The effect of electromagnetic fields from digital mobile phones (DMP) on brain functioning is an area receiving increased attention. A study conducted by researchers at Swinburne's Brain Sciences Institute (BSI) in Australia compared the performance of 120 volunteers on 8 neuropsychological tests during real and sham exposure to mobile phone emissions equivalent to a 30 minute phonecall.
Results showed that participants' "simple" and "choice reaction times" showed strong evidence of impairment. However, performance on the "trail making task" improved, supporting the hypothesis that DMP radiofrequency emissions improve the speed of processing of information held in the brain's working memory.
Lead researcher and Director of BSI, Professor Con Stough, said that while the study raises the possibility that short-term exposure of mobile phone emissions affects brain activity, the effect is small.
"The study showed evidence of slower response times for participants undertaking simple reactions and more complex reactions, such as choosing a response when there is more than one alternative," Professor Stough said.
"This could equate to driving a car and being distracted by another car pulling out in front of you. The driver's reaction time to chose between braking, turning or sounding the horn, could be affected, albeit slightly.
"The study also found that radiation from mobile phones seems to improve working memory, used for example when remembering a phone number long enough to dial it."
But Professor Stough says this memory finding should be interpreted with caution because the underlying biological mechanism is not known. "We're still a long way from having a complete picture, and this study is another small step towards giving people scientific based information about the effect of mobile phones on their health.
"Further investigations such as functional magnetic resonance imaging are needed to confirm the neuropsychological changes associated with mobile phone emissions," he said.
The study was published in the April edition of the journal Neuropsycholgia.
Friday, April 28, 2006
Lycos-Qumana Launches Blog Tool
The desktop blog tool from Lycos-Qumana works with Qumana Q-Ads integrated ad program to insert ads into blogs.
The Lycos-Qumana Desktop Blog Editor allows users to post entries to blogs on all major blog platforms, not just the Angelfire and Tripod blogs owned by Lycos. It has been made available as a free download for bloggers.
A visual approach to content editing lets users insert images, tags, and ads through various wizards. The blogger can set a keyword or keyphrase to use to help Qumana select from the contextual ads available through Q-Ads (formerly AdGenta) to place on the blog.
Lycos said in a statement that revenue from those ads would be shared with the bloggers. A Lycos spokesperson explained how the split works:
25% to Qumana; 25% to Lycos; 50% to Blogger. But what's unique is the low threshold for payout. For example, bloggers don't have to reach a certain revenue point to receive a check. If they earn $20.00, they immediately receive a check for $20.
The companies noted several benefits to using the new desktop blog tool. One-click posting to all blogs available to a blogger means being able to quickly cross-publish that post; we wonder how many legitimate bloggers actually need to do this regularly.
Each post can be designated as allowing comments and/or trackbacks, and that will propagate out to the blog hosting sites.
The Lycos-Qumana Desktop Blog Editor allows users to post entries to blogs on all major blog platforms, not just the Angelfire and Tripod blogs owned by Lycos. It has been made available as a free download for bloggers.
A visual approach to content editing lets users insert images, tags, and ads through various wizards. The blogger can set a keyword or keyphrase to use to help Qumana select from the contextual ads available through Q-Ads (formerly AdGenta) to place on the blog.
Lycos said in a statement that revenue from those ads would be shared with the bloggers. A Lycos spokesperson explained how the split works:
25% to Qumana; 25% to Lycos; 50% to Blogger. But what's unique is the low threshold for payout. For example, bloggers don't have to reach a certain revenue point to receive a check. If they earn $20.00, they immediately receive a check for $20.
The companies noted several benefits to using the new desktop blog tool. One-click posting to all blogs available to a blogger means being able to quickly cross-publish that post; we wonder how many legitimate bloggers actually need to do this regularly.
Each post can be designated as allowing comments and/or trackbacks, and that will propagate out to the blog hosting sites.
