NEWS: 'World-mode' iPhone due next year, says fanboi rumor
John Navas
tapping both CDMA and GSM/UMTS wireless networks, according to the
fanboi rumor mill.
MORE: <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/08/worldmode_iphone_rumor/>
--
Best regards,
John <http:/navasgroup.com>
If the iPhone is really so impressive,
why do iFans keep making excuses for it?
Larry
news:9iqdf5dd21hr81vml...@4ax.com:
> The Jobsian cult is hard at work on a "world-mode" iPhone capable of
> tapping both CDMA and GSM/UMTS wireless networks, according to the
> fanboi rumor mill.
>
Let's start a rumor about true multitasking, external memory slot, swapable
battery packs, slideout keyboard, open source OS that will run anything,
800 x 400 display with high res touchpad/stylus, Flash, WMx,
Realvideo/audio, OGG, FLAC, DivX and all the other video codecs........etc.
Should be fun.....(c;]
Oh, wait, that'll be out soon, the Nokia N900....
--
Larry
alexd
chose the tried and tested strategy of:
> The Jobsian cult
I assume you intend cult as an insult, but surely spraying these messages across
usenet only serves to further the aims of the 'cult'?
--
<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) (UnSoEs...@ale.cx)
11:08:00 up 22 days, 11:19, 4 users, load average: 0.13, 0.17, 0.17
"Stupid is a condition. Ignorance is a choice" -- Wiley Miller
Not Me
> Meanwhile, at the alt.internet.wireless Job Justification Hearings, John Navas
> chose the tried and tested strategy of:
>
>> The Jobsian cult
>
> I assume you intend cult as an insult, but surely spraying these messages across
> usenet only serves to further the aims of the 'cult'?
>
As did your reply...
George Kerby
On 11/9/09 6:17 AM, in article
4eSdnQFxFP7FlWXX...@speakeasy.net, "Not Me" <Not...@Home.Base>
wrote:
As yours.
And mine...
News
Bingo.
John Navas
worms this month has sparked interest in selling anti-malware products
for the device. However no such security products currently exist and
Apple shows little inclination in licensing any that do get developed.
Antivirus products for Symbian smartphones have been available for
years, but not one antivirus product is available for the iPhone, from
any vendor. Releasing such tools would require the help of Apple, which
tightly controls what applications are licensed to run on the devices
via its successful AppStore marketplace.
But since both the ikee (Rickrolling) and Duh worms affect only
jailbroken iPhones (with SSH open and default passwords) the line from
Apple is that there's no need for anti-malware for iPhones.
MORE: <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/25/iphone_anti_malware/>
Kurt Ullman
John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> The blaze of publicity that accompanied the release of the first iPhone
> worms this month has sparked interest in selling anti-malware products
> for the device. However no such security products currently exist and
> Apple shows little inclination in licensing any that do get developed.
>
> But since both the ikee (Rickrolling) and Duh worms affect only
> jailbroken iPhones (with SSH open and default passwords) the line from
> Apple is that there's no need for anti-malware for iPhones.
>
> MORE: <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/25/iphone_anti_malware/>
Let me get this straight. You are taking Apple to task because they
are not saving people from themselves? I would agree from Apple's
standpoint. They wanna screw with the phones, it is hardly Apple's
responsibility to save them from their own idiocy.
--
To find that place where the rats don't race
and the phones don't ring at all.
If once, you've slept on an island.
Scott Kirby "If once you've slept on an island"
nospam
> The blaze of publicity that accompanied the release of the first iPhone
> worms this month has sparked interest in selling anti-malware products
> for the device. However no such security products currently exist and
> Apple shows little inclination in licensing any that do get developed.
why would apple have an inclination for anti-malware software? out of
the box, it's basically impossible for an iphone to have any malware.
malware can only run on the iphone *if* the user jailbreaks their phone
*and* installs ssh *and* leaves it open with the default password. none
of that is supported by apple, and, apple has been continually making
it more difficult to jailbreak.
> Antivirus products for Symbian smartphones have been available for
> years,
admitting that a platform is open to attack and needing anti-virus
software is not something about which to be proud.
> but not one antivirus product is available for the iPhone, from
> any vendor. Releasing such tools would require the help of Apple, which
> tightly controls what applications are licensed to run on the devices
> via its successful AppStore marketplace.
which also means that the malware would require approval, so in effect,
there is no problem unless the user jailbreaks the phone, which is
something beyond apple's control.
> But since both the ikee (Rickrolling) and Duh worms affect only
> jailbroken iPhones (with SSH open and default passwords) the line from
> Apple is that there's no need for anti-malware for iPhones.
and apple is correct.
George Kerby
On 11/25/09 9:54 AM, in article dmkqg5po1p78fahab...@4ax.com,
"John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> The blaze of publicity that accompanied the release of the first iPhone
> worms this month has sparked interest in selling anti-malware products
> for the device. However no such security products currently exist and
> Apple shows little inclination in licensing any that do get developed.
>
Why should they? They have no reason to care about jailbroken phones and
those are the ONLY ones that need such crap.
Try again, NavASS, to find something to bitch about. You have already worn
out DSLRs and Apple products.
Moron.
Troll.
David Moyer
> Apple is that there's no need for anti-malware for iPhones.
yes, there is never a need for that on iphones since all developers have
signed contracts disallowing that type of behavior, they'd be liable and
sued into oblivion. plus they are all unix based phones so nothing can
spread unless a default password/username was known.
WindsorFox<[SS]>
> The blaze of publicity that accompanied the release of the first iPhone
> worms this month has sparked interest in selling anti-malware products
> for the device. However no such security products currently exist and
> Apple shows little inclination in licensing any that do get developed.
>
> Antivirus products for Symbian smartphones have been available for
> years, but not one antivirus product is available for the iPhone, from
> any vendor. Releasing such tools would require the help of Apple, which
> tightly controls what applications are licensed to run on the devices
> via its successful AppStore marketplace.
>
> But since both the ikee (Rickrolling) and Duh worms affect only
> jailbroken iPhones (with SSH open and default passwords) the line from
> Apple is that there's no need for anti-malware for iPhones.
>
> MORE: <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/25/iphone_anti_malware/>
>
C'mon John, everyone knows there's no such thing as a McIntosh virus....
--
.
