Samsung Galaxy Nexus exclusivity in Canada ends, 3-year prices lowered to $99.99

Friday, 13 January, 2012

Mobilesyrup, “Bell and Virgin exclusivity over, Galaxy Nexus now officially available at TELUS, Rogers, Fido and SaskTel

I am waiting for it to be available on WIND Mobile at, hopefully $99.99 for 3-year.

Jan 16, 2012 update: Looks like $99.99 will be the price to match. “Rogers, Fido and SaskTel all price drop Galaxy Nexus to $99.99 on 3-year, now matching TELUS

Advertisements

Samsung Galaxy Nexus’ “fortified glass” has load bearing capacity of 72 pounds?

Wednesday, 11 January, 2012

Samsung Galaxy Nexus' "fortified glass" has load bearing capacity of 72 pounds?

We know that “Samsung Galaxy Nexus confirmed to have ‘fortified glass,’ not Gorilla Glass“. And we also know that Samsung and Corning has a joint venture call Samsung Corning Precision Materials Co., Ltd., so they do work together.

Now, I wonder/guess/speculate, based on this video of “Corning Gorilla Glass2 demo at CES 2012“, if Galaxy Nexus’ “fortified glass” is the type they used in the demo which has a load bearing capacity of 72 pounds?

Note: In the demo, the damage and scratch resistant Gorilla Glass1 has a load bearing capacity of ~125 pounds and Gorilla Glass2 is 20% thinner and offer the same damage resistance as Gorilla Glass1 with load bearing capacity of ~125 pounds.

Am I right? Can someone help me prove that I am right or wrong? I will be happy to be wrong if I can know the spec or more precise info of the Galaxy Nexus’ “fortified glass”.

Here is “Corning Gorilla Glass2 demo at CES 2012“. [HT Mobilesyrup]


Globalive targets Mobilicity: Bloomberg & Reuters say – Mobilicity IPO? G&M

Tuesday, 20 December, 2011

Bloomberg,

“Globalive Communications Corp., a two-year-old Canadian wireless carrier, is in talks to buy Mobilicity, adding a competitor to take on larger rivals BCE Inc. (BCE) and Rogers Communications Inc., according to a person familiar with the discussions.”

Reuters,

“Canadian telecom upstart Globalive wants to buy rival Mobilicity but no deal is imminent or indeed likely until the government clarifies rules on foreign ownership and airwave allocation, according to a source with knowledge of the situation.”

[HT MobileSyrup]

More news media reprinting, quoting, excerpting the above reports Financial Post and G&M .

G&M, “Wireless carrier Mobilicity weighs going public

“Wireless newcomer Mobilicity is planning to launch an initial public offering early in the new year with the goal of raising up to $100-million.

Sources say the company plans to go public as early as the first quarter of 2012, provided that equity markets are less volatile. A number of IPOs have been ready to launch since late summer, but they were put on hold because markets were too choppy as the European debt crisis unfolded. […] Read the rest of this entry »


Leo Herzel (1923-2011) – 1951 Color Television student article that laid the foundational analysis for frequency spectrum auctions around the world

Wednesday, 14 December, 2011

Leo Herzel, 87, former co-chair of Mayer Brown

I’ve heard of Leo Herzel (via Prof. Ronald Coase and others) for some years, it was only yesterday that I finally got around to read his “My 1951 Color Television Article” (The Journal of Law & Economics, 1998) that talks about his original 1951 thought provoking and influential idea and analysis.

Quoting the Leo’s obituary in the Chicago Sun-Times,

His legacy extends to at least three Nobel Prize-winning economists, including Ronald Coase, who credits Mr. Herzel with creation of the initial theory that later became the foundation for his Nobel Prize-winning article, “The Problem of Social Cost.”

Mr. Herzel’s analysis of market solutions to resource allocation problems, written while he was a student at the University of Chicago in 1950, guides FCC policy [in particular, frequency spectrum auctions in US and around the world] to this day.”

Leo passed away on July 21st, 2011. See obituaries from Illinois State Bar Association and Chicago Tribute.


BART shutting down cell services violated CA and Federal Law

Monday, 29 August, 2011

For the record, I am reposting my Aug 23, 2011 Google+ posting where a telecom lawyer took time to explain the legal problems of BART shutting down cell services.

A link to Aug 28, 2011, Washington Post, “Public safety, technology and the First Amendment collide in San Francisco’s subway“. KGO News Talk, AM 810, “Commuter Beware: Another Protest Scheduled for Monday in SF“.

Ref, Aug 24, 2011 Special Board Meeting.

“Insightful stuff from a telecom lawyer explaining the legal problems of BART shutting down cell services. In the article, proper Telecom act references (sections 332(c), 202, 214(a), 216, … ) and court cases refs are provided. Serious fun stuff indeed, Forget The First Amendment, BART Messed With The Phone System. Violated CA and Federal Law. [HT +Dan Gillmor ] A nice followup to +Sarah Hill’s G+ Hangout with Mike McKean, +Laurent Jean Philippe Ravalec +Colin Hill +Kim Beasley and +Kempton Lam

Ref: KOMU-TV “Should Government Be Able to Control Access to Your Cell Phone?“”


Interesting read @JesseBrown: “Xplornet asked me not to write this”

Monday, 18 July, 2011

Interesting read. Check out @JesseBrown: “Xplornet asked me not to write this” [HT @mgeist]

If you don’t have time to read the full article, (actually you should really find the time as it is fun and insightful reading), here is an excerpt from “Xplornet asked me not to write this“,

“In the interests of fair and balanced journalism, here is what you should know about Xplornet and what they want you to know. I’ll even put their stuff in bold:

  1. It took 16 months for Xplornet to conform to the CRTC’s disclosure demands. But they weren’t ignoring the CRTC—they were in constant communication during that time.
  2. When they did finally tell customers what they were doing, it was after the CRTC threatened to haul them into a public proceeding—but that’s not why they did it.
  3. They degraded the speed of a competitor’s Internet phone service (VOIP) to the point where it was unusable—but they did so by accident. It was a technical problem with a codec.

Perhaps Xplornet is satisfied that this matter is now cleared up. Or perhaps they regret accidentally turning a spotlight on themselves while fumbling to shut off the power.”

P.S. You may also want to read David’s “More complaining: a “warning” about Geist’s “allegations”


Consortium of Nortel patents purchasers: How much they paid and what they get (according to anonymous internal sources)

Monday, 4 July, 2011

After writing about Nortel gets $4.5 billion for 6,000 patents and patent applications, it is good to read some details. According to internal sources with promised anonymity by “I, Cringely” (emphasis added)

“Here’s the consortium participation as I understand it. RIM and Ericsson together put up $1.1 billion with Ericsson getting a fully paid-up license to the portfolio while RIM, as a Canadian company like Nortel, gets a paid-up license plus possibly some carry forward operating losses from Nortel, which has plenty of such losses to spare. For RIM the deal might actually have a net zero cost after tax savings, which the Canadian business press hasn’t yet figured out.

Microsoft and Sony put up another $1 billion.

There is a reportedly a side deal for about $400 million with EMC that has the storage company walking with sole ownership of an unspecified subset of the Nortel patents.

Finally Apple put up $2 billion for outright ownership of Nortel’s Long Term Evolution (4G) patents as well as another package of patents supposedly intended to hobble Android.

At the end of the day this deal isn’t about royalties. It is about trying to kill Android.”

Bob has been in the industry for a long time, so there are probably some elements of truth in his report and worth considering. [HT Digital Trends]


%d bloggers like this: