Yankees' error leaks personal data on 21,000 fans Read more: http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-20058500-245.html#ixzz1KwTRlCsj


A sales rep for the New York Yankees accidentally e-mailed a spreadsheet containing names, addresses, phone numbers, e-mail addresses, and seat numbers of more than 21,000 season ticket holders to thousands of clients, according to blog site Deadspin.
"There are no credit card numbers, but there are account ID numbers. And on Yankees.com, licensees need only their account ID number and password to access their accounts," the report said yesterday. "With the spreadsheet, we have all the account IDs and can probably guess more than a few passwords via spouse's names, street names, and good old 'abc123.' At the very least, the list email addresses are valuable to spammers."
Later, the Yankees sent an e-mail to season ticket subscribers confirming that a rep had inadvertently included an attachment with ticket holder information to an e-mail that was sent on Monday.
"Please note, immediately upon learning of the accidental attachment of the internal spreadsheet, remedial measures were undertaken so as to assure that a similar incident could not happen again," the e-mail said. "The Yankees deeply regret this incident, and any inconvenience that it might cause."
The mistake puts affected fans at risk of phishing attacks and people should be wary of e-mails or phone calls from people claiming to be affiliated with the Yankees and asking for sensitive information.
The data leak contrasts with other recent breaches that are attributed to hacking attacks or unauthorized access. Sony warned this week of a serious breach on the Sony PlayStation Network that puts data of as many as 77 million customers at risk and potentially includes credit card numbers. Earlier this month, dozens of big name financial companies and retailers were forced to warn customers earlier about the potential for phishing attacks after a breach at e-mail marketing provider Epsilon. And DSLReports.com also had e-mail addresses stolen in an attack on its site this week.


Read more: http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-20058500-245.html#ixzz1KwTF6Yyl
Continue Reading