Well, it was important enough for several folks to
comment on. Fortunately, they were not burdened
by Microsoft shitware which fails to properly
implement a decade-old standard. - Sam
WindsorFox<[SS]>
>
>
> On 11/25/09 9:54 AM, in article dmkqg5po1p78fahab...@4ax.com,
> "John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> The blaze of publicity that accompanied the release of the first iPhone
>> worms this month has sparked interest in selling anti-malware products
>> for the device. However no such security products currently exist and
>> Apple shows little inclination in licensing any that do get developed.
>>
> Why should they? They have no reason to care about jailbroken phones and
> those are the ONLY ones that need such crap.
>
Are you willing to bet everything you have that you are correct on
that?
nospam
<windsor.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Why should they? They have no reason to care about jailbroken phones and
> > those are the ONLY ones that need such crap.
>
> Are you willing to bet everything you have that you are correct on
> that?
it is virtually impossible for malware to run on iphone out of the box
because everything is codesigned and sandboxed. jailbreaking removes
that protection, and when someone installs sshd and doesn't change the
default password, they're vulnerable to pretty much anything.
George Kerby
On 11/30/09 2:14 PM, in article hf193p$c7n$2...@posting2.glorb.com,
"WindsorFox<[SS]>" <windsor.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
> John Navas wrote:
>> The blaze of publicity that accompanied the release of the first iPhone
>> worms this month has sparked interest in selling anti-malware products
>> for the device. However no such security products currently exist and
>> Apple shows little inclination in licensing any that do get developed.
>>
>> Antivirus products for Symbian smartphones have been available for
>> years, but not one antivirus product is available for the iPhone, from
>> any vendor. Releasing such tools would require the help of Apple, which
>> tightly controls what applications are licensed to run on the devices
>> via its successful AppStore marketplace.
>>
>> But since both the ikee (Rickrolling) and Duh worms affect only
>> jailbroken iPhones (with SSH open and default passwords) the line from
>> Apple is that there's no need for anti-malware for iPhones.
>>
>> MORE: <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/25/iphone_anti_malware/>
>>
>
> C'mon John, everyone knows there's no such thing as a McIntosh virus....
I really did not believe that audio high fidelity equipment was prone to
computer viri!
Well, goes to show you that one can learn something every day from the
geniuses on Usenet, doesn't it?
George Kerby
On 11/30/09 2:17 PM, in article hf198j$c7n$3...@posting2.glorb.com,
"WindsorFox<[SS]>" <windsor.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
> George Kerby wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 11/25/09 9:54 AM, in article dmkqg5po1p78fahab...@4ax.com,
>> "John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The blaze of publicity that accompanied the release of the first iPhone
>>> worms this month has sparked interest in selling anti-malware products
>>> for the device. However no such security products currently exist and
>>> Apple shows little inclination in licensing any that do get developed.
>>>
>> Why should they? They have no reason to care about jailbroken phones and
>> those are the ONLY ones that need such crap.
>>
>
> Are you willing to bet everything you have that you are correct on
> that?
A cite, please, to the contrary.
BTW:Whatever that is - is more than you have...
WindsorFox<[SS]>
Which of course was neither a yes or a no to a yes no question.
WindsorFox<[SS]>
Just shows where my interests lie doesn't it...
WindsorFox<[SS]>
A cite for what? You want me to cite you proof for my question?
Someone said it's impossible to get malware on an iPhone, my question
was are you willing to bet everything you have on that belief?
You could not possibly know about what I do or do not have, You are
welcome to your assumptions as you wish because IDGAF what you think I
do or don't have and it is totally inconsequential to the point at hand.
But then since you didn't understand a simple yes/no question it's not
hard to believe you dredged up that thought either. Care to try again?
nospam
<windsor.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Someone said it's impossible to get malware on an iPhone, my question
> was are you willing to bet everything you have on that belief?
nothing is impossible so your question is basically a straw man.
the point is that the risk of iphone malware is effectively zero
because everything is codesigned and sandboxed. someone would have to
find an exploit and then figure out how to turn it into something evil.
not that simple.
Kurt Ullman
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
And after all that sneak it past the iTunes store approval process.
Even less simple.
George Kerby
On 12/1/09 10:13 AM, in article hf3fbn$kam$3...@posting2.glorb.com,
"WindsorFox<[SS]>" <windsor.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
> George Kerby wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 11/30/09 2:14 PM, in article hf193p$c7n$2...@posting2.glorb.com,
>> "WindsorFox<[SS]>" <windsor.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> John Navas wrote:
>>>> The blaze of publicity that accompanied the release of the first iPhone
>>>> worms this month has sparked interest in selling anti-malware products
>>>> for the device. However no such security products currently exist and
>>>> Apple shows little inclination in licensing any that do get developed.
>>>>
>>>> Antivirus products for Symbian smartphones have been available for
>>>> years, but not one antivirus product is available for the iPhone, from
>>>> any vendor. Releasing such tools would require the help of Apple, which
>>>> tightly controls what applications are licensed to run on the devices
>>>> via its successful AppStore marketplace.
>>>>
>>>> But since both the ikee (Rickrolling) and Duh worms affect only
>>>> jailbroken iPhones (with SSH open and default passwords) the line from
>>>> Apple is that there's no need for anti-malware for iPhones.
>>>>
>>>> MORE: <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/25/iphone_anti_malware/>
>>>>
>>> C'mon John, everyone knows there's no such thing as a McIntosh virus....
>>
>> I really did not believe that audio high fidelity equipment was prone to
>> computer viri!
>>
>> Well, goes to show you that one can learn something every day from the
>> geniuses on Usenet, doesn't it?
>>
>
> Just shows where my interests lie doesn't it...
English is not your primary language?
George Kerby
On 12/1/09 10:23 AM, in article hf3fv5$kd1$1...@posting2.glorb.com,
"WindsorFox<[SS]>" <windsor.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
> George Kerby wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 11/30/09 2:17 PM, in article hf198j$c7n$3...@posting2.glorb.com,
>> "WindsorFox<[SS]>" <windsor.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> George Kerby wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 11/25/09 9:54 AM, in article dmkqg5po1p78fahab...@4ax.com,
>>>> "John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The blaze of publicity that accompanied the release of the first iPhone
>>>>> worms this month has sparked interest in selling anti-malware products
>>>>> for the device. However no such security products currently exist and
>>>>> Apple shows little inclination in licensing any that do get developed.
>>>>>
>>>> Why should they? They have no reason to care about jailbroken phones and
>>>> those are the ONLY ones that need such crap.
>>>>
>>> Are you willing to bet everything you have that you are correct on
>>> that?
>>
>> A cite, please, to the contrary.
>>
>> BTW:Whatever that is - is more than you have...
