Consumers would be losers in AT&T merger with T-Mobile

UP TO this point, competition in the cellphone industry has yielded major benefits for consumers, who can choose from a vast array of handsets and service plans. The possible merger of AT&T, the second-largest carrier, with T-Mobile USA, the fourth-largest, threatens that competition, and the Federal Communications Commission and the Justice Department’s antitrust division should be highly skeptical in evaluating whether to approve the deal.

AT&T caught telecom analysts off guard this week when it announced a $39 billion proposal to buy T-Mobile USA from its current owner,Deutsche Telekom. T-Mobile was widely thought to be a takeover target for the third-largest carrier, Sprint Nextel. Besides, the regulatory hurdles seemed stiff, and rightly so: AT&T and the top carrier, Verizon Wireless, already dwarf all other competitors, and letting one of them absorb T-Mobile, which offers a number of low-cost plans and has shown a willingness to experiment with interesting technologies, could significantly reduce pressure to keep prices down.

But the Obama administration, which last year approved the combination of concert-industry giants LiveNation and Ticketmaster, hasn’t been as stringent in antitrust enforcement as it promised. A tougher posture is in order now.

AT&T contends that the merger will help with its plans to deploy a higher-speed data network, and that it should help ease a bandwidth shortage that can only get worse as more and more people use their phones as their primary way to surf the Internet. The bandwidth crunch is a real problem for which the FCC must devise a systematic solution. But it’s not a reason to let just two companies — Verizon and an expanded AT&T — dominate an ever more vital industry. If regulators let AT&T buy T-Mobile, they’d be hard-pressed to stop Verizon from buying Sprint. And while merger advocates note that in most cities, customers can also choose from smaller carriers, it’s the big national carriers that have been responsible for technological innovation.

Should regulators block the deal, AT&T agreed to pay stiff penalties — a $3 billion fee, plus some spectrum rights to T-Mobile. These terms helped persuade T-Mobile to pursue a merger with AT&T rather than Sprint, but they also put subtle pressure on the FCC, whose job is not just to police the wireless industry but to nurture it.

The breakup of the original AT&T in 1984 paved the way for a previously unthinkable level of innovation in telecommunications. The breakup was necessary because building a competing national communications network from scratch was all but impossible. Those same concerns are valid today. A country of 300 million people can support four major national carriers, and federal regulators should think twice before letting one of them buy another.

Nvidia GeForce GTX 590 Review: Dual-GPU Wars

With AMD's Radeon HD 6990 stealing the performance crown only two short weeks ago, we knew it wouldn't be long before Nvidia answered the challenge. The company's GeForce GTX 590 was a poorly guarded secret, with specifications leaking as far back as last fall. Today marks the flagship's official launch and needless to say, we're excited to see how it stacks up to AMD's dual-GPU offering.

Before slamming the GTX 590 with our battery of tests, we'd like to quickly recap our Radeon HD 6990findings. Code-named Antilles, the AMD card is essentially a pair of Radeon HD 6970's fused together, albeit with lower GPU and memory clocks. Overall, it's roughly 6% slower than two 6970s in CrossFire. That deficit is compounded by the 6990's pricey $699 MSRP, higher thermals and louder operation.

In other words, despite being the fastest graphics card available (at the time anyway), the Radeon HD 6990's drawbacks made it impractical for the vast majority of users. Unfortunately, that is nearly always the case with dual-GPU cards, so it'll be interesting to see if Nvidia has kept the GTX 590's power consumption and noise levels in check while delivering the expected level of performance at a fair price.

The GeForce GTX 590 packs two GF110 graphics processors -- the same chip that powers the GTX 580, currently the fastest single-GPU graphics card available. Although the GTX 590's processors have the same core configuration as the GTX 580's, Nvidia had to reduce the graphics and memory clock frequencies to keep the card's thermal envelope within reasonable levels. Again, we saw the same compromise on the Radeon HD 6990.

