M.I.A. decided giving an audience of more than 100 million people during the Super Bowl was a good idea and because of her action she could be stuck with a very hefty FCC fine.

According to sources close to the singers agreement the NFL had M.I.A. sign an agreement in which she would pay any FCC fines that arose from bad behavior. The contract was necessary after the halftime show became a shock & awe platform for singers looking to grab headlines.

In the meantime NBC has been indemnified by the NFL since the league handles the halftime show.

Under M.I.A.’s contract she will be responsible for 100 percent of all fines that are handed down to the NFL and NBC.

You may recall that CBS was forced to pay a $550,000 fine to the FCC after Janet Jackson’s nipple was exposed during a halftime performance however that fine was eventually thrown out in federal appeals court.

It’s likely however that M.I.A. will not be successful in an appeal since her actions were blatantly aimed at breaking FCC rules.

Sources close to the contract state that it wasn’t just about skirting a huge fine but also sending a message to performers that their actions have direct monetary repercussions.

Here’s the M.I.A. performance from the Super Bowl Halftime show:

Do you think it’s about time that singers at the NFL halftime show take responsibility for their own silly actions?

M.I.A. Will Be Forced To Pay All Super Bowl Halftime Fines For Middle Finger Incident [Video] is a post from: The Inquisitr

Google, Google, Google, you are so full of surprises aren’t you, or at least it would appear so given your request to the Federal Communications Commission for permission to test a mysterious “entertainment device” that will utilize Wi-Fi and Bluetooth. The request is limited to allow only Google employees in four specific cities: Mountain View, Los Angeles, Cambridge, and New York

So what are you up to Google?

Looking to add something to your Google TV service or perhaps you want to get into the gaming business for all those social games on Google+.

According to Google’s own application which was filed in December this is what they had to say to the FCC

Explanation:

Google is developing an entertainment device that requires testing outside the laboratory environment. The device is in the prototyping phase and will be modified prior to final compliance testing.

Purpose of Operation:

Testing throughput and stability of home WiFi networks using an entertainment device. Testing will include functional testing of all subsystems, including WiFi and Bluetooth radio. Users will connect their device to home WiFi networks and use Bluetooth to connect to other home electronics equipment. This line of testing will reveal real world engineering issues and reliability of networks. The device utilizes a standard WiFi/Bluetooth module, and the planned testing is not directed at evaluating the radio frequency characteristics of the module (which are known), but rather at the throughput and stability of the home WiFi networks that will support the device, as well as the basic functionality of the device. From this testing we hope to modify the design in order to maximize product robustness and user experience. Utilizing the requested number of units will allow testing of real world network performance and its impact on applications running on the device, so that any problems can be discovered and addressed promptly. All devices will be used by and registered to specific individuals (all Google employees), and Google will maintain a record of each device, so that they can be easily recalled at any time during testing and when testing is complete.

via FCC Application

via GigaOM

Google hits up the FCC for an ‘experimental’ licence – so what are they testing now? is a post from: The Inquisitr

The Federal Communications Commission plans to reform and then modernize the Lifeline program. Lifeline is a system that allows low-income families to take advantage of extremely low phone service rates for landline phones.

According to the FCC Lifeline is a:

 “Universal service program that fulfills Congress’s mandate to ensure the availability of communications to all Americans.”

The agencies plans come at a time when phone service has drastically increased for low-income families since 1985. At the beginning of the program 80% of low-income families had phone service through lifeline while today’s number is closer to 92% of all low-income families.

Under the new program the FCC will create several databases and protocols that will help ensure there is no abuse of the carrier program.

One way the FCC plans to combat abuse is by providing an eligibility database from governmental records which would automate eligibility for initial and ongoing Lifeline participants.

According to the commission the move will “reduce the potential for fraud while cutting red tape for consumers and providers.”

Having worked for 15 years in the telecommunications industry I often heard and saw cases in which companies would provide potential Lifeline customers with confusing Lifeline forms only to delay access to the program for weeks, sometimes months on end before “misplacing forms” and making low-income customers start all over again.

The FCC says the program must be revamped and modernized before the end of 2013.

Do you think fixing the lifeline program for low-income families is a long overdue solution for an aging system?

FCC To Reform And Modernize “Lifeline” Program For Low-Income Families is a post from: The Inquisitr

Forget that 3G version of the Samsung Galaxy Note that has already passed through the FCC for approval because the AT&T version has also arrived and it features 4G data capabilities via LTE technology.

According to the filing the device, filed under SGH-i717brings with it GSM/Edge capabilities along with UMTS/HSPA+ (21Mbps) and the superior LTE bands 4 and 7.

The FCC have already approved the device following final emissions testing.

