<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories filed under &quot;electronics&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 3 Jan 2013 09:31:53 PST</pubDate>
<title>FAA Facing More Pressure To Change Its Rules On Electronic Device Usage</title>
<dc:creator>Tim Cushing</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130101/16214221533/faa-facing-more-pressure-to-change-its-rules-electronic-device-usage.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130101/16214221533/faa-facing-more-pressure-to-change-its-rules-electronic-device-usage.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Way back in March, the FAA stated that it was <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20120318/16352818149/faa-admits-that-its-going-to-rethink-whether-you-can-use-kindles-tablets-takeoff-landing.shtml" target="_blank">taking a "fresh look"</a> at Kindles and tablet computers, possibly moving towards approving these devices for use during takeoff and landing. Nine months later, perhaps feeling the "fresh look" was now a bit past "stale," FCC chief Julius Genachowski politely but pointedly asked the FAA to <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20121207/02483021301/fcc-boss-tired-having-to-put-his-ipad-away-takeoff-tells-faa-to-fix-it.shtml" target="_blank">just get on with it already</a>.<br />
<br />
Now, the FAA has been threatened with being cut out of the device rules loop, thanks to Sen. Claire McCaskill, <a href="http://mccaskill.senate.gov/?p=press_release&#038;id=1757" target="_blank">who has warned the FAA to act fast or face being legislated at</a>.
<blockquote>
<i>It is my hope that the FAA will work, with the FCC and other federal agencies where appropriate, as expeditiously as possible to implement common sense changes to today&#39;s restrictive regulations on in-flight use of PEDs that better reflect new technologies and the changing role these devices play in Americans&#39; daily lives. While the agency can and should use existing authorities to allow for the broader use of PEDs, I am prepared to pursue legislative solutions should progress be made too slowly.</i></blockquote>
In a blog post for the New York Times, Nick Bilton <a href="http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/30/f-a-a-rules-make-electronic-devices-on-planes-dangerous/" target="_blank">explores some of the FAA&#39;s stalling tactics and dubious claims behind its refusal to allow certain electronic devices</a> to be used during takeoff and landing. Legislative pressure or no, it looks like the FAA isn&#39;t going to be moving any faster than is bureaucratically necessary.
<blockquote>
<i>In October, after <a href="http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/17/disruptions-wearable-gadgets-upset-f-a-a-curbs-on-devices/" target="_blank">months of pressure</a> from the public and the news media, the F.A.A. finally said it would begin a review of its policies on electronic devices in all phases of flight, including takeoff and landing. But the agency does not have a set time frame for announcing its findings.</i><br />
<br />
<i>An F.A.A. spokeswoman told me last week that the agency was preparing to move to the next phase of its work in this area, and would appoint members to a rule-making committee that will begin meeting in January.</i></blockquote>
So, it&#39;s a start. Nearly a year past the day it promised to "rethink" the personal electronic device issue, the FAA&#39;s finally going to begin selecting candidates for its rule-making committee. Presumably, the committee will be finalized at some point within the next six months, at which point the rule-making can actually begin. Judging by the past year&#39;s "effort," I would imagine we&#39;ll be writing 2014 on our checks before any proposed changes are given a timescale for potential rollout.<br />
<br />
In the process of fending off a growing army of irritated fliers, FCC chairmen and legislators, the FAA has conjured up every bit of electro-hysteria in its arsenal to keep fliers sitting upright and at full attention any time the plane goes below the magical 10,000-ft. cutoff.<br />
<br />
As Bilton states, arguing with the FAA is <a href="http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/28/its-called-airplane-mode-for-a-reason/" target="_blank">like arguing with a stubborn teenager</a>. Despite its inability to provide any evidence to back up its stance on electronic devices, the FAA continues to stick to its increasingly dubious talking points.
