News Common PC Mac CUCUG
The next CUCUG meeting will be held on our regular third Thursday of the month: Thursday, May 18th, at 7:00 pm, at the First Baptist Church of Champaign in Savoy. The Linux SIG normally convenes, of course, 45 minutes earlier, at 6:15 pm, but there will be no Linux SIG this month. Directions to the FBC-CS are at the end of this newsletter.
The May 18 gathering will be one of our split SIG meetings. As stated, there will be no Linux SIG meeting this month. The Macintosh SIG is open for anything anyone wants to bring in. For the PC SIG, Kevin Hisel will be showing four programs - Desktop Earth, Windows Defender, IE7, and True Crypt (a way to secure your thumb drive).
ToC
We'd like to welcome the newest members of our group, joining us in the last month: Margaret Purl was born April 30 to our former Linux SIG Chairman, Tom Purl and his wife, Kate. Margaret is the couple's first child. Tom beams, "She's perfect and wonderful..." Our congratulations and best wishes to the Purls.
ToC
URL: http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/05/11/1445238
Three of the country's largest telecom companies have provided the National Security Agency with the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans. This according to a report in USA Today. One source with direct knowledge of the program called it "the largest database ever assembled in the world" whose goal is to collect a record of "every call ever made" within the United States. The Bush administration has insisted its spy program focuses solely on international calls. The companies -- AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth - have been under contract since after the 9/11 attacks. Only one major telecom company declined to participate in the program. The company, Qwest, reportedly asked the NSA to get FISA-court approval before it would hand over the records. The NSA refused. Although the program does not involve the direct monitoring of phone conservations, it amasses detailed records on who people have called and when they've called them. At least one company had already been implicated in the program. In a lawsuit filed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation earlier this year, former AT&T technician Mark Klein said AT&T has been working with the National Security Agency to spy on Americans. In addition to raising new questions about the extent of the NSA spy program and the companies involved, the disclosure also raises new questions about CIA Director-nominee Michael Hayden. Hayden headed the National Security Agency at the time the spy program was implemented. He declined USA Today's request for comment.
<http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/05/01/1336245&mode=thread&tid=25> <http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/05/12/1353225>
ToC
by Jeff Chester, Center for Digital Democracy
URL: http://www.democraticmedia.org/jcblog/?p=37
Everyone has seen the TV ads from both the phone and cable lobby urging Congress to support their plans to control the future of the broadband Internet in the U.S. Companies such as Qwest, Comcast, Time Warner, and AT&T want to be broadband barons-with all other content providers and users reduced to serving as merely consuming digital surfs.
<http://www.ustelecom.org/index.php?urh=home.news.multimedia>
<http://www.ncta.com/ContentView.aspx?ContentID=2681>
How much is the PR blitz costing? Well, intrepid media consultant Gary Arlen of Arlen Communications has done the math. "About 975K is being spent on Washington-area media buying," he told us. That sum is mostly for local broadcast TV expenditures. According to Mr. Arlen, the U.S. Telecom Association has been spending $250 K/week (and so far has run-up a six-week $1.5 million ad tab). AT&T is forking out $600K per week (for its "Choice" campaign). TV4US, a telco "Astroturf" group, is spending $75k per week for at least a four-week air time buy. The NCTA, meanwhile, has gone through at least $ 1 million nationally in a year, spending 50K a week in the DC market as Congress meets. [Arlen is one of the most insightful people working in the media biz-and keeps an eagle-like eye on where the business is heading.]
Of course, once Rep. Joe Barton and Sen. Ted Stevens pass legislation giving control over broadband to the country's cable and phone giants, they will be able to give themselves preferred high-speed interactive video treatment at rock-bottom (free!) rates.
Question: With next week's House floor vote on Barton-Rush - will Microsoft, Yahoo!, Amazon, Google, eBay, and IAC spend the necessary dough to sound the alarm?
ToC
Written and produced by John Anderson (mediaminutes@freepress.net)
Media Minutes: May 5, 2006
Audio: http://freepress.net/mediaminutes/archive/mm050506.mp3
Text: http://freepress.net/mediaminutes/transcripts/mm050506.pdf
Grassroots mobilization is making a difference in the Congressional fight to preserve free speech online. Just last week it seemed like the House of Representatives was poised to pass some terrible telecommunications legislation that would allow phone and cable companies to discriminate against online content providers depending on a speaker's ability to pay. But a broad and deep coalition banded together to pound Capitol Hill with a call to preserve the principle of network neutrality for the Internet. It began with some 50 diverse organizations; that number has since multiplied eight-fold. More than 2,000 bloggers took up the call, and more than a half-million people have signed onto a petition supporting net neutrality safeguards. And the inventor of the World Wide Web is now on record in favor of a free and open Internet.
Meanwhile, lobbying groups fed by the major phone and cable companies are spending nearly a million dollars a week running television advertisements in the Washington, D.C. market which attempt to paint their drive to kill off an open Internet as good for America. And major media companies are already working with phone and cable giants to secure preferential treatment for their content over new fiber-optic broadband networks. Last month, CBS and Verizon announced an agreement whereby Verizon will carry CBS television programming over its new fiber optic system. CBS gets money plus, quote, "the bandwidth and flexibility to reach customers in innovative ways." Does this mean that Verizon's fiber optic network will slow down or lock out non-CBS video? Nobody knows: the terms of the deal are private.
But the politicians are waking up - at least two bills now circulate in the House that would prohibit data discrimination. They join two pending bills in the Senate that also seek to preserve Internet freedoms. However, both houses also continue to work on comprehensive telecom bills filled with several other poison pills: for example, House legislation would take away local communities' rights to negotiate franchise agreements with cable TV providers, which stands to kill off public access television channels around the country. And in the Senate, telecom reform includes Draconian provisions that would require digital TV and radio broadcasters to lock down their content with special encryption that would prohibit people from recording anything. The Senate bill would also prevent communities from establishing their own publicly-owned broadband networks unless they built them with a private partner.
The House of Representatives could send its bill to a floor vote any day now, while the Senate's not expected to act on the issue until sometime in June.
ToC
U.S. Representative Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts, 7th District upon the introduction of the Net Neutrality Amendment - April 26, 2006
<http://markey.house.gov/images/stories/markey_tv/nn amendment-1.wmv>
(minutes 6:16-7:52)
It is a choice between favoring the broadband designs of a small handful of very large companies and safeguarding the dreams of thousands of inventors, entrepreneurs, and small businesses. We will shortly vote either to preserve the Internet as we know it or instead vote to fundamentally and detrimentally alter it.
Now AT&T and Verizon are corporate behemoths. They now want to alter the Internet experience for thousands of companies, companies which create Internet-based products, who innovate and who create much needed jobs. What did AT&T have to do with inventing the Internet? Nothing. They turned down the contract to build it. What did Verizon have to do with the invention of the World Wide Web? Nothing. What did Bell South have to do with the invention of the web browser? Nothing. These companies literally had nothing to do with creating what makes the Internet so special. So why are they all showing up now as if they should own it? Because they think they can. And they are hoping that this Committee will allow them to do that. This amendment is an effort to block those companies from creating road blocks for the entrepreneurs who have transformed our country and the world over the last fifteen years. I urge an "Aye" vote.
[Editor's Note: For a little background information on the rhetorical questions posed here, see "What did they have to do with it?" below.]
ToC
[Editor's Note: As an aid to active citizenship, I have found these addresses helpful.]
THOMAS - In the spirit of Thomas Jefferson, legislative information
from the Library of Congress
http://thomas.loc.gov/
U.S. House of Representatives Roll Call Votes 109th Congress
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/index.asp
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/index.asp
U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 109th Congress
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_109_1.htm http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_109_2.htm
Timothy V. Johnson - Illinois' 15th Congressional District
http://www.house.gov/timjohnson/contact/index.shtml
Barack Obama - U.S. Senator for Illinois
http://obama.senate.gov/contact/
Richard J. Durbin - U.S. Senator for Illinois
http://durbin.senate.gov/contact.cfm
[And for the truly wonky, but not a .gov address... ]
Open CRS Network - CRS Reports for the People - Congressional Research Reports
http://www.opencrs.com/ToC
COPE Telecom Bill Affects Net Neutrality, Local Cable Franchises and Funding for Public Access
Monday, May 8th, 2006
URL: http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/05/08/1352255
This week, the House is expected to vote on Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act of 2006. The COPE bill would permit phone and cable companies to operate Internet and other digital communications service as private networks, free of policy safeguards or governmental oversight. The bill would effectively end what is known as "net neutrality" which is the concept that that everyone, everywhere, should have free, universal and non-discriminatory access to all the Internet has to offer. The COPE bill would permit Internet service providers like AOL to charge fees for almost every online transaction and to prioritize emails based on the senders' willingness to pay.
Another provision of the bill would cut back the obligation of cable TV companies to devote channels to public access and fund the facilities to run them. And the COPE bill would replace local cable franchises with national franchises. The companies contend that this will create competition and lower fees but consumer groups and activists are concerned that it will take control and oversight away from local government as well as cut channel capacity for public, educational and governmental access channels or PEGs. The COPE Act would also permit providers to not provide service to low-income communities that they believe would be less profitable to serve.
*Robert McChesney, professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and co-founder of Free Press <http://www.freepress.net>. He is author of several books including "Tragedy and Farce: How the American Media Sell Wars, Spin Elections, and Destroy Democracy" and "The Future of Media: Resistance and Reform in the 21st Century."
AMY GOODMAN: We're joined right now by Professor Bob McChesney. Bob McChesney runs Free Press. He is a professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, co-founder of Free Press. His books include Rich Media, Poor Democracy: Communications Politics in Dubious Times. Welcome to Democracy Now!
ROBERT McCHESNEY: Pleasure to be here, Amy.
AMY GOODMAN: Can you explain this bill and where it stands now?
