|From: TimF||3/5/2019 9:36:51 AM|
|Apple Plans to Close Stores in Eastern District of Texas in Fight Against Patent Trolls [Updated] |
Friday February 22, 2019 7:30 am PST by Joe Rossignol
Apple plans to close both of its retail stores within the Eastern District of Texas in a few months from now in an effort to protect itself from patent trolls, according to five sources familiar with the matter.
Apple Willow Bend in Plano, Texas and Apple Stonebriar in Frisco, Texas, both located in the northern suburbs of Dallas, are expected to permanently close in mid April. One source said each store's final day of business will be Friday, April 12. Employees were briefed about the plans earlier this week.
To continue to serve the region, Apple plans to open a new store at the Galleria Dallas shopping mall in Dallas, just outside the Eastern District of Texas border. One source said the store will open Saturday, April 13.
The plans are significant, as U.S. law states that patent infringement lawsuits may be filed "where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business." By closing its stores in Eastern Texas, Apple is ending its established place of business in the district.
Residency is also a factor in determining the applicable venue of a patent infringement lawsuit, but in May 2017, the Supreme Court shifted precedent by ruling that a U.S. corporation resides only in its state of incorporation. Apple is incorporated in California, not Texas, satisfying this clause.
The Eastern District of Texas has been a hotbed for patent litigation over the past few decades due to well-established rules for patent infringement cases, experienced judges, lower probability of cases being transferred to another district, and quicker jury verdicts, according to a SMU Dedman School of Law paper.
Patent infringement lawsuits against Apple will likely shift to U.S. district courts in Northern California and Delaware.
Fortunately, we're hearing that the plans, while inconvenient, are not too detrimental for employees. One source said Apple has offered employees opportunities to transfer to other stores, work from home for AppleCare, or severance to those who are not interested in working at another Apple location.
Apple has yet to publicly announce the plans. We reached out to Apple for comment late Thursday but have yet to hear back.
Update: Apple has confirmed the impending store closures in a statement issued to TechCrunch:
We're making a major investment in our stores in Texas, including significant upgrades to NorthPark Center, Southlake and Knox Street. With a new Dallas store coming to the Dallas Galleria this April, we've made the decision to consolidate stores and close Apple Stonebriar and Apple Willow Bend. All employees from those stores will be offered positions at the new Dallas store or other Apple locations.Apple did not provide a specific reason for the store closures beyond consolidation.
|RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read|
|From: elmatador||3/15/2019 2:48:04 AM|
|‘Nextel All Over Again’ Bets All on FCC Blessing Spectrum Reuse|
Posted March 13, 2019, 11:31 AM
A telecom startup that’s staked its future on airwaves licenses it bought five years ago for $100 million is poised to get a major boost from the Federal Communications Commission to enter the lucrative broadband business.
Electric utilities, manufacturers, and transportation giants, including United Parcel Service and freight railroads, currently use the airwaves for dispatch radio communications. But pdvWireless, headed by the co-founders of Nextel Communications Inc., hopes to convince the FCC that opening up some of the airwaves for broadband use will not only benefit itself—allowing it to launch private LTE networks for businesses that use the spectrum—but is also in the public interest.
The agency will vote at its March 15 meeting to consider permitting broadband operations on the airwaves, located in the 900 megahertz (MHz) band, in response to pdvWireless’ petition filed in 2014. If the proposal is adopted, the FCC will seek public comment.
“We believe that realigning the 900 MHz band will create opportunities for robust broadband networks that fully support critical communication systems and that ensure the low latency and ultra-high reliability required by electric and other utilities,” the FCC said in its draft proposal.
If pdvWireless gets the FCC’s blessing, it would be the latest example of the agency agreeing to modify spectrum uses in response to the lobbying of a particular company. It could also be a gold mine for pdvWireless’ shareholders and its leaders, CEO Morgan O’Brien and Chairman Brian McAuley, who employed a similar business model with Nextel in the 1980s and 1990s.