The Samsung Galaxy Note has been a much-talked about device recently thanks to the devices ability to make calls while still featuring a “mini-tablet” type setup with a 5.3-inch Super AMOLED display that offers 1280×800 resolution output.

Powering the 3G version of the device to date has been the Google Android “Gingerbread” OS version along with a 1.4GHz dual-core processor which may be pushed to 1.5GHz for the LTE version.

AT&T Wireless has not yet provided a release date or pricing for the LTE version of the devices however the 3G Galaxy Note has been confirmed for a mid-February launch in Canada.

The original international version of the Galaxy Note has already seen more than one million shipments to retailers.

Are you willing to wait for the LTE version of the Samsung Galaxy Note to arrive on store shelves or will the3G version suffice?

FCC Receives Samsung Galaxy Note For AT&T Approval, Sports 4G Connectivity is a post from: The Inquisitr

I pay just under $60 per month for internet service, compared to some users in other parts of the country that price would be fair for 12Mbps download speed, unfortunately my ISP provider (Mediacom – http://mediacomcc.com) could possibly be one of the worst providers for internet service in the United States.

Let me explain, over the last several months I have called/tweeted the company (they are better help on Twitter then over the phone) on at least two dozen occasions, typically around Midnight to report outages. Unfortunately the company finds midnight to be a relatively “off-peak” time and often shuts down its network to make changes. Strangely enough during “off-peak” hours when I try to call the company I’m often met with the message “our lines are full please call back later.”

When the network isn’t completely shot to hell my average download speed ranges from .87Mbps to just over 5.3mbps. When I do get a hold of a customer service rep on the phone or through @MediacomSupport (Twitter), I am told “we are aware of the issue and are working on it” a message that has rang false for the last 6 months.

In the good old days of DSL and even traditional landline phones if I wasn’t happy with the service I could simply choose a different provider. As many of you may recall when Ma Bell was split apart the telephone lines running to homes were easily accessible to other providers, if you were for example sick of Verizon home phone service you could pick up AT&T or Fairpoint or any number of other providers in your area. Unfortunately for cable users that isn’t the case for cable service, that’s because cable companies own the lines that run to your home and therefore own your business. In my little town of 2800 people (we are 14 miles from a larger set of twin cities) our only choice is Mediacom or the much slower and expensive DSL service provided by Fairpoint Communications.

Yet there are no laws in my state (or others that I am aware of) that would allow me to simply call another company (Comcast is located 14 miles away) and switch to their service.

The problem is that cable companies have traditionally been franchises or “leased” by local government or utilities commissions, this has typically meant that you have one provider in your area (this fact has begun to change in larger cities and suburbs). Sure you can change to a satellite provider however broadband internet is not yet a reality with satellite systems.

What that essentially means is that local governments can create “mini-monopolies” in which one cable provider is given free reign over the network. You may have noticed on your cable bill a “franchise fee” that part of your bill is going directly into the city’s bank account. Essentially your local government is reaping the benefits regardless of what provider they allow. There is a federal guideline created by the FCC that states a local cable company is subject to “effective competition” in the area, however with the advent of satellite providers it’s easy to call something “effective competition” even when it doesn’t offer basic tenants of that competition including high speed internet.

In fact the FCC on its own website states:

If you are not satisfied with your cable rates, look for alternative multichannel video programming services that may be available in your area, such as competitive cable services, satellite television services and open video system services.

Furthering the dilemma is the fact that the FCC does very little in the way of regulating “customer service” in fact in the FCC’s cable television regulations they specifically state:

The FCC has developed general guidelines for customer service that deal with, for example, how quickly a cable operator must answer its phone or respond to requests for service, and how a cable bill should be written. It is up to your local franchising authority to enforce the guidelines in your community. Therefore, complaints about customer service and billing disputes should be directed to your local franchising authority. (this guidelines dates back to 1994 and can be found here: http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/News_Releases/nrcb4009.txt)

Essentially your local franchising authority is responsible for your satisfaction with your cable provider. This is often why cable rate increasing, basic cable pricing and other issues are heard during city council meetings.

Unfortunately because the cable provider is not necessarily answering directly to the FCC on all issues regarding the operation of its network and because cities are often ill-equipped to deal with complaints customers in areas with only one cable network franchise are for better lack of a word screwed.

From a business standpoint running cable/fiber optic is not cheap and franchise owners have long argue that they can only recuperate their expenses for service lines by controlling territories, however the company’s have done a fine job of dealing with expenses by charging for everything from DVR and HDDVR boxes to early termination fees. In fact after more than 12 months of incorrect billing in which Mediacom was charging me for options that were listed on my contract as free I was only able to remove my cable TV service (I now use Netflix and Hulu Plus) after paying half the early termination fee, they decided to eat the other part out of “respect for my situation” which is ironic because they created the situation.