ROBERT McCHESNEY: Well, in one sense, the bill is extraordinarily complicated. There are different versions in the House and Senate, and the nuances get tricky, because we have these enormous lobbies fighting it out to get the best deal for themselves. But in a general sense, the way that I understand it is that the phone companies and the cable companies, which provide internet access to 98% of Americans and almost all businesses, are viewing -- you know, they are companies that were set up by the government. They're not free market companies. Their entire business model has been based on getting monopoly license franchises from the government for phone and cable service and then using it to make a lot of money. And they're using their political leverage now to try to write a law basically which lets them control the internet.
AMY GOODMAN: Their money? Their lobbying money?
ROBERT McCHESNEY: Their lobbying money, which is an extraordinary amount. And they can't spend too much, because the future is they can control the internet. And what they want to do desperately is be in a situation where they can rank order websites. And websites that come through the fastest to us, to the users of the internet, are the ones that pay them money or the ones they own. And websites that don't pay them come through slower, much harder to get, or in some cases, they'll have the power to take them off the internet altogether.
AMY GOODMAN: So, I mean, right now, the user pays per month for use of the internet, and that's how these companies get their money. So they'd be both charging the user and the content provider, the one who makes the website?
ROBERT McCHESNEY: And there's no technological justification for this. There's no economic justification. It's pure corrupt crony capitalism. They're basically using their political leverage to change this so they get a huge new revenue stream, and it gives them an inordinate amount of power over the internet. I mean, I think what people have to remember is that I think what's excited us all about the internet was the idea that anyone could start a website at a fairly nominal fee and be competing equally then with General Motors, with General Electric, with Rupert Murdoch. We all had a shot at it. Democracy Now! had a shot right next to FOX News.
What this will do is change that, because that genius was built on policy, not technology. It was a common carrier requirement of the Telecom Act, which required the phone companies to give all websites equal access. They want to get rid of that, because they see enormous amounts of money if they can decide which website gets the inside lane and which website is on the dirt path.
AMY GOODMAN: So, how is this going through, and what is the extent of the knowledge of the American people right now? How is this being covered?
ROBERT McCHESNEY: Well, the big firms, the phone companies, the cable companies, wanted to ram it through Congress without anyone knowing about it. That's their standard way of operating. And they were very successful, and I'd say about a month ago it looked like they would get it through the legislation currently weaving its way through the House and Senate and probably have something signed into law by the end of the summer, and they would win. And I think there was a 90% chance, say, a month ago.
AMY GOODMAN: This is the commerce committee headed by the Texas Republican, Joe Barton?
ROBERT McCHESNEY: Barton, and in the Senate under Ted Stevens, the Alaska Republican. And they are different versions of the bill, they'd eventually reconcile, but they both generally are bad on the core issues we're talking about, and they're both basically reflecting the interests of these corporate lobbyists. And it looked bad for us that we would have success here, but we've seen a massive explosion really, even unlike the media ownership explosion three years ago.
Already 600,000 people have written or contacted Congress, raising hell about the idea of getting rid of net neutrality, which is really the First Amendment of the internet, what makes it great. We have over 500 organizations that have signed on, bipartisan, right and left. And what's interesting about this issue is that, you know, it's not like a capitalist/non-capitalist issue. The entire business community gets screwed by this. It's truly crony capitalism. It's just these big companies, the cable companies and the phone companies, that want this inordinate power over everyone else in our society over the internet, over the right of who gets to speak and who doesn't get to speak. And so, what we find is the more people know about it, the more we win. I mean, no one supports this, unless you're getting paid off by these companies.
AMY GOODMAN: Is this a reprise of what happened when Michael Powell, the son of Colin Powell, who used to head the F.C.C., tried to push through the media consolidation rules, the changes in them?
ROBERT McCHESNEY: I really think it is, because I think what we're seeing is this across-the-board outrage at the corruption of the process in which powerful special interests sneak through these privileges that benefit only them. And their public relations, when it's subject to scrutiny, is laughable. It doesn't hold up. And that's why they have do it secretly, because they know if once the public hears about this and they go to the websites like savetheinternet.com, which is the intersect that all this coalition, right and left, has come together, where all of the information is collected. Once people hear about this, they absolutely are outraged, and the big guys can't win, and that's their main worry now, because we have to stop these bills this summer. We can't let this go through and force Congress to go through an election cycle this fall and have to answer for this before the voters of this country and then come back next year.
AMY GOODMAN: Professor Bob McChesney, what about redlining? How does it happen?
ROBERT McCHESNEY: Well, one of the core fundamental aspects of telecommunications policies historically, and I say it's that it was a progressive victory for us, was the requirement that the phone companies, if they were going to get these monopoly licenses to make a pile of money, they had to serve the entire community. They couldn't discriminate against neighborhoods, against cities. They had to give universal access. And what these companies -- they hate that. They basically want to serve just wealthy and middle class communities and skip poor and rural communities. And they're trying to write it into the law that they can basically what's called redline, that they can be discriminatory about which communities they offer their best services to and only offer in the most lucrative communities. It's one of the worst parts of this bill. It's one of the things we have to oppose.
AMY GOODMAN: We're talking to Bob McChesney, professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and head of Free Press and freepress.net. Professor McChesney, are there other bills that are being introduced right now in Congress to counter what we're seeing?
ROBERT McCHESNEY: There are a couple of wonderful amendments that have been offered: one by Edward Markey of Massachusetts in the House that was voted down, but it might come to the floor again, which defends net neutrality and requires the cable companies and the phone companies to maintain the ongoing First Amendment of the internet, letting all websites have access without discrimination, without favor shown to any, without payoffs having to be made so you can get fast treatment and access to the public; and there's a similar amendment now in the United States Senate by Senator Olympia Snowe, the Republican of Maine, Byron Dorgan, the Democrat of North Dakota, also a net neutrality amendment, which is going to be coming up for a vote in the next month or so.
And, again, if listeners and viewers go to savetheinternet.com, you'll find actually all the information. There's a map you can click on with every member of the relevant committees, how you can contact them, let the know. And what we've discovered is this is an issue, that if you let members of Congress know you care, we will absolutely win this issue, because there's no support for this. And I'd urge people to get involved.
AMY GOODMAN: Professor Bob McChesney, thank you very much for being with us. He has written many books, including /The Future of Media: Resistance and Reform in the 21st Century/, as well as /The Problem of the Media: U.S. Communications Politics in the 21st Century/ And you have another one, your latest book with John Nichols.
ROBERT McCHESNEY: /Tragedy & Farce/, that I wrote with John Nichols, selling war, spinning elections and destroying democracy, by the U.S. news media.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, there you have it.
ToC
Written and produced by John Anderson (mediaminutes@freepress.net)
Media Minutes: May 12, 2006
Audio: http://freepress.net/mediaminutes/archive/mm051206.mp3
Text: http://freepress.net/mediaminutes/transcripts/mm051206.pdf
As resistance to the phone and cable companies' drive to turn the Internet into their own private informational toll road builds in Congress, the companies are deploying a new tactic in an underhanded attempt to sway opinion on the issue of network neutrality. Several new supposed "consumer coalitions" have sprung up in recent weeks and months. These groups have impressive names, like the "Internet Innovation Alliance," "FreedomWorks," "Hands Off the Internet," and "The Future...Faster."
The common problem with all of these groups is that they are not real. They do not represent citizens - they just sound like they do. In reality, groups like the Internet Freedom Coalition are what are known as "astroturf" groups. That is, they project the image that they represent interested coalitions on a particular issue, but they're really just front groups for the big telecom companies.
Dawn Holian: "They launch web sites, they devise these coalitions, and they try to pretend that there's a lot more citizen activism than there really is. They may gin up letters or faxes to legislators that, in some cases, are absolutely fake."
That's Dawn Holian. She's the director of media research at Common Cause, a real organization that actually represents citizens, and has extensively investigated the use of astrorturf groups on telecom policy issues like network neutrality. Take the Internet Innovation Alliance, whose web site claims to represent, quote, "a broad-based coalition...committed to more widespread usage and availability of broadband through wise policy decisions." Sounds pretty benign, right?
Dawn Holian: "If you look at their list of coalition members, there are no consumer advocates on that list. But AT&T, a telephone company, is at the top."
Another group, FreedomWorks, boasts quote, "hundreds of thousands of volunteer activists all over the Nation."
Dawn Holian: "They've taken grants both from Verizon and SBC which is now AT&T, and they, too oppose network neutrality saying that the telephone companies ought to have the right to prioritize or discriminate against certain types of traffic on the Internet so that they can make more money."
The same with the slickly-named "Hands Off the Internet" - it is wholly a creation of AT&T, BellSouth, Alcatel, Cingular, and the National Association of Manufacturers, just to name a few of its sponsors. And the newest kid on the telecom astroturf block, the Internet Freedom Coalition, sports so-called "free market" advocates like Americans for Tax Reform as its founding members. You may have heard of Americans for Tax Reform: it was founded by Grover Norquist, the mastermind behind the K Street lobbying project which has been so successful in turning public policy into a pay-to-play venture over the last dozen years.
This fakery supplements an increasingly strident tone coming from phone and cable companies directly. Link Hoewing, vice president of Internet technology policy for Verizon, hints that unless they get their way on network neutrality, there's not much of a chance that the U.S. will see universal broadband service anytime soon.
Link Hoewing: "We really believe that if we do everything we can to ramp up, get the policies established that help encourage investment and encourage more market deployment by companies that would be a good way to get broadband across the country."
Although Verizon is on record in support of data discrimination, Hoewing says that doesn't necessarily mean it seeks to extort cash from content providers in exchange for preferential treatment.
Link Hoewing: "It could be a joint marketing venture between the two companies. It could be that you'd have a revenue-sharing model."