Sony's missteps through the years


Sony is a venerable name in the world of consumer electronics. This is, after all, the company that invented the CD, the Walkman, the Blu-ray Disc, and has made a deep impression on the tech world and mainstream culture.
That's why when Sony screws up--something a company is apt to do every now and again while in business more than half a century--it's notable. Sometimes it's a singular event, other times it's a product with high expectations that ends up being a dud.
The latest mistake, the hacking of PlayStation Network customers' personal data, is a big one, though when put in the context of past events, it may not actually be the worst thing ever to befall Sony.
In light of the latest misstep this week, we've rounded up some of Sony's most memorable blunders. Did we forget any? Leave them in the comments below.
PSN Hack 
Anyone can be the target of a malicious hacking on the Web, but when it's a company like Sony, and 75 million names, e-mail addresses, birth dates, and addresses are at stake, it's big news.
Sony still hasn't said who hacked into its PlayStation Network and got access to the personal data of its customers, but it has said it's fairly sure credit card numbers were not exposed.
Sony's PS3
(Credit: Sony)
Still, what's angered most customers has been the lack of communication from the company--it took Sony a week after finding out about the security breach to inform customers--and the revelation that names, e-mail addresses, birth dates, and passwords were not encrypted.
Sony has still not said how it plans to compensate customers. At least one has an idea: an Alabama man is suing the company for free credit reporting services, as well as monetary damages for having his personal information illegally accessed.
Rootkit Scandal 
Sony got into trouble in November 2005 when it was discovered that the company used a rootkit on music CDs to limit the number of copies a person could make of the CD and to prevent making MP3 files from the music.
The rootkit was a bad idea for several reasons. It hid from the user the fact that Sony had placed this copy protection, it sent information about the CD being played to Sony, and it had a loophole that a hacker could use to hide a virus that could take over someone's computer. There was also no easy way to uninstall it.
As far as betraying customers' trust goes, that's pretty high up there on the list of things that are hard to recover from.
Faulty Lithium-ion batteries 
Just a year later, another controversy exploded. Literally. Though Sony is a relatively small player in selling PCs, it does a big business selling laptop batteries to basically all of its competitors.
In the summer of 2006, reports of laptops smoking or bursting into flames began to crop up. Turns out a pretty big batch of Sony's lithium-ion batteries, which all the flaming laptops were using, were defective. The problem came to light when Dell was forced to recall more than 4 million laptop batteries made by Sony. Eventually Apple issued a recall for 1.8 million notebook batteries, as did Gateway (now part of Acer), Toshiba, Lenovo, Fujitsu, and obviously Sony itself.
Original PS3: late and expensive 
Though it's a certifiable hit today--obviously the PSN story wouldn't have quite the impact if there weren't legions of customers--you might recall that when the PlayStation 3 finally hit store shelves, it did so under a cloud. It was delivered months later than originally planned, and by the time it was available, a cheaper Xbox had beaten it to market.
At $599, the 60GB PS3 was expensive--and Sony was said to be losing a lot of money on the console. Plenty of people lined up for it, but at first it was to cash in on the limited availability and resell the gadgets at insane prices. Many first customers who were avid PlayStation gamers were sorely disappointed by the lack of backward compatibility between the PS3 and many original PlayStation and PS2 games--a lack made worse by what these people saw as a dearth of compelling PS3 titles.
Failure to Connect
Sony's first attempt to build an iTunes competitor, known as Connect, did not go well. Begun in 2005, the 14-month-long project was, as one Sony insider put it, an unmitigated disaster. Because no one was happy with the final product, it was never set for official release in the U.S.--only Europe and Japan. Connect also highlighted the deep disconnects between the different silos within the company--a problem Chairman and CEO Sir Howard Stringer is still working to rectify.
Addiction to proprietary formats 
This one is an ongoing problem for Sony: the company's insistence on using proprietary formats in its electronics. Sony is obviously not the only company to use proprietary technology, but Sony has been around for so long that the pattern has become apparent.
For example, when it originally debuted, the PlayStation Portable came with a new format for portable games: UMD (universal media disc). Not a terrible move. But Sony stumbled when it then tried to push UMD as a new way of buying movie content. While UMD had enough storage to hold a video game, it wasn't big enough to compete with the amount of content a studio could squeeze onto a DVD. You also couldn't write to the disc to copy your own content onto it, and there was no way of outputting the video to a television.
Eventually most movie studios declined to re-up their participation in UMD, and when the updated PSP was released in 2009 Sony ditched the format altogether.
Other proprietary formats, like Memory Stick (Sony's version of an SD card), seemed like a way to boost one Sony business (storage) with another (requiring it for use in cameras or portable devices). It didn't make nearly the headway that SD cards did. Sony finally threw up the white flag on that battle atCES 2010 when it announced its cameras would accept SD cards in addition to Memory Stick, and even that Sony would manufacture SD cards itself.
The Wi-Fi enabled DSC-G3 camera.
The Wi-Fi enabled DSC-G3 camera
(Credit: Sarah Tew/CNET)
For more format losers, see also HiFD ("the floppy disk of the 21st century!") and Blu-spec CD (what is that, you ask? Exactly).
Great specs, lousy implementation: the Wi-Fi camera 
The Cybershot DSC-G3 Wi-Fi camera was the centerpiece of Sony's camera marketing bonanza at CES 2009, but it's largely now considered a dud. True, we here at CNET awarded the 10-megapixel, 4X zoom G3 the Best of CES award in the camera category that year, based on its impressive specs and Wi-Fi access that purported to allow easy wireless uploading of photos directly to the Web.
But the $499 price point, combined with the lack of 3G and only Wi-Fi, meant there wasn't always a guarantee you'd be within range of a connection that would let you upload your pictures. Plus the actual experience of using the Wi-Fi feature was a disappointment. So while it was a product packed with arguably great specs, it hasn't by any means caught on with customers.


Read more: http://news.cnet.com/8301-31021_3-20058433-260.html#ixzz1KwT6kwKe
Continue Reading

