Mobile phone exclusivity agreements under fire

Reports from both ITworld and Infoworld detail an inquiry from four US Senators to the FCC, regarding the exclusivity arrangements wireless phone manufacturers (such as Apple and Palm) have been making with wireless telephone carriers (such as AT&T and Sprint).

This follows an FCC petition by the Rural Cellular Association asking the former to investigate these exclusivity arrangements.

The timing couldn’t be worse for AT&T, as the telecom giant is dragging their feet to support MMS and tethering, among other things. Apple’s other carrier partners worldwide have been able to handle this without issue.

However, it should be noted that AT&T is not the only wireless telephone carrier in the crosshairs of the Senators and the FCC. T-Mobile and Sprint are known to have made exclusivity deals as well, which would undoubtedly be subject to the same scrutiny.

All of this is definitely a step in the right direction towards respecting the freedom of wireless phone users, or in other words, the rest of us. It is long overdue, but there is still a lot of work to do once exclusivity agreements are seen for what they are: anti-competitive collusion.

There is still a lot of cleaning up to do after this, however. Most notably, it would greatly benefit the wireless telephone users if there was one and only one standard in use: GSM. CDMA needs to go the way of the dodo, the sooner the better; the network design takes a significant amount of freedom out of the hands of the user, where it belongs. I consider myself rather technologically literate, and I did not know this until fairly recently (about a year or so ago).

GSM networks and phones use SIM (Subscriber Identity Module) cards for authentication and identification (or how the network tells which phone belongs to which user). If one wants to change phones, one simply powers down the old phone, removes the SIM card from the old phone (usually hidden behind the battery to make it impossible to remove while the phone is powered on), inserts the SIM card into the new phone, and powers the new phone on. The carrier (phone company) never has to get involved.

On a CDMA phone, it’s nowhere near that simple. One has to take the new phone into the store and have a staff member key in a bunch of magic numbers, and make changes on the wireless network so the new phone is recognized as legitimate. The wireless telephone carriers have the control; they can choose not to let you use the new phone on their network at all if they see it fit. It is, in fact, in the carrier’s best interest to get the customer to buy a brand new phone instead of re-activating an older model.

I have been told that Sprint will not activate non-Sprint phones for their service (i.e. phones not branded for use with Sprint). I would not be surprised if Verizon (and any other CDMA carriers?) adopt a similar policy.

Fortunately, we may actually see the demise of CDMA in our lifetime. Verizon is already in the process of changing over to GSM; that would leave Sprint as the last national US CDMA carrier in existence.

A really messy tattoo mistake

Several sources (including WMAR-TV, weinterrupt.com, and Het Nieuwsblad (article in Dutch)) report on a tattoo session where the customer, Kimberley Vlaeminck, an 18 year-old girl from Belgium, quite literally got more than she bargained for.

According to Kimberley, she wanted three (possibly four) little stars on her face, but wound up with a mind-numbing total of 56 when she fell asleep during the session. Not surprisingly, she is a little shy about showing her face in public. Kimberley is suing the Romanian tattoo artist, who she claims did not understand her correctly, for what appears to be €11,000 or so (the Euro equivalent of US$15,000).

The artist, Rouslain Toumaniantz, paints quite a different picture of what happened, stating that Kimberley was not only awake but saw herself in the mirror several times during the procedure. Rouslain has offered Kimberley a discount down to €50 (the cost of the four stars she originally wanted) but flatly refuses to pay for the removal surgery.

I don’t really know who to believe here. However, I do have four observations:

  1. I remain committed to never getting a tattoo;
  2. I advise my readers who insist upon getting tattooed:
    1. make sure there are no communication problems (ideally, the artist speaks the same language, fluently, and if not, have a trustworthy interpeter along), and
    2. make damn sure you stay awake through the whole thing;
  3. Some tattoo artists look scary as hell to me, even without a tattoo gun in hand;
  4. Finally, I will admit, the design would looks great as a facepainting, but not as a permanent tattoo.

Hopefully the lawsuit will receive an equal amount of press coverage. I plan to follow up on this one.

The thin line between art and vandalism

Featured on KTRK-TV (among other sources) was the story about Joseph Carnevale, a Raleigh, NC, college student who swiped three barrels from a construction site to make a larger-than-life sculpture of a surreal monster trying to hitch a ride.