Shares of pdvWireless jumped to their highest point this year when the FCC announced last month that it would consider broadband use on the airwaves.
“This is Nextel all over again—take useless spectrum, change how it’s being used, and make a ton of money out of it,” said Roger Entner, founder of telecom research firm Recon Analytics.
Ventures like pdvWireless’ have encountered resistance at the FCC before. LightSquared, which sought the FCC’s permission in the early 2010s to use satellite airwaves to launch a national wireless network, fell into bankruptcy after encountering fierce resistance from the Department of Defense and the global positioning system (GPS) industry over interference concerns.
Spectrum PlayO’Brien and McAuley helped build Nextel into a multi-billion dollar company by buying up radio-dispatch airwaves licenses used by taxi and delivery drivers, and then getting the FCC’s approval to offer digital wireless services on the spectrum. Nextel and its spectrum holdings were sold to Sprint Corp. for $35 billion in 2005.
At the helm of pdvWireless a decade later, O’Brien and McAuley bought back 900 MHz airwaves licenses from Sprint for $100 million and petitioned the FCC to open up broadband operations on the band. pdvWireless argues that its planned private LTE network will bring significant benefits for utilities, such as the deployment of smart grid technology, while also protecting radio communications uses.
“We identified spectrum that is underutilized and asked the FCC to modernize the rules so the spectrum can be liberated and support new technology, and new competition,” O’Brien said in an interview.
LightSquared 2.0?Utilities and other entities that currently use the airwaves are split on pdvWireless’ plan, which would designate some 900 MHz airwaves for broadband use while leaving other parts of the band available for radio communications.
Supporters, including Southern Co., argue that pdvWireless’ plans would create more competition to the nation’s wireless providers in the enterprise space. Verizon Communications Inc., AT&T Inc. and other telecom giants devote most of their resources toward consumers, leaving open the possibility that a utility’s broadband connection will be slowed if there’s network congestion.
Other 900 MHz band users are urging the FCC to be cautious.
The Critical Infrastructure Coalition, which includes the Texas-based utility Lower Colorado River Authority and energy company NextEra Energy Inc., have raised concerns that allowing broadband use on the airwaves could disrupt radio communications during natural disasters, including hurricanes and flash floods.
Coalition members also want the FCC to ensure that they would have a fair shot to acquire broadband spectrum licenses to launch their own broadband networks if some of the spectrum is repurposed, instead of having to do business with pdvWireless.
Telecom watchers said the FCC will likely allow broadband use on the 900 MHz airwaves, as long as it finds it’s in the public interest, and wouldn’t cause radio interference.
“Unused spectrum is a lot less useful than used spectrum and if somebody makes a lot of money while doing that they don’t mind,” Entner said, referring to the FCC.
|RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read|
|From: Peter Ecclesine||3/21/2019 8:50:25 AM|
|The Real Powerhouses That Drive the World’s Economy|
It’s not nation states or even cities, but mega-regions—combinations of multiple metro areas—that are the real forces powering the global economy.
By RICHARD FLORIDA, Feb 28 2019
When world leaders, economists, and pundits talk about global economic power, they usually talk about nation-states. That’s how we typically tally up economic power, rating and ranking nations on their gross domestic product. Today, economists and business analysts talk about when China will overtake the United States as world’s largest economy (based on at least one measure of purchasing power parity it already has).
But this obsession with nation-states does not fit the reality of today’s highly-clustered knowledge economy, centered in and around global cities. And, it’s not just individual cities and metropolitan areas that power the world economy. Increasingly, the real driving force is larger combinations of cities and metro areas called mega-regions.
Back in 1961, the economic geographer Jean Gottmann coined the term “megalopolis” to describe the emerging economic hub that stretched from Boston to Washington, D.C. The term came to be applied to a number of regions in the world, including the vast Midwestern megalopolis that extends from Chicago, through Detroit and Cleveland, and south to Pittsburgh, which Gottmann dubbed “Chi-Pitts.”