More bad news for Google TV



It was pretty much established that Google TV wasn't ready for prime time when it launched last fall, and now comes more proof.
Logitech has reported that the company's Revue with Google TV set-top box and the accompanying gear generated only about $5 million in sales during the last quarter. That's only about 72 percent less than the $18 million Logitech had expected. This was first reported by Janko Roettgers at the blogGigaOm.
One day I hope to learn why Google TV was rushed out. It wasn't like there weren't already plenty of risks posed by wedding the TV to computer software. Google TV is a software platform that comes equipped with the Android operating system and Google's Chrome browser.
Not only did Google launch a Web TV strategy that required users to shell out money for hardware, such as the Revue or a TV from Sony, but at the same time, competitors such as Netflix offered a much simpler and less-expensive option--they enabled users to watch Web TV with little more than a browser.
"At Google, we launch products early and iterate quickly based on consumer feedback. Our engineers are doing just that, and they're developing the next version of Google TV."
--Google spokesperson
Google TV's content strategy also stumbled badly out of the gate. Why launch and enable users to access the Web content from the major networks without cutting deals first? Google set itself up for a headline-grabbing smackdown, and that's what it got when the networks all blocked Google TV access.
A Google spokesman did not discuss Logitec's poor Revue numbers but did issue a statement:
"It's early days for Google TV and for internet-connected TVs in general," the spokesman wrote. "At Google, we launch products early and iterate quickly based on consumer feedback. Our engineers are doing just that, and they're developing the next version of Google TV, which will, for example, include Android Market. This will enable the applications from thousands of developers to come to Google TV."
Google TV isn't the only way the search company is trying to compete in Web-video entertainment. Google's YouTube operation is seeking to become relevant in feature film distribution as well. The company has long been making plans to build up the streaming library available at YouTube.
To improve the company's image with Hollywood and other content creators, Google has worked to thwart content piracy and beefed up its content acquisition team, which now features a former Netflix exec and multiple former managers from Paramount Pictures, the film studio owned by archrival Viacom.
Here's something else to remember, Google's first versions of its now successful Android operating system for mobile phones got off to a bumpy start. So, despite the troubles with Google TV, it's possible that Google's Web video effort is just ramping up.


Read more: http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-20058570-261.html#ixzz1KwSlxTiL
Continue Reading

Is AT&T a wireless spectrum hog?