Net Neutrality Amendment Shot Down
Telecommunications giants scored a victory over Net Neutrality advocates in the U.S. legislature yesterday as the proposed "Markey Amendment," a provision to prevent Internet providers from creating access chokepoints was voted down in the House of Representatives.
The amendment's defeat has caused a firestorm of accusations against the telecom industry and the legislators siding with them in the debate. A diverse and growing opposition believes that Congress members like Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) and Rep. Bobby Rush (D-ILL), who pushed for the amendment's defeat, are acting not in favor of their constituency but in favor of the big-money telecom industry.
Telecoms, like AT&T and Verizon, want to create a two-tiered Internet where customers and content providers can be charged for premium content delivery at higher speeds and quality than other content. The harshest critics believe that ability will give ISPs the ability to block, slow, or degrade content unfavorable to them, including access to websites and email.
The Markey Amendment, proposed for addition to the Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act (COPE), was created to protect what proponents call "Network Neutrality," a philosophy that the Internet should remain free and open to encourage innovation, startup business, and free speech. Called the "Internet's First Amendment," this concept is supported by Internet and technology giants like Google and Microsoft.
The amendment expressly warned the telecom industry " not to block, impair, degrade, discriminate against, or interfere with the ability of any person to use a broadband connection to access, use, send, receive, or offer lawful content, applications, or services over the Internet." It was voted down by a vote of 34-22 in the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
The COPE Act will now move to the full House for a vote, and then to the Senate if passed. The Senate Commerce Committee is expected to propose its own Net Neutrality legislation in the coming weeks.
"The House vote today ignores a groundswell of popular support for Internet freedom," said Ben Scott, policy director of Free Press. "We hope that the full House will resist the big telecom companies and reject the bill. But we look to the Senate to restore meaningful protections for net neutrality and ensure that the Internet remains open to unlimited economic innovation, civic involvement and free speech."
Free Press recently spearheaded a campaign through the website SaveTheInternet.com, a nonpartisan initiative that attracted over 250,000 petition signatures and over 500 weblog authors in just a few days. While the initiative is not apolitical, it is diverse along party lines with membership ranging from libertarian Gun Owners of America, to the Consumers Union, to MoveOn.org.
SaveTheInternet.com doesn't view it as a total loss, however. The attention the coalition has generated seems to have made a large impact on the voting. Before the initiative launched, Net Neutrality provisions were shot down 23-8 in the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet.
"The telcos have spent hundreds of millions of dollars and many years lobbying for their position; we launched four days ago, and have closed a lot of ground," reads the website.
"The Commerce Committee is headed in the opposite direction of where the American public wants to go," said Columbia Law Professor Timothy Wu, a pro-market advocate and one of the intellectual architects of the Net Neutrality principle. "Most people favor an open and neutral Internet and don't want Internet gatekeepers taxing and tollboothing innovation."
Barton and Rush Under Scrutiny
Congressmen Barton and Rush have been put under the microscope by opponents lately for their financial relationships with the telecommunications industry. Both vocal opponents of Net Neutrality provisions in the Commerce Committee, Barton and Rush led the charge in defeating the Markey Amendment.
Many find it no small coincidence that out of Barton's top three campaign contributors, the second and third largest ones are SBC Communications (now AT&T) and Comcast Corporation. Tied for 12th among contributions is the National Cable & Telecommunications Association.
The Chicago Sun-Times points out that Bobby Rush, the only Democrat to sponsor the bill, recently "received a $1 million grant from the charitable arm of SBC/AT&T" for a community organization Rush is associated with called the Rebirth of Englewood Community Development Corporation.
The amendment's defeat has caused a firestorm of accusations against the telecom industry and the legislators siding with them in the debate. A diverse and growing opposition believes that Congress members like Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) and Rep. Bobby Rush (D-ILL), who pushed for the amendment's defeat, are acting not in favor of their constituency but in favor of the big-money telecom industry.
