The Teckki Says

About a month ago, Verizon Wireless ended its unlimited data plans for mobile devices running over its cellular network. With AT&T ending its plan a year ago, you can no longer get unlimited data plans from most carriers.

While Sprint is the only carrier to still offer unlimited data, it does not sell the iPad, so hookup is via MiFi. I hook up my iPad to cellular via my iPhone, so this arrangement is not a bad option for those who need it. However, if you spotted the extra $130 for a cell-based iPad, going with another carrier is against the grain.

I recently had the opportunity to question AT&T's Illinois President Paul La Schiazza regarding a statement he made to a business group concerning the explosive growth in phone apps. Apple had just made the announcement that it would be releasing its newest operating system, Lion, via its app store. At over 4GB, anyone downloading it by cell would blow past data caps. His response to me was to reiterate the justification of the pending acquisition of T-Mobile, the fourth largest mobile carrier. His answer was that AT&T needed the spectrum T-mobile now owns, which to me was like needing more highway lanes to handle the traffic, but no mention of lowering the tolls (raising the data caps). Interpretation: Don't cut your landlines too soon.

All of this reminds me of two sore points that Apple has been criticized for: Not allowing Flash to play on its tablet, and that of one of its newer features, Facetime, to be WiFi only amongst its tablet, phone and Touch devices. We'll tackle Facetime first. As a video chat, you know this app is going to be a data hog. When my daughter first got her iPod Touch, she downloaded Skype and spent several hours chatting with friends. Had she been on a cell network, I would have been a very unhappy parent when that bill came. Since it was over WiFi, my bill was the same as it always was. Although my carrier placed caps on broadband a couple of months ago, she still would have come significantly under the cap, which is about 75 times greater than most cell plans.

Flash is another story. It's not phones that users have to worry about, because if performance is dismal, which it is on underpowered phones, people will avoid the website. On a tablet, Flash plays like it does on a larger computer. As a web developer, the only protocol one follows when designing a Flash piece is that it works. Most developers don't have formal training, and aren't taught to think a 2MB movie can work just as well as 10MB one. If you don’t know, all it will take is a couple of phone bills for your site visitors to realize that surfing you is the one costing them money, where you will see minimal traffic or outright avoidance take place.

If you want to know what cellphone companies are thinking, all you have to do is remember the launch of Motorola's tablet, Xoom, earlier this year. It had mixed reviews, but was seen as worthy competitor to the iPad. Then Verizon did something extraordinary, sure to sour sales right from the gate - it charged $20 to unlock WiFi, something unheard of with any WiFi-capable device. Motorola also incensed potential buyers by charging nearly $800 for its 32MB tablet, pricing it exactly the same as the 64MB model from Apple. Other competitors have learned from these mistakes, but these missteps have given Apple another years’ head start on top of the year it already had. Still, the cellphone companies trudge on. Verizon is offering plans that are $5 more than AT&T's plans. Gotta feel for you guys that purchased Verizon iPads.

These developments make the case for two things - one, don't cut your broadband cord. You'll need it to do the big tasks that cellular will make you pay dearly for. Two, keep you map of hotspots handy, because at the end of your billing cycle, you're going to need it.

As the author of a blog, I am aware of how quickly comments can turn into commentary that detracts from a post, and begin to focus on negative issues. I routinely ban comments that will detract from my readers enjoyment of the blog, and as the owner, I get to be the sole determinant of what detractions are.

Blogging has become a very important part in online newspapers as it gives readers the opportunity to comment on individual stories. This element is very important, as it takes its place beside Op-Ed and Letters to the Editor sections as an important part of community discussion.

However, in too many instances, blogging has become more than that, and a good deal of it negative. Stories that involve race, crime, poverty, education, immigration and other issues that benefit from a healthy public discourse have been hijacked by those who view these issues in narrow, often divisive positions. In anonymity, these “commentators” feel free to tell the world what they would never tell their friends, relatives, neighbors, coworkers, employers, community members and such how they really feel. In many respects, I feel some blogs allow misunderstanding, fear and hate to masquerade as discussion and discourse.

I used to work as a columnist for a community newspaper. There were two issues I concerned myself with as I penned my columns. The first was how it might be edited to say in essence what I said, but not quite what I meant. Editors do "edit" columns as they proof them. A sentence edit could change a whole point of view. With my name on the column, I couldn't say I didn't write it.

The other issue was how it would be perceived by the readers. I was sometimes stopped on the street to discuss a point, or disagreement. Sometimes, my wife and kids could rescue me from a dicey situation, as in, "we need to be going." Other times, I was on my own.

The point is that I understood the impact of what I was saying and who I was saying it to. I also considered that I was going to be interpreted by both an editor and reader base, and that they both knew who I was. Unlike many bloggers today, I wasn't throwing rocks and hiding behind usernames and avatars. I was accountable for what I wrote, and often, held accountable by the readers.

I applaud what the major Chicago newspapers have finally started to do, which is monitor their blogs and crack down on very offensive comments. It has not been easy, but the level of blog commentary is much more readable than in the past. In many cases, the Chicago Tribune doesn't even open commentary to articles they deem will probably result in overly negative commentary, and the SunTimes routinely blocks comments and bans repeat offenders.

Some would call this censorship and stepping on first amendment rights. I call it bringing standards back into mainstream journalism. I've written letters to the editor, and have had them printed. After my letter, I got a phone call from the paper to confirm I wrote it. After it was printed, I'd get calls from friends and relatives saying they saw it. I exercised first amendment rights, and had to deal with first amendment consequences and benefits. "I'm just saying..." needs to have a real name attached to it.

For those who operate blogs, this is where the work comes in. If you have a cause, you can't just let comments flow freely to spice things up. When they get out of hand, you have to shut things down. In some cases, you have to ban users. If you don't, visitors just won’t ignore the comments, they'll ignore the blog entirely.