When all is said and done I was overcharged by Mediacom by more than $100 because of the services incompetence, I was forced to pay half the termination fee to end cable service even though they fully acknowledged the issues were related to problems on their service and I was left with cable service that under delivers by 60% of it’s promised 12Mbps download speeds.

My anger over Mediacom has quelled in recent weeks as I near the decision to contact a representative willing to go after the company for failing to meet their advertised speeds. Whether my journey ends with the start of a class action lawsuit or other measures being taken against the company, what I do know however is that increased competition in my area would have saved Mediacom and myself over 100 hours of phone calls, troubleshooting and other issues if I could have simply said goodbye to a worthless service provider and picked up Comcast (by all means not perfect either) which is just 14 miles away from my tiny little town on the outskirts of a much bigger city.

Have you had similar issues with your ISP/Cable Provider? Share your comments below and feel free to reach out in frustration through my Twitter handle: @Techobsessed.

[Op-Ed] When Your ISP Fails You And There Are No Other Choices is a post from: The Inquisitr

The Supreme Court has been talking all day about ending the government’s historic rule over television content, specifically regarding the removal of “indecency” rules that affect prime-time television. Despite the rumblings, the Court generally seems highly reluctant to ease its hold over television programming.

During oral arguments on the constitutionality of banning our favorite four-letter sentence enhancers and nudity, Justice Antonin Scalia insisted that the “government can insist on a certain modicum of decency”. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. further clarified that “All we are asking for is for a few channels” free from profanity and lewd sexual content. He is a parent of two.

Since the 30s, federal law has prevented radio and TV broadcasters from producing material considered “obscene, indecent or profane.” It’s axiomatic to us, we don’t question it, even though it is a form of censorship.

Another thing we haven’t noticed is how heavily the government and the FCC have been leaning on broadcasters in the last decade. Under the Bush administration, the FCC issued several networks hefty fines. Fox was fiend for allowing celebrities (Cher, Bono) to use sentence enhancers during live awards programs. ABC was fined to the tune of $1.4 million for Charlotte Ross’s now-infamous NYPD Blue shower scene (couldn’t find it for linkage, but if you go hunting for it, be warned: NSFW).

Lawyers are urging the Supreme Court to strike down the FCC’s indecency rules, saying that such standards are out-dated and useless, especially given the amount of uncensored content that individuals are exposed to via the internet. They also pointed out the vague and arbitrary aspects of the standards, pointing out that an uncensored broadcast of hard-R rated Saving Private Ryan was permitted while other networks continued to receive fines for single-offenses.

The judges were primarily unswayed.

Justice Roberts told one lawyer:

“People understand that context counts, [...] Your argument is that they can’t take context into account.”

Justice Elena Kagan straddled the issue, saying:

“It seems no one can use dirty words, except Steven Spielberg,” but then went on to say, “It seems to be a good thing to have a safe haven” in prime-time where such standards are enforced.

No matter what side of the issue you are on, so far: no progress. Oh, and in case you were wondering, by sentence enhancers, I meant profanity. I’m not being PC or glib, just cheeky.

Do you think the FCC’s decency standards should be lightened or thrown out all together?

Here’s the video report from our pals at Newsy:

Supreme Court Reluctant to Remove Indecency Measures for TV is a post from: The Inquisitr

Steven Tyler- you know the guy who is like an ancient plesiosaur but has like a whole bunch of kids with groupies and has spent the last four decades wearing obscenely tight pants?

That guy is complaining about indecency. Like, not that people are calling his music indecent, or criticizing the shenanigans on the show he hosts, American Idol- like rockstar Steven Tyler would like it if people on the tee vee would comport themselves in a more dignified fashion, thank you very much. Oh, and his remarks are addressed to the Supreme Court, who are about to review a case about decency standards and broadcast TV.

It’s an interesting perspective because when I was a kid, Frank Zappa was leading a charge against censorship and all the big alt-rock bands of the day spoke out about it, so supporting censorship seems to me to be a very un-rock-n-roll thing to do. But Tyler says he is sick and tired of scantily clad women dancing across his television screen, and doesn’t wish to see people using coarse language to one another. He explains:

Steven Tyler of Aerosmith Says Supreme Court Should Be Stricter About TV Swears, Nudity is a post from: The Inquisitr

As promised the Federal Communications Commission quickly reexamined AT&T’s purchase of Qualcomm wireless spectrum after the company abandoned their $39 billion takeover bid of T-Mobile USA following pressure from the agency and other governmental officials.

Qualcomm had purchased its 700MHz frequencies for the short-lived Flo TV service and AT&T Wireless will need to guarantee against interference while allowing other cellular networks to roam on the spectrum once it’s put into place.

