Rather than face regulation, wireless service providers have struck a deal with the Federal Communications Commission to warn customers about impending overage charges for voice, text and data use.

Customers will receive free text alerts in real-time when they’re about to exceed their limits, CNET reports. The move is supposed to cut down on the “bill shock” people may feel when hit with sky-high rates for extra usage. Wireless carriers will also warn customers who travel overseas about the additional fees they may incur.

The FCC has been talking about bill shock countermeasures for over a year. In May 2010, an FCC survey found that 17% of mobile customers have seen unexpected spikes in their bills, and that most of those people weren’t alerted ahead of time.

In October, the commission proposed rules that included the warnings wireless carriers are now implementing voluntarily. The FCC also considered mandating an easy way for customers to cap their own usage, so they’d never get hit with overage charges.

I’m guessing wireless providers struck a deal to avoid that mandate. The wireless industry loves overage fees, and the huge amounts of money they bring in. Earlier this year, the industry even tried to argue that overage fees are good for you, which of course is totally crazy, but shows how badly the industry doesn’t want those charges to go away.

Under the volunteer measures, wireless carriers have 18 months to put their warning systems in place. Yes, government is that slow.

Some providers, including AT&T and Verizon Wireless, already warn their customers as their data use approaches the limit. However, these warnings may be delayed. AT&T, for example, takes 24 hours. The agreement for real-time alerts may require wireless providers to speed up their systems.

As CNET points out, several apps are available for monitoring your own usage, including DataMan Pro, 3G Watchdog and Onavo, in case you don’t feel like waiting for wireless carriers.

The bill was simultaneously introduced in both the House and Senate today.

It aims to codify how companies may use and share data, as well as giving consumers more power in consenting to such tracking. In addition, the legislation provides guidelines on how government and law enforcement may use the location data on wireless phones.

While Wyden and Chaffetz said that it is a good thing that such technology exists, they also said there is a lack of regulation surrounding how this data can be shared or used. “It is the job of Congress to protect and defend the United States Constitution and the personal liberties provided to American citizens under the Fourth Amendment,” Chaffetz said.

The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches without a warrant, and Wyden and Chaffetz would like to extend these protections to mobile location data. It would also regulate how such data could be admissible as evidence in court.

Wyden and Chaffetz’s efforts are likely to be welcomed by privacy advocates who have sounded the alarm that such data could be used by the government to spy on its citizens. Obviously, there would be extenuating circumstances where no warrant would be required, but for the most part law enforcement or the government would be prohibited from snooping without cause.

A similar bill has also been introduced by Sens. Al Franken (D-Minn.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.). That legislation, called the Location Privacy Protection Act of 2011, would compel companies to inform when they collect location data, and give consumers the right to opt out if they desire.

Either way, it’s good to see such efforts beginning in Capitol Hill. Right now, the U.S .has no protections for its citizens regarding our mobile location data. It’s time we did.

The database helped Mark Lemley, the William H. Neukom Professor of Law and the director of the Law, Science Technology Program, determine that patent trolls account for nearly 30% of suits in the IT industry, depending on who is defined as a troll, he said. The clearinghouse data shows that trolls are “disproportionately owners of the most-litigated patents — the ones that show up in dozens of different lawsuits,” he added.

Lemley has conducted research to identify the characteristics of patent trolls, and has testified as an expert for the US Senate on the topic of patent reform.

“I do think [trolls] have a larger impact than the percentage alone would suggest, especially in the IT industries,” Lemley said. He added that the data will help dispel myths about patent litigation from who sues to who wins, and how much defendants have to pay. “We are giving the world access to the facts in a way they’ve never had before.”

Lex Machina is an outgrowth of a research project called the Stanford Intellectual Property Litigation Clearinghouse (IPLC). IPLC was developed to provide scholars, policy makers and citizens with open and instant access to data about intellectual property litigation in the United States.

The database grew so vast that Lex Machina was spun off as a separate venture to sustain development, according to Stanford. It now contains over 100,000 cases, over 10 million docket entries, and automates the parsing of that data. “The company includes more computer scientists than lawyers, and has people working at the very forefront of machine learning,” Lemley noted.