AT&T is pinning its future on getting its hands on more wireless spectrum. But should regulators allow AT&T, which owns more wireless spectrum than any other wireless operator across the nation, to gobble up even more of this scarce resource?
That's the big question that the Federal Communications Commission is grappling with as it scrutinizes the planned merger between AT&T and T-Mobile, which will transfer all of T-Mobile's spectrum to AT&T. The FCC is also in the middle of considering AT&T's plan to buy spectrum in the lower part of the 700MHz band of spectrum from Qualcomm.
Wireless spectrum is like valuable real estate, and what's going on right now in the wireless market is akin to a good old fashioned land grab. The last major wireless auction for the 700MHz band of spectrum, which was considered beachfront property, was only a few years ago. Unfortunately, for wireless operators all the good "property" has already been bought. And until the FCC can free up more spectrum for auction, the only way for operators to get their hands on new spectrum is to buy it.
It's this desire for wireless "property" that is driving AT&T's $39 billion acquisition of the struggling wireless operator T-Mobile USA. It's also why AT&T plans to spend nearly $2 billion to acquire spectrum from Qualcomm, which the chipmaker used to build its failed mobile TV business called MediaFlo.
In its 381-page executive summary filed to the FCC last week (PDF) explaining why this megamerger, which will eliminate one of four nationwide U.S. carriers, is in the public interest, AT&T claims that without additional spectrum from T-Mobile, the carrier will not be able to fulfill short term needs for wireless broadband.
This is in spite of the fact that AT&T is today sitting on more spectrum than any other wireless operator in the top 21 markets in the U.S., and about a third of that spectrum is still being unused.
"It's hard to reach the conclusion that the wireless carrier with the most spectrum and best spectrum isn't able to serve its customers with what it already has," said Larry Krevor, a vice president of government affairs for Sprint. "Every carrier has to use its spectrum resources as efficiently as it can."
AT&T's spectrum holdings
In the top 21 markets in the U.S., AT&T has about 284 MHz more spectrum than its closest competitor, Verizon Wireless, according to data provided by Verizon. To put this in context, the FCC's National Broadband Report calls for an additional 500 MHz of spectrum to be made available for auction in the next decade to fulfill the needs of all wireless broadband providers. The FCC has proposed TV broadcasters to give up about 120 MHz in incentive auctions for wireless broadband within the next five years.
In San Francisco, where it's been well-publicized that AT&T has struggled to keep up with mobile data demand for its smartphones, particularly the iPhone, AT&T has about 30 MHz more 3G spectrum than Verizon Wireless. This 3G spectrum consists of spectrum in both the 850MHz band as well as the PCS band of spectrum.
In other markets, the difference in spectrum holdings is not that great. For example, in Washington, D.C., another major city where AT&T customers have complained about dropped calls and slow data speeds on their 3G wireless devices, AT&T only has about 10 MHz more of 3G spectrum than Verizon Wireless. In New York City, the second largest wireless market, where AT&T customers probably suffer the most from dropped calls and slow connections, AT&T has a deficit of about 10 MHz less than Verizon Wireless.
And this is just the spectrum that AT&T is already using to provide its 2G and 3G wireless services. The company hasn't even touched about 832 MHz of new wireless spectrum in the top 21 markets. This spectrum, which sits in the AWS and 700MHz bands, will be used to build AT&T's 4G LTE network. The company is building the network and has plans to launch it commercially this summer with a target of reaching 70 million to 75 million potential subscribers by the end of this year.
Verizon Wireless, which is also building a 4G LTE network using the AWS and 700 MHz spectrum, has about 918 MHz of this spectrum in the top 21 markets. Verizon launched its 4G wireless service in December, and it expects to serve 200 million people with the service this year. And by the end of 2013 it will be available to more than 285 million potential customers.
The 700MHz spectrum that AT&T and Verizon Wireless are using to build their LTE networks was the last bit of spectrum to become available. It had originally been allocated as analog TV spectrum. It was given back to the government after TV broadcasters were forced to start transmitting signals digitally to make their spectrum use more efficient. It's considered prime real estate in terms of wireless spectrum because the low frequency means that it can send data longer distances and penetrate buildings more easily than spectrum at higher frequencies.
AT&T and Verizon currently own more than 90 percent of the licenses for this spectrum in major cities throughout the U.S. And AT&T is hoping to add to its 700MHz coffers by buying an additional 12 MHz of 700 MHz spectrum that Qualcomm is selling. Qualcomm had used the spectrum to build a nationwide mobile TV network called MediaFlo.
Earlier this week, consumer groups, rural operators, and Sprint Nextel, wrote letters to the FCC asking the agency to reject Qualcomm's request to transfer the licenses to AT&T. They also said that if the FCC doesn't reject the proposal, they would at least like the agency to consider this spectrum license transfer along with the T-Mobile acquisition, since both transactions are fundamentally about increasing AT&T's spectrum holdings.
"Licenses for beachfront spectrum below 1 GHz are disproportionately held by two companies, AT&T and Verizon Wireless," representatives from Free Press, Media Access Project, Public Knowledge, Consumers Union, said in a letter to the FCC (PDF). "The proposed Qualcomm license transfer would only further this competitive disparity."
Spectrum is the 'lifeblood' of the wireless industry
There's no question that more spectrum means that wireless operators can serve more customers with faster, richer Internet services. In a recent speech to strum up support for incentive spectrum auctions that would bring more wireless spectrum to the market, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski called it the "lifeblood of the wireless ecosystem."
He also said that "mobile broadband is being adopted faster than any computing platform in history, and could surpass all prior platforms in their potential to drive economic growth and opportunity."
