Categories
Rants Technology

How Vodacom, MTN and Cell C make big money at our expense.

Cell site
Image via Wikipedia

I just came across an interesting article on the New York Times where Randall Stross decided to investigate the actual costs a text message has for a cellular network operator. Finally someone did the research I’d been too lazy to do for a while.

As I suspected, a text/sms message is basically free. They are sent to the nearest tower over a control channel – a channel that exists in order for the phone to communicate with the network, and so stuffing that channel with a message bears very little overhead, if any. This also explains the stupid 160 character limit that texts are subject to.

So yeah, another blatant rip-off. Go ahead, send your R10 messages to 35050 now!

[Article Link: New York Times]

[Update: A slightly more in-depth technical discussion by Tom Limoncelli at EverythingSysadmin.com]

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
Categories
Computing Technology

Social Media Specialists, Whatever…

These two blue tits above give us a great reminder of what you get yourself into when you start looking for a social media specialist. Everyone’s on the bandwagon, so you’re better off approaching the straight-talking technical rockstar, someone with a proven skill, experience, ability and great in-depth knowledge of computing, the internet and all things web 2.0, instead of getting a marketer-turned-so-called-“internet guru” to waste your money for you.

Categories
Blogging Rants Technology

AdGator Copies Text Link Ads [Blatant Design Piracy]

The single most irritating thing about South Africans, the interwebs, and web 2.0 is that nobody can dream up a single original idea and build it. (Except for, I’m hoping, this guy). We copy muti from digg, amatomu and afrigator from technorati, Synthasite from [choose-your-lame-site-builder], Blueworld “social network” (ahem!) from myspace, AmaGama/iBlog from WordPress.com/Blogger, Zoopy/YouTube, the list goes on, and then we slap some really stupid justification like “we are localising it for a South African audience“.

Yeah, localising it for what South African audience? The one that uses the *other* internet that we have in SA, not the *real* Internet? Come on.

Yes, you all suck on originality, copycats, and that pisses me off.

But there’s a new one. And oh, how the mighty have fallen!

After bitching and whining and moaning and circle-jerking in a great hoohaa about how Regator kinda sorta maybe looks a bit like Afrigator, yes I’m looking at you Mike, and Stii, and Justin, and co, you have the nerve to launch Adgator on the site design of Text Link Ads. That’s pretty low. And Lame. You couldn’t even change all the text…

Did you honestly think nobody would notice? Or was I surfing on that *real* Internet that doesn’t have an audience in SA and this is a better more “localized” version?

Sorry to be so blunt guys, but you just fucked yourselves. How do we take you seriously now, when you’re being hypocrites and copycats? Even worse, I don’t want to be angry – I like you guys!

Go on! Click the image below: See for yourself.

(BTW, I’m not against a South African ad network – that idea does make sense. Yes I do want to use Adgator to sell ads on my site, I think its a great thing, but it’s risking being horribly spoiled by some designer laziness.)

Of course I’m looking forward to the entertaining comments and excuses… 😉

[I’ve just seen that Chris M spotted this a couple days back…]

Categories
Computing Security Technology

How Vodacom, MTN and iBurst punch (gaping) holes in your corporate security

This week in MyDigitalLife: The hidden risks of mobile data card usage at the office.

Technorati Tags: security, network, 3g, data, access, CEO, vodacom, mtn, iburst, internet, mobile

Categories
Freedom Technology

A Cellular Conspiracy?

Interesting reading the following few links are.
Still, I’d prefer to be able to read in silence on a long flight than deal with my neighbours’ cheesy ring tones…

http://money.cnn.com/2004/12/09/technology/personaltech/cellphones_inflight/?cnn=yes

“The FCC rules have less to do with the effects on a plane’s navigation than concerns that cell phones on planes could wreak havoc with cell phone systems on the ground.”

http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,41177,00.html

‘…What’s more, many of the reasons are unclear, especially since many airlines have FAA-approved, seat-installed cell phones of their own. It costs about $3 a minute to make an in-flight call in the United States; a 20-minute call costing $60 doesn’t exactly make company accountants jump for joy…

…”I question (the prohibition of cell phones in flight) because they have a telephone if you pay for it,” said Larry Murphy, vice president of sales and marketing for Flying Food Group…’

‘…Airlines generally abide by the FAA’s recommendation, but what they don’t tell passengers is that no agency — not even the RTCA — has come up with definitive evidence of portable electronic devices interfering with a plane’s instruments…’

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_phone

Using mobile phones on aircraft

…The use of mobile phones is generally forbidden on aircraft during flight. One reason given for this is that the mobile phone could interfere with the sensitive equipment on the aircraft. This could be restated as “during development these aircraft were not designed to accept signals from mobile phones and there has not been sufficient testing to be sure that they could” as can be seen from plans to improve certification [1] (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/389/srg_sys_00002-01-300103.pdf). Some level of electromagnetic interference is theoretically possible from active radio transmitters such as mobile phones on aircraft. Exactly how much and in what way is dependent on the particular phone system in use and the plane component in question. Whether that level of interference should have any influence on electronic systems which should be designed to fly through lightning storms without falling out of the sky is an entirely different question…

…One area in which interference would be most likely is in the radio-based audio equipment used for voice communications between the aeroplane and the ground. The mobile phone transmitter is much closer to the receiver on the aircraft than the ground station, but operates at a lower power than the ground station…

…Another factor is that from an altitude, distant cells are visible to the mobile with no line-of-sight attenuation from intervening obstacles. This means that the phone could try to establish contact with a far away cell where the signal will not be recognised. This transmission will probably be at maximum power due to the lack of prior response. The U.S. Federal Communications Commission prohibits the use of mobile phones in the air for this reason. This repeated sending of maximum power messages increases the risk of interference with electronic equipment on the aircraft…

…All of the above having been said, according to the BBC “most of the evidence is circumstantial and anecdotal. There is no absolute proof mobile phones are hazardous.” [2] (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/399154.stm) Some airlines do allow use of mobiles phones in flight, only restricting their use (and use of all other electronic devices) during take off and landing when communications with the ground are most critical…

…Some articles have even gone so far as to accuse the airline industry of pushing the ban on mobile phones in order to increase revenue from on board telephones [3] (http://news.zdnet.co.uk/business/0,39020645,2074198,00.htm). A number of new phones have an “aeroplane mode” feature that presumably stops all incoming and outgoing communications while still allowing the user to play games, type notes etc…