I applaud Stanford’s work, and hope that the IPLC database is used to drive patent reform, demystifying a complicated issue. Higher quality patents will protect investments in intellectual property while preserving the ability of start ups to do innovative things.

Opera filed a complaint with the EC in 2007 alleging that Microsoft illegally bundled Internet Explorer with Windows. That complaint was settled today when Microsoft and the EC came to an agreement over a browser ballot for Windows that lets the end users choose which browser they would like to use as their default.

The EC has changed Microsoft’s behavior–for better or worse. It has levied approximately $2.3 billion in fines against the company following its landmark 2004 antitrust ruling, where it was found to have abused it dominant market position. The EC has likewise compelled Microsoft to share information about its products, and to modify Windows in Europe.

I believe that those actions helped bring about the innovation that is happening in the development of Web browsers today, but at the same time, I cannot downplay the impact that the innovative work of Google, the Mozilla Foundation, and others have had on the industry. The EC also instigated Microsoft to be more responsive to customers’ requests for greater interoperability.

After much soul searching, Microsoft is now willing to embrace open source software when its business objectives are being met. The same goes for its new found emphasis on interoperability– its biggest customers wouldn’t have it any other way. Embracing cross platform scenarios has become a business opportunity for Microsoft. Innovation and standardization on the Web has changed the competitive environment.

With that change underway, the question is where the EC’s oversight should go from here. If Google is able to tie its browser into Chrome OS to rapidly bring users to its Web properties, why can’t Microsoft? It cannot chart the same source as Google, in part because it is a convicted monopolist, and Windows is still practically everywhere.

If and when Microsoft does attempt to leverage Windows in new ways, its actions will be heavily scrutinized. It could preempt further antitrust action by making features such as the browser ballot a default part of Windows.

The EC should keep its powder dry unless Microsoft is clearly in the wrong (and then be punished severely). As the industry continues to innovate, Microsoft should contribute significantly to the development of new technologies. I just hope that the EC realizes that Microsoft can play a constructive role in the industry.

The EFF views EULAs as private contracts that enable online service providers to circumvent existing law and dictate their legal relationship with customers. They are frequently written to be one-sided in favor of the service provider, and are “designed to be beyond judicial scrutiny,” it said.

The organization’s objective is to cut through confusing legalese, and state what the contracts say in plain language. That goal is laudable, and could lead to greater transparency, but I wonder whether it is a problem that end users actually care about.

Do the majority of people even read EULAs before they click “Accept”? It’s doubtful. People just want to use the service, whether it be Gmail or an online game, and the provider determines how its service should be used.

The EFF needs to communicate the value of what it is doing to the public in order to be successful. Unfortunately, it is facing an uphill battle.

If a bridge collapsed, people would demand consequences. Yet, software failures are accepted, and the cost of those failures is passed onto consumers. With the exception of businesses that have iron-clad service level agreements, we are accustomed to a one-sided relationship with software vendors. There is no real framework for liability in the software industry.

It takes a group like EFF to stand up for users’ rights.

FTC has Google Voice questions.

Adobe puts Photoshop on iPhones.

Using Kindle overseas: It’s pricey!

Ugh-video spam on YouTube.

Google Squared gets more useful.

More on free Office 2010′s ads.

Indies can’t afford iTunes LP.

Sergey Brin defends Google Books.

Sinclair, maker of amazing gadgets.

________________________

Like 5Words? Subscribe via RSS.

After repeatedly wrangling with Microsoft over whether the company would be permitted to ship Internet Explorer 8 with Windows 7, the EC and Microsoft reached a compromise: letting customers pick which browser they want. Windows 7 users in European countries will select their default browser from a ballot screen that will be pushed for customers to configure via Windows Update.

The ballot features a choice of 12 browsers; browsers are listed alphabetically by vendor, and are sorted into groups according to their popularity. Microsoft provides introductory information for each option. You can see a screen shot of the ballot screen here.

