
<?phpxml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" 
xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
>
<channel>
<title>Haaze.com / cherrieeec / All</title>
<link>http://www.haaze.com</link>
<description>Test Web 2.0 Content Management System</description>
<pubDate>Fri, 13 May 2011 07:10:22 +0000</pubDate>
<language>en</language>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Meeting the need for spectrum]]></title>
<link>http://www.haaze.com/story.php?title=meeting-the-need-for-spectrum</link>
<comments>http://www.haaze.com/story.php?title=meeting-the-need-for-spectrum</comments>
<pubDate>Fri, 13 May 2011 07:10:22 +0000</pubDate>
<dc:creator>cherrieeec</dc:creator>
<category>Technology</category>
<guid>http://www.haaze.com/story.php?title=meeting-the-need-for-spectrum</guid>
<description><![CDATA[Editors' note: This is a guest column. See Richard Bennett's bio below.The National Broadband Plan delivered to Congress by the Federal Communications Commission last year recommended the licensing of 500MHz of new spectrum to mobile broadband providers, including 120MHz currently held by local TV broadcasters. The nature of the incentive auction that would enable willing broadcasters to transfer this spectrum to mobile operators (for a portion of auction proceeds) is under debate in Washington, as are means of transferring additional spectrum currently held by government agencies. Wheels move slowly in Washington, and mobile providers can't wait for the outcome of policy debates that may take years to reach successful resolution. AT&amp;T proposes to meet its short-term spectrum needs by purchasing 12MHz from Qualcomm and to purchase T-Mobile's spectrum assets, along with the rest of the company.Both of these moves are controversial, although the issues with the Qualcomm deal are much less serious than critics maintain (PDF). Those who oppose AT&amp;T's efforts to increase its spectrum holdings generally insist that the demands for spectrum can be satisfied by increased technical efficiency and the construction of new radio towers. However, as we assess the virtues or dangers of the merger of AT&amp;T and T-Mobile, it's unrealistic to suggest that efficiency and tower construction can meet the demand for spectrum alone. Who's hogging the airwaves It's disingenuous to label any of the mobile operators a slothful spectrum hog. Unlike other wireless networks, mobile networks are the products of ongoing deep investment in technology, deployment, and spectrum: The mobile networks have advanced through four generations of technology in 10 years, while the broadcast TV and radio networks are only one generation removed from their original form. It's certainly not the case that any one of the mobile operators today is wasting the spectrum they've purchased through auction. A recent report by Bernstein Research shows that the larger the network, the greater its efficiency. The greatest oversupply on a per-user basis is currently found in the combined Sprint-Clearwire network that floundered on an unfortunate experiment with WiMax.(Credit:Source: Bernstein Research, used by permission from Craig Moffett)Forecasting spectrum demand The linchpin of the efficiency argument is the simple observation that spectrum demand depends on two factors: one, user demand for data capacity' and two, network efficiency in terms of data capacity per unit of spectrum. These two factors don't progress at the same rate. The rule of thumb for spectrum efficiency is Cooper's Law, the prediction that spectral efficiency doubles every 30 months. Demand for capacity moves several times faster than this, driven by the replacement of dumb cell phones with smartphones and by the eventual desire of smartphone users to do more things from more places. The radical increase in spectrum use since the advent of theiPhone has been driven by replacement, but we can reasonably predict that demand will continue to increase even after all the legacy phones are decommissioned. We've seen this dynamic on the residential broadband networks that are now pushing 100Mbps per user, a dizzying increase from the megabit-per-user capacity they had when deployed only a decade ago. How far the demand ultimately goes is anyone's guess: several countries are building Gigabit residential networks on the assumption that future application bundles will require cavernous capacity. Past growth in network utilization is a poor guide to future demand, because utilization is always capped by capacity, so most exercises in demand forecasting are ultimately backward-looking exercises in measuring network investment. There's good reason to believe that mobile app developers can find ways to use dozens of megabits per smartphone user, at least for short periods of time, as we become more accustomed to mobile video, augmented reality, and mobile conferencing. Mobile network connections aren't shared to the same extent as residential broadband, but the investment required to meet mobile demand is greater on a per-megabit basis than it is for wireline.Meeting the demand without breaking the bank The efficiency argument tends to overlook the fact that all means of increasing mobile network capacity aren't equally costly. Because Cooper's Law moves slower than Moore's Law, technology alone can't solve the mobile capacity problem. Critics recognize this, for the most part, and argue that tower construction can relieve the remaining deficit. Construction is a bricks-and-mortar issue that doesn't leverage technology at all. A cell tower costs roughly $150,000 to build, and splitting a cell into a group of smaller cells generally requires three new ones. Splitting cells across the nation could easily cost large network operators $40 billion