Realizing that, we can already assume the GTX 590 isn't going to be as fast as two GTX 580s in SLI. However, two GTX 580s would cost at least $1,000, and since the GTX 590 needs to be relatively competitive with the Radeon HD 6990 in terms of pricing, we bet Nvidia doesn't want the GTX 590 to be as quick as SLIed GTX 580s anyway. Okay, that's enough speculation. Let's get this party started!

GeForce GTX 590 In Detail

With a suggested retail price of $699, the GeForce GTX 590 is obviously aimed at the Radeon HD 6990. Nvidia says its dual-GPU package was created for elite enthusiast gamers looking to run titles at their maximum graphics settings and screen resolutions with high levels of anti-aliasing.The company goes on to say "this is a very high-end product that's catered towards the most discriminating gamer. Think of it as the Bugatti Veyron of the graphics world." In six years, only 291 Veyrons have been delivered, so let's hope the GTX 590 doesn't share that particular feat.

The reference design measures just 11" long making it much shorter than the 12.2" Radeon HD 6990, so Nvidia's card should fit inside a broader range of computer cases. In fact, it's only a half an inch longer than Nvidia's official specifications for the single-GF110 GeForce GTX 580.

Based on Fermi's third-generation Streaming Multiprocessor (SM) architecture, the GeForce GTX 590 boasts 8 Graphic Processing Clusters, 32 Streaming Multiprocessors, and 1024 CUDA cores. There are also 96 ROP (Raster Operations) units and 128 TAU (Texture Addressing Units).

That's double the specifications seen on the GTX 580, but as we mentioned earlier, the GTX 590 has reduced clock frequencies. The graphics clock speed for fixed function units is set at just 607MHz which is 21% lower than the 772MHz that they operate at on the GeForce GTX 580.

The GeForce GTX 590 is paired with two banks of 1536MB of GDDR5 memory clocked at 1707MHz (3414MHz DDR) for a total memory capacity of 3072MB. Combine that with a 384-bit memory interface and you get a peak theoretical bandwidth of 327.7GB/s or163.9GB/s per GPU.

The GTX 590's GDDR5 memory is clocked 15% lower than the GTX 580's. Ultimately, this means that while the GTX 580's single GPU is fed a bandwidth of 192.4GB/s, each of the GTX 590's GPUs get 15% less bandwidth. When combined, they provide 70% more throughput.

Nvidia claims the GTX 590 has a Thermal Design Power (TDP) of 365 watts, which is 50% greater than the GTX 580. However, that's slightly lower than the 375-watt rating AMD slapped on its Radeon HD 6990.

Nvidia has employed the same cooling measures used by other high-end GTX 500 series graphics cards. The card has a number of power monitoring chips that oversee power draw from the PCIe slot and PCIe power connectors.

By monitoring power consumption, the card determines if it is drawing too much power and throttles down. We first saw a similar design on the Radeon HD 5970, which would regularly reduce its operating frequency when running load programs such as FurMark and OCCT. Using these programs to measure the load consumption of the GeForce GTX 590 can't really be done accurately.

Other than the PCIe slot, the GeForce GTX 590 pulls power though a pair of external PCIe power connectors. The GTX 590 requires a pair of 8-pin connectors, just like the new Radeon HD 6990. Nvidia recommends using at least a 700-watt power supply with the GTX 590.

Nvidia has employed a 12-layer PCB for best signal integrity. Powering the twin GPUs is a 10-phase advanced digital power controller with overvolting capability, while two dual-phase controllers provide power for the board's GDDR5 memory.

The GTX 590 has also received a substantially overhauled cooling design. Notice there are no heatpipes sticking out the top and the PCB ventilation has been removed. Instead of using a traditional heatpipe heatsink, the GTX 590 utilizes two vapor chamber heatsinks.

With the heatsinks off, the GeForce GTX 590 looks considerably different than the previous dual-GPU solutions. In fact, the design is remarkably similar to the Radeon HD 6990's as each GPU is now located at opposite ends of the 11" PCB.

The heatsinks are separated by a large 85mm fan which is positioned in-between them rather than at the end of the card. This design is said to be more efficient as it allows the fan to spin at a lower RPM while providing the same amount of air across both heatsinks.