Further action could be taken against Microsoft pending the EC’s findings in the Opera antitrust case. Opera indicated today that more work was needed for the ballot remedy to become acceptable.

I’d be interested in knowing what the users ultimately do, and would like to see data about installations to see if it jives with what is being reported on the Web. Firefox 3 has surpassed IE 7′s market share in Europe, but who’s to say that the remedy isn’t effective if Internet Explorer 8 is the most popular choice. As long as people are happy with the process and it is fair, the results really don’t matter.

Here’s the FTC’s entire document, in case you feel like reading all eighty-one pages (I’ll wait):

Even if you read the whole darn thing, the upshot is hard to summarize. But I’ll give it a try: The FTC is trying to clarify its expectations of paid endorsers, a group into which it lumps real people who givetestimonials in ads, celebrity spokespeople, and bloggers. It wants bloggers who receive products or who otherwise have “material connections” to the companies whose products they write about to disclose the relationship. If they don’t, they’re at risk of receiving a fine of up to $11,000.

As with many things done by most government agencies, there are good intentions here: Thanks to services such as Pay for Post, it’s entirely reasonable to wonder if a rave review you read on the Web from somebody you’ve never heard of is a sincere appraisal–or whether it’s the result of a business transaction. Are there bloggers whose “reviews” are actually paid-for raves, not criticism? You betcha. Does that constitute fraud? I think so.

But the FTC isn’t zeroing in on these fibbers–it’s casting its net to include all bloggers who receive products for review from manufacturers, or who otherwise have those vague “material connections.” That includes a large number of writers whose opinions aren’t for sale. (In this page, I disclose my policies for product loans, travel, and other related matters.)

I don’t mind being held to a high standard. But I’m still scratching my head over exactly how to make the FTC happy. The “material connections” are especially mystifying–since most of Technologizer’s revenue is derived from advertising, and most of our advertisers are technology companies, many of whom we cover in articles, we have “material connections” all over the place. Does the FTC want Technologizer to run a disclosure each time we mention a product from a company who’s advertised on this site? I’m not sure.

My biggest objection to the guidelines is the fact that they fixate on bloggers at all. They specifically say that newspapers, magazines, TV, and radio get something close to a free pass on disclosures:

The Commission acknowledges that bloggers may be subject to different disclosure requirements than reviewers in traditional media. In general, under usual circumstances, the Commission does not consider reviews published in traditional media (i.e., where a newspaper, magazine, or television or radio station with independent editorial responsibility assigns an employee to review various products or services as part of his or her official duties, and then publishes those reviews) to be sponsored advertising messages. Accordingly, such reviews are not “endorsements” within the meaning of the Guides. Under these circumstances, the Commission believes, knowing whether the media entity that published the review paid for the item in question would not affect the weight consumers give to the reviewer’s statements. Of course, this view could be different if the reviewer were receiving a benefit directly from the manufacturer (or its agent).

In a footnote to the above, the FTC states:

The Commission’s view would be the same if the employee worked for an Internet
news website with independent editorial responsibility, rather than a traditional brick-and mortar periodical.

All of which leaves me wondering: What the heck am I?

When people ask me whether Technologizer is a blog or not, I usually pause, think it over, and then come up with the same answer every time: The posts on the site are displayed in reverse-chronological order on the home page. Which makes this site a blog, and makes me a blogger (along with my fellow Technologizer contributors).

But a blog is only a method of displaying content. One that’s used by everyone from college students to the largest media companies in the land. It has nothing to do with the quality of the content or the business model behind it. And the FTC doesn’t explain what it means by the amazingly nebulous phrase “independent editorial responsibility.”

Is Technologizer not an “Internet news website with independent editorial responsibility” because it’s published in blog format? Are the standards different when PCWorld.com, which is unquestionably an Internet news site, republishes Technologizer posts? Is USA Today’s Ed Baig a different person when his words appear as blog posts than when they appear in a printed newspaper? The FTC either sees distinctions I don’t or has failed to consider such scenarios.