Telecoms, like AT&T and Verizon, want to create a two-tiered Internet where customers and content providers can be charged for premium content delivery at higher speeds and quality than other content. The harshest critics believe that ability will give ISPs the ability to block, slow, or degrade content unfavorable to them, including access to websites and email.
The Markey Amendment, proposed for addition to the Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act (COPE), was created to protect what proponents call "Network Neutrality," a philosophy that the Internet should remain free and open to encourage innovation, startup business, and free speech. Called the "Internet's First Amendment," this concept is supported by Internet and technology giants like Google and Microsoft.
The amendment expressly warned the telecom industry " not to block, impair, degrade, discriminate against, or interfere with the ability of any person to use a broadband connection to access, use, send, receive, or offer lawful content, applications, or services over the Internet." It was voted down by a vote of 34-22 in the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
The COPE Act will now move to the full House for a vote, and then to the Senate if passed. The Senate Commerce Committee is expected to propose its own Net Neutrality legislation in the coming weeks.
"The House vote today ignores a groundswell of popular support for Internet freedom," said Ben Scott, policy director of Free Press. "We hope that the full House will resist the big telecom companies and reject the bill. But we look to the Senate to restore meaningful protections for net neutrality and ensure that the Internet remains open to unlimited economic innovation, civic involvement and free speech."
Free Press recently spearheaded a campaign through the website SaveTheInternet.com, a nonpartisan initiative that attracted over 250,000 petition signatures and over 500 weblog authors in just a few days. While the initiative is not apolitical, it is diverse along party lines with membership ranging from libertarian Gun Owners of America, to the Consumers Union, to MoveOn.org.
SaveTheInternet.com doesn't view it as a total loss, however. The attention the coalition has generated seems to have made a large impact on the voting. Before the initiative launched, Net Neutrality provisions were shot down 23-8 in the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet.
"The telcos have spent hundreds of millions of dollars and many years lobbying for their position; we launched four days ago, and have closed a lot of ground," reads the website.
"The Commerce Committee is headed in the opposite direction of where the American public wants to go," said Columbia Law Professor Timothy Wu, a pro-market advocate and one of the intellectual architects of the Net Neutrality principle. "Most people favor an open and neutral Internet and don't want Internet gatekeepers taxing and tollboothing innovation."
Barton and Rush Under Scrutiny
Congressmen Barton and Rush have been put under the microscope by opponents lately for their financial relationships with the telecommunications industry. Both vocal opponents of Net Neutrality provisions in the Commerce Committee, Barton and Rush led the charge in defeating the Markey Amendment.
Many find it no small coincidence that out of Barton's top three campaign contributors, the second and third largest ones are SBC Communications (now AT&T) and Comcast Corporation. Tied for 12th among contributions is the National Cable & Telecommunications Association.
The Chicago Sun-Times points out that Bobby Rush, the only Democrat to sponsor the bill, recently "received a $1 million grant from the charitable arm of SBC/AT&T" for a community organization Rush is associated with called the Rebirth of Englewood Community Development Corporation.
Saturday, April 22, 2006
Apple, Bloggers Fight In Court
A battle that could determine whether bloggers may enjoy conventional journalistic protection behind the First Amendment has a court date coming up on April 20th.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation noted the Apple v Does lawsuit heads to the courtroom on Thursday. Apple wants two fan sites, AppleInsider and PowerPage, to turnover sources that provided them with insider information on forthcoming Apple products.
Apple also wants PowerPage's email provider, Nfox.com, to hand over email so it can track down the source that gave up Apple's product information. Despite great consumer popularity, Apple has its detractors in the media who find the company's attitudes towards the press at best apathetic.
The media does have what Apple claims bloggers do not have, a privilege under the Constitution to maintain the confidentiality of a source. But bloggers feel otherwise, and will face Apple in court over the issue.
A November 2004 article published at AppleInsider about a new audio interface to the GarageBand audio application. Apple considered that a theft of trade secrets.