But mega-regions are hard to identify using traditional data sources. About a decade and a half ago it dawned on me that you can actually see mega-regionslike the Boston-New York-Washington corridor when you pass over them in a plane at night. So my colleagues and I undertook a project to identify the world’s mega-regions from these satellite images of the world at night.
But now, much improved night-light data has become available from satellites—data that gives us a better look at the world’s mega-regions. My colleague Fabio Dias, a computer imaging expert in the University of Toronto’s School of Cities, extracted the improved light data from these new satellites, which we analyzed with our colleague Patrick Adler. The new data, referred to as Visible Infrared Imaging Radiometer Suite (VIIRS) and developed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (or NOAA), are a huge advancement compared to older satellite images.
|RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)|
|To: Peter Ecclesine who wrote (46748)||3/22/2019 5:16:47 AM|
This is indeed true. A few examples in Brazil are of metropolitan conurbation.
Where a road between two cities became an avenue.
For example: Rio distant 400Km from Sao Paulo, is slowly becoming a hyper metropolitan area.
|RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read|
|To: ftth who wrote (46749)||3/22/2019 8:46:34 AM|
|From: Peter Ecclesine|
Number 2 behind Bos-Wash
Paris, Amsterdam, Brussels, Munich
$2,505 Billion output
and a little more than California
Los Angeles, San Diego San Francisco, San Jose
22.0 + 10.8
$1,424 + $925
|RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read|
|To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (46721)||4/7/2019 1:32:07 PM|
|They are still at it:|
The Anti-Competitive Forces That Foil Speedy, Affordable Broadband
Municipal broadband and multiple ISP options are great ideas—unless you’re a giant telecommunications company with an entrenched monopoly
From Chattanooga, Tennessee, to Santa Monica, California, hundreds of communities in the U.S. have been able to provide consumers and businesses with affordable broadband over locally owned and controlled fiber and coaxial networks.
But San Francisco, the epicenter of the digital revolution, can’t match the success of these smaller municipalities, many with far fewer resources and civic wealth. San Francisco is not alone. While publicly owned fiber networks work well in smaller towns, not a single big U.S. city has been able to replicate the success of cities elsewhere in the world. Stockholm, Seoul, Tokyo, and Amsterdam all have fast, affordable broadband, riding on networks that are either publicly owned, controlled, or shared as the result of government intervention.
San Francisco, of course, is a highly connected city?—?for its digital elites. For others, not so much. According to a report prepared by the city in 2016, some 100,000 San Franciscans have no access to internet connectivity at home, while an additional 50,000 residents are stuck with archaic dial-up connections. Even the elites, however, typically have little choice for high-speed broadband internet access. “It’s simply criminal,” says former San Francisco mayor Mark Farrell, who led a failed effort to build a locally owned broadband network designed to break this logjam.
Farrell kicked off the project while on the city’s Board of Supervisors: <a href="https://www.scribd.com/document/362073247/San-Francisco-municipal-fiber-network-CTC-Report-10-11-17" data-href="https://www.scribd.com/document/362073247/San-Francisco-municipal-fiber-network-CTC-Report-10-11-17" class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" style="background-color: transparent; color: inherit; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.54); background-repeat: repeat-x; background-image: url("data:image/svg+xml;utf8,"); background-size: 1px 1px; background-position: 0px calc(1em + 1px);">He commissioned a study, set up a fancy web page, and appointed a blue-ribbon advisory panel to assist him. The city accepted the report of an outside consultant, laying out a road map with multiple paths to municipal fiber. In October 2017, a member of the panel, broadband maven Susan Crawford, announced to the world that “San Francisco [has become] the first major city in America to pledge to connect all of its homes and businesses to a fiber-optic network.” But by April 2018, the project was dead.
What happened in just six months? Farrell had been appointed interim mayor, held stakeholder meetings and an “industry day,” and sent out a Request for Qualifications to possible city concessionaires in a public-private partnership scheme to build the system. But city officials blanched when they saw the price tag?—?approximately $1.8 billion.