Verizon's also not above threatening other sectors of the economy in its drive to stratify the Internet. For example, some members of the financial services industry, which spent more than $100 billion last year on computers, network technology, and Internet access, have begun to express concern about how an Internet that plays favorites will affect their business. But in a company memo recently leaked to the press, Verizon's point man on Capitol Hill, Peter Davidson, says unless banks and investment firms play ball they quote, "better not start moaning in the future about a lack of sophisticated data links they need" but won't be able to get.
Cable companies also stand to win big if given the ability to engage in data discrimination. At an industry convention earlier this month, Rocco Commisso, CEO of Mediacom, a cable company serving 23 states, told an audience that the government should have no say over how phone and cable companies rent out their networks. Taking a page from AT&T CEO Ed Whitacre, who infamously remarked that content providers should not be able to use, quote, "my pipes" for free in the future, Commisso told the convention audience that Internet companies are seeking special favors from Congress in order to make sure, quote, "they can use our pipe and they make their money and we can't make any." As if cable and phone companies actually gave away broadband access for free.
Related Links:
CNET News; Smaller cable firms take aim at Net Neutrality Fans -
Common Cause - Wolves in Sheep's Clothing
Reuters: Verizon Warns Financial Sector on Internet Fight
Save the Internet Coalition (actual grassroots)
Web Pro News: Verizon's Chicken Little Lays an Egg
Additional Information:
ToCCommon Cause on Tuesday, March 28, 2006, released a new report exposing "Astroturf" lobbying groups and other allies created by the telecommunications industry to pressure lawmakers to enact industry-friendly policies as Congress debates critical issues worth billions of dollars to the industry.
<http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=1499059#Back_to_1>
<http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/03/30/157229>
Adam Green, the Civic Communications Director for Moveon
on Media Matters with Bob McChesney (minutes 18:15-19:41), Sunday May 7, 2006
URL: http://www.will.uiuc.edu/willmp3/mediamatters060507.mp3
Probably the biggest myth that is being put out by these companies is that it is our side, those who support Internet freedom, those who support Net Neutrality legislation in Congress, who want to somehow dramatically change the Internet as most Americans currently know it. They have a kind of a fake coalition front group that's called "Hands Off The Internet" which pretty much makes this entire argument. But, what they're not telling people is that about nine months ago there was a really dramatic FCC ruling, Federal Communications ruling, which essentially scrapped Net Neutrality, Internet freedom as we know it. It essentially said that all the rules that have guided the Internet for the last decade, where all this economic innovation happened, where all this online democracy happened, all those rules are down the drain and they placed a twelve month moratorium on the implementation of this Brave New World on the Internet. What that essentially means is that three months from now the Internet as we know it is going to be gone ... unless we act. And therefore we're trying to fight to preserve what most Americans consider the Internet, that they know, but the other side is kind of pretending that they didn't cause this ruling to happen and that things aren't about to vastly change.
Save the Internet Coalition - <http://www.savetheinternet.com>
ToC
Editorial, Saturday, May 6, 2006
The Peoria (Ill.) Journal Star
URL: http://www.pjstar.com/stories/050606/EDI_B9NP3M8J.002.shtml
The last major federal telecommunications act passed in 1996, back when Google was but a fledging research project. Suffice it to say, much has changed in online commerce and content. The Internet moves quickly. Congress, however, moves slowly - as in 30k dial-up modem slow. When the House finally does hunker down, it takes a powder on one of the Net's hottest debates. That would be "network neutrality," a vague term that belies a simple concept.
Proponents argue that Internet service providers (ISPs) shouldn't have a say in which Web sites surfers visit or how fast those sites load. Providers, such as SBC/AT&T, merely supply the network with which to access the Internet and must remain neutral over its speed and content. An amendment to the Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act delineating such a standard recently died in a House committee. That's an unfortunate failure; the Senate shouldn't hesitate to take up the matter in its own telecom bill.
Bloggers have been buzzing about the need for neutrality since SBC and BellSouth executives floated the idea of a "tiered" Internet. The companies hope, for instance, to charge Yahoo! so that its site loads faster than Google's, or to make rival Net-phone firms like Vonage pay to use their broadband pipes.
The first idea is akin to a gas station charging a Chevy driver more than a Honda driver. The latter is like AT&T putting static on your line when a Verizon customer calls. Neither is exactly competitive.
Without neutrality, there are other foreseeable effects. An ISP that sells music could make iTunes slow to a crawl. A big-box retailer could muscle out small guys by paying to have its site more accessible. Firms that use one company for Net access but another for online conferencing could witness speed disintegrate. Most disturbing is the threat to free speech. While ISPs maintain that they won't tinker with content, it may be hard to resist. Time Warner recently purged a mass e-mail critical of AOL, and a major Canadian Internet company prevented customers from visiting the site of its employee union. That's like a paperboy ripping out pages of a newspaper.
As telecoms merge and concentrate power, fewer companies will control access to the Internet. They are certainly entitled to make money. However, they want to move beyond charging subscribers and start charging Web sites simply for being online. Absent a neutrality standard, a few big companies could skew Net access beyond recognition.
Some of this can be so complex, especially for those not born in the computer age, that it can be difficult to wade through. But we all understand that competition is good. If America is entering the era of Internet regulation, it would be advisable if Congress erred on the side of competition and passed "network neutrality." Go ahead and Google it.
[Editor's Note: My thanks to David Stevens for providing this article for the newsletter.]
ToC
CounterSpin (4/28/06-5/4/06)
URL: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2869
Janine Jackson: As critics who complain about the anti-democratic, exclusionary nature of corporate media, we at CounterSpin often hear the question, "But what about the Internet? Isn't it inherently a challenge to big media, a technological way to subvert their top down bias?" Experience suggests the answer is "Not without a fight." This isn't the first time a new media form has invited such hopes. Time was cable TV promised to be a community medium with localism, low cost, and diversity as central tenets. In both instances, powerful corporate interests have battled with citizen activists and public interest groups over the shape and the purpose of the new media, with, sad to say, corporate interests generally winning the day. As we speak, both the Internet as we know it and community TV face serious threats in Congress. On the one had, telephone companies moving into the business of providing Internet and video services are looking to rewrite the franchise agreements cable companies have traditionally made with local communities. On the other, telephone and cable companies are pushing to fundamentally change the way the Internet works, charging fees for use and giving preferred treatment to content providers with deeper pockets. Here to discuss these issues is Jeff Chester, Executive Director of the Center For Digital Democracy. Welcome back to CounterSpin Jeff Chester.
Jeff Chester: Thank you.
Janine Jackson: Well, clearly these issues are related, but we're going to separate them for clarity's sake and talk first about the future of community or public access TV and this Barton/Rush bill. What is at stake here?
Jeff Chester: Well, the phone lobby, AT&T, which used to be SBC, and Verizon and their supporters are about to wreck community TV. They are using their clout to get to Congress over the next few weeks, unless we can defeat this bill, to eliminate the right of local communities to determine how cable television and, indeed, all broadband communication systems serve them. The phone companies don't want to negotiate with cities. They don't want to have to have a government agency, a local government authority, overseeing what they do, whether or not they treat everyone fairly. For example, the phone industry only really want to provide these services to the wealthiest parts of town. AT&T and Verizon want to red line. They don't want to serve low or lower middle income households. They want to pump out a tremendous profit, so they believe they can garner from selling affluent consumers interactive media and video on demand services. So, the phone industry has gone to Congress and has gone to state legislatures and is on the eve of getting Congress to, as I said, eliminate the right of cities to negotiate how the terms of cable service can be accomplished in the community.
Janine Jackson: Well, one of the things that has come out of the negotiations the cable companies make with local communities is, of course, public access television, those channels we're familiar with. Now, is this bill going to eliminate those public access channels? What's going on there?
Jeff Chester: Well, what this bill does is it eliminates the right of local communities, local governments and counties, to negotiate with cable or phone companies when they either operate or want to operate cable service. And it is very important to remember it's not just plain old cable anymore, that whatever wire passes through your street, whether it is the phone or cable wire, is going to be delivering you multi-channel television, cable television. It's going to be delivering you voice service, telephone services, and also data services, access to the Internet. So, there's much more at stake here than just who is your cable provider. Under the Barton/Rush legislation, the bill that's now before the House of Representatives, cities would continue to receive fees from companies, so called franchise fees, and cities would also have access services available, but the access services would be frozen in time. These cities would be given just a few channels at a time when, if we were able to continue franchising, cities could demand and expect to receive from phone and cable companies a significant portion of the capacity of these very powerful wires. Imagine channels and all kind of services, hooking up schools to the Internet, serving low income communities with low cost or free Internet access, advanced systems for public safety. All of those services would be available if the cities had some authority to require the phone and cable giants to pay back the residents of a community, to have a kind of public interest quid pro quo. But sadly, we are about to lose that.
Janine Jackson: Well, we'll move on now to the other major issue. A recent article of yours in the Nation was headlined "The End of the Internet." I don't know that you chose that, but I'm guessing you don't think it is too much of a stretch. How would the changes that are currently on the table spell the end of the Internet as we've come to know it?
Jeff Chester: My original title, actually, was "The Hijacking of the Internet."
Janine Jackson: Uh Huh.
Jeff Chester: And that's really what's about to happen. The Internet's not going to go away, but its fundamental nature as an open, nondiscriminatory and more democratic medium is under threat. The phone and cable industries have been able to use there clout with the Bush administration to have the Republican Federal Communications Commission change the rules of the Internet road. Up until recently the Internet was required by Federal rules to be an open medium, to treat all content fairly. Your Internet service provider couldn't slow down your email or speed up access to a web site if it favored it. Your Internet service provider couldn't, for example, cut off your access or slow down your access to a peace web site. Well, the phone and cable industries saw an open Internet as a real threat to their monopolies over either television, in the case of cable, or the phone business the case of Verizon and AT&T. So, the phone and cable lobby went to the FCC, they changed the rules and now THEY can determine the Internet's digital destiny. They now have the authority to make all kinds of business decisions about how the Internet in the United States operates. They plan to speed up the content that they own and those who can afford to pay to have their content speeded up. They'll get preferential treatment. They could slow up competing content. They could block access to content. What the phone and cable companies want to do is, in their own words, monetize the Internet. They want to set up a series of virtual toll booths. If you want your content to come down fast, you're going to have to pay more. You know, if you want to put content online and make sure that content is available to all users, you're going to have to pay them huge fees. So the phone and cable industries' vision, really, for the future of this diverse digital medium is really rooted in cable television. They want to set up a system so that they can extract as much profit as possible and, in particular, make sure that the content they own or that the content backed either by Hollywood and Madison Avenue is in the fast lane and everybody else, including, frankly, the public interest is in the slow digital dirt road.