apiece, roughly twice as much as the cost of their current networks. This money can only come from consumers.Expense isn't the only issue with new tower construction: Each new tower requires approval from local zoning boards that move even more slowly than Washington, flouting the FCC's tower siting &quot;shot clock&quot; rule. Thousands of tower siting applications currently await approval. Freeing up spectrum for use by existing towers is a much more economically efficient path. As more spectrum is available per tower, network operators can bond channels and focus their beams on smaller sectors of the geography around each tower. These means enable users to transition to leading-edge applications without breaking the piggybank. Efficiency is important, but there's no substitute for spectrum.The solution Maintaining adequate competition among mobile network operators depends on freeing up spectrum currently assigned to legacy uses such as broadcast TV and obsolete government systems and making it available for high-demand applications. The appropriate mechanisms for doing this are spectrum auctions, secondary markets, secondary uses, and flexible policies. The U.S. lags the rest of the world in LTE spectrum allocations because we haven't moved rapidly enough at reassigning spectrum. This is a problem that sound policy and decisive government action can address.<br/><br/>0 Vote(s) ]]></description>
</item>

<item>
<title><![CDATA[PSN breach exposes records for millions (roundup)]]></title>
<link>http://www.haaze.com/story.php?title=psn-breach-exposes-records-for-millions-roundup</link>
<comments>http://www.haaze.com/story.php?title=psn-breach-exposes-records-for-millions-roundup</comments>
<pubDate>Wed, 27 Apr 2011 07:11:05 +0000</pubDate>
<dc:creator>cherrieeec</dc:creator>
<category>Technology</category>
<guid>http://www.haaze.com/story.php?title=psn-breach-exposes-records-for-millions-roundup</guid>
<description><![CDATA[A week after taking itsPlayStation Network offline, Sony finally explains that it did so because of a security breach that exposed personal information for potentially more than 75 million of its users. Sony: Personal info compromised on PSNSony says billing addresses, user names, passwords, and possibly credit card information belonging to its PlayStation Network customers have been stolen. (Posted in Circuit Breaker by Erica Ogg)April 26, 2011 1:07 PM PDT Five questions for Sony about PSN breachThe company finally came clean with customers yesterday about the personal information exposed in a PlayStation Network security breach. But there's still plenty more Sony needs to answer for.(Posted in Circuit Breaker by Erica Ogg)April 27, 2011 12:21 PM PDT  Are fraud reports related to Sony breachSony PlayStation Network customers report fraud, but it's unclear if cases are related to the Sony data breach.(Posted in InSecurity Complex by Elinor Mills)April 27, 2011 4:55 PM PDT Sony sued for PlayStation Network data breachA suit filed today accuses Sony of not ensuring the security of its customers' personal data after the network was accessed last week by an unauthorized person.(Posted in Circuit Breaker by Erica Ogg)April 27, 2011 9:56 AM PDT Sony PS3 data breach highlights what a loser I amForget credit card security concerns. CBSNews.com's David Hancock is pining to post his PixelJunk Monsters scores on the downed network.(Posted in Crave by David Hancock)April 27, 2011 2:54 PM PDT PlayStation Network outage: 6 days and countingSony still has no answers for its customers who'd like to access its video and game downloading center. Cloud music subscription service Qriocity is also unavailable.&amp;149'&amp;nbsp'PlayStation Network outage continues&amp;149'&amp;nbsp'Friday Poll: Should Sony reimburse gamers for PSN outage(Posted in Circuit Breaker by Erica Ogg)April 26, 2011 9:53 AM PDT.postBody h3, .postBody h4{font-size: 1.2em'margin: 10px 0 0 0 'padding: 0px'font-weight: bold'border-bottom: none'}<br/><br/>0 Vote(s) ]]></description>
</item>

<item>
<title><![CDATA[NASA network holes may jeopardize missions]]></title>
<link>http://www.haaze.com/story.php?title=nasa-network-holes-may-jeopardize-missions</link>
<comments>http://www.haaze.com/story.php?title=nasa-network-holes-may-jeopardize-missions</comments>
<pubDate>Tue, 29 Mar 2011 07:10:46 +0000</pubDate>
<dc:creator>cherrieeec</dc:creator>
<category>Technology</category>
<guid>http://www.haaze.com/story.php?title=nasa-network-holes-may-jeopardize-missions</guid>
<description><![CDATA[Weak security practices and critical holes in NASA's agency-wide network could allow an attack over the Internet that would disrupt missions and expose sensitive data, according to a government report. &quot;Until NASA addresses these critical deficiencies and improves its IT security practices, the Agency is vulnerable to computer incidents that could have a severe to catastrophic effect on Agency assets, operations, and personnel,&quot; said the Inspector General's report, titled &quot;Inadequate Security Practices Expose Key NASA Network to Cyber Attack (PDF),&quot; released yesterday.  NASA uses a series of networks to carry out its various missions, which include controlling spacecraft like the International Space Station and conducting science missions like the Hubble Telescope.  The Office of Inspector General (OIG) found that servers on the NASA network had &quot;high-risk&quot; vulnerabilities that were exploitable from the Internet and that specifically six servers containing critical data and used for controlling spacecraft were found to have holes that would allow a remote attacker to take control over them or render them inaccessible. Once inside the network, an attacker could exploit other weaknesses auditors identified, which could &quot;severely degrade or cripple NASA's operations,&quot; the report said.  