>>
>
>
> A cite for what? You want me to cite you proof for my question?
> Someone said it's impossible to get malware on an iPhone, my question
> was are you willing to bet everything you have on that belief?
>
<straw snipped>
I thought that English was your problem. Now I see that it is of an organic
nature.
Carry on. You ARE special...
George Kerby
On 12/1/09 12:22 PM, in article 011220091322446617%nos...@nospam.invalid,
"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
By asking others to "put everything on" their "belief" reveals an almost
theological neurosis. When he carries on with the "you don't know who I am"
diatribe, it is almost certain that he is somewhat unstable.
Our game-boy "Fox" has a biological disorder, so I am cutting him some
slack. When one has flawed logic, it is cruel and futile to engage them in a
rational discussion.
WindsorFox<[SS]>
> In article <hf3fv5$kd1$1...@posting2.glorb.com>, WindsorFox
> <windsor.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Someone said it's impossible to get malware on an iPhone, my question
>> was are you willing to bet everything you have on that belief?
>
> nothing is impossible so your question is basically a straw man.
>
It was not I that said it, but it still does not negate the question
> the point is that the risk of iphone malware is effectively zero
> because everything is codesigned and sandboxed. someone would have to
> find an exploit and then figure out how to turn it into something evil.
> not that simple.
You just said it again, "effectively zero." ARE you or not willing
to risk everything that you own on that fact? Simple.
--
.
"A smorgasbord of tomfoolery" - L0afy
WindsorFox<[SS]>
> In article <011220091322446617%nos...@nospam.invalid>,
> nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> In article <hf3fv5$kd1$1...@posting2.glorb.com>, WindsorFox
>> <windsor.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Someone said it's impossible to get malware on an iPhone, my question
>>> was are you willing to bet everything you have on that belief?
>> nothing is impossible so your question is basically a straw man.
>>
>> the point is that the risk of iphone malware is effectively zero
>> because everything is codesigned and sandboxed. someone would have to
>> find an exploit and then figure out how to turn it into something evil.
>> not that simple.
>
> And after all that sneak it past the iTunes store approval process.
> Even less simple.
>
Or in email or a website through wifi, even simpler.
WindsorFox<[SS]>
>>>>> Why should they? They have no reason to care about jailbroken phones and
>>>>> those are the ONLY ones that need such crap.
>>>>>
>>>> Are you willing to bet everything you have that you are correct on
>>>> that?
>>> A cite, please, to the contrary.
>>>
>>> BTW:Whatever that is - is more than you have...
>>>
>>
>> A cite for what? You want me to cite you proof for my question?
>> Someone said it's impossible to get malware on an iPhone, my question
>> was are you willing to bet everything you have on that belief?
>>
> <straw snipped>
>
> I thought that English was your problem. Now I see that it is of an organic
> nature.
>
> Carry on. You ARE special...
>
It is quite obvious to me that it is you who has the defect, but I
believe it more emotional in nature. You can not possibly provide any
tangible answers so you run amok in your reply, or you are incapable of
following the threaded view provided by your Microsoft reader and are
attributing words to me that I did not type. You who are running around
referring to people as morons and idiots can not even muster a simple
yes or no. Care to try again?
Are you willing to bet everything you have on the idea that it is
impossible or almost impossible for malware to run on an iPhone? Very
simple, yes or no. Now show us all the magnitude of your intelligence.
WindsorFox<[SS]>
>
>
> On 12/1/09 12:22 PM, in article 011220091322446617%nos...@nospam.invalid,
> "nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> In article <hf3fv5$kd1$1...@posting2.glorb.com>, WindsorFox
>> <windsor.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Someone said it's impossible to get malware on an iPhone, my question
>>> was are you willing to bet everything you have on that belief?
>> nothing is impossible so your question is basically a straw man.
>>
>> the point is that the risk of iphone malware is effectively zero
>> because everything is codesigned and sandboxed. someone would have to
>> find an exploit and then figure out how to turn it into something evil.
>> not that simple.
>
> By asking others to "put everything on" their "belief" reveals an almost
> theological neurosis. When he carries on with the "you don't know who I am"
> diatribe, it is almost certain that he is somewhat unstable.
By refusing to provide an answer you are showing that you are
embarrassed by said answer. Or that you do not understand the concept.
By telling someone on Usenet whom you do not know and know nothing about
that you are "monetarily worth more" you are obviously presumptuous.
narcissistic and rather short sighted. It is almost certain that you are
unstable and have delusions of grandeur desiring to be a great
psychotherapist.
>
> Our game-boy "Fox" has a biological disorder, so I am cutting him some
> slack. When one has flawed logic, it is cruel and futile to engage them in a
> rational discussion.
>
Which you are apparently incapable of doing. I believe the
biological disorder is between your ears.
Kurt Ullman
"WindsorFox<[SS]>" <windsor.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Are you willing to bet everything you have on the idea that it is
> impossible or almost impossible for malware to run on an iPhone? Very
> simple, yes or no. Now show us all the magnitude of your intelligence.
Yes. Now dazzle us with your intelligence and tell us why you don't.
Richard B. Gilbert
Take it to E-mail!!! The rest of us are not interested in or amused by
whatever it is that you think you are doing!
nospam
<windsor.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> the point is that the risk of iphone malware is effectively zero
> >> because everything is codesigned and sandboxed. someone would have to
> >> find an exploit and then figure out how to turn it into something evil.
> >> not that simple.
> >
> > And after all that sneak it past the iTunes store approval process.
> > Even less simple.
>
> Or in email or a website through wifi, even simpler.
and how exactly can malware propagate on an iphone via email or a web
site??
nospam
<windsor.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You just said it again, "effectively zero." ARE you or not willing
> to risk everything that you own on that fact? Simple.
straw man. *nothing* is 100% fail safe, but i'm not at all worried
about malware on an iphone or a mac. it's *far* more likely that
something *else* will go wrong, like a hard drive failure, theft, etc.
and even that is relatively rare.
WindsorFox<[SS]>
> In article <hf619n$tpf$1...@posting2.glorb.com>,
> "WindsorFox<[SS]>" <windsor.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Are you willing to bet everything you have on the idea that it is
>> impossible or almost impossible for malware to run on an iPhone? Very
>> simple, yes or no. Now show us all the magnitude of your intelligence.
>
> Yes. Now dazzle us with your intelligence and tell us why you don't.
>
I use neither anti-malware apps nor and iPhone/Mac. I guess I live
on the ragged edge....