Janine Jackson: Well, finally, in the brief amount of time we have left, it seems that industry always skates where the puck is going to be, as I've heard it called. They set up deals that they want, then they basically help write or write the laws that make those deals legal. And it's hard to fault the public when we don't really know about what we're losing because we don't even know it's in play. How does the public stand a chance here in rolling back these actions?
Jeff Chester: Well, not just public interest groups, but some of our biggest new media giants are also alarmed by what the phone and cable industry has planned, so you actually have Microsoft and Yahoo and Amazon.com, for example, lobbying along with the SaveTheInternet Coalition. Legislation is about to be introduced in the Senate that would protect the future of the Internet and there are a variety of groups, led by Free Press and Common Cause, among others, that are working on the Save The Internet campaign. So, I think right now the public has a real opportunity to get their voices heard, to go to SaveTheInternet.org, to go to MoveOn.org, or Common Cause and send a loud message to Congress that it's our Internet and we're not going to let the phone and cable companies do with it as they wish to do.
Janine Jackson: We've been speaking with Jeff Chester from the Center For Digital Democracy. Find them on the web at democraticmedia.org. Thank you, Jeff Chester, for being with us today on CounterSpin.
Jeff Chester: Thank you.
Related Links:
The End of the Internet? in The Nation magazine -
Part I: The End of the Internet? Net Neutrality Threatened by Cable, Telecom Interests -
ToCPart II: The End of the Internet? Net Neutrality Threatened by Cable, Telecom Interests -
Esme Voss, speaking at the Opening Plenary of the Community Wireless Summit, March 31, 2006 in St. Charles, Missouri.
Item: Wireless Summit (opening)
Created on: 03/31/2006 - 19:08 EST
Duration: 1 hour, 29 minutes, 56 seconds
This section: minutes 4:42-17:53
URL: http://commonsvcg.oar.net/LewisClark/
I hope it's OK if I just sit here [at the dais rather than moving to the podium]. I'm a little tired today.
This is the last week of my stay during this period in the States. I live in Amsterdam, for those of you who don't know me. I really live in Amsterdam and I come to the States during ... for my conferences. So, I had a conference in Atlanta, March 6 to 7, and I'm here, usually, for, you know, six weeks ... two months, so I'm nearing the end of my stay.
And what I'd like to do, really, at this point, is just to update you on where we are in municipal wireless. And I will actually tell you how I started Muniwireless, because some people came up to me today and said, "Oh, we love reading your site and how on earth did you get sucked in to doing such a time consuming thing?" And Sasha [Meinrath, Summit organizer] calls me tireless. I'm just tired most of the time, actually.
The whole thing started in June of 2003, because, back then, the founder of a web site called WiFinder, The Hot Spot Directory, Scott Rafer, was living in Amsterdam and I met him in Amsterdam. I was doing some business development and legal work for WiFinder. I'm an intellectual property lawyer. And we got to talking about Wi-Fi, got to talking about all the cool things you can do when you have hot zones. And back then it was just, basically, hot zones in downtown areas. And we got to thinking about the technology and what you could do with it and both were, he and I, were convinced that "Yeah, this can go city wide. Cities can become carriers. And I just happened to be asked to speak at a conference on hot zones. I had to prepare a 20 minute presentation. And the person who asked me was a friend of mine, so I couldn't say "No." And just doing research to make a 20 minute presentation in June 2003 on city hot zones took me hours. You know, Google searches. You know, emailing people. It was such a pain. And then I said to Scott, "Well, if cities are going to set this up, how are they going to find the information? Where are they going to find it?" So he said, "Well, why don't you just set up a site and aggregate the information, so it's easy to find. So I thought, "Uh, you know, why not? I'm not doing anything." I was really bored, in June 2003. The whole market was dead. My clients were somewhere either bankrupt or just waiting to be bankrupt. There wasn't any work. I was bored. So I put together this web site. And the way Muniwireless came was in a dream. One morning early, I was sort of dreaming of Muniwireless. It popped out. I ran to the computer and just registered the domain name. So that's the start of it.
And basically, in the very beginning, I just aggregated what other people would write about. You know, for example, the L.A. Times wrote about the Long Beach hot zone. I just put that in there with a little link to their ... to the article. And that's how it started. And very soon, people were just sending me their news and information and the whole thing took off.
And I really never thought it would get to this stage. I mean, where we are today, at least with me and Muniwireless, is that I have conferences, I have a quarterly magazine. And what we want to do with the magazine is put in there reports that are much too long and difficult to read on the Internet. My eyes aren't that great, so, you know, age. I'd like to end up reports. We're also doing round tables and webinars.
I think in just the last three years we've seen where this has gone. And some people think, Oh you know, because I aggregate all this information and make it easier for people to find it, when they go set up networks, well, for me, it's more like, there's clearly a need out there for these networks. There's clearly people, especially in areas that are under-served by DSL or cable operators, that need this. But also in places that have a lot of DSL and cable. It's very expensive. There's also ... and the bandwidths are really crappy.
I mean, I live in Amsterdam and we have a "fiber to the home" project being rolled out right now. I get eight megabits per second downstream and three up and I pay about forty-five to fifty dollars a month. In France, they're paying thirty Euros a month for triple, quadruple play. They have IPTVN. You know, just to show you where ... we have to put this in the context of what's happening around the world. I think one of the problems, whenever I come back to the States, is how inward looking people are. But, you know, seriously, in Europe, Belgacom won the rights to televise, on IPTV, Belgian football matches, soccer matches. Versatel, in the Netherlands, is televising the Dutch soccer matches. It's as if Verizon or AT&T had won the right to televise NFL football games. It's that scale. And they're doing it all over IPTV and they've made certain promises to the national government and also to the holder of the rights, you know, the sort of football association, about the kind of bandwidth they will be delivering, the kind of service. And they managed to do that because there's this real push now in Europe towards, you know, really, alternatives to cable for example, but also to faster and faster Internet and different ways of delivering video. So that's the universe that, at least, I'm sitting in when I go home. And, Amsterdam has a "fiber to the home" network called Citynet that will be completed in about three to four years. I mean, when I say completed, like throughout the entire Amsterdam. And that's, you know, like fifty to a hundred megabits per second. They want it even more. They want to be something like Hong Kong's. And Amsterdam is a city. It's densely populated, but, you know, not so many people, 800,000 people, something like San Francisco. Yet the city government there has decided that it's really important.
So, all these things are happening around and when we come back to the discussion of muniwireless in the States, we're seeing that, indeed, it is the push to get away from the duopoly that's making a lot of cities want to deploy city-wide wireless networks, even a county-wide network. That's the big thing now, the counties. Because, Lo and Behold, if you are in a rural area, and you have all these little towns, you know, 10,000 people here, 20,000 people there, each of them find it very difficult to go out and get a service provider or buy equipment. It's very expensive. So, what the counties do, like they've done, by the way, in Sweden for a long time, is to be the central point where they aggregate demand. So a county will put out the RSP, and many counties in the States are doing this, they'll put out an RSP that will be for the entire county. So that becomes very attractive for a network operator, a service provider, a systems integrator, and, indeed, the vendors - the equipment manufacturers themselves, to come and bid on such a project, because that means they are getting 500,000 people in one go instead of 10,000 here, 20,000 there, 50,000 there. So the idea of demand aggregation, I think, is something that has been going on in Europe for a long time and needs to be emphasized in this market, in the United States, to get the rural areas up to speed, as well, on broadband.
The latest wrinkle in the whole thing, of course, you know, we've seen, now, in the past year all these anti-municipal broadband bills that have, you know, that the telcos and the cable companies have tried to pass and didn't pass. So, where is telecom these days? Where are those guys, you know? Well, at my conference in Atlanta, I was really surprised to see many of them there. I'm not saying that, you know, AT&T was there, but the regional telecoms operators are very interested in this, you know, regional telcos in North Carolina, for example, or in Georgia, were there. And they came up to me and they even stood up at one of the panel sessions and said, you know, they were really interested in this market and they didn't want to be left behind. And they thought that what they had been doing in the past which was trying to get these bills passed didn't work and now they better have Plan B, which is they didn't want to be left behind. To my surprise the cable companies were there, too. Comcast was there. Cox was there. Time Warner was there. Now, what are they doing in the audience, right? I did not see that at my last conference in San Francisco, which was in September of 2005. So clearly something has happened between September, 2005 and March, 2006 to make all these people suddenly want to pay, you know, a certain amount of money to go to my conference and actually show themselves without hiding their heads under a paper bag, right? Because I know who they are, like "Oh, you're the one who tried to get this bill passed in Texas, right?"
So those things are happening and here is my fear which will lead into the discussion here. Two things. There's a bandwidth problem in this country and nobody wants to talk about it. OK? The bandwidth in the United States is crappy. It is so crappy. Every time I come back here, because my bandwidth in Europe keeps going up, higher and higher, and I stay with the same friends whose bandwidth is just exactly the same. Everything just seems very slow.
I'm staying with a girlfriend of mine who has launched a video application, an online application, called Dabble.com. What it is is that you find video on the Internet, whether it is a YouTube or BlipTV or someone's private site. You add a little bookmark, you know, to your browser and you click "Add To Dabble" and a page comes down. It's like Flicker, but you don't upload video. You tag video. You search video. It's a way for searching video on the Internet. That's great, except my friend, of course, has a really bad connection, I mean, it's really slow. This is an entrepreneur, you know, in California, in Silicon Valley, right? I mean it's unthinkable that a person like this would have bandwidth this crappy in 2006. And these are the people the VCs in the United States are funding. That's really silly. Bandwidth like that. Now you can imagine if all these other countries have very fast Internet connections, what are their entrepreneurs doing? You know, these Silicon Valley VCs they run around the world. They don't just give money to anybody. They don't care what you look like, as long as you have a good application. Well, who gets to test these applications? Who gets to write them? If your bandwidth is so crappy, you can barely test your own application, I'd say, if someone in Sweden had an idea like that, they'd probably get it funded and probably beat the hell out of you.
So, you know, there's an innovation problem. There's a problem of ... And then now we get to the media part, OK? Here's the focus in the United States that I'm seeing when I ask people, "Ah, what kind of bandwidth are you getting?" "Ah, yeah, well, our, my ISP just upped my download speed to like 5. I'm like "Oh, Good for you. And what's you upload?" "384." "What!?! 384? You're joking me!" And now, at Berkeley, where my friend lives, she, her upstream is 384. Now this is a person who is doing the next generation of video search? It's like that. But nobody talks about it. Everybody kind of hides behind it.
But that should be discussed and here's the thing. All the big cable companies and the telcos, I'd say even in Europe, they want to give you a lot of bandwidth down because they want to stuff all this stuff. They want to send you their content. They want to ... All the junk that is on TV today, they want you to get it on your computer. But when it comes to actually people making their own video, making very interesting content, whether it's photos or writing something or video, if you have 384, how are you going to upload it? And high definition video? How are you going to do this? It's like, we have the tools now. Video cameras are cheap. There's, you know, you can use very expensive, like, Final Cut Pro software to edit it, but you can also use the cheap one that comes with Apple computers. It's called iMovie. You know, it's pretty decent. It's not bad. You can do a good thing. It's just this bottleneck, you know. That people cannot make their own content. That all of these voices that are dying to be heard. We have blogs today, right? And they're very popular and they're doing a very good job, much better job than the mainstream press. They're all being throttled, because of the total focus on just, you know, maybe big bandwidth down to you and crappy bandwidth up. And that's just a terrible thing, in my opinion. And Muniwireless is just one of those alternative channels for people to get around that whole throttling mechanism that's happening with cable and DSL.
In Europe, it's still, you know, we get better bandwidth, but the same tendencies is there, because the same incumbent telcos are still controlling, you know, the telecommunications landscape. So, as we go on when we're discussing this in this room, you know, this is a community wireless summit - one of the problems I see with municipal wireless that could hinder these deployments is that many of them are top down, you know. The city issues a bid, right, an RSP. All these people will respond. It's controlled from somewhere up here. It's slow. It gets mired in politics. Sometimes the wrong service provider is chosen. So what needs to happen, there has to be another mechanism to get this going and this is where community wireless comes in, right? Because there's many of us here who can do this stuff and, hey, maybe if all this pressure comes in from different sides: from a municipality trying to do it, from people trying to do it, we actually get something done that's outside the purview of the traditional cable and telco duopoly. And I hope that, you know, during this conference we will talk to each other and get inspired by ideas. There's a lot of things you can do. And there's not that many place where people can talk about this where all of us are gathered here. So, I hope you will use this time to do that.
Thank you.
Related links:
ToCWiFinder - <http://www.wifinder.com/>
MuniWireless - <http://www.muniwireless.com>
Citynet - <http://muniwireless.com/?s=CityNet&submit=Search>
Belgacom - <http://www.belgacom.be/home/home/jsp/dynamic/homepage.jsp>
<http://muniwireless.com/?s=Belgacom&submit=Search>
Versatel - <http://www.versatel.com/index.php?id=6329>
<http://muniwireless.com/index.php?s=Versatel>YouTube - <http://www.youtube.com/>
BlipTV - <http://www.bliptv.com/>
Dabble.com - <http://www.dabble.com/beta/user/login?destination=mymedia>
Final Cut Pro - <http://www.apple.com/finalcutstudio/finalcutpro/>
iMovie - <http://www.apple.com/ilife/imovie/>
[Editor's Note: In researching some background on Representative Markey's rhetorical questions, I found this pertinent information.]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet#Creation_of_the_Internet
The USSR's launch of Sputnik spurred the U.S. to create the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) in February 1958 to regain a technological lead. DARPA created the Information Processing Technology Office to further the research of the Semi Automatic Ground Environment program, which had networked country-wide radar systems together for the first time. J. C. R. Licklider was selected to head the IPTO, and saw universal networking as a potential unifying human revolution. Licklider recruited Lawrence Roberts to head a project to implement a network, and Roberts based the technology on the work of Paul Baran who had written an exhaustive study for the U.S. Air Force that recommended packet switching to make a network highly robust and survivable. After much work, the first node went live at UCLA on October 29, 1969 on what would be called the ARPANET, the "eve" network of today's Internet. In December of 1970, Charles A. Petrik contacted the U.S. Navy and suggested that a special communications network, which the Department of Defense had built for use in the possiblitity of a nuclear attack, could also be used during peace time. Petrik convinced the military to connect the computers of the U.S. National Laboratories for scientific research purposes, and to allow these labs to get data to other labs faster, and safer.
The first TCP/IP wide area network was operational by 1 January 1983 , when the United States' National Science Foundation (NSF) constructed a university network backbone that would later become the NSFNet. (This date is held by some to be technically that of the birth of the Internet.) It was then followed by the opening of the network to commercial interests in 1995. Important separate networks that offered gateways into, then later merged into the NSFNet include Usenet, Bitnet and the various commercial and educational X.25 Compuserve and JANET. Telenet (later called Sprintnet), was a large privately-funded national computer network with free dialup access in cities throughout the U.S. that had been in operation since the 1970's. This network eventually merged with the others in the 90's as the TCP/IP protocol became increasingly popular. The ability of TCP/IP to work over these pre-existing communication networks allowed for a great ease of growth. Use of Internet as a phrase to describe a single global TCP/IP network originated around this time.
The network gained a public face in the 1990s. In August 1991 CERN, which straddles the border between France and Switzerland publicized the new World Wide Web project, two years after Tim Berners-Lee had begun creating HTML, HTTP and the first few web pages at CERN (which was set up by international treaty and not bound by the laws of either France or Switzerland). In 1993 the National Center for Supercomputing Applications at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign released the Mosaic web browser version 1.0, and by late 1994 there was growing public interest in the previously academic/technical Internet. By 1996 the word "Internet" was common public currency, but it referred almost entirely to the World Wide Web.
Meanwhile, over the course of the decade, the Internet successfully accommodated the majority of previously existing public computer networks (although some networks such as FidoNet have remained separate). This growth is often attributed to the lack of central administration, which allows organic growth of the network, as well as the non-proprietary open nature of the Internet protocols, which encourages vendor interoperability and prevents any one company from exerting too much control over the network.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_backbone
The original Internet backbone was the ARPANET.
In 1989 the NSFNet backbone was established, the US military broke off as a separate MILNET network, and the ARPANET was shut down.
A plan was then developed for first expanding NSFNet further, prior to rendering it obsolete by creating a new network architecture based on decentralized routing.
With the decommissioning of the NSFNet Internet backbone network on April 30, 1995, the Internet now consists entirely of the various commercial ISPs and private networks (as well as inter-university networks), as connected at their peering points.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Internet
In 1998 both IANA and InterNIC were reorganized under the control of ICANN, a California non-profit corporation contracted by the US Department of Commerce to manage a number of Internet-related tasks. The role of operating the DNS system was privatized and opened up to competition, while the central management of name allocations would be awarded on a contract tender basis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Internet
The interest in commercial use of the Internet became a hotly debated topic. Although commercial use was forbidden, the exact definition of commercial use could be unclear and subjective. Everyone agreed that one company sending an invoice to another company was clearly commercial use, but anything less was up for debate. UUCPNet and the X.25 IPSS had no such restrictions, which would eventually see the official barring of UUCPNet use of ARPANET and NSFNet connections. Some UUCP links still remained connecting to these networks however, as administrators cast a blind eye to their operation.
During the late 1980s the first Internet service provider (ISP) companies were formed. Companies like PSINet, UUNET, Netcom, and Portal were formed to provide service to the regional research networks and provide alternate network access, UUCP-based email and Usenet News to the public. The first dial-up ISP, world.std.com, opened in 1989.
This caused controversy amongst university users, who were outraged at the idea of noneducational use of their networks. Eventually it was the commercial Internet service providers who brought prices low enough that junior colleges and other schools could afford to participate in the new arenas of education and research.
By 1990, ARPANET had been overtaken and replaced by newer networking technologies and the project came to a close. In 1994, the NSFNet, now renamed ANSNET (Advanced Networks and Services) and allowing non-profit corporations access, lost its standing as the backbone of the Internet. Both government institutions and competing commercial providers created their own backbones and interconnections. Regional network access points (NAPs) became the primary interconnections between the many networks and the final commercial restrictions ended.
ToC
Paul Thurrott
URL: http://www.wininformant.com/
This week, the OpenDocument Foundation announced a plug-in for Microsoft Office that will allow users of that suite to open and save documents in the newly standardized open source OpenDocument format. The add-on has been in development for about a year, and it makes it seem like OpenDocument documents are native to Office. This add-on is going to be important to governments, such as that of the US state of Massachusetts, which have pledged to move to open formats but still have reams of legacy Office documents to deal with. Presumably, they're also working on a batch converter, which should also prove necessary to institutions and individuals making the switch.