The GTX 590 has three dual-link DVI-I outputs along with one Mini DisplayPort connection and there's also a small amount of ventilation across the top of the I/O panel. The card can handle three displays for a maximum resolution of 7680x1600 (three 2560x1600 LCDs) -- something we plan to test.

Test System Specs & 3Dmark 11

Test System Specs
- Intel Core i7 920 (Overclocked @ 3.70GHz)
- x3 2GB G.Skill DDR3 PC3-12800 (CAS 9-9-9-24)
- Asus P6T Deluxe (Intel X58)
- OCZ ZX Series (1250w)
- Crucial RealSSD C300 256GB (SATA 6Gb/s)
- Gigabyte Radeon HD 6970 (2048MB) Crossfire
- Gigabyte Radeon HD 6990 (4096MB)
- HIS Radeon HD 5970 (2048MB)
- Gigabyte Radeon HD 6970 (2048MB)
- Gigabyte GeForce GTX 590 (3072MB)
- Asus GeForce GTX 580 (1536MB)
- Gigabyte GeForce GTX 570 (1280MB)
Software
- Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit
- Nvidia Forceware 267.71
- Nvidia Forceware 267.24
- AMD Catalyst 11.2
- AMD Catalyst 11.4 Preview

According to the 3Dmark 11 performance test, the GeForce GTX 590 is actually 10% slower than the Radeon HD 6990 which is surprising given that the GTX 580 is faster than the HD 6970. It seems that Nvidia sucked a lot of life out of the GF110 by reducing the fixed functions clock frequency 21% per GPU.

40% of Social Network Users Attacked by Malware

The newest battleground for malware attacks? Facebook and Twitter. And, according to the experts, it's one of the most productive for the attackers. Why? Well, people can't help but click social links.

Last December, the anti-virus firm Sophos discovered that 40% of social network users had encountered malicious attacks. Despite Facebook's demurrals ("Despite constant attacks, our data shows that the vast majority of people on Facebook have never experienced a security issue on the site," counters Facebook spokesman Frederic Wolens), another network security company has proven how easy it is to spread malware through social networks with a recent experiment. Employees of the firm, Dasient, set up accounts at 11 different social networks and posted links to malware sites. And the result? Only two networks succeeded in blocking links to sites contained in Google's list of known "poisoned" websites. In a feat of understatement, Dasient's CTO Neil Daswani said "The social networks we tested have some work to do on their malware countermeasures."

Of course, Google can't be expected to save people from malware all on its own. As Gunter Ollman, research VP at security company Damballa says, "Bypassing Google's safe browsing list and similar technologies is trivial. While public awareness of the threat has been increasing, the capabilities of the attackers has been increasing at an even faster rate." It doesn't help that we apparently make it easy for them; Anup Ghosh, chief scientist at security firm Invincea says that "the faith users put into social networks is providing an enormous universe of opportunity for nefarious actors."

On that note, here are a few security tips to keep in mind while using Facebook or Twitter:
Know who your friends are, and be skeptical if they post a link to something that seems out-of-character (say, an outrageous celebrity video posted by your 80 year-old uncle).
If you're about to install a Facebook app, check the URL bar on top of your browser. If you're at a website other than facebook.com, that's a bad sign. If the app is asking for your e-mail and password, that's even worse.
When someone posts a shortened URL on Twitter, you can hover the mouse over it to see the full link.
Beware of links accompanied by vague, direct messages, along the lines of "hey, check this out!" If there's no personally identifiable information, the message may not be trustworthy.
When a Facebook status update comes from a third-party source, such as Tweetdeck, it'll say so underneath the update, but you can use this signifier to sniff out malicious activity as well. For instance, Facebook's "dislike" scam spread last year through bogus status updates, but eagle-eyed users would have noticed "via The Official Dislike Button" under those updates and stayed far, far away.

As always, the best solution is our common sense. Think before you click, as the saying goes, and always try to remember that it's very unlikely that you really need to see that apparently salacious new video of the celebrity of the moment behaving improbably badly.