Once completed the deal would take effect at the end of 2011 and would provide Qualcomm with $1.9 billion in cash.

The FCC had hinted at a Qualcomm spectrum approval if AT&T Wireless withdrew their T-Mobile acquisition. AT&T executives had long maintained that the T-Mobile USA buyout was necessary because they required more wireless spectrum to increase their mobile data network capabilities.

The deal has still raised concerns from AT&T’s competitors including Verizon and Sprint Wireless who say AT&T has not had to make any concessions which would require their spectrum to be compatible with CDMA providers. While phones could still be made to interoperate it would be up to the company’s competitors to ensure that was the case. AT&T could technically offer customers devices that would not work should they choose to switch to a new carrier.

The FCC could redeem themselves in the eyes of carriers in early 2012 when they will rule on whether or not LET networks need to be compatible with one another.

AT&T however isn’t the only wireless provider to pick up new wireless spectrum space, in early December Verizon Wireless announced a new agreement with several cable operators that would provide North America’s largest wireless carrier with new spectrum, a deal worth $3.6 billion.

Do you believe AT&T Wireless should be able allowed to purchase the Qualcomm mobile spectrum without any major anti-competitive clauses put into place?

FCC Gives AT&T Wireless Go Ahead To Purchase Qualcomm Spectrum is a post from: The Inquisitr

Last month, the FCC found that AT&T’s proposed merger with T-Mobile it would result in stifled competition and potentially kill hundreds of jobs”, and it would ultimately be harmful to consumers.

Following the FCC’s move to block the merger, AT&T and T-Mobile formally withdrew their application to the FCC last month, but AT&T isn’t quite ready to give up just yet. They’re now taking the case to the Department of Justice, but it hasn’t gotten off to a particularly well start.

U.S. District Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle in Washington recently scheduled a hearing on December 15 to determine whether or not to grant a stay on AT&T’s antitrust trial with the Department of Justice, or dismiss it entirely. Needles to say, neither option is great news for AT&T.

“We don’t have any confidence that we are spending all this time and effort and the taxpayers’ money and that we’re not being spun,” Huvelle said. “The landscape has changed,” she said, questioning whether or not the deal would even be able to be carried out before the contractual deadline.

Despite the latest setback, AT&T’s lawyers are holding their ground, demanding that they get their “day in court.” AT&T lawyers insist that if they’re able to win over the Department of Justice, there’s a chance that the FCC will allow the merger to continue.

Source: Bloomberg

[Image]

AT&T, T-Mobile Merger: Judge considering shutting down antitrust trial is a post from: The Inquisitr

AT&T and T-Mobile’s proposed merger hit another potential snag today as FCC chairman Julius Genachowski moved to block the merger, calling for the decision to be taken before an administrative law judge.

Chairman Genachowski made the move after the commission decided that should AT&T and T-Mobile be allowed to merge, it would result in stifled competition and potentially kill hundreds of jobs, harming consumers.

Should Genachowski get his way, AT&T will be taken to a trial-like hearing to prove to the FCC that the merger would be in the best interest of consumers. In order for Genachowski’s draft order to go into effect, however, FCC members will have to agree to either sign off on the order, amend it or deny it entirely. There’s currently no timeline on when a decision is expected.

AT&T’s senior vice president for corporate communications, Larry Solomon, condemned Genachowski’s move in a statement, saying:

“It is yet another example of a government agency acting to prevent billions in new investment and the creation of many thousands of new jobs at a time when the U.S. economy desperately needs both,” Solomon said in a statement. “At this time, we are reviewing all options.”

[Image credit: Wired]

FCC finds AT&T, T-Mobile merger harmful to consumers, chairman calls for trial is a post from: The Inquisitr

In a 52 to 46 vote held on Thursday, the Senate blocked a GOP bid to overturn the Federal Communications Commission’s controversial net neutrality regulations.

Earlier this week, the White House threatened to veto the measure should the Senate pass it, saying that repealing net neutrality regulations would jeopardize freedom on the internet.

“It would be ill-advised to threaten the very foundations of innovation in the Internet economy and the democratic spirit that has made the Internet a force for social progress around the world,” the White House said.

Republicans argue that the FCC overstepped its legal authority with the net neutrality regulations, adding that regulating the internet would stifle its growth, and even referring to the regulations as a “job-killer”.

“While we all understand the importance of an open Internet, I think we can also agree that the growth of the Internet in the last 15 years is an American success story that occurred absent any heavy-handed regulation by the federal regulators in Washington,” said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), as reported by The Hill.

“[W]e should think long and hard before we allow unelected bureaucrats to tinker with it now