WindsorFox<[SS]>
Then I would suggest you skip over the thread, or mark the thread
as "ignore" in your news reader. What are you new here?
WindsorFox<[SS]>
And *I* am not worried about it on Windows. That doesn't mean
everyone is that good.
WindsorFox<[SS]>
The same way it does on any other connected device.
nospam
<windsor.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > and how exactly can malware propagate on an iphone via email or a web
> > site??
>
> The same way it does on any other connected device.
nonsense.
the operating system is entirely different, the holes aren't there and
on the iphone, everything is code signed & sandboxed. email attachments
are not executed, you can't download anything from a web page and
nothing has access to the operating system even if they did.
nospam
<windsor.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
> And *I* am not worried about it on Windows. That doesn't mean
> everyone is that good.
it doesn't matter how good you are, windows is an easy target, macs and
iphones are not.
here's one example:
<http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090208/1333453687.shtml>
First, Houston police have stopped arresting people with outstanding
traffic warrants and shut down the municipal court system for a few
days to try to deal with their computer systems being overrun by the
virus. Then, across the Atlantic, the French Navy is dealing with a
similar problem, forcing them to ground many of their fighter planes.
WindsorFox<[SS]>
Ehh-huh....
John Navas
US regulators are demanding that Verizon Wireless explain why it's
doubling early termination fees for smartphone customers and why
subscribers without a data plan are charged for inadvertently accessing
its mobile web service.
...
Last month, Verizon hiked the early termination fee for "advanced
devices" from $175 to $350.
...
The FCC also requested that Verizon provide details on its policy of
charging customers $1.99 for accidentally accessing Verizon Wireless's
Mobile Web without a data plan.
The Commission points to a recent report in the New York Times that
suggested the company is using shady tactics to profit from customers
who accidentally push a dedicated Mobile Web button on Verizon phones.
The NYT article cites a person who claims to work for Verizon admitting
that the company purposefully places the button in a location where
customers are likely to inadvertently activate it. Any data sent over
the mobile web network results in a minimum charge of $1.99.
Verizon was given until December 17 to respond to the FCC. A copy of the
letter is available here:
<http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2535A1.pdf>
--
Best regards,
John <http:/navasgroup.com>
If the iPhone is really so impressive,
why do iFans keep making excuses for it?
John Navas
in <4b0ebb32$0$87073$815e...@news.qwest.net>:
>John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> Apple is that there's no need for anti-malware for iPhones.
>
>yes, there is never a need for that on iphones since all developers have
>signed contracts disallowing that type of behavior, they'd be liable and
>sued into oblivion. plus they are all unix based phones so nothing can
>spread unless a default password/username was known.
No offense, but that's dangerously naive.
nospam
<spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 10:30:26 -0700, David Moyer <dav...@world.com> wrote
> in <4b0ebb32$0$87073$815e...@news.qwest.net>:
>
> >John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Apple is that there's no need for anti-malware for iPhones.
> >
> >yes, there is never a need for that on iphones since all developers have
> >signed contracts disallowing that type of behavior, they'd be liable and
> >sued into oblivion. plus they are all unix based phones so nothing can
> >spread unless a default password/username was known.
>
> No offense, but that's dangerously naive.
not really, although what he wrote is not entirely correct.
unless the iphone is jailbroken, it's *very* difficult to get
non-approved code to run, let alone spread.
NotMe
"Scott in SoCal" <scotte...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1u3kh5diq41p62u73...@4ax.com...
> Last time on alt.cellular.attws, John Navas
> <spamf...@navasgroup.com> said:
>
>>Wants info on 'accidental' data charges too
>>
>>US regulators are demanding that Verizon Wireless explain why it's
>>doubling early termination fees for smartphone customers and why
>>subscribers without a data plan are charged for inadvertently accessing
>>its mobile web service.
>
> lesson for VZW. Now they're REALLY gonna get spanked!
>
>>Last month, Verizon hiked the early termination fee for "advanced
>>devices" from $175 to $350.
>
There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who
learn by observation. The rest of have to pee on the electric fence for
themselves. ~ Will Rogers
News
ZZZZZZZZZZ-ING!
John Navas
<hfdnfm$bk0$1...@news.eternal-september.org>:
The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.
----
SMS
> I remember. I couldn't believe they would be so brazen (or so stupid).
Not really unreasonable, even though it looks bad. If someone signs up
for service and gets a Droid for $150 (the price at Amazon) then cancels
and pays the $175 termination fee, they've gotten the Droid for $325 and
can then sign up for service on PagePlus with pay-as-you-go data for a
very low price. It's been a loophole in the termination fee pricing for
quite a while now.
The alternative is for Verizon to charge a higher initial cost for the
Droid, but that would slow sales.
In any case, all that's happened is that some congresspeople asked
Verizon to explain the justification for the higher termination fee,
which no doubt they'll be able to do. No one is getting spanked, it's
just a few publicity-hungry congresspeople trying to get their names in
the news, and what could be better than bashing the biggest wireless
company.
Steve Sobol
scotte...@yahoo.com says...
> I remember. I couldn't believe they would be so brazen (or so stupid).
They're not quite as evil as AT&T. I vote for "incredibly stupid and
unable to learn from history."
--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, California, USA
sjs...@JustThe.net
Steve Sobol
scharf...@geemail.com says...
> In any case, all that's happened is that some congresspeople asked
> Verizon to explain the justification for the higher termination fee,
> which no doubt they'll be able to do. No one is getting spanked, it's
> just a few publicity-hungry congresspeople trying to get their names in
> the news, and what could be better than bashing the biggest wireless
> company.
If equipment subsidies are so steep that Verizon has to resort to this
crap, maybe they should just price their phones a little higher in the
first place.
SMS
That doesn't work, as Apple learned with the iPhone which was initially
priced unsubsidized at $600, then cut to unsubsidized at $400, then
finally subsidized so it could sell for $200, which is when it really
took off in terms of volumes. The Droid manufacturing cost is no doubt
much higher than the manufacturing cost of the iPhone. Personally I
think Verizon's being shortsighted with that much of an increase in the
termination fee. $250 would have been more reasonable and would not have
raised such objections.
Steve Sobol
scharf...@geemail.com says...
> That doesn't work, as Apple learned with the iPhone which was initially
> priced unsubsidized at $600, then cut to unsubsidized at $400, then
> finally subsidized so it could sell for $200, which is when it really
> took off in terms of volumes. The Droid manufacturing cost is no doubt
> much higher than the manufacturing cost of the iPhone. Personally I
> think Verizon's being shortsighted with that much of an increase in the
> termination fee. $250 would have been more reasonable and would not have
> raised such objections.