The Mercury News reported on the coming storm, noting a vast array of high tech companies and the former dean of Stanford Law School have aligned themselves against bloggers being protected by the First Amendment.
An EFF attorney responded to that in the article:
"The First Amendment wasn't designed to protect the organized press,'' said Kurt Opsahl, a lawyer with the Electronic Frontier Foundation who is representing (PowerPage's Jason) O'Grady in the case. "It was to protect the right of the lonely pamphleteer who put a pamphlet up on the walls. A blogger is much more akin to those lonely pamphleteers.''
A March 2005 court decision in favor of Apple discovering the source behind the leak did not address the issue of journalistic protection. The subsequent appeal hopes to receive a decision that treats the typical blogger like a journalist.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation noted the Apple v Does lawsuit heads to the courtroom on Thursday. Apple wants two fan sites, AppleInsider and PowerPage, to turnover sources that provided them with insider information on forthcoming Apple products.
Apple also wants PowerPage's email provider, Nfox.com, to hand over email so it can track down the source that gave up Apple's product information. Despite great consumer popularity, Apple has its detractors in the media who find the company's attitudes towards the press at best apathetic.
The media does have what Apple claims bloggers do not have, a privilege under the Constitution to maintain the confidentiality of a source. But bloggers feel otherwise, and will face Apple in court over the issue.
A November 2004 article published at AppleInsider about a new audio interface to the GarageBand audio application. Apple considered that a theft of trade secrets.
The Mercury News reported on the coming storm, noting a vast array of high tech companies and the former dean of Stanford Law School have aligned themselves against bloggers being protected by the First Amendment.
An EFF attorney responded to that in the article:
"The First Amendment wasn't designed to protect the organized press,'' said Kurt Opsahl, a lawyer with the Electronic Frontier Foundation who is representing (PowerPage's Jason) O'Grady in the case. "It was to protect the right of the lonely pamphleteer who put a pamphlet up on the walls. A blogger is much more akin to those lonely pamphleteers.''
A March 2005 court decision in favor of Apple discovering the source behind the leak did not address the issue of journalistic protection. The subsequent appeal hopes to receive a decision that treats the typical blogger like a journalist.
Sunday, April 02, 2006
Ofcom Targets 3G Termination Rate Regulation
LONDON -(Dow Jones)- UK telecommunications regulator Ofcom Thursday proposed imposing new controls on prices cellphone companies charge each other for connecting calls between third-generation networks.
The fees levied on operators to connect between mobile networks - so-called termination rates - generate GBP2 billion in sales annually, making them a significant revenue source for the industry, Ofcom said.
Ofcom's predecessor, Oftel, started regulating termination rates for conventional second-generation networks in 2004 to protect consumers from excessive prices for calls made to mobile phones. 3G networks were exempted because they didn't carry a large amount of call traffic, and the technology was new and in development.
The controls were put in place until March 2007, but Ofcom said Thursday it will continue to regulate termination rates after that date where there is evidence of market dominance.
Ofcom said all five mobile network operators have significant market power in setting the fees. Ofcom added that it will need to ensure that regulation on 3G networks doesn't adversely affect prospects for investment.
Vodafone Group, Deutsche Telekom's T-Mobile, France Telecom's Orange unit, Hutchison Whampoa's 3 UK and Telefonica's O2 have until May 25 to respond to the proposals. Ofcom aims to publish a final document in summer 2006 which will then cover regulation to 2011.
Chris Alliott, an analyst at Nomura Securities, said that the proposals are the "first step" in bringing 3G termination rates down to 2G levels.
"2G is a mature market but 3G is still developing. Therefore burdening it with regulation is not the way to allow that market to develop. However, this consultation seeks to ensure that price controls are used to ensure a fair deal for 3G users," he said.
Analysts said 3G network operator Hutchison Whampoa could suffer the biggest impact from the proposals because the company isn't currently subject to regulation of its termination rates.