Firefox 4 Is Certainly Zippy, But Is That Enough To Switch Back From Chrome?

If you’ve already downloaded the new Firefox 4today, the first you probably noticed is how much zippier it is. I pretty much had stopped using Firefox altogether because of the creekiness of its previous versions compared to Chrome, Safari, and IE9. But the new Firefox 4, which Mozilla claims is 6 times as fast as before, puts it back in the same pack at least as the rest. It’s been downloaded nearly 2 million times as of this writing (check thecounter for more up-to-the-second numbers).

I’m sure there are plenty of benchmark tests that show one browser is faster than the other, and vice versa, but my initial reactions after playing around with Firefox 4 today and comparing it side by side with Chrome is that it is just as fast if not faster. It depends on which website I visit. TechCrunch, for instance, loads a second or two faster by my stopwatch. Without the stopwatch, I can’t tell the difference. And that’s a good thing for Firefox, because speed is my No. 1 requirement for a Web browser. Nothing else is nearly as important. Sluggishness pushes users away. So that’s fixed.

Firefox also supports all sorts of HTML5 and other modern Web apps. If you want to check some out, go to its Web O’ Wonder page where you can test 360-degree videos, animations, in-browser games and other highly graphic apps. You can se emost of them on Chrome as well, but these are tuned especially for Firefox 4. The360-degree video, for instance, looks much better in Firefox and the panning around is much smoother. But there are plenty of HTML5 apps that look better in Chromeor Safari, so don’t let canned demos sway you.

The new Firefox also has some new security features like a Do Not Track option for online ads, lets you sync tabs and browsers across to mobile browsers, and makes it easier to group tabs and see all open tabs in a thumbnail view. I don’t know if the speed and other features are enough to make me want to come back. I’ve got everything set up on Chrome so nicely and I am a creature of habit. But if Chrome starts acting up or crashing my browsers, it’s nice to know I’ve got plenty of other options—and Firefox is once again on that list.

DOWNLOAD HERE FIREFOX 4!!

Chinon Stylix™ iPod/iPhone Docking Station Plays iTunes Audio and Video Files

LAKE ZURICH, IL, March 21, 2011 -- Chinon USA has merged fashion, entertainment and the latest audio-video technology in its new AVi Sytlix™ docking station for Apple iPhone and iPod.

Available in an array of colors to match your unique sense of style, the AVi Stylix is the ultimate Apple accessory. It features a 7-inch high-resolution LCD that delivers brilliant, high-resolution playback of videos stored on an iPod or iPhone. In addition, when docked to an iPhone or iPod Touch connected by Wi-Fi, the Avi Stylix will stream web videos from popular sites such as YouTube® or Netflix®. Because the screen is nearly three times the size of the iPhone's LCD, it greatly enhances the user experience and makes it easier to share the fun with friends.

The AVi Stylix sound system provides a rich, multi-dimensional audio, whether it is playing music from an iTunes® library or a dynamic movie soundtrack. Dual 2W stereo speakers output a generous range that will fill any size room. Best of all, this incredible sound comes within a small, portable package that is perfect for bedrooms, offices, dorm rooms, and any other limited space areas.

In addition to playing audio and video from an iPod or iPhone, the AVi Stylix has inputs for USB and SD cards to view movies, photos and videos, or to listen to music that is stored on either a card or thumb drive. SD cards can be directly removed from a digital camera and inserted into the AVi Stylix turning the unit into a high-end digital photo frame.

Operation could not be simpler. Just place an iPod or iPhone into the universal dock adapter, select an operation mode, and you're ready to rock - no additional cords or accessories required. An intuitive remote control provides control of an iPod or iPhone from across the room. Other features on the Stylix are a digital radio and an alarm clock.

The Chinon AVi Stylix will be available in June 2011 with an MSRP of $99.99. Chinon products are sold by several online retailers including overstock.com and bundlecity.com.

For more information, visit www.chinonusa.com.

