OnePlus 2 coming July 27 with unique VR announcement - 0 views
Apps stores ignore low-end handset market | Telecom Asia - 0 views
-
just 1% of mobile subscribers in Asia pay to download games compared to 60% of iPhone users.
Samsung UK Giving Away Free Galaxy S Android Phones To People Who Complain About The iP... - 0 views
-
Samsung UK is paying attention to Twitter to find people complaining about the iPhone 4 and is giving away free (and unlocked) Samsung Galaxy S Android phones. We've seen examples of people using Twitter to surprise customers who complain about or praise a product, but this is the first good example I've seen within telecom. I could see Verizon doing something similar to people complaining about AT&T, like paying for them to get out of contract or offering out-of-contract consumers a reduced rate on new contract.
Why the Internet Freaked Out When Fox Pulled House from Hulu - 0 views
-
Many observers immediately labeled Fox's block a violation of the principle of "network neutrality"—the idea that Internet service providers should allow subscribers to access all legal content online. Neutrality rules have been the subject of fierce debate in Washington, and activists are constantly on the lookout for perceived anti-neutrality maneuvering.
AdvertisementIf Fox's move violated "neutrality," though, it wasn't in the way we've long defined that term. Advocates for net neutrality rules have mainly been concerned about the power that cable and phone companies can exert on the Internet. The theory is that in most local areas, broadband companies exist as monopolies or duopolies—you can get the Internet from your phone company or your cable company—and, therefore, are in a position to influence online content. What if, for instance, AT&T demanded that YouTube pay a surcharge every time a customer watches a video? To prevent such abuses, the Federal Communications Commission imposed Internet "openness" guidelines (PDF) in 2005, and since then regulators and lawmakers have been arguing about how to make those guidelines both permanent and enforceable.
But this Fox-Cablevision-Hulu scenario turns the neutrality debate on its head. Here, it wasn't the broadband company—Cablevision—that blocked customers' access to content. Instead, it was the content company, Fox, that imposed the ban. Why is that distinction important? Because while it's easy to think of justifications for imposing neutrality regulations on broadband companies, it's less clear how we should feel about imposing rules on content providers. Telecom companies are regulated by the FCC, and there's a long history of the government forcing "openness" rules on public communications infrastructure. If the government can prohibit phone companies from deciding whom you can and can't call, shouldn't we have a similar rule preventing ISPs from deciding what you can get on the Web?