Ever-creative Intel this week announced that it will continue its boring naming strategy from the past and simply call the second generation Core Duo microprocessors, which had been codenamed Merom and Conroe, as Core 2 Duo. There'll even be a Core 2 Duo Extreme version, in case you were nervous that name was going away too. The desktop version of the chip (which had been named Conroe) and the notebook version (Merom) will both become available later this year, Intel says. Expect to see them by the third quarter of 2006 at the latest. Intel is also working on quad-core CPUs, which could arrive as early as 2007.
If you've been holding out for a public beta version of Windows Live Messenger, Microsoft's successor to MSN Messenger, your wait is finally over. This week, Microsoft shipped Windows Live Messenger Beta to the public via a free download on its Live.com Web site. The new Messenger features a completely revamped UI, PC-to-phone calling, and free video chat functionality. I've been using Windows Live Messenger Beta for quite a while, and it's quite nice. If you're using MSN Messenger, definitely check it out (http://ideas.live.com/).
As if the company didn't have enough to worry about fixing security issues
that were caused by its own software, Microsoft revealed this week that it will
also be fixing security issues that are caused by third party software as well.
Last week, the company issued a patch for Macromedia's Flash player
because Flash is distributed with some Windows versions. It was the first
time Microsoft had patched a non-Microsoft security flaw, but the company
says it won't be the last. This is an interesting trend, though it's unclear if
Microsoft will ever start patching third party
applications that weren't bundled
with Windows.
An upcoming version of the IEEE 1394 specification--which everyone except Microsoft refers to as FireWire--will provide increased transfer rates between PCs and devices at speeds of up to 3.2GB per second, far faster than the current speeds of 400 and 800Mbps that today's FireWire devices attain. Although Microsoft plans to support the new spec, dubbed 1394b, it won't do so until after Vista ships. Microsoft says it might add 1394b support to Windows in a Vista service pack or in a future version of Windows.
ToC
Tom Sanders in Santa Clara, California, vnunet.com 12 May 2006
URL: http://tinyurl.com/s3sxv
Windows Vista will deliver a level of security that could bring an end to traditional virus and worm attacks, Microsoft chief executive Steve Ballmer claimed during a public speaking engagement in Silicon Valley yesterday.
"Subject to the fact that there might still be a small amount of human error, we will have eliminated the known attack vectors that people use against us today," Ballmer said at an event at the Churchill Club and Commonwealth Club.
Ballmer touted the security of his firm's forthcoming operating system as one of the main reasons why people should upgrade, together with its new search and graphics features.
Because Windows is one of the most targeted applications, Microsoft has been able to collect huge amounts of data on how hackers attack the software, Ballmer pointed out.
Windows Vista will offer a raft of security enhancements. Users will run in a standard mode by default, whereas today most user accounts have administrative rights.
The operating system will also come bundled with the Windows Defender AntiSpyware application, and the Vista firewall is capable of bi-directional filtering, although its default configuration will be to filter only inbound network traffic.
The forthcoming Internet Explorer 7 also contains enhanced security features, including the ability to inform users when they visit a known phishing website.
But, while claiming that the operating system itself would be "bullet-proof" , Ballmer warned that criminals will find other ways to target computers.
"The next generation of attack vectors are more likely to be insidious, in the sense that instead of disrupting people it will try to steal your money and steal your identity," he said.
"The battle moves more to malware and phishing than just the old-fashioned viruses."
ToC
You probably have heard of people telling you that you can speed up your computer by stopping unwanted services. But when you look at the list of services running, you are unsure of what to shut down and what not to. Here's a small guide to help you choose what to shutdown in a list of common processes/services.
Useless services:
Notes:
I hope I have been clear enough for you to understand what to disable and what not to. Enjoy a faster and healthier computer.
ToC
Paul Thurrott
URL: http://tinyurl.com/qk543
On the eve of the Electronic Entertainment Expo (E3) video gaming conference this week, Microsoft confirmed that it has sold over 3.3 million Xbox 360 consoles so far and is on track to ship 10 million units by the end of 2006. The 3.3 million figure was first reported by Dean Takahashi of "The San Jose Mercury News," who was recently given unprecedented access to Microsoft's Xbox 360 business. Microsoft later confirmed the figure.
According to Takahashi, the 3.3 million figure represents the number of Xbox 360 units sold, not shipped, though Xbox 360s are still "flying off the shelves." Now, Microsoft expects to ship 4.5 million to 5 million Xbox 360 units by the end of June--which is the end of Microsoft's fiscal year--and 10 million by the end of 2006.
The 10 million figure is important because Sony plans to ship its PlayStation 3 (PS3) in November and the company has vowed to sell 6 million PS3s by the end of March 2007. If Sony is able to overcome the manufacturing problems that plagued Microsoft's Xbox 360 rollout late last year, the PS3 should overtake Xbox 360 in the market by mid-2007. That would be a terrible defeat for Microsoft, which had hoped to use its yearlong head start over the PS3 to pad its market share.
ToC
Paul Thurrott
URL: http://tinyurl.com/qt9xq
In an astonishing move today, Sony announced that its PlayStation 3 video game console will cost a staggering $499 in the United States, which is $200 more than a comparable Xbox 360. A higher-end PS3 will cost a whopping $599. You could purchase two Microsoft Xbox 360 Core System consoles for that amount.
The entry-level PS3 will have a 20GB hard drive, and the $599 model will differentiate itself with a 60GB hard drive; Memory Stick, Secure Digital (SD), and Compact Flash inputs; Wi-Fi capabilities; and High-Definition Multimedia Interface (HDMI). Both units will include an expensive Sony Blu-ray optical disk drive and one Bluetooth-powered, motion-sensitive hand controller. Also worth noting is that many of the features Sony promised for the PS3 are missing: Each unit will include only one Ethernet port, rather than the three Sony previously announced, and four USB ports, rather than six. The high- end version also includes only one HDMI output, not two as once promised.
What's most astonishing is that Sony is still going to lose hundreds of dollars per PS3, despite the high asking price of the console. Sony is hoping that faithful PlayStation devotees--who number around a hundred million--will come out in record numbers to buy its new console, which can also act as the hub of an HDTV-based home entertainment system.
Sony made the PS3 pricing announcement at the E3 2006 trade show in Los Angeles. The company tried to justify the high price of the PS3 by saying that the system's advanced features compensate for the high cost. However, many of the analysts, journalists, and game players who attended the event and witnessed the PS3 in action said the system was no more impressive than the Xbox 360.
Sony expects to sell 2 million PS3 consoles between the system's launch in November and the end of 2006. The company says it should sell 10 million PS3 consoles by the end of March 2007. Analysts expect Microsoft to sell about 10 million Xbox 360s by the time the PS3 is launched; however, Sony is expected to outsell the Xbox 360 in 2007, despite the exorbitant price of the PS3.
ToC
URL: http://tinyurl.com/q5fft
PIC: http://www.spacegrinder.com/storyimages/dog.jpg
The dogs, Lucky and Flo, faced their first test at the FedEx UK hub at Stansted Airport.
"FedEx was glad to assist in Lucky and Flo's first live test in a working situation. They were amazingly successful at identifying packages containing DVDs, which were opened and checked by HM Customs' representatives. While all were legitimate shipments on the day, our message to anyone thinking about shipping counterfeit DVDs through the FedEx network is simple: you're going to get caught."
Kinda makes me thing twice about shipping anything through FedEX. Seriously, this is like training drug dogs to find plastic bags.
From the MPAA press release:
"United Kingdom, Los Angeles - - The Federation Against Copyright Theft (FACT), express delivery company FedEx and HM Revenue & Customs, has joined forces to launch an exciting new initiative to help combat DVD piracy.
As part of a project promoted by the Motion Picture Association of America, Inc. (MPAA), FACT instigated the training of two black Labradors named Lucky and Flo by one of the world's leading experts in the field whose other clients include police, fire and rescue service. The dogs were trained over an eight month period to identify DVDs that may be located in boxes, envelopes or other packaging, as well as discs concealed amongst other goods which could be sold illegally in the UK. These DVDs are often smuggled by criminal networks involved in large scale piracy operations from around the world."
ToC
[Editor's Note: My thanks to Kevin Hisel for the contributions to this section of the newsletter.]
ToC
TidBITS#827/01-May-06
Time to break out the tip jar: Apple reported just second-best performance for its second financial quarter of 2006.
Then again, maybe Steve Jobs and company won't be penniless anytime soon. Apple sold 1.1 million Macintosh computers and 8.5 million iPods during the quarter ending 01-Apr-06, compared to 1.07 million Macs and 5.3 million iPods one year ago. That translated to revenue of $4.36 billion and a net quarterly profit of $410 million. Apple's haul for the first financial quarter of 2006 broke company records with a $565 million profit, which included the holiday buying season. In a press release, Jobs boasted that the company has "generated over $10 billion in revenue and almost $1 billion in earnings in the first half of fiscal 2006" and cited success in the transition to Intel processors as well as strong online music sales. [JLC]
<http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2006/apr/19results.html>
<http://db.tidbits.com/getbits.acgi?tbart=08069>
<http://db.tidbits.com/getbits.acgi?tbart=08398>
by Geoff Duncan <geoff@tidbits.com>
TidBITS#828/08-May-06
Justice Edward Mann of London's High Court today issued a ruling in favor of Apple Computer in its current trademark dispute with the Beatles' record label Apple Corps, finding Apple Computer had not breached a trademark-sharing agreement between the two companies by using its Apple logo on its iTunes digital music service.