Really? The cost to manufacture a Droid is "no doubt much higher"?
Got some numbers to back that up?
nospam
<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> That doesn't work, as Apple learned with the iPhone which was initially
> priced unsubsidized at $600, then cut to unsubsidized at $400, then
> finally subsidized so it could sell for $200, which is when it really
> took off in terms of volumes.
part of it was the price, part of it was adding 3g and a gps, along
with the introduction of the apps store.
> The Droid manufacturing cost is no doubt
> much higher than the manufacturing cost of the iPhone.
based on what?
Larry
news:f6rjh55g8b66bs8s2...@4ax.com:
> http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2535A1.pdf
"8. When does Verizon Wireless charge usage fees for access to Verizon
Mobile Web? In particular, is there a minimum data amount or level of
access that triggers charges, and if so, what is that amount or level?
Which phones sold by Verizon have individual keys pre-programmed to
provide for one-press access to various Mobile Web services? Is it
correct that customers are charged for minimal, accidental usage by
customers using these phones?
9. Can a customer re-program keys that provide for one-press access to
various Mobile Web services to disable that function? If so, how can a
customer do so, and how does Verizon inform consumers how to re-program
these keys? If not, how does Verizon inform consumers that these keys
cannot be reprogrammed, and that consumers may be charged for pressing
them accidentally? The recent article also suggested that, even if a
consumer asks to have the Mobile Web feature turned off, charges are
incurred for transmission of a blocking notification.
Is this correct? If so, are consumers informed that they may incur
charges even after turning off the feature?"
Oh, my. This may be fun to watch. If we get to see the answer to all
these questions, can we use that, instead of the bullshit from the
talking head on the phone or in the stores that's different?
Looks like the customers may finally be able to get a straight answer
they can stick to!
"But you told the FCC......"
PRICELESS.....(C;
Larry
> http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2535A1.pdf
"December 4, 2009
4
Request for Confidential Treatment. If Verizon Wireless requests that any
information or documents responsive to this letter be treated in a
confidential manner, it
shall submit, along with all responsive information and documents, a
statement in
accordance with section 0.459 of the Commission�s rules. 47 C.F.R. � 0.459.
Requests
for confidential treatment must comply with the requirements of section
0.459, including
the standards of specificity mandated by section 0.459(b)."
Never mind. We'll never see what they tell the FCC.....
SMS
> Last time on alt.cellular.attws, SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> said:
>
>> In any case, all that's happened is that some congresspeople asked
>> Verizon to explain the justification for the higher termination fee,
>> which no doubt they'll be able to do.
>
So you think a phone that costs Verizon $25 and a phone that costs them
$225 should have the same ETF? Where's the logic in that?
> Let's review the purpose of subsidy locks and early termination fees.
> Ostensibly these things exist so that the carrier can recover the
> costs of subsidized hardware, i.e. that $300 phone they sold you for
> $100 when you signed up for a 2 year contract. So how does VZW make
> back that $200 subsidy? By padding the cost of their service plans, of
> course. Let's say you sign up for a plan that costs $40/month, and you
> get a $300 phone for $100. Persumably around $8 of that $40 goes to
> "pay back" the $200 hardware subsidy. At the end of 2 years, you've
> paid back the entire $200. Of course, the cost of your plan doesn't go
> down; that extra $8.33/month is now pure profit for VZW.
That's why, if you're planning to stay with them, you always get a new
phone as soon as you're eligible, even if you don't want one. You can
always sell it on craigslist or eBay. In my case I gave my new phone
that I didn't want to my daughter for her use on PagePlus.
> And if for
> some reason you decided to cancel your VZW service after 1 year and 11
> months, VZW won't pro-rate your ETF even though they have already
> recovered all but $8 of the hardware subsidy. CHA-CHING!!!
In fact they do pro-rate your ETF. Not by $175/24 per month or $350/24
per month, but at least by something ($5/month in the case of the $175
termination fee), but Verizon was the first carrier to go to pro-rated
ETF's, and it happened about two years ago.
Pegleg
> If equipment subsidies are so steep that Verizon has to resort to this
> crap, maybe they should just price their phones a little higher in the
> first place.
I agree 100% Steve! As I said though, by charging
higher prices many consumers would not be able to
get their "free" phones or deeply subsidized
phones. That results in fewer data plans and less
revenue for VZW. Keeping the lower prices on the
phones gets subscribers into phones and plans
which they ultimately find they can't afford.
The best way is to buy the phone at whatever price
you can else where.
Brian
Pegleg
>> Verizon to explain the justification for the higher termination fee,
>> which no doubt they'll be able to do.
>
Huh? Since when does ANYTHING have to make sense
to congress?
Brian
Larry
$742e...@news.sonic.net:
> So you think a phone that costs Verizon $25 and a phone that costs them
> $225 should have the same ETF? Where's the logic in that?
>
>
Which of you can tell us the markup on sellphone?
What ARE they paying for an iPhone? Droid? that little shit LG they "give
away" for "free" you're paying for for 2 years?
The markup at Radio Shack is typically 67%. I bet Verizon does even
better.
Larry
@news.eternal-september.org:
> The best way is to buy the phone at whatever price
> you can else where.
>
>
Then connect it to the cheapest plan you can on the system you want....like
PagePlus on Verizon....not Verizon's horrible plan prices subsidizing all
the OTHER subsidized phone users on them.
NotMe
"Larry" <no...@home.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9CD9997A1FF...@74.209.131.13...
WAAAAAAAY BETTER aka Like a bandit.
WindsorFox<[SS]>
> Last time on alt.cellular.attws, John Navas
> <spamf...@navasgroup.com> said:
>
>> Wants info on 'accidental' data charges too
>>
>> US regulators are demanding that Verizon Wireless explain why it's
>> doubling early termination fees for smartphone customers and why
>> subscribers without a data plan are charged for inadvertently accessing
>> its mobile web service.
>
> lesson for VZW. Now they're REALLY gonna get spanked!
>
>> devices" from $175 to $350.
>
Why?? I wouldn't put it past any big company like that.
WindsorFox<[SS]>
Really, everyone knows Apple's hardware is over priced.... :oP
WindsorFox<[SS]>
Whenever they get something out of it.
SMS
> SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote in news:4b1bb0ae$0$1666
> $742e...@news.sonic.net:
>
>> So you think a phone that costs Verizon $25 and a phone that costs them
>> $225 should have the same ETF? Where's the logic in that?