Meanwhile, according to Farrell and others involved with the process, there was a full-on lobbying push by the incumbent telecom and cable operators to keep out new competition. “All of those companies [the incumbent ISPs] had a presence in City Hall and spent significant resources to block the project,” Farrell says.
Why can’t a wealthy and digitally-savvy city such as San Francisco provide affordable broadband for its more than 800,000 inhabitants, when other cities in the U.S. and around the world can? The answers aren’t simple, but San Francisco’s failure mirrors the feeble state of broadband in the United States:
1. Competition is sparseDespite the rosy promises made at the time of the 1996 deregulation of telecommunications, there are fewer competitors today than there were in 2000, and successful new entrants are few and far between. Many households have only one or two broadband providers available to them, and those wanting something faster than last-century DSL are often stuck with no choice other than the monopoly cable provider.
2. The incumbent players have political cloutEntrenched ISPs lobby hard to block new competitors from entering the broadband market and use campaign donations to sway state legislators against municipal broadband.
3. ISPs hog the polesIncumbent telcos and cable companies often enlist the utilities that own the poles and conduit in order to prevent would-be market entrants from sharing those structures. Without the use of the infrastructure, it can be too costly for a new competitor to enter the market. In San Francisco, AT&T and PG&E own nearly all of the telephone poles and usable conduit and are loath to share them with upstarts like Sonic, the largest independent ISP in San Francisco. “Digging a trench can cost hundreds of dollars a foot. It’s simply not competitive for us to do that,” says Sonic CEO Dane Jasper.
The 1996 Telecom Act deregulation was supposed to create a competitive market, but the opposite, market consolidation, has been the long-term result. In rural areas, there has simply been no commercial business case to build high-speed broadband. In urban areas, competition has been suppressed by the large cable and broadband providers sitting at the top of the food chain.
Big players such as AT&T routinely issue press releases touting new deployments. But on closer examination, many of those touch only a few homes or businesses in an entire census tract, thus inflating the actual scope of the deployment, says Joanne Hovis, the president of CTC Technology & Energy, the company that prepared the broadband report for San Francisco. “The FCC’s data is very flawed,” she says.
What’s more, roughly half of the new fiber deployments cited recently by the FCC were mandated as a condition for approval of AT&T’s acquisition of DirecTV, says Ernesto Falcon, legislative counsel with the Electronic Frontier Foundation. And deployments have slowed because the major players have already cherry-picked the neighborhoods that offer the best prospects for high-paying customers, he says.
All in all, says Falcon, there’s a major disconnect between reality and the success of broadband deployments painted by the FCC and the major ISPs. “If what you want is a choice of slow, outdated internet, then the United States market looks great,” he says.
Going localThis market failure has driven cities and locales large and small to think about building their own fiber networks. Whatever the exact mechanism, it means either that the city or city electric utility builds the network and gets into the retail broadband business, as happened in Chattanooga, or that the city builds or sponsors a wholesale-only network on which many competing providers can ride.
The project proposed by San Francisco mayor Farrell was of the wholesale variety, where the concessionaire would run a fiber network that would be shared by a number of retail providers who then provide service to their end users.
These sorts of sharing arrangements have worked in other parts of the world?—?in Stockholm and Amsterdam, for example. In Japan and Korea, the governments largely subsidized such networks. In the U.K., the regulator simply ordered British Telecom (BT) to create a wholesale division, and make fiber and other facilities available on the same terms and conditions as BT retail received.
Accurate broadband pricing information is hard to come by. Comcast’s prices change from day to day and from customer to customer. Even so, most reliable studies demonstrate that muni fiber is less expensive for consumers. Harvard’s Berkman Klein Center, for example, found that “most community-owned FTTH networks charged less and offered prices that were clear and unchanging, whereas private ISPs typically charged initial low promotional or ‘teaser’ rates that later sharply rose, usually after 12 months.”