Ofcom noted that "excessive revenue" generated by unregulated 3G termination rates may be used to compete with other operators in the retail market. The 3G termination rates could help subsidize low call prices, subscriptions or promotions, Ofcom said.
3 UK in January unveiled a promotion called WePay, which gives subscribers a cash credit when they receive calls.
"The wisdom of that move is debatable," said Alliott. "The WePay tariff does draw attention to the potential disparity between the termination rate and the underlying cost."
Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein analyst Robert Grindle said that while the regulation is negative for Hutchison's 3, it is in line with expectations.
Hutchison wasn't immediately available for comment.
Ofcom also said that Vodafone is the only U.K. operator which charges more to connect a call to its 3G network than the regulated 2G network. During the day, Vodafone charges 18.8 pence per minute to connect to its 3G network compared with 7.89 pence on 2G.
The regulator said that if regulation doesn't change, other operators could adopt the same approach.
Vodafone couldn't be reached for comment.
An O2 spokesman said that competition in the market should alleviate the need for regulation, but added the company is "pleased that it has been recognized that regulation should apply equally to all operators."
Orange declined to comment.
Fixed-line operator BT Group said in an e-mailed statement that it's "good" that Ofcom has recognized that 3G should receive the same treatment as 2G.
The fees levied on operators to connect between mobile networks - so-called termination rates - generate GBP2 billion in sales annually, making them a significant revenue source for the industry, Ofcom said.
Ofcom's predecessor, Oftel, started regulating termination rates for conventional second-generation networks in 2004 to protect consumers from excessive prices for calls made to mobile phones. 3G networks were exempted because they didn't carry a large amount of call traffic, and the technology was new and in development.
The controls were put in place until March 2007, but Ofcom said Thursday it will continue to regulate termination rates after that date where there is evidence of market dominance.
Ofcom said all five mobile network operators have significant market power in setting the fees. Ofcom added that it will need to ensure that regulation on 3G networks doesn't adversely affect prospects for investment.
Vodafone Group, Deutsche Telekom's T-Mobile, France Telecom's Orange unit, Hutchison Whampoa's 3 UK and Telefonica's O2 have until May 25 to respond to the proposals. Ofcom aims to publish a final document in summer 2006 which will then cover regulation to 2011.
Chris Alliott, an analyst at Nomura Securities, said that the proposals are the "first step" in bringing 3G termination rates down to 2G levels.
"2G is a mature market but 3G is still developing. Therefore burdening it with regulation is not the way to allow that market to develop. However, this consultation seeks to ensure that price controls are used to ensure a fair deal for 3G users," he said.
Analysts said 3G network operator Hutchison Whampoa could suffer the biggest impact from the proposals because the company isn't currently subject to regulation of its termination rates.
Ofcom noted that "excessive revenue" generated by unregulated 3G termination rates may be used to compete with other operators in the retail market. The 3G termination rates could help subsidize low call prices, subscriptions or promotions, Ofcom said.
3 UK in January unveiled a promotion called WePay, which gives subscribers a cash credit when they receive calls.
"The wisdom of that move is debatable," said Alliott. "The WePay tariff does draw attention to the potential disparity between the termination rate and the underlying cost."
Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein analyst Robert Grindle said that while the regulation is negative for Hutchison's 3, it is in line with expectations.
Hutchison wasn't immediately available for comment.
Ofcom also said that Vodafone is the only U.K. operator which charges more to connect a call to its 3G network than the regulated 2G network. During the day, Vodafone charges 18.8 pence per minute to connect to its 3G network compared with 7.89 pence on 2G.
The regulator said that if regulation doesn't change, other operators could adopt the same approach.
Vodafone couldn't be reached for comment.
An O2 spokesman said that competition in the market should alleviate the need for regulation, but added the company is "pleased that it has been recognized that regulation should apply equally to all operators."
Orange declined to comment.
Fixed-line operator BT Group said in an e-mailed statement that it's "good" that Ofcom has recognized that 3G should receive the same treatment as 2G.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)