>>
>>
>
> Which of you can tell us the markup on sellphone?
Which markup? The markup from the phone manufacturer or the markup by
the retailer? The non-company store retailer is using some of their
kickback from the carrier to lower the price of the handset so the
markup is often not clear.
The bill of material cost plus the manufacturing cost on an iPhone 3GS
is estimated to be $180.
AT&T is reportedly paying Apple $325 for an iPhone, plus Apple stores
get paid an additional $100 for new customers that buy the phone at an
Apple store. The phone sells for $200 with a contract.
45% is a good margin for consumer electronics, but it's not humongous.
You have to run the whole company on these margins.
AT&T's money is all coming from the monthly charges. Rather surprising
that AT&T hasn't upped the ETF as well.
Larry
$742e...@news.sonic.net:
> AT&T is reportedly paying Apple $325 for an iPhone, plus Apple stores
> get paid an additional $100 for new customers that buy the phone at an
> Apple store. The phone sells for $200 with a contract.
>
So, ATT's "risk" in the contract is $125...325-200=125.
Let's buy a plan, 900 mins/$59.99, 1500 messages $15, Navigator $9.95,
VoiceDial, because the damned thing doesn't have it, $4.99, Insurance
$2.99 and $99.99 for Mobile Me to make that work.
59.95 x 24 months = $1,438.80
30.00 x 24 months = $ 720.00 (required data plan)
15.00 x 24 months = $ 360.00
9.95 x 24 months = $ 238.80
4.99 x 24 months = $ 119.76
2.99 x 24 months = $ 71.76
Mobile Me $ 99.99
==============================
ATT Payback on $125 $3,049.11
over 2 years.
Not too bad a return on investment, even if the iPhone uses 20GB/month.
I'm also quite sure the PROFIT on this iphone isn't $49.11, either.....
Man, that's a pile of money for a pocket toy with a sellphone in it,
$3,249.11. For $3,200, the damned thing should play ANY codec and have
multitasking!
Sticking their necks out for $125, what should a fair ETF be?
SMS
<snip>
> ATT Payback on $125 $3,049.11
> over 2 years.
>
> Not too bad a return on investment, even if the iPhone uses 20GB/month.
LOL, you're assuming that nothing AT&T does costs them any money, from
paying the rent, staff, utilities, insurance, etc. at the their stores,
to advertising, billing, to maintaining and expanding their network.
They get a good ROI on the iPhone to be sure, but the money they collect
is not pure profit.
The risk with the iPhone is a little less than Verizon's exposure with
the Droid. Even if you jail break it it doesn't work in 3G on T-Mobile,
there are no MVNO's on AT&T that offer moderately priced 3G data.
Larry
$742e...@news.sonic.net:
> Larry wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> ATT Payback on $125 $3,049.11
>> over 2 years.
>>
>> Not too bad a return on investment, even if the iPhone uses 20GB/month.
>
> LOL, you're assuming that nothing AT&T does costs them any money, from
> paying the rent, staff, utilities, insurance, etc. at the their stores,
> to advertising, billing, to maintaining and expanding their network.
The company's business habits are not the issue. The issue is how much it
actually costs them to provide a phone call. The profit margins even a
doctor or lawyer could be proud of.
>
> They get a good ROI on the iPhone to be sure, but the money they collect
> is not pure profit.
>
Wow...what a profound piece of news! Thank you for sharing that with us!
SMS
> The company's business habits are not the issue. The issue is how much it
> actually costs them to provide a phone call.
That's not the issue at all. Private companies don't calculate how much
a product or service costs them then set prices based on that amount.
They set prices based on what the market will bear. Sometimes this means
huge profits, sometimes it means selling for less than cost, at least
temporarily, and at least for some services. Their costs are immaterial.
The government can regulate many things about communications carriers,
but ultimately it's a competitive market place. No one's holding a gun
to anyone's head and forcing them to sign a contract with a $350 early
termination fee.
OTOH, you could argue that the marketplace really isn't all that
competitive since Verizon's level of quality and coverage is unmatched
by any competitor so subscribers wanting the best coverage have no
choice but to sign up with Verizon at terms that Verizon can dictate.
It's like the old Robert Klein (I think) piece on the oil
companies..."Hi we're here to explain the law of supply and demand. We
have all the _supply_, so we can _demand_ whatever the $%^& we want."
Still, Verizon is reaping the financial benefits of making investments
in their network that the other carriers chose not to make.
John Navas
Published: December 12, 2009
...
When I set about looking for independent data, however, to confirm
the superior performance of Verizon�s network, I was astonished to
discover that I had managed to get things exactly wrong. Despite the
well-publicized problems in New York and San Francisco, AT&T seems to
have the superior network nationwide.
And the iPhone itself may not be so great after all. Its design is
contributing to performance problems.
Roger Entner, senior vice president for telecommunications research
at Nielsen, said the iPhone�s �air interface,� the electronics in the
phone that connect it to the cell towers, had shortcomings that
�affect both voice and data.� He said that in the eyes of the
consumer, �the iPhone has the nimbus of infallibility, ergo, it�s
AT&T�s fault.� AT&T does not publicly defend itself because it will
not criticize Apple under any circumstances, he said. AT&T and Apple
both declined to comment on Mr. Entner�s assessments.
Neither AT&T nor Verizon was willing to reveal its internal data on
performance. But Global Wireless Solutions, one of the third-party
services that run network tests for the major carriers, shared some
of its current findings. The service dispatches drivers across the
country with phones and laptops equipped with data cards. They have
covered more than three million miles of roads this year, while
running almost two million wireless data sessions and placing more
than three million voice calls, said Paul Carter, the president.
The results place AT&T�s data network not just on top, but well ahead
of everyone else. �AT&T�s data throughput is 40 to 50 percent higher
than the competition, including Verizon,� Mr. Carter said. AT&T is a
client and Verizon is not, he added.
More evidence that AT&T�s data network is head-and-shoulders above
Verizon�s comes from Root Wireless, a start-up in Bellevue, Wash.,
that is developing software for consumers to install on their
smartphones to do continuous network tests. This generates empirical
data for consumers who �today are buried under opinions and
advertising slogans,� said Paul Griff, the chief executive. Root
Wireless has no business relationship with any carrier.