<http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/apple/aclac50806opn.html>
<http://db.tidbits.com/getbits.acgi?tbart=08471>
According to the 1991 agreement, Apple Computer was to have use of the trademark in the computer business, while Apple Corps would have exclusive use in the music industry. In rejecting Apple Corps' claims of infringement, Justice Mann found Apple Computer's logo in the iTunes Music Store constituted a "fair and reasonable use of the mark in conjunction with the service." It seems that in the eyes of the court, Apple's iTunes Music Store is just a new kind of shop, not a record label or music publisher. The companies' 1991 agreement (which became public only as documents submitted in the current dispute) are silent about digital music distribution, focusing solely on prohibiting Apple Computer from distributing pre-recorded music on physical media: Justice Mann found no matter how lawyers spun it, the iTunes Music Store just didn't count as physical media.
<http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/judgmentsfiles/j2468/apple-v-apple.htm>
Apple Corps, of course, immediately announced plans to appeal the decision, but the ruling is an unexpectedly positive outcome for the computer maker. Apple has now sold well over 1 billion songs via its online store (not to mention tens of millions of its now-iconic iPod music players) and was widely believed to be vulnerable to substantial trademark infringement damages from Apple Corps. Instead, Apple Corps now owes Apple Computer court costs, currently amounting to some 3 million British pounds. With the burden of the trademark suit largely lifted, Apple can focus on operating and expanding its iTunes offerings - and just maybe getting the Beatles recording catalog online.
One interesting outcome of the trademark trial is that Apple Corps head Neil Aspinall submitted that Apple Corps has been remastering the Beatles' material (yet again!) and preparing to take the Beatles' music online. Currently, Beatles material is not legally available for download, and, despite admitting to in-house preparation, Apple Corps says it has not made any decisions about when or how Beatles recordings might be for sale online.
Apple Corps has apparently investigated exclusive, time-limited arrangements with online music distributors (including Microsoft) but hasn't been able to reach a deal - which probably means the Apple Corps asking price was too high for the low-margin digital download business. Now that Apple Corps can't reasonably expect a fiscal windfall from Apple Computer, they may be more motivated to take the Beatles into the Internet age - and, without a doubt, Apple Computer would love to bring the Beatles into iTunes.
ToC
TidBITS#827/01-May-06
Apple posted a trio of updates while TidBITS was on hiatus last week. GarageBand 3.0.2, according to the company's terse announcement, "addresses issues with video handling, podcast exporting, and importing QuickTime markers. It also addresses a number of other minor issues." The update is a 32.2 MB download via Software Update or as a 30 MB stand-alone download.
<http://www.apple.com/support/downloads/garageband302update.html>
Apple's iWork '06 updates also appear to be bug fixes. Pages 2.0.1 (a 20 MB download) sees repairs to its charting and image adjustment features, while Keynote 3.0.1 (a 39 MB download) tackles three-dimensional charts with textures; both also address other unspecified issues. Lastly, the Apple Keyboard Update 1.0 is a 12 MB download that improves reliability of the keyboard and mouse on the first Intel-based MacBook Pro, iMac, and Mac mini models. [JLC]
<http://www.apple.com/support/downloads/pages201.html>
<http://www.apple.com/support/downloads/keynote301.html>
<http://www.apple.com/support/downloads/applekeyboardupdate10.html>
by Mark H. Anbinder <mha@tidbits.com>
TidBITS#827/01-May-06
Apple marked the first day of this year's National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) conference in Las Vegas by introducing a 17-inch version of the Intel processor-based MacBook Pro line. The new high-end laptop replaces the 17-inch PowerBook G4 as the ideal computer for portable video production.
<http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/>
Sporting a 2.16 GHz Intel Core Duo processor, the new one-inch- thick MacBook Pro features a 17-inch 1680 by 1050 display that the company says is 36 percent brighter than the screen on its predecessor, and an ATI Mobility Radeon X1600 graphics processor that can drive Apple's 30-inch Cinema Display. Unlike the 15-inch MacBook Pro, the new model has a 8x SuperDrive with double-layer support, one FireWire 800 port (in addition to one FireWire 400 port), as well as a third USB 2.0 port.
<http://db.tidbits.com/getbits.acgi?tbart=08392>
The laptop includes a built-in iSight video camera at the top of the display, an infrared remote control to access the included Front Row media software, and an ExpressCard/34 expansion card slot, and it features Apple's MagSafe power adapter, introduced in January 2006. Both AirPort Extreme and Bluetooth wireless functionality are included, but as with the 15-inch MacBook Pro, Apple has left out the built-in modem; an external USB modem is available separately. The new laptop costs $2,800 and is scheduled to begin shipping this week.
ToC
by Geoff Duncan <geoff@tidbits.com>
TidBITS#827/01-May-06
Apple has announced it is expanding its technology recycling program: beginning in June 2006, Apple will offer free recycling and disposal of old computers to U.S. customers who purchase a new Mac through the Apple online or retail stores. Apple says equipment received through the program will be recycled domestically without any hazardous materials being shipped overseas; according to Apple, more than 90 percent of electronic equipment it has collected since 2001 has been recycled.
<http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2006/apr/21takeback.html>
<http://www.apple.com/environment/recycling/>
Apple also announced that its iPod nano, iPod shuffle, and current fifth-generation iPod music players are fully compliant with upcoming restrictions on hazardous substances (RoHS) to be implemented in California, and in Europe on 01-Jul-06. The RoHS standards are being promoted as a global standard for environmental preservation, and restrict the use of hazardous substances such as cadmium, lead, hexavalent chromium, bromiated flame retardants, and mercury. Apple had previously come under fire from environmentalists because of the potential environmental impact of millions of iPods as owners discard older or malfunctioning units; Apple announced an iPod recycling program in June 2005.
<http://www.rohsdirective.com/>
<http://db.tidbits.com/getbits.acgi?tbart=08126>
by Glenn Fleishman <glenn@tidbits.com>
TidBITS#827/01-May-06
Adobe Systems's CEO Bruce Chizen announced that the company will deliver universal binaries of their flagship design and production products by the end of the second quarter of 2007, according to IDG News Service. This puts the damper on any remaining idea that a universal binary would be a no-cost upgrade for users of Photoshop, the Creative Suite bundle, or Acrobat.
<http://www.infoworld.com/article/06/04/21/77646_HNphotoshopuniversal_1.html>
Acrobat 8 will reportedly be universal when it ships in the third quarter of this year. The next version of Creative Suite - Adobe's bundle of Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign, GoLive, and other tools - will be universal when it ships in the first half of 2007.
While there was little doubt as to Adobe producing universal binaries for these products, the company chose not to offer a timetable until now, nor did it clarify whether a universal version would be a paid upgrade, although all bets were on money being involved.
The lack of Intel-native code produces slowdowns of 50 percent or more for processor-intensive tasks within Photoshop and other programs compared to the same tasks running natively on comparable systems. Reports indicate that the Rosetta on-the-fly translation system generally works well with Adobe programs, however.
Apple's most lucrative customers work in audio, video, and film production; online multimedia; and graphic design. Programs for these fields of endeavor have always taxed processors, and these users were the loudest voices (alongside the gaming community) in critiquing the previous lack of speed improvements in the PowerPC G5 line.
Apple has said that it will transition the entire Macintosh line to Intel-based chips by the end of 2006, and with Adobe on board for a second quarter 2007 universal Creative Suite release, it's likely that companies will start budgeting for upgrades.
While it's possible this news will further reduce the sales of Power Mac G5 desktops, it's hard to imagine that those who don't absolutely need computers would be purchasing them with Intel- based models not yet released. More likely, there will be a massive set of pent-up orders when the professional desktop model ships as pros will have a migration path for their most important software.
ToC
by Glenn Fleishman <glenn@tidbits.com>
TidBITS#827/01-May-06
Over at The Seattle Times, you can read a long feature I wrote about installing Windows XP Service Pack 2 in three ways on an Intel iMac: with Boot Camp, via Parallels, and using Q. Most of this territory was covered in recent TidBITS articles with greater technical detail than I offered for a general newspaper audience (see "Apple Opens Boot Camp for Windows Users" and "WinOnMac Smackdown: Dual-Boot versus Virtualization" in TidBITS-825_).
<http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/practicalmac/2002946030_ptmacc22.html>
<http://db.tidbits.com/getbits.acgi?tbart=08494>
<http://db.tidbits.com/getbits.acgi?tbart=08495>
Some feedback from readers, however, makes it clear that Windows XP licensing terms are a matter of some confusion for those of us in the simpler world of "you buy a new copy with every Mac OS X release." True, Apple offers two consumer licenses: a 1-pack and a 5-user family pack. Other licensing programs are available, such as a 3-year software subscription I bought for an Xserve that provides full versions of every version of the operating system released during that 3-year period.
But Microsoft takes a different approach for Windows XP, and ostensibly for the forthcoming Windows Vista, too. Windows XP requires activation, a process that takes a snapshot of hardware on the computer, sends it to Microsoft to record along with your Windows XP serial number, and then allows Windows XP to continue to operate on that hardware. Activation must take place within 30 days of installation. If you substantially change your computer or move Windows XP to a new computer, you may encounter difficulties in activating a reinstalled copy.
There are full retail versions, which are shrinkwrapped and licensed for single computers. These are the most expensive copies to buy, costing nearly $200 for Windows XP Home and $300 for Pro. You can find slight discounts off retail prices if you hunt, dropping down $25 or so from the full price. I confirmed with Microsoft last week that a single-user license is not legal to install on both a Boot Camp partition and a virtual machine running on the same computer, even though those are not running at the same time.
There are also upgrade versions of Windows XP, costing $100 less than the full retail versions, but upgrade versions require an older version of Windows. You can install Windows XP over the earlier version, but I believe you can also create a new installation as long as you have the original media for the previous Windows version available to insert at the appropriate point to confirm your ownership. However, as Jeff Carlson pointed out to me, upgrading an old version of Windows entails installing both versions on a Mac, which, when you consider the time required to download service patches and security updates, could total many hours; he said he'd rather just pay the extra $100 for a recent full version of Windows XP and avoid all the hassle.