Poorly configured network servers revealed encryption keys and encrypted passwords and one server disclosed sensitive account data for all its authorized users. The information could be used to target NASA personnel with phishing attacks and e-mails containing malicious code designed to compromise the recipient's computer.  The OIG recommended last May that NASA immediately establish an IT (information technology) security oversight program for the key network. As of last month, such a program was not implemented despite the fact that NASA agreed with the recommendation, the report said.  The problems are not just theoretical' NASA's network has been breached. In January 2009, attackers stole 22 gigabytes of export-restricted data from a Jet Propulsion Laboratory computer system, according to the report. Later that year, a computer system that supports one of NASA's mission networks was infected and was causing the system to make more than 3,000 unauthorized connections to domestic and international Internet Protocol addresses including addresses in China, the Netherlands, Saudi Arabia and Estonia, the OIG said.  &quot;The sophistication of both of these Internet-based intrusions confirms that they were focused and sustained efforts to target assets on NASA's mission computer networks,&quot; the report said.  NASA representatives could not be reached for comment late today. <br/><br/>0 Vote(s) ]]></description>
</item>

<item>
<title><![CDATA[Five ways the iPad 2 works on the buyer's subconscious]]></title>
<link>http://www.haaze.com/story.php?title=five-ways-the-ipad-2-works-on-the-buyers-subconscious</link>
<comments>http://www.haaze.com/story.php?title=five-ways-the-ipad-2-works-on-the-buyers-subconscious</comments>
<pubDate>Sat, 19 Mar 2011 07:10:03 +0000</pubDate>
<dc:creator>cherrieeec</dc:creator>
<category>Mobile &amp; Electronics</category>
<guid>http://www.haaze.com/story.php?title=five-ways-the-ipad-2-works-on-the-buyers-subconscious</guid>
<description><![CDATA[Apple Store at The Grove in the Beverly Hills area of Los Angeles. Lines are still forming for the iPad 2. When the line gets too long, the store truncates it by moving most of the people about a block away.(Credit:Brooke Crothers)Nothing succeeds like success. This maxim could be tweaked for theiPad 2 to nothing sells like success. That's the opinion of a consumer behavior expert who looked at how the chronically sold out iPad 2 works on the buyer's psyche. People crave what they can't get--another maxim that applies here. Consumers would happily pay up front to reserve an iPad 2 at their local store. But they can't. Apple isn't doing the reservation thing this time. So, they wait in long lines (which, by the way, are still forming early every morning at Apple stores in Los Angeles, where I live. And also count me as falling prey to this psychosis.) &quot;Why would [Apple] deny my money and a for-certain sale&quot;--Philip Graves, who has just published a book on the psychology of shopping, asks in a publicist's note sent out this week. &quot;Whatever the cause,&quot; Graves says, &quot;here's why the iPad situation works psychologically:&quot; Heightened desirability: &quot;It implicitly confirms the desirability of the item--it's a way of providing apparent social proof that this is a popular thing, and that's very attractive.&quot; The adventure: &quot;It creates discussion around each sale: suddenly buying one isn't just an acquisition, it's a story about serendipity or determination (or whatever)' humans love stories, and the excitement gets attributed (and misattributed) to the product.&quot; Loss aversion: &quot;Perhaps the biggest win is that, when a customer does come across one in stock, his purchase mindset is completely different. The unconscious mind is running a process to protect us a lot of the time (loss aversion)--it's trying to make sure we don't feel bad in the future. Ordinarily, with aregularly available product, the process is focusing on whether we could buy the item more cheaply elsewhere, whether we really want it badly enough,whether we might find a better alternative down the line. When supply is restricted (and you see the same thing in housing booms) the loss aversionis switched to fear that NOT buying the product will result in regret: when will you see one again if you don't grab it now You don't have theunconscious concern about finding one elsewhere because securing one at all is a result.&quot; Wow factor: &quot;In addition to all the other basic psychological drives that might cause us to want an iPad, you can add in or bolster several others because of the circumstances...now having an iPad (or iPad 2) has extra wow-factor, because it's less likely your friends will pull theirs out and say, 'Oh sure, I have one too.' People who have a strong competitive drive are also attracted to own one because it's a chance to be one up on other people. The list price becomes a bargain: &quot;Opportunists buy up stocks when they become available and sell them on auction sites like eBay. This creates the sort of price-skimming that retailers and brands could never get away with themselves (where the people with more money pay more because they can). Of course, people see this and you now have a price frame for the store item: people now see that they are getting an item that (some) people are prepared to pay $700 or $1,000 for, at the price of $499. All of a sudden the list price is a bargain.&quot; The truth is, many people realize a lot of what Graves is saying and choose to ignore it. My advice: get in line, brother. <br/><br/>0 Vote(s) ]]></description>
</item>

</channel>
</rss>