This year, Root Wireless ran 4.7 million tests on smartphones for
each of the four major carriers, spread across seven metropolitan
areas: Chicago, Dallas, Los Angeles/Orange County, New York,
Seattle/Tacoma, the San Francisco Bay Area, and Washington. In every
market, AT&T had faster average download speeds and had signal
strength of 75 percent or better more frequently than did Verizon. (A
Verizon spokesman declined to comment about these test results or
those of Global Wireless Solutions.)
I asked Ron Dicklin, chief technology officer at Root Wireless, how
these results, showing AT&T as the clear leader, could be reconciled
with the negative appraisal of Consumer Reports� respondents. He
explained that his company�s tests of AT&T�s data network were done
with handsets other than the iPhone, which does not allow non-Apple
programs like his to run in the background.
MORE:
<http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/13/business/13digi.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=AT&T&st=cse>
nospam
<spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> By RANDALL STROSS
> Published: December 12, 2009
> ...
> When I set about looking for independent data, however, to confirm
> the superior performance of Verizon�s network, I was astonished to
> discover that I had managed to get things exactly wrong. Despite the
> well-publicized problems in New York and San Francisco, AT&T seems to
> have the superior network nationwide.
<http://daringfireball.net/2009/12/stross_lying_eyes>
Stross�s primary source is Paul Carter, the president of Global
Wireless Solutions, a network testing firm. Carter acknowledges that
AT&T is one of his company�s clients, and Verizon is not. I mean,
come on.
...
Consumer Reports�s rankings, which put AT&T last and Verizon first,
were based on actual customer surveys. Actual customers reporting
their actual experiences.
If it�s the iPhone�s fault, not AT&T�s, why aren�t iPhone users
around the world having the same problems as those here in the U.S.?
...
On the other hand, we have the theory that AT&T�s network is just
fine because two network consulting companies say so, even though a
Consumer Reports customer survey says otherwise, and it is the iPhone
that is flawed, but the flaws are for some reason worse on AT&T than
other carriers around the world, and just happen to be worse still in
some cities than others, and Apple has been unwilling and/or unable
to address these flaws in three model years.
I know which theory I�d put my money on.
John Navas
What's interesting is the country where it achieved its highest rate of
growth during 2009: Japan."
MORE: <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/19/admob_november_stats/>
John Navas
The Motorola Cliq showed off this customization with the MotoBlur
service, which is an embedded service that aggregates a user's photos,
contacts, and other information from places like Facebook, corporate
e-mail accounts, Twitter, and other online sources.
But Motorola's biggest moment of 2009 came with the introduction of the
Droid for Verizon Wireless. The handset is probably Motorola's most
visually appealing device since the popular Razr, and it is the first
smartphone to feature Android 2.0. The Droid has been a hit with
consumers and, thanks to a strong multimedia campaign by Verizon
Wireless, it is expected to sell more than a million units by the end of
the year. While the Droid and the Cliq aren't enough to completely turn
around the struggling handset division, these devices lay a solid
foundation for the company that essentially invented the cell phone.
MORE:
<http://www.informationweek.com/news/hardware/handheld/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=222002362>
nospam
<spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> But Motorola's biggest moment of 2009 came with the introduction of the
> Droid for Verizon Wireless. The handset is probably Motorola's most
> visually appealing device since the popular Razr, and it is the first
> smartphone to feature Android 2.0. The Droid has been a hit with
> consumers and, thanks to a strong multimedia campaign by Verizon
> Wireless, it is expected to sell more than a million units by the end of
> the year. While the Droid and the Cliq aren't enough to completely turn
> around the struggling handset division, these devices lay a solid
> foundation for the company that essentially invented the cell phone.
too bad about the droid's battery cover falling off.
<http://droidie.com/2009/11/20/the-droid-battery-cover-problem/>
<https://supportforums.motorola.com/message/72567>
<https://supportforums.motorola.com/thread/16997?start=0&tstart=0>
however, verizon will gladly tape it up for you.
<http://www.flickr.com/photos/anticitizen/4193870759/in/photostream/>
Mark Crispin
> "The iPhone continues to gain market share worldwide. No news there.
> What's interesting is the country where it achieved its highest rate of
> growth during 2009: Japan."
> MORE: <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/19/admob_november_stats/>
What that article fails to mention is that in Japan, iPhone is a big fish
in a very small pond (the Japanese smart phone market).
The Japanese smart phone market consists of iPhone, a couple of Windows
Mobile phones, and (if you really are determined) a BlackBerry from
DoCoMo. It's no big deal that iPhone has 46% of such a tiny market.
The vast majority of mobile phones sold in Japan are "keitais"; the
uniquely Japanese type of mobile phone which is not a smart phone but
isn't the same as a North American dumb phone either. There's a wealth of
services that are completely unique to keitais.
Equally important, there are literally hundreds of different models of
keitais, with a bewildering array of choices. There's only one current
model of iPhone.
Most native Japanese who own an iPhone use it as an iPod Touch with a SIM
card, not as a mobile phone. They have a keitai that they use as a mobile
phone. This is even true of Apple fanatics.
Not that SoftBank minds. Every iPhone that is sold as an iPod Touch with
a SIM card is still profit, they make more money out of data than voice,
and users are less likely to complain about intermittant data service than
they are about dropped voice calls.
Basically, there's just too much that keitais do that iPhone doesn't do.
iPhone is now one of the cheap phones that SoftBank gives away, with a
puny screen compared to most keitais. Thus, iPhone has not made inroads
against keitais. The big exception are foreigners who live in Japan and
can't figure out a keitai.
The association between iPhone and foreigners has gotten to the point that
if a non-Japanese carries a keitai instead of an iPhone, it is assumed
that he is one of those rare gaijin who is fluent in the Japanese
language.
-- Mark --
http://panda.com/mrc
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.
John Navas
Verizon Wireless said a new $350 fee that it charges some subscribers to
break cell-phone contracts is necessary to cover its higher costs and
the "risks" of offering high-speed wireless Internet service.
The wireless giant offered up a defense of its new fee�double the fee
charged to other subscribers�in response to an inquiry by the Federal
Communications Commission.
The fee applies to smart phones, including some BlackBerry models and
the new Motorola Droid phone.
"The higher (early termination fee) associated with Advanced Devices
reflects the higher costs associated with offering those devices to
consumers at attractive prices, the costs and risks of investing in the
broadband network to support these devices, and other costs and risks,"
Verizon wrote in a letter Friday to the FCC.
John Navas
phones to carry warnings that they can cause brain cancer, although
there is no consensus among scientists that they do and industry leaders
dispute the claim.