Chinon's Avi Stylix iPod / iPhone docking station packs 7-inch LCD, streams Netflix*

It doesn't scream quality (or maybe the legion of professional stock photographers were all on vacation last week), but the June-bound Avi Stylix does have something that the vast majority of me-too iPod / iPhone docking stations do not: an embedded 7-inch LCD. The usual suspects are also here, including a Dock Connector port, twin two-watt speakers, USB port, SD card slot and a bundled remote. The kicker is its ability to stream Netflix, but there's an obvious catch; you'll need an iPhone or iPod touch with a live internet connection in order to do so. There's no actual WiFi module built into the main unit, so you'll need to rely on your connected device to pull in the content. Still, for $99.99, it might not be a bad bet for your guest room. Or your office desk, since you know you aren't getting any actual work done.

AT&T acquires T-Mobile USA in $39 billion deal

AT&T is buying T-Mobile USA. AT&T will make a $25 billion
cash payment, and $14 billion will be paid using AT&T stock.

New York (CNN) -- AT&T will acquire T-Mobile USA from telecommunications company Deutsche Telekom for an estimated $39 billion in cash and stocks, the companies said in a joint release Sunday.

The acquisition will expand AT&T's 4G network 1.2 million square miles and will be accessible to an additional 46.5 million Americans, the statement said. AT&T also expects to gain enough cell towers to increase its network density by 30%.

"This transaction represents a major commitment to strengthen and expand critical infrastructure for our nation's future," AT&T chief executive Randall Stephenson said in a statement.

The $39 billion purchase will include a $25 billion cash payment; the remainder will be paid using AT&T stock. AT&T can increase the cash portion of the price tag by up to $4.2 billion while cutting the stock portion.

As part of the acquisition, Deutsche Telekom will have an 8% equity stake in AT&T and a company representative will join the AT&T board of directors.

The agreement has been approved by the boards of directors at both AT&T and Deutsche Telekom.

CNNMoney: AT&T to acquire T-Mobile for $39 billion

The new entity would be the biggest in the US, combining AT&T's 95 million customers with T-Mobile's 34 million users for a total of 130 million subscribers.

AT&T said the transaction would quickly provide "the spectrum and network efficiencies necessary ... to address impending spectrum exhaust in key markets" due to the exponential growth of traffic on its network.

The telecom giant added that it expects to gain enough cell towers through the deal to increase its network density by 30%.

As part of the merger, AT&T committed to expand its 4G network 1.2 million square miles, making it accessible to an additional 46.5 million Americans, mostly in rural and smaller communities, the statement said.

The AT&T release notes that its 4G expansion would help achieve the Federal Communications Commission and President Obama's goals to connect "every part of America to the digital age."

The $39 billion purchase will include a $25 billion cash payment; the remainder will be paid using AT&T stock. AT&T can increase the cash portion of the payment by up to $4.2 billion while cutting the stock portion.

AT&T didn't directly address how the merger would affect the new company's pricing. But on the website it built to announce the deal, www.mobilizeeverything.com, it notes: "Historically, during periods when carriers combined to achieve efficiencies, U.S. wireless prices fell."

The company also cites a 2010 report from the U.S. General Accounting Office which found that the average cost of wireless services (adjusted for inflation) "declined 50 percent from 1999 to 2009, during a period which saw five major wireless mergers." The agreement has been approved by the boards of directors at both AT&T and Deutsche Telekom, but will be subject to regulatory approval.

Fortune: Regulatory hurdles await merger

Charles Golvin from Forrester Research said: "AT&T's acquisition of T-Mobile, if approved, brings good news and bad news. The good news: high-speed mobile broadband service will improve in quality and coverage, including ? in the long run ? those in rural communities outside the reach of terrestrial broadband today.

"The bad news: the cost of that service won't come down nearly as fast as customers would like, since AT&T and Verizon Wireless combined would own nearly three out of every four wireless subscriptions in the US. While clearly troublesome for Sprint and other mobile smaller mobile competitors, It's also bad news for cable operators, whose incipient mobility products will suffer in comparison to what AT&T and Verizon can offer."