<a href="https://epb.com/home-store/internet?utm_source=reachlocal&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=semepbfiberopticsb2c#pricing" data-href="https://epb.com/home-store/internet?utm_source=reachlocal&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=semepbfiberopticsb2c#pricing" class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" style="background-color: transparent; color: inherit; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.54); background-repeat: repeat-x; background-image: url("data:image/svg+xml;utf8,"); background-size: 1px 1px; background-position: 0px calc(1em + 1px);">In Chattanooga, an entry-level consumer pays $58 a month for 300 Mbps service, and speeds of up to 10 Gbps are available.
The Hidden Story of San Francisco’s FailureWhen Mark Farrell took his seat on San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors in 2010, he quickly learned that the city’s digital infrastructure was woefully inadequate. “It blew my mind to discover that we were still using Lotus Notes,” he said recently, referring to the obsolete remnant of computing’s client-server era.
But there was worse to come. With plenty of Silicon Valley cred on his resume, Farrell figured his plan to bring affordable, locally owned broadband to the city would have strong support from the tech industry. It didn’t.
In fact, angel investor Ron Conway, one of San Francisco techdom’s best-connected figures, contributed $15,000 to two supervisors who then argued against the proposal, according to reporting by <a href="https://48hills.org/2015/02/investigation-san-franciscos-big-money-campaign-loophole/" data-href="https://48hills.org/2015/02/investigation-san-franciscos-big-money-campaign-loophole/" class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" style="background-color: transparent; color: inherit; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.54); background-repeat: repeat-x; background-image: url("data:image/svg+xml;utf8,"); background-size: 1px 1px; background-position: 0px calc(1em + 1px);">48 Hills and the <a href="https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/AT-T-helped-out-SF-supervisor-s-festival-12300264.php" data-href="https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/AT-T-helped-out-SF-supervisor-s-festival-12300264.php" class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" style="background-color: transparent; color: inherit; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.54); background-repeat: repeat-x; background-image: url("data:image/svg+xml;utf8,"); background-size: 1px 1px; background-position: 0px calc(1em + 1px);">San Francisco Chronicle. SF.citi, a tech-heavy industry group, that included Conway and two AT&T executives on its board, lobbied hard against Farrell. And Comcast lobbyist Scott Adams made 16 visits to City Hall between late 2014 and 2017 to discuss matters relating to broadband deployment, according to records at San Francisco’s Ethics Commission.
“They came up with every excuse in the book; from large costs to the fact that their companies could provide that low-income access,” Farrell says. “If it had come to a vote we would have won.” But it never did come to a vote, and once Farrell left office, the project was quietly shelved.
The money spent by incumbent ISPs to defeat affordable broadband in San Francisco was relatively modest, and it pales in comparison to the much large sums directed at state legislators around the country.
State Senator Scott Weiner, (D-San Francisco), wrote a statute restoring Net Neutrality to California<a href="https://48hills.org/2015/02/investigation-san-franciscos-big-money-campaign-loophole/" data-href="https://48hills.org/2015/02/investigation-san-franciscos-big-money-campaign-loophole/" class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" style="background-color: transparent; color: inherit; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.54); background-repeat: repeat-x; background-image: url("data:image/svg+xml;utf8,"); background-size: 1px 1px; background-position: 0px calc(1em + 1px);">, but <a href="https://48hills.org/2015/02/investigation-san-franciscos-big-money-campaign-loophole/" data-href="https://48hills.org/2015/02/investigation-san-franciscos-big-money-campaign-loophole/" class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" style="background-color: transparent; color: inherit; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.54); background-repeat: repeat-x; background-image: url("data:image/svg+xml;utf8,"); background-size: 1px 1px; background-position: 0px calc(1em + 1px);">his bill was gutted by Assemblyman Miguel Santiago, D-Los Angeles, who chairs the Assembly Conveyance and Communications Committee. Santiago received over $66,000 from communications carriers in the several years before this vote, while other Committee members voting for the amendments received from $23,000 to $102,000 each. (The meat of the bill was restored by a subsequent vote.)