The now-ubiquitous devices carry such warnings in some countries, though
no U.S. states require them, according to the National Conference of
State Legislators. A similar effort is afoot in San Francisco, where
Mayor Gavin Newsom wants his city to be the nation's first to require
the warnings.
Maine Rep. Andrea Boland, D-Sanford, said numerous studies point to the
cancer risk, and she has persuaded legislative leaders to allow her
proposal to come up for discussion during the 2010 session that begins
in January, a session usually reserved for emergency and governors'
bills.
Boland herself uses a cell phone, but with a speaker to keep the phone
away from her head. She also leaves the phone off unless she's expecting
a call. At issue is radiation emitted by all cell phones.
Under Boland's bill, manufacturers would have to put labels on phones
and packaging warning of the potential for brain cancer associated with
electromagnetic radiation. The warnings would recommend that users,
especially children and pregnant women, keep the devices away from their
head and body.
The Federal Communications Commission, which maintains that all cell
phones sold in the U.S. are safe, has set a standard for the "specific
absorption rate" of radiofrequency energy, but it doesn't require
handset makers to divulge radiation levels.
The San Francisco proposal would require the display of the absorption
rate level next to each phone in print at least as big as the price.
Boland's bill is not specific about absorption rate levels, but would
require a permanent, nonremovable advisory of risk in black type, except
for the word "warning," which would be large and in red letters. It
would also include a color graphic of a child's brain next to the
warning.
MORE:
<http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jrZv-KDT7BuM4LI5HKz8qd193aGwD9CN5JK01>
Larry
news:btmti55dus8m8djjb...@4ax.com:
> Company Says $350 Charge for Breaking Cellphone Contract Is Justifiable
>
Geez, all these years I thought it was to prevent churning......
Larry
> A Maine legislator wants to make the state the first to require cell
> phones to carry warnings that they can cause brain cancer, although
> there is no consensus among scientists that they do and industry leaders
> dispute the claim.
>
>
No scientific evidence doesn't bother politicians. Ass deep in freezing
snow doesn't keep them from spending on the Global Warming Theocracy,
either.
We've just got to figure out how to keep from electing the stupidest humans
universities can produce.....lawyers.
News
Obviously, in their opinion, that's justifiable...
Steve Sobol
says...
Look, I've been using cell phones since the analog days. I don't have
cancer. Neither, I suspect, does Larry, and he's subjected himself to a
LOT more RF than I have.
But don't tar all attorneys with the same brush - I know some very
bright, hardworking lawyers (a few of whom have even done work for me).
Getting into politics makes you stupid. That's the legislators' problem.
;)
--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, California, USA
sjs...@JustThe.net
Larry
news:MPG.25989407d...@news.justthe.net:
Have a little fun at a lawyer's conference. Take a whole box of plastic,
2-cell flashlights. Remove the bulbs and put them in another box. Of
course, have batteries that will fit.
See how many can get the flashlight to work in half a minute without
explicit instructions. Then, wonder why our society pays lawyers so much
more than they do mechanics in any field...who think nothing of loading a
flashlight when it needs it.
How stupid we are to pay them, and let them RUN OUR LIVES.....
Steve Sobol
el...@nastydesigns.com says...
>
> In article <MPG.25989407d...@news.justthe.net>,
> Steve Sobol <sjs...@JustThe.net> wrote:
>
> > Look, I've been using cell phones since the analog days. I don't have
> > cancer. Neither, I suspect, does Larry, and he's subjected himself to a
> > LOT more RF than I have.
>
Yes. Paranoia is not normally brought on by cancer. :D
Richard B. Gilbert
> In article <elmop-6643E6....@nothing.attdns.com>,
> el...@nastydesigns.com says...
>> In article <MPG.25989407d...@news.justthe.net>,
>> Steve Sobol <sjs...@JustThe.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Look, I've been using cell phones since the analog days. I don't have
>>> cancer. Neither, I suspect, does Larry, and he's subjected himself to a
>>> LOT more RF than I have.
>> On the other hand, when you look at his behavior...are you sure?
>
> Yes. Paranoia is not normally brought on by cancer. :D
>
How about paranerdia?
John Navas
scolding the carrier for its new early termination fees.
Mignon Clyburn, one of five members of the Federal Communications
Commission, was responding to the defense that Verizon sent the FCC last
week about early termination fees, or EFTs.
"The company's answers...are unsatisfying and, in some cases, troubling.
In particular, I am concerned about what appears to be a shifting and
tenuous rationale for ETFs," she said in a statement (PDF) released
Wednesday by the FCC. "No longer is the claim that ETFs are tied solely
to the true cost of the wireless device; rather, they are now also used
to foot the bill for 'advertising costs, commissions for sales
personnel, and store costs.'"
John Navas
used to protect the conversations of more than 4bn mobile phone
users.
Karsten Nohl, working with other experts, has spent the past five
months cracking the algorithm used to encrypt calls using GSM
technology.
GSM is the most popular standard for mobile networks around the
world.
The work could allow anyone - including criminals - to eavesdrop on
private phone conversations.
Mr Nohl told the Chaos Communication Congress in Berlin that the work
showed that GSM security was "inadequate".
"We are trying to inform people about this widespread vulnerability,"
he told BBC News.
"We hope to create some additional pressure and demand from customers
for better encryption."
...
Mr Nohl, working with a "few dozen" other people, claims to have
published material that would crack the A5/1 algorithm, a 22-year-old
code used by many carriers.
...
Using the codebook, a "beefy gaming computer and $3,000 worth of
radio equipment" would allow anyone to decrypt signals from the
billions of GSM users around the world, he said.
Signals could be decrypted in "real time" with $30,000 worth of
equipment, Mr Nohl added.
Larry
> Using the codebook, a "beefy gaming computer and $3,000 worth of
> radio equipment" would allow anyone to decrypt signals from the
> billions of GSM users around the world, he said.
>
> Signals could be decrypted in "real time" with $30,000 worth of
> equipment, Mr Nohl added.
>
>
....reminds me of the "old days" when everyone with a hacked scanner the
FCC couldn't control in America was laughing doubled over listening to the
boys telling the girls what they were going to do to them when the parents
weren't looking......and the girls going all gooey cooing over the
anticipation....(c;]
I wonder if Jennifer enjoyed being tied up like that?.....hee hee.
George Kerby
On 12/29/09 8:21 PM, in article Xns9CF0D92FBA3...@74.209.131.13,
"Larry" <no...@home.com> wrote:
"gooey cooing"?!?
Lar, I think the Waffle House waitresses need to witness your explicit
prose...