<blockquote>
<i>A year ago, <a href="http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/27/disruptions-fliers-must-turn-off-devices-but-its-not-clear-why/" target="_blank">when I first asked</a> Les Dorr, a spokesman for the F.A.A., why the rule existed, he said the agency was being cautious because there was no proof that device use was completely safe. He also said it was because passengers needed to pay attention during takeoff.</i></blockquote>
This last statement is odd. I understand that safety instructions are being handed out during the "takeoff experience," but once that&#39;s over (or you&#39;ve seen it more than a couple of times), it would seem passengers should be able to return to whatever they were doing before the hand signals began. Furthermore, no other form of mass transportation demands that its passengers "pay attention" during departure. And, as Bilton points out, people <i>without</i> electronic devices aren&#39;t being forced to "pay attention."
<blockquote>
<i>When I asked why I can read a printed book but not a digital one, the agency changed its reasoning. I was told by another F.A.A. representative that it was because an iPad or Kindle could put out enough electromagnetic emissions to disrupt the flight.</i></blockquote>
Which is ridiculous, considering...
<blockquote>
<i>Yet a few weeks later, the <a href="http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/10/the-f-a-a-flip-flop-on-electronics-continues/" target="_blank">F.A.A. proudly announced</a> that pilots could now use iPads in the cockpit instead of paper flight manuals.</i></blockquote>
So, iPads in the cockpit: OK. iPads in the fuselage: Verboten. There&#39;s an excuse behind that "reasoning" as well.
<blockquote>
<i>The F.A.A. then told me that &ldquo;two iPads are very different than 200.&rdquo;</i></blockquote>
<i>But they&#39;re not</i>. EMT Lab&#39;s testing manager, Kevin Bothmann, whom Bilton had test a variety of ereaders and tablets for electromagnetic interference, <a href="http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/25/disruptions-tests-cast-doubt-on-fcc-rules-on-kindle-and-ipad-html/" target="_blank">points out that emitted energy doesn&#39;t stack.</a>
<blockquote>
<i>&ldquo;Electromagnetic energy doesn&rsquo;t add up like that. Five Kindles will not put off five times the energy that one Kindle would,&rdquo; explained Kevin Bothmann, EMT Labs testing manager. &ldquo;If it added up like that, people wouldn&rsquo;t be able to go into offices, where there are dozens of computers, without wearing protective gear.&rdquo;</i><br />
<br />
<i>Bill Ruck, principal engineer at CSI Telecommunications, a firm that does radio communications engineering, added: &ldquo;Saying that 100 devices is 100 times worse is factually incorrect. Noise from these devices increases less and less as you add more.&rdquo;</i></blockquote>
EMT Labs found that a Kindle puts out less than 30 microvolts per meter in use (0.00003 volts), while any airliner that is approved for flight must be able to withstand up to 100 volts per meter. So, the FAA is concerned that a device that puts out emissions at a level that could be generously termed a rounding error will brick the plane during takeoffs and landing.<br />
<br />
Then there&#39;s the ever-popular "iPad becomes deadly projectile" argument, which finds that airborne rounded corners are more dangerous than hardcover books moving at the same speed. This argument is so weak it&#39;s a wonder the sentence didn&#39;t collapse on itself the moment it was first uttered.<br />
<br />
But the most interesting point of Bilton&#39;s piece is the fact that these rules, backed by little more than "because we said so" rationalization, generate the irrational fear that a single person&#39;s electronic device could bring the whole plane down. This often results in overreaction.
<blockquote>
<i>In September, a passenger <a href="http://avherald.com/h?article=44285066&#038;opt=0" target="_blank">was arrested</a> in El Paso after refusing to turn off his cellphone as the plane was landing. In October, a man in Chicago was arrested because he used his iPad during takeoff. In November, half a dozen police cars raced across the tarmac at La Guardia Airport in New York, surrounding a plane as if there were a terrorist on board. They arrested a 30-year-old man who had also refused to turn off his phone while on the runway.</i></blockquote>
Basing a zero-tolerance policy on irrational fear leads to other problems as well, especially if those involved have "bought in" to the FAA party line.