The FTC appears to associate blogs with individuals who don’t write for a living–its document provides an example conflict involving a college student. And it seems to associate newspapers, magazines, TV, and radio with “professionals” who don’t need policing. But one of my goals as a former print guy who now writes almost exclusively for online, on a site I own, is to maintain standards that are at least as high as when I killed trees on behalf of a large publisher. Readers deserve no less.

And speaking of readers, they’re the most appropriate judges of the credibility of blogs and other forms of content. Full disclosure can help keep you well informed about the items you read, but if you doubt a writer’s sincerity, it would be silly to pay any attention whatsoever, whether that person’s stories are rife with disclosures or not.

I believe with all my heart that it’s reasonably easy to find companies that want to advertise in publications (digital or traditional) with loyal readers, but that there’s absolutely no way to regain your reputation once someone decides you’re on the take. My bosses (and the bosses of other Technologizer contributors) are the 400,000 or so folks who read Technologizer each month. And if the day ever comes when that philosophy can’t keep me fed, clothed, and housed, I’ll find another line of work…

More commentary on this matter:

Dan Gillmor

Louis Gray

Jeff Jarvis

Ryan Singel

Brian Solis

Several people filed Freedom of Information Act requests to see the unexpurgated letter, and rather than fight the requests, Google has decided to accept publication of the full letter. Here’s the section we didn’t see before:

On one level, there’s nothing surprising here: In Apple’s own letter to the FCC, it said it hadn’t approved Google Voice largely because it “altered(d)” and “replace(d)” placed Apple’s own phone-related features with ones designed by Google. (Alter and replace probably aren’t the right words here: Google Voice would be an additional way to make calls on the iPhone, and Apple’s features would remain unchanged. But you get the idea.)

But here’s one bombshell: Apple’s letter denied that the company had rejected Google Voice and said that it was still “studying” and “ponder(ing)” the app. Google’s letter, however, says that Apple told it that Google Voice had been rejected, period. The real-world difference is pretty much moot, since an application that enters a permanent limbo of being studied and pondered is no more useful to the world than one that’s been rejected. But it still seems to be a fundamental disagreement on a matter of fact: Apple says it didn’t reject the app, and Google says it did.

Also interesting: Google says the matter went all the way up to Phil Schiller. That would remove the possibility that Google Voice ran into trouble because of hasty and/or inconsistent decision-making by lower-level employees involved in the App Store. Apple knew what it was doing.

Just how directly was Google CEO’s exodus from the Apple board tied to this disagreement? Your guess is as good as mine, but if Schmidt were still on the board today it would be particularly strange given the Rashomon-like situation that’s developed.

As I’ve said before, I want a phone that lets me replace standard functionality with new and useful alternatives. Apple says that doing so may confuse iPhone owners, but I have a hunch that most of them are smart enough to deal with it–and hey, if they’re baffled, they can always delete the app in question.

I continue to think that Apple will eventually come to the conclusion that a more open-minded approach to iPhone app approval is in its own best interest. I just hope it decides that sooner rather than later, and without further nudging by the FCC.

Accepting and releasing Google Voice in the form Google originally submitted it wouldn’t address the larger issues here, but it would be an awfully good start…

Microsoft was prosecuted in the 1990s for abusing its monopoly position in the desktop operating system market, so it comes as no surprise that the company is operating under the long shadow of government regulators. However, in the search engine area Microsoft is playing underdog to Google, which comScore reports held 64.7 percent share of the U.S search market in July.

In comparison, Microsoft’s Bing and Yahoo have a combined 28.2 percent share. If the deal is approved, Microsoft will be in a position to claw its way up to compete with Google. The company is rumored to be preparing to launch an upgrade to Bing before the end of the month, and is spending profusely to promote Bing.

The only people who have any right to be upset about the deal are Yahoo’s shareholders. Shortly after the deal was announced, some shareholders began to cry bloody murder over Yahoo’s use of the Bing search engine for nothing in return.

Further, Yahoo did not receive an upfront payment to make the deal happen, as many Yahoo investors had hoped. The deal’s complexity also makes it unlikely that any company other than Microsoft will be able to acquire Yahoo over its 10-year duration. None of that concerns the DOJ.