaints from iPhone 3G/3GS consumers, Apple does not allow for those same users/consumers of third generation devices to download and re-install earlier and optimized iOS3.x operating system without resorting to 'hacker' tactics that will void Apple warranties and violate iPhone user agreements," Wofford wrote.

Wofford believes that Apple did this all to leave iPhone 3G users with unusable phones, forcing them to upgrade to the newly released iPhone 4. What's unclear is whether Wofford attempted to go to an Apple Store or call AppleCare for help on her issue before filing the lawsuit. Regardless, she accuses Apple of engaging in false advertising and unfair competition, and wants the court to give her (and other class members) restitution and damages.

On the one hand, this case seems to join the countless others filed by unsatisfied customers over iPhone-related issues. On the other, it's a somewhat new angle—the iOS 4 performance problems on iPhone 3G are pretty well documented (we've experienced them ourselves), and she does have a point that it's not easy to downgrade the OS once you've committed to upgrading. Though we wouldn't be surprised if this case ended up disappearing into the lawsuit black hole, it's possible Apple will eventually institute some sort of policy that lets people use iTunes to go back to a previous OS if they so choose.

New Orleans Technology Services

Your New IT Department

nolaconsulting.com

 

FCC Votes to Reconsider Broadband Regulations

JOELLE TESSLER (AP)

WASHINGTON — Federal regulators are reconsidering the rules that govern high-speed Internet connections — wading into a bitter policy dispute that could be tied up in Congress and the courts for years.

Over the objections of the agency's two Republican commissioners, the Federal Communications Commission voted Thursday to begin taking public comments on three different paths for regulating broadband. That includes a proposal by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, a Democrat, to define broadband access as a telecommunications service subject to "common carrier" obligations to treat all traffic equally.

Genachowski's proposal is a response to a federal appeals court ruling that cast doubt on the agency's authority over broadband under its existing regulatory framework.

The chairman's plan has the backing of many big Internet companies, which say it would ensure the FCC can prevent phone and cable companies from using their control over broadband connections to determine what subscribers can do online.

"There is a real urgency to this because right now there are no rules of the road to protect consumers from even the most egregious discriminatory behavior by telephone and cable companies," said Markham Erickson, executive director of the Open Internet Coalition. The group's members include Google Inc., eBay Inc., Amazon.com Inc. and online calling service Skype Ltd.

Genachowski's plan faces resistance from the broadband providers themselves, including AT&T Inc. and Verizon Communications Inc. They say it opens the door to onerous and outdated regulations that would discourage them from upgrading their networks.

"This FCC proposal could call into question the business assumptions underlying multibillion-dollar broadband investments," said Howard Waltzman, a former Republican staffer on the House Commerce Committee who is representing telephone companies as a partner with Mayer Brown LLP.

Many Republicans and even some Democrats on Capitol Hill also oppose Genachowski's plan. At least one House Republican, Rep. John Culberson of Texas, has proposed blocking funding for the FCC if it pursues the plan.

The FCC currently defines broadband as a lightly regulated information service. But in April, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that this approach does not give the commission the authority it needs to proceed with Genachowski's plan to adopt "network neutrality" mandates, which would bar broadband providers from favoring or discriminating against traffic traveling over their networks.

Supporters of network neutrality, including many big Web companies, say such rules are necessary to prevent phone and cable companies from blocking or degrading online calling services, Internet video and other applications that compete with their core businesses.

Indeed, the recent appeals court decision grew out of a challenge by Comcast Corp. to a 2008 FCC order directing the cable company to stop blocking subscribers from accessing an online file-sharing service used to trade video and other big files.

Comcast and other broadband providers insist they need flexibility to manage their networks and ensure that certain applications don't hog too much bandwidth. They also fear that net neutrality mandates would prevent them from offering premium services on their networks to earn a healthy return on their investments.

The court ruling also potentially undermines the FCC's ability to act on several key recommendations in its national broadband plan, another top priority for Genachowski. That includes a proposal to expand high-speed Internet access by tapping the Universal Service Fund, the federal program that subsidizes phone service in poor and rural areas.

Genachowski says his new regulatory framework would let the FCC move ahead on both fronts by placing broadband connections firmly within the agency's jurisdiction as a telecommunications service. At the same time, he has pledged to impose only narrow telecom rules on broadband providers, avoiding burdensome mandates such as rate regulations and network-sharing obligations. He has stressed that his approach would not impose regulations on Internet content and services.

Genachowski said Thursday that his plan rejects "both the extreme of applying extensive regulation to broadband and ... the extreme of eliminating FCC oversight of broadband." He said he seeks to restore "the status quo light-touch framework that existed prior to the court case."