<blockquote>
<i>In 2010, a 68-year-old man <a href="http://www.kboi2.com/news/local/112587359.html" target="_blank">punched a teenager</a> because he didn&rsquo;t turn off his phone. Lt. Kent Lipple of the Boise Police Department in Idaho, who arrested the puncher, said the man &ldquo;felt he was protecting the entire plane and its occupants.&rdquo;</i></blockquote>
These sorts of incidents are bound to become more common the longer the FAA stalls on adjusting its personal electronic device rules. Device usage is growing, and evidence is mounting that the FAA&#39;s claims don&#39;t hold water. More and more passengers will test the limits of these rules because they find them ridiculous.<br />
<br />
Underneath it all, it seems the only thing holding back the FAA&#39;s clearance of these devices is its own fear. Since it will never be 100% sure that these devices won&#39;t interfere with critical systems, it&#39;s going to continue to play it super-safe, since the last thing it wants on its hands is a plane crash occurring shortly after loosening these restrictions. It&#39;s the same fear that keeps the TSA from scaling back its efforts. If <i>something</i> bad happens, the rules shouldn&#39;t have been changed. If <i>nothing</i> bad happens, it&#39;s because the rules are in place. It&#39;s fear-based inertia and if any movement occurs, it&#39;s usually in the harsher, stricter direction.&nbsp;<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130101/16214221533/faa-facing-more-pressure-to-change-its-rules-electronic-device-usage.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130101/16214221533/faa-facing-more-pressure-to-change-its-rules-electronic-device-usage.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130101/16214221533/faa-facing-more-pressure-to-change-its-rules-electronic-device-usage.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>the-FAA-speaks-'government;'-it'll-understand-being-'legislated</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130101/16214221533</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 19 Mar 2012 03:33:51 PDT</pubDate>
<title>FAA Admits That It's Going To Rethink Whether You Can Use Kindles &#038; Tablets On Takeoff &#038; Landing</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20120318/16352818149/faa-admits-that-its-going-to-rethink-whether-you-can-use-kindles-tablets-takeoff-landing.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20120318/16352818149/faa-admits-that-its-going-to-rethink-whether-you-can-use-kindles-tablets-takeoff-landing.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ It's been pretty clear for quite some time that there's no real safety reason why electronics are barred during takeoff and landing on airplanes.  Furthermore, there's no legitimate technological reason for not allowing mobile phones on planes either -- that one's <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071007/225436.shtml">more</a> just about keeping other passengers from going into a rage at having to hear others' <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20050113/1446211.shtml">half-conversations</a>.  However, it seems that more and more people are getting annoyed that they can't use their snazzy new ebooks or tablet computers (not just iPads, mind you) on airplane take-off and landings.  Nick Bilton, over at the NY Times, asked the FAA what was up with that, and they admitted that <a href="http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/18/disruptions-time-to-review-f-a-a-policy-on-gadgets/" target="_blank">they're taking "a fresh look" at those devices</a> and whether or not they should be allowed to be used at those times.  Of course, as he notes, this might just lead to a bunch of bureaucratic red tape -- including every possible device having to go through significant testing:
<blockquote><i>
Abby Lunardini, vice president of corporate communications at Virgin America, explained that the current guidelines require that an airline must test each version of a single device before it can be approved by the F.A.A. For example, if the airline wanted to get approval for the iPad, it would have to test the first iPad, iPad 2 and the new iPad, each on a separate flight, with no passengers on the plane.
<br /><br />
It would have to do the same for every version of the Kindle. It would have to do it for every different model of plane in its fleet. And American, JetBlue, United, Air Wisconsin, etc., would have to do the same thing. (No wonder the F.A.A. is keeping smartphones off the table since there are easily several hundred different models on the market.)
