March 14, 2011
Just a quick roundup of some stories bound to be of interest to Sidecut readers. First up is a fairly well thought out bashing of AT&T’s so-called 4G rollout, from Sascha Segan at PC Mag. (Gotta love the lede: “AT&T is lying about 4G. Shamelessly.”) While we wondered why AT&T was practically silent about its “4G” coverage map debut, now it appears the muted PR was due to the fact that even if there is a 4G network, the 4G phones are being disabled. You’ve got to kind of agree with Segan — this is really no way to launch a campaign.
DATA CAPS COMING FOR AT&T DSL, U-VERSE CUSTOMERS: An exclusive from Karl Bode at DSL Reports unearthed AT&T’s plans to introduce data caps and overage fees for its DSL and U-Verse broadband customers. Not really wireless but since in the end it is all the same network this is an important story to follow.
PC WORLD TESTS 4G PROVIDERS: Our good pal Mark Sullivan over at PC World teamed with the folks at Novarum to do some testing of 4G services across the country. While we like stats in any shape or form we are not sure the final conclusions are bulletproof, since the “average” totals include tests from markets where not all the providers have a 4G service operating, so those 3G speeds brought down some of the final total calculations. (And since AT&T’s 4G services aren’t apparently very live it’s questionable how much this is a cross-provider 4G test since 4G really isn’t available everywhere from everyone.) Still, the numbers are fun to look at especially in city comparisons.
December 16, 2008
I still don’t think we’ve heard the last of the Google/Wall Street Journal dustup over the dazed and confused story the Journal put out Monday that supposedly detailed Google’s departure from its net neutrality ideals but in reality didn’t seem to understand what topic it was even talking about.
My late-night takeaway is that while Google seems to have won the overall perception battle on this one, the swell of derisive swipes at Google from many corners shows there’s a lot of latent Google-hate out there that may have very little to do with network neutrality and a lot more to do with a simple distaste for the actions of the at-times overly proud and overly preachy Googlers.
Such are the trappings of being the big dog: Everyone wants to nip at your heels. More on this topic later.
For now, two good reads that capture the main points of the day’s discussion: Karl Bode at DSL Reports paints a very good picture of how and why the WSJ got things so wrong; and Harold Feld on why net neutrality isn’t simple, why it’s not all about Google, and why all that matters — a lot.
July 18, 2008
Anyone who’s followed broadband policy matters knows that the FCC’s previous attempts to define what broadband is and how much of it is around has pretty much been a joke. Now that the Bush Administration’s promise of broadband everywhere by 2007 is seen as nothing but a hollow promise, politicians are waking up to the fact that it would be a whole lot better if this country had an actual strategic plan for advancing broadband deployment.
But as Karl over at DSL Reports so wonderfully points out, relying on the current incumbents to draft that plan may not be such a good idea. Our friend Drew Clark, who is trying to build a broadband census of his own, also weighs in on the current kerfluffle.
(Hat tip to Stacey H at GigaOM for the link.)