When Time Warner Cable and Embarq (now CenturyLink) couldn’t provide affordable, high-speed broadband, the residents of Wilson, a small town in North Carolina, decided to do it themselves. In 2006, Wilson built a municipally owned fiber-to-the-home network that offers television, telephone, and broadband services at relatively low cost.
In response, Time Warner cut rates and boosted speeds a bit?—?but that’s not all. The cable giant, along with allies AT&T and CenturyLink, poured more than $1 million into the campaign coffers of North Carolina politicians, <a href="http://www.ilsr.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/nc-killing-competition.pdf" data-href="http://www.ilsr.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/nc-killing-competition.pdf" class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" style="background-color: transparent; color: inherit; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.54); background-repeat: repeat-x; background-image: url("data:image/svg+xml;utf8,"); background-size: 1px 1px; background-position: 0px calc(1em + 1px);">according to a report by Common Cause and the Institute for Local Self Reliance (ILSR). In 2011, the lobbying effort paid off: The state legislature passed a bill making it nearly impossible for other communities to build their own broadband networks.
Eight years later, there are still at least 20 states that have banned municipal broadband, according to Chris Mitchell, director of the ILSR’s community broadband initiative. And there are few, if any, signs that the big ISPs are loosening their hold, particularly in the most lucrative urban markets. “If the incumbents will fight that hard to block municipal broadband in a small North Carolina town, think how hard they’ll fight in a city like San Francisco,” says Hovis.
Not surprisingly, AT&T sees it differently: “Private sector deployment of broadband is proven to be the most efficient solution to deliver high-speed internet service to residential and business customers,” says AT&T spokesman Ben Golombek. The broadband market, he says, “is very competitive.” (Comcast did not respond to a request for comment.)
Dig they mustBroadband is a digital technology, of course, but the process of delivering it to a community is decidedly analog. Fiber cables need to be strung from telephone poles or buried under the street. In neighborhoods where utilities are above ground and the owners of the poles don’t object, bringing fiber to homes and businesses isn’t terribly expensive. But digging a trench is costly, difficult, and time-consuming.
And that’s turned into a huge roadblock for the deployment of fiber networks. Blocked from using some of the city’s telephone poles by rivals and not allowed to use modern methods of laying cable under the street, Sonic’s plans to connect San Franciscans to a fiber network have been slowed, says CEO Jasper. “Anything that raises the cost of deployment slows deployment,” he says.
According to Jasper, digging a conventional trench for fiber costs anywhere from $50 a foot to $500 a foot. But modern construction methods known as microtrenching and horizontal drilling cost the provider just $15 to $35 a foot. Although these methods have been proven to work in other cities, San Francisco doesn’t allow them. Even so, Sonic has managed to put fiber service in reach of roughly one-third of all the homes in the city, though its customer base is much smaller.
One partial solution to the high cost of deployment is so-called “dig-once” policies that require open-access conduit be installed any time a street is opened for water, sewer, or other repairs. San Francisco has such a policy on paper, and even the current FCC has toyed with the idea. But in San Francisco, at least, the project ordinance was never adequately funded.
San Francisco has made a bit of headway on Farrell’s dreams of a connected city. The city has assisted in connecting 1,424 units of low-income housing to a free fiber network and expects to connect an additional 765 units this year, according to Brian Roberts, a senior analyst in San Francisco’s Department of Technology.
But that’s barely a ripple in a city of this size. Until the FCC and other agencies push for more competition, and state legislatures shake off the influence of the giant ISPs and cable companies, the United States will be stuck with second-rate connectivity.
San Francisco-based journalist Bill Snyder writes frequently about business and technology. Chris Witteman was telecom counsel for the California Public Utilities Commission for over 17 years and still consults with the commission as a retired annuitant.
|RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read|