<br /><br />
Ms. Lunardini added that Virgin America would like to perform these tests, but the current guidelines make it &#8220;prohibitively expensive, especially for an airline with a relatively small fleet that is always in the air on commercial flights like ours.&#8221;
</i></blockquote> 
But, hopefully, a better, more efficient process can be found, and people will actually be able to use these devices on airplanes that aren't just over 10,000 feet...<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20120318/16352818149/faa-admits-that-its-going-to-rethink-whether-you-can-use-kindles-tablets-takeoff-landing.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20120318/16352818149/faa-admits-that-its-going-to-rethink-whether-you-can-use-kindles-tablets-takeoff-landing.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20120318/16352818149/faa-admits-that-its-going-to-rethink-whether-you-can-use-kindles-tablets-takeoff-landing.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>about-time</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120318/16352818149</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 26 Oct 2009 06:33:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>SPARC No Fun At All; Threatens SparkFun</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091023/1804116661.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091023/1804116661.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/profile.php?u=johnfen">John Fenderson</a> was the first of a few of you to send in a link (via <a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/10/23/197214/Sparc-Sends-SparkFun-Electronics-CampD-Letter?art_pos=1" target="_blank">Slashdot</a>) to the story of how SPARC, the computer architecture company owned by Sun, is <a href="http://www.sparkfun.com/commerce/news.php?id=300" target="_blank">threatening SparkFun over trademark infringement claims</a>.  SparkFun is an electronics shop, which sells components and kits and the like.  The two are pretty different.  This whole situation apparently was "sparked" (heh heh) when SparkFun applied for its own trademark, at which point SPARC sought to block the trademark application.  From there, they went on to sending a cease &#038; desist.  The folks at SparkFun do a nice job breaking down why the two marks are entirely different, and why even Sun employees seem to have no trouble understanding the difference between the two.  This seems like yet another case of overly aggressive trademark enforcement, just because some lawyers feel the need to oppose anything that might conceivably be considered even close to similar.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091023/1804116661.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091023/1804116661.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091023/1804116661.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>spark-up-the-lawyers</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20091023/1804116661</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 1 Dec 2008 16:19:18 PST</pubDate>
<title>What's Wrong With Actually Turning Electronics Off?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081130/2327432976.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081130/2327432976.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ The WSJ is running an article about some guys in Spain who claim to have patented an algorithm that <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122783062843762925.html?mod=rss_whats_news_technology" target="_new">can detect if an electronic device is in "standby mode" and cut the power</a>.  The issue, of course, is that plenty of electronic appliances and gadgets don't really turn off.  Instead, they continue to draw power even if switched "off."  In reality, they're in standby mode, and continue to draw power.  Some estimates say that all of these devices drawing power represent 10% of power usage, and in some techie areas, such as here in Silicon Valley, some estimates say that 26% of power usage comes from such "standby" devices.  Perhaps I'm missing something, but what needs to be patented to simply tell these devices to actually turn off, rather than put themselves in standby mode?  There's often a reason why these devices go into standby, rather than truly turn off, and removing that ability may end up causing more problems than it solves.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081130/2327432976.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081130/2327432976.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081130/2327432976.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>am-I-missing-something?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20081130/2327432976</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 27 Jul 2007 15:58:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Is Sony Actually Turning Things Around Now?</title>
<dc:creator>Carlo Longino</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070727/131659.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070727/131659.