The so-called OEM (original equipment manufacturer) version of Windows XP is licensed and customized as a bundle with a computer. A few readers of my Seattle Times piece wrote in to note that you could purchase OEM versions that were "overstock" or "excess inventory" from several sites online often for a fraction of the full retail cost. Unfortunately, these OEM sales violate Microsoft's licensing agreement. There's no such thing as "excess inventory" of OEM copies because those copies are licensed to the computer makers on a per-computer basis. No computer, no license.
There's a lot of risk in purchasing these copies because the serial numbers are obviously in batches, and Microsoft can cancel (through its activation system) any outstanding serial numbers. They do this regularly for copies of Windows that circulate through online file-trading systems. There's also apparently a fair amount of dodginess among companies that offer OEM copies since, technically, they shouldn't be selling them. Microsoft designed several points of authenticity on Windows XP packaging and media, and if you're going to walk on the twilight side of this particular licensing avenue, you should know what a legitimate copy of XP looks like so you can confirm it's real when it arrives.
(One TidBITS regular noted to me via email after I posted this article on ExtraBITS that there are even cracked, back-door OEM versions for sale that have spyware/malware baked right in. Purchasing a so-called OEM copy from a shady firm could lead to an immediate compromise of the machine you installed it on. While this sounds a bit like 1950s advice about avoiding loose ladies, it's completely feasible as selling an OEM copy already puts a company over a certain legal line.)
Finally, many companies purchase volume licenses from Microsoft for flexibility in administration and installation. These volume licenses avoid some of the complexity of managing serial numbers among large numbers of users and reduce the cost considerably from full retail purchase price. Companies that have volume licenses will be able to use those licenses to install Windows XP on Boot Camp partitions or virtual machines.
<http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/resources/default.mspx>
Now, I don't want to be seen as defending the particular terms that govern these licenses. I don't hold a brief for the cost of Apple's or Microsoft's operating systems - I've long thought Apple greedy in not offering some form of upgrade license for Mac OS X - but I want to make sure that Mac owners understand the grief that can result from buying the wrong version of Windows XP.
ToC
by Kevin van Haaren <kevin@vanhaaren.net>
TidBITS#826/17-Apr-06
It has been possible to run Windows in virtual machines on Macs for many years. However, with the recent switch to Intel chips and the beta releases of Apple's Boot Camp and Parallels Workstation for Mac OS X, interest among Mac users in running Windows has expanded significantly. This article is intended to help new - and perhaps even long-time - users of Windows with a few tips I've learned over the years of suffering at the help desk of a Windows-using corporation.
<http://db.tidbits.com/getbits.acgi?tbart=08494>
<http://www.apple.com/macosx/bootcamp/>
<http://db.tidbits.com/getbits.acgi?tbart=08495>
<http://www.parallels.com/en/products/workstation/mac/>
If you own an old Windows PC and hope you can move that computer's Windows license to your shiny new Boot Camp-enabled Macintosh, or even a virtual machine, you may be out of luck.
OEM (original equipment manufacturer) versions of Windows XP, such as those that came with a system, have different end-user licensing agreements (EULAs) than the retail versions of XP. Many of these EULAs do not allow transfer to a different system.
To complicate matters, Windows XP has a mandatory activation process where the installation must be "approved" by Microsoft within 30 days of installation. If you install an OEM version of Windows XP on a Macintosh, the activation may not work.
<http://www.gripe2ed.com/scoop/story/2005/10/11/030/82390>
Retail versions of Windows XP do allow transfers to new systems, although you will still need to run through the mandatory activation and may need to spend some time on the phone with Microsoft explaining what you are doing. You can view the EULAs for Microsoft's products at the Web site below.
<http://www.microsoft.com/legal/useterms/>
I have only three tips for installing Windows XP, and Mac users who are not used to the evils of the Windows world should pay particular attention to them.
For a Boot Camp installation, leave your network cable disconnected. For a virtual machine installation, you should be able to disable the virtual network card manually in the machine settings (Virtual PC does this, I'm not sure about other products such as Parallels Workstation). If in doubt, disconnect the network cable from your computer.
Windows XP is notorious for being infected immediately after a new installation, before the user has time to install system patches. Windows XP Service Pack 1 installations have been reported compromised in as little as 4 minutes after being placed on a standard DSL connection.
<http://www.avantgarde.com/xxxxttln.pdf>
If your Windows XP installation CD does not include Service Pack 2, use your Mac to download the standalone Service Pack 2 installer (a 266 MB download). You can use this to install SP2 prior to connecting to the network. If you use a slow dial-up connection, Microsoft will mail you a CD for free.
<http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=049c9dbe-3b8e-4f30-8245-9e368d3cdb5a&DisplayLang=en>
<http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/updates/sp2/cdorder/en_us/>
Once you have installed Service Pack 2, be sure to visit Microsoft's Windows Update to download the patches released after Service Pack 2. You may have to reboot and reconnect to Windows Update several times to ensure you have all the patches. Windows Update requires Internet Explorer.
<http://windowsupdate.microsoft.com/>
If you will be doing numerous Windows XP installations, to many machines or just repeated installs on your own, you may wish to build a custom install CD with patches already included on it. The nLiteOS and Bart's PE Builder are popular tools for building specialized Windows XP boot CDs.
<http://www.nliteos.com/>
<http://www.nu2.nu/bootablecd/>
Always leave a firewall turned on, whether that's the built-in Windows one or third party software. This is a good idea even if you're computer is behind a hardware NAT firewall. The Windows firewall acts more like Little Snitch on the Mac, informing you of each program that attempts to access the network. This is good for finding spyware that was installed with a downloaded application. Two popular third party firewalls are Zone Alarm and Kerio Personal Firewall. Both offer feature limited free versions as well as paid versions with more features.
<http://www.sunbelt-software.com/Kerio.cfm>
<http://www.zonelabs.com/>
Microsoft's Malicious Software Removal Tool should have been installed as part of the Windows Update during installation. This tool is not a replacement for a full-featured anti-virus package, but it can be helpful in removing hard-to-purge malware. It is updated once a month.
<http://www.microsoft.com/security/malwareremove/>
Speaking of viruses, you definitely want to install an anti-virus package. With the thousands of Windows viruses in existence, anti-virus software is a mandatory requirement for all Windows XP installations. I am not personally fond of the packages produced by big name vendors such as Symantec and McAfee; however, if you work for a corporation that licenses one of these products, home use versions are frequently available for little or no cost. I prefer Grisoft's AVG product; home users can get it for free.
<http://www.symantec.com/avcenter/global/>
<http://www.mcafee.com/>
<http://www.grisoft.com/>
<http://free.grisoft.com/>
Be sure to install spyware detection and removal software. Most anti-virus products and firewalls do not block spyware installations. Some spyware is maliciously installed via deceiving Web pages, but quite a bit comes bundled with free applications. Unlike the Mac world where most free applications are just that, in the Windows world free programs are frequently ad-supported software: they download ads from the Internet and display them to you. There is nothing wrong with this business model (Eudora has offered an ad sponsored version for a long time and never been accused of being spyware), but unfortunately some adware vendors install ad software that:
This type of abusive software can be difficult to remove. Two popular tools for removing spyware are LavaSoft's Ad-Aware and Safer Networking's Spybot Search & Destroy. The Personal edition of Ad-Aware is free of charge to home users. Spybot Search & Destroy is free for all. You may wish to install both products and keep them updated. Frequently one application will catch something the other won't.
<http://www.lavasoft.de/>
<http://www.safer-networking.org/>
Also, be wary of other malware removal tools. Some are actually spyware installers rather than uninstallers.
<http://blogs.zdnet.com/Spyware/?p=802>
<http://www.spywarewarrior.com/rogue_anti-spyware.htm>
Internet Explorer is one of the biggest security holes in Windows XP. I highly recommend installing an alternate browser. Firefox is probably the most popular Windows browser after Internet Explorer. Opera, a popular browser on the Mac, is also available on Windows.
<http://www.mozilla.com/firefox/>
<http://www.opera.com/>
So far, most of my suggestions have been about protecting and securing your new Windows installation. What follows are utilities I've found useful in actually accomplishing tasks in Windows. Although a ton of free utilities are available for Windows, many of them can be completely useless, or worse, buggy or infected with spyware. Finding software you trust can be tricky. Be sure to dig around for suggestions from other Windows users.
<http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;306531>
<http://www.winzip.com/>
<http://zipcentral.iscool.net/>
<http://www.stuffit.com/>
<http://www.apple.com/quicktime/download/standalone.html>
Other popular media players include Nullsoft's WinAmp for audio files and VideoLAN's VLC for video media. Note that Windows XP does not include a DVD player by default.
<http://www.winamp.com/>
<http://www.videolan.org/vlc/>
Google includes the Google Video Player in its Google Pack software collection. The Google Video Player is required for watching videos purchased from Google Video.
<http://pack.google.com/product_info.html?video>
<http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~ghost/>
<http://www.cutepdf.com/Products/CutePDF/writer.asp>
Thousands of Mac users are undoubtedly experimenting with Windows XP via Boot Camp and Parallels Workstation right now, but we all need to remember that Windows XP isn't just Mac OS X with a different look and feel. In particular, it's essential to maintain good security practices at all times, something that's not second nature to many Mac users. I hope these hard-won tips will ease your initial explorations into Windows XP, and that you'll be able to make the most of the additional flexibility of running Windows while being able to stick with the familiar face of Mac OS X for everything else.
ToC
reported by Kevin Hopkins (kh2@uiuc.edu)
April20, 2006 -- The General Meeting began with the traditional introduction of officers. Our Corporate Agent,Kevin Hisel, was not present. His dog, "JB," had to have his spleen removed and Kevin had to stay home and take care of his sick puppy.
There was a question about status of Linux SIG. The notice of no meeting didn't get to the newsletter editor. There will be a program for next month, June.
Dave Noreen lobbed a question to Mark Zinzow about what the letters on wireless cards me