News of Joseph’s arrest on two misdemeanor charges (larceny and destruction of property) is all it took to draw hundreds of supporters out of the woodwork demanding the charges be dropped.

And I think the supporters of Joseph’s work have a point. Absent any provable danger to the public (unlikely) there is really no need for a criminal trial. The only thing I can see for sure resulting with a criminal trial is more unneeded mistrust of the police and court system– which we already have way too much of as it is. And that happens whether or not our budding artist Joseph Carnevale is found guilty or not guilty.

(Note that given the positive publicity Hamlin Associates, the construction company, has received, a civil lawsuit is not in the cards either.)

One of the supporters on Facebook makes references to “carjackings, drug deals, domestic violence and murders” happening at the same time as all this. I couldn’t have said it better myself. The Raleigh police need a hard lesson in priorities.

Despicable discrimination by Abercrombie & Fitch

A recent post on the blog Zeldalily details the firing of Riam Dean, a UK native who was employed at the clothing mega-chain Abercrombie & Fitch. Riam has a prosthetic arm and normally wears a long-sleeve shirt to conceal it. The A&F store dress code normally requires employees to wear short sleeved shirts but Riam was given permission by the store-level management at A&F to wear a sweater.

Fast forward to a few days later. Riam’s store gets a visit from an image assessment team, and is summarily reassigned to stockroom duty, since she does not fit A&F’s “look policy” which, by its very name, sounds like it is a discrimination lawsuit waiting to happen.

Which, in this case, is exactly what happened: Riam is suing A&F for what they did. And I don’t blame her. In fact, this is so far out of bounds, I dare call it Hitleresque discrimination, and A&F deserves to pay dearly for this mistake.

Particularly disturbing is that this is not the first such misstep for A&F. The site afjustice.com documents a class-action lawsuit filed against A&F in 2004, based on flagrant racism in hiring practices, and settled for US$40 million. I’d like to think that lesson wasn’t so quickly forgotten. Apparently, it was, or A&F management forgot to tell the UK/Europe division about it.

How to confuse a toddler: a sham birthday party

Every once in a while I hit a news story that completely sticks out from the norm, where the “huh?” factor just hits the roof. This is one of these stories.

An article posted on Springfield News-Leader’s Web site (and assumed to be in the print version as well) details what I consider a misguided attempt at parenting. The parents turn a 2-year-old’s birthday party in an attempt to teach her a life lesson. Yes, at the age of 2, when most kids don’t even know how to read yet, much less understand the concept of charitable giving.

In place of gifts the parents asked the party’s guests to bring donations to a local animal adoption facility.

Key quotes from the article:

“During the past year I saw how many toys she had that she didn’t play with and wanted her to learn a lesson she could continue as she grew up … that it’s always nice to get something but it gives you a good warm feeling inside to be able to give something.”

“I don’t want her to grow up be selfish. I want her to show kindness and friendship for her community in any way she can … That’s important in our society now,” said Karen Campbell. “I hope this will be a good starting point for her since she loves animals.”

There are multiple issues I need to address here. The article’s headline, “2-year-old gives up birthday presents to help adoption site,” implies that this toddler made the decision of her own free will. This is so obviously not the case here. The parents (particularly the mother) almost certainly made this decision on her behalf. In fact, it would not surprise me if Rylee (the 2-year old) said she wanted just a regular birthday party and was overruled by her parents. So, shame on you, Springfield News-Leader, for this little act of deception. You got away with it for two weeks… and then I came along.

The next issue I have is that I suspect the outcome of this experience will not have the positive effect that Rylee’s parents think it will. All it may wind up doing is fostering Rylee’s resentment against her parents– and by the time she’s 18, greed will be the least of her problems.

On what basis, you may ask, am I qualified to make such a judgment? My own personal experiences. I don’t have a psychology degree, or for that matter even as much as a few months working at a day care center. I do know, however, what my reaction would have been to what Rylee’s parents foisted upon her, when I was Rylee’s current age. I know I would have said “I want a normal birthday party like the other kids, and if I can’t, then I don’t want a party at all.” Really, I was teased enough for being different as it was. (I was able to convince the family members responsible for me that private school wasn’t in my best interests, finally, after fifth grade. I don’t regret being allowed to switch to public school in sixth grade and beyond one bit.)