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Sony's attempts at a turnaround have been pretty slowgoing, but their latest quarterly results -- showing <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&#038;sid=annnp7HPWUKQ&#038;refer=home">profits double last year's</a> -- generated some enthusiasm that things were on the right track. Although some parts of the company's business have picked up, the biggest factor in the increased profits <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/jul2007/gb20070726_253661.htm?campaign_id=rss_tech">was a weakening yen</a>, which boosted the value of overseas sales. Investors shouldn't discount the currency effect, but they do have some other reasons to be upbeat: the company's movie unit is doing well, and its Sony Ericsson mobile phone joint venture continues to grow its market share. While the electronic business overall is looking healthier, Sony's TV unit is still underperforming, and the gaming business is still in the can. Sony's video-game unit boosted its sales by 60 percent over the same quarter last year, which is great, except that its losses grew as well, partly because it's still selling the PS3 for <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20061116/085020.shtml">less than it costs to build</a>. The game unit <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070426/101411.shtml">got a new boss</a> a little while ago, but it doesn't yet look like he's making a lot of progress. Sony announced a price cut for the US on one PS3 model, and also said it will deliver a new high-end version and a load of new games. But it's hard to see those small changes making a big difference in terms of getting the mass market to buy into the PS3, particularly when you contrast Sony's strategy to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070711/090150.shtml">that of Nintendo</a>, whose business is booming. Still, Sony's problems are far from solved -- but it is showing some signs of life.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070727/131659.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070727/131659.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070727/131659.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>given-enough-time,-anything-is-possible</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20070727/131659</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 19 Jul 2007 09:49:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Wal-Mart Is Latest To Offer A Cut-Rate Computer</title>
<dc:creator>Joseph Weisenthal</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070719/073224.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070719/073224.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ As Wal-Mart continues its <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070514/072351.shtml">push into consumer electronics</a>, the company has announced plans to sell a <a href="http://www.betanews.com/article/WalMart_Debuts_298_PC/1184795059">stripped down Windows PC at a discount price</a>.  While it will run Vista, the rest of the software will be open source (Open Office will be pre-installed instead of Microsoft Office), and, perhaps surprisingly, it will be completely free of <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070419/073027.shtml">crapware</a>, an issue that's been getting a lot of attention lately.  There are a number of problems, however.  The box won't have much processing power, which is really bad news, considering the demands of Vista.  Furthermore, this basic concept has been tried many times before.  While it seems appealing, in theory, to completely strip down a computer and sell it at a discount, consumers have never really jumped at the idea.  Name brand machines can be had so cheaply, much of the time, that there really isn't much value as there would first seem in Wal-Mart's approach.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070719/073224.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070719/073224.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070719/073224.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>cheap-enough?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20070719/073224</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 18 Jul 2007 06:48:05 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Taiwanese Contract Manufacturers Set Sights On Brand-Name Prize</title>
<dc:creator>Carlo Longino</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070717/174118.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070717/174118.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Despite manufacturing plenty of the most recognizable electronics products in the world, and making plenty of money, the names of most Taiwanese contract manufacturers aren't familiar to consumers. For instance, Hon Hai Precision Industry generated revenues of more than $26 billion last year by making products for Apple, Dell, HP and other companies. But the Taiwanese firms are increasingly trying to leverage their experience and expertise by <a href="http://www.emailthis.clickability.com/et/emailThis?clickMap=viewThis&#038;etMailToID=1575621381">establishing their own consumer brands</a> and using them to boost their product margins. Contract manufacturing is a low-margin, volume based business: for instance, one analyst says contract manufacturers of laptops have 3-5% margins; compare that to the 40% or more Apple enjoys on iPods. But growing the brands can be a tricky proposition, and not just because the companies are looking to enter new and unfamiliar consumer markets. The problem is that these companies are looking to become competitors to their biggest customers: for instance High Tech Computer, which makes mobile phones for a variety of companies, is building up its HTC consumer brand, and competing with clients like HP and Palm in the process. Some are trying to get around this by splitting off their consumer operations from their contract-manufacturing businesses, such as Acer did successfully several years ago. Still, that's not the only obstacle. Getting the consumer marketing right remains a big issue -- particularly when the new consumer brands are competing against companies for which marketing, not manufacturing, is a specialty.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070717/174118.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070717/174118.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070717/174118.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>store-brand-soda</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20070717/174118</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>