Indeed, smartphones have become more popular and consumers are using more data intensive applications, such as video streaming. Computing services are moving toward the "cloud," which is also increasing demand for wireless broadband. And it's true that wireless networks are starting to feel the strain.
In its filing last week to the FCC, AT&T says its network has more smartphones on it than any other wireless provider with a total of 31 million smartphone subscribers. The company highlighted that smartphones consume "24 times as much data as traditional cell phones."
AT&T says that as a result of the growth in smartphones and other connected devices, such as tablets, it has seen its data traffic grow 8,000 percent from 2007 to 2010. And that growth is expected to continue.
By 2015, AT&T estimates that mobile data traffic on its network will reach eight to ten times what it was in 2010. To put it another way, the company says that in just the first five to seven weeks of 2015, AT&T expects to carry all of the mobile traffic volume it carried during 2010.
"[The] spectrum crunch is hitting AT&T harder and sooner than the industry at large," it said in the filing. "And because AT&T plays a key role in supporting the cycle of mobile broadband innovation in the United States, its capacity problems could have ripple effects throughout the broadband ecosystem."
The loaded network is likely what's caused AT&T customers to already experience dropped calls and slow data service in certain markets, such as New York City and San Francisco. AT&T has admitted that it has struggled to keep up with demand in these cities, as well as certain other markets.
And it said that it's burning through spectrum at an accelerated rate trying to keep up with demand in certain markets.
"Whereas in 2004 it took 24 months in major markets to exhaust 10 MHz of spectrum," the company said. "From 2008-2010 growing UMTS demand caused AT&T to burn through 10 MHz in half that time or less in some major markets."
Without additional spectrum, AT&T says that service problems will get worse in certain markets. The company says that it has tried to deal with the capacity crunch by adding more cell sites and using offload technologies such as Wi-Fi and femto cells, which create mini cell sites within people's offices or homes. But it says that these solutions are merely band-aids that don't address the real problem.
The solution, according to AT&T is getting additional spectrum through its merger with T-Mobile USA. T-Mobile doesn't have any of the 700 MHz that AT&T may need to build its new LTE network, but it does have about 580 MHz of 3G spectrum in the top 21 markets, which AT&T could use to help alleviate some of its congestion on the existing 3G network in those markets. And it also has 580 MHz of AWS spectrum in these top markets, which AT&T could eventually use to expand its 4G LTE build out. In fact, AT&T claims that with the T-Mobile spectrum it could reach 97 percent of the population with its 4G network.
AT&T argues that T-Mobile is also capacity constrained when it comes to spectrum and can't afford to acquire new spectrum to sustain future growth. Therefore it makes sense for the two companies to combine "real estate."
"This transaction provides the most effective, efficient, and timely resolution of the capacity constraints facing AT&T and T-Mobile USA," AT&T writes.
Competitors say hold on a second
AT&T's competitors say the carrier is facing the same issues they each face. And they argue that if AT&T is truly struggling to keep up with demand, it may be because the company has not managed its resources well or invested enough in its network.
Look at Verizon Wireless as an example. Verizon, which has 104 million wireless connections on its network as of the end of the first quarter of 2011 compared with 97.5 million total wireless subscribers on AT&T's network, has on average about 10 MHz less spectrum in the top 21 U.S. markets than AT&T. And yet its service is often praised for its reliability.
"We have been building capacity into our network and investing in our network for several years," said Molly Feldman, vice president of business development for Verizon Wireless. "That's why we are in a strong position today."
Some critics question whether AT&T has invested enough in its network. Between 2008 and 2010, AT&T spent $21.1 billion to upgrade its wireless network, according to an FCC filing. During that same period, Verizon spent about $22.1 billion.
Martin Peers points out in a blog for The Wall Street Journal that even though AT&T already knew that it had congestion problems on its network after the introduction of the iPhone in 2007, it still only increased wireless capital expenditures by 1 percent in 2009 compared with an increase in capital spending from Verizon Wireless by about 10 percent.
Meanwhile, Verizon executives say the company has enough spectrum until at least 2015 to keep up with demands on its network. And like AT&T, Verizon now offers the data hungry Apple iPhone and iPad 2 along with several models of Google Android smartphones.
"The bottom line here is that this is about managing the network," Sprint's Krevor said. "I've got to give Verizon credit. They have a little bit less spectrum in some markets than AT&T and more subscribers than AT&T overall. And they don't have these same issues. They've done a better job of managing their network."
Krevor went on to say that AT&T has no one else to blame but itself for the dilemma it faces now.
"If AT&T has a spectrum use issue, it's one of its own making," he said. "They haven't managed their network effectively, so they think the solution is to simply acquire the nearest competitor."
Krevor said that every wireless operator would love to add more spectrum to its network to increase network capacity as it grows. But he said that isn't always possible given the that spectrum is a finite resources. And instead of allowing AT&T to eliminate a competitor, he believes the market will force AT&T and other wireless operators to use their spectrum more efficiently.
"Competition forces you to improve and invest in the network to make the services as good as they can be," he said. "We (Sprint Nextel) didn't do a great job of integrating the Nextel spectrum into our network, and the market punished us. We responded by fixing those issues. Why shouldn't AT&T do the same?


Read more: http://news.cnet.com/8301-30686_3-20058494-266.html#ixzz1KwSE1Kkb
Continue Reading

Total Pageviews

Blog Archive

Powered by Blogger.

Tag

android (1) apple co. (5) blacberry (1) computer (4) facebook (1) gadgets (19) gaming (7) google (5) Google (1) i phones (2) mac (2) microsoft (4) Mobiles (19) movies (1) news (15) robot (1) site (3) skype (1) space (3) spy (1) Tablets (7)