Thursday's 3-to-2 vote launches a proceeding to examine:

_Genachowski's proposal;

_the implications of leaving the existing regulatory framework in place;

_and the implications of imposing the full array of traditional telecommunications regulations on broadband providers.

If the FCC ultimately adopts Genachowski's plan, it will almost certainly draw legal challenges from phone and cable companies that don't want an end to the current deregulatory approach. That framework was adopted under the Bush administration and upheld by the Supreme Court in 2005. A battle over any attempt to overturn it could go back to the high court.

Meredith Baker, one of the two Republican commissioners on the FCC, insisted Thursday that the agency has ample authority under the existing regulatory framework to pursue key priorities, including reforming the Universal Service Fund to subsidize high-speed Internet connections.

The fight is likely to play out in Congress, too, as the Democratic leaders of the Senate and House Commerce Committees prepare to update the nation's telecommunications laws for the first time in nearly 15 years.

Copyright © 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

New Orleans Technology Services
Your IT Department


Please consider the environment before printing this message.

ATT Sparks Backlash by Ending Unlimited Plans

June 4 (Bloomberg) -- AT&T Inc.'s decision to scrap unlimited data plans for new customers has prompted a backlash from bloggers and consumers like Danette Collins. "As soon as I can get out of the AT&T plan, I'll switch to Verizon," said Collins, a finance and operations manager in Portland, Oregon, who has AT&T service for her iPhone.

"They've just shot themselves in the foot."

AT&T, the second-largest U.S. wireless company, is battling network congestion as it tries to manage soaring demand for data-hungry devices such as Apple Inc.'s iPhone. The carrier said this week it will cut wireless data-plan prices for most users and stop offering unlimited data plans.

Though Dallas-based AT&T has the highest-speed data network, it has the most frequent dropped connections, according to a study by PC Magazine.

"They're trying to make us use the network less rather than invest in the network," Jeff Jarvis, who writes the BuzzMachine blog and has AT&T service for his iPhone, said in an interview. "They should be looking at us like crack dealers. Mobile should be the crack and they should be encouraging us."

AT&T will provide a 200-megabyte plan for $15 a month and a 2-gigabyte package at $25 that compares with current offers of $30 for unlimited data use. Users who exceed the 2-gigabyte level can pay an extra $10 per month for an additional 1 gigabyte of data service, according to a statement. AT&T is also replacing its unlimited monthly plan for iPad tablet computers with a $25 plan offering 2 gigabytes of data.

'Without Warning'

Existing AT&T customers can keep their unlimited data plans, the company said. AT&T rose 2 cents to $24.80 yesterday in New York Stock Exchange composite trading. The shares have dropped 12 percent this year.

"For most consumers this is a good deal" as their modest monthly data use would qualify them for a cheaper plan, Mike Gikas, senior editor at Consumer Reports in Yonkers, New York, said in an interview. "The concern is that given how they've changed the plan like this without warning, there's no stopping them from doing it again if they find it's not as profitable for them."

AT&T said 98 percent of its smartphone customers use less than 2 gigabytes of data each month, which means they will pay less money for data use. Mark Collins, AT&T Mobility's senior vice president of voice and data products of AT&T Wireless, acknowledged the pricing changes may concern some consumers.

"There will be some customers that will be concerned because the uncertainty of that bill and the overages that were common in the early days of wireless is something that customers continue to remember," Collins said in an interview.

Facebook Outcry

Consumers took to Facebook, Twitter and other corners of the Web to express anger at the company. One post on AT&T's Facebook page labeled the move a "dumb stunt," while one on the microblogging site called the company a "bully."

Jarvis, a professor of journalism at City University of New York and blogger who prodded computer maker Dell Inc. into improving its customer service, wrote a post on his Buzz Machine site calling AT&T's move "cynical" and "evil."

Wade Beavers, who runs mobile application developer DoApps Inc. in Minneapolis, said AT&T's changes could stymie the use of data-intensive software programs such as mobile television.

"As a developer I'm frustrated because they're limiting the potential use and revenue that comes from having the apps available," Beavers said in an interview. "Single-handedly, this is a killer for mobile TV."

Verizon Outlook

How AT&T's business is affected by the pricing changes will depend in part on whether other wireless carriers follow its lead. Heavy-data users may defect to Verizon Wireless if that company keeps its current pricing, said Barclays Capital analyst James Ratcliffe.

Verizon, the largest U.S. wireless carrier, declined to comment on whether it will scrap its advertised unlimited plan, which carries extra charges if customers use more than 5 gigabytes of data a month. Sprint Nextel Corp., the No. 3 U.S. carrier, has no plans to change its pricing, Chief Executive Officer Dan Hesse said yesterday in an interview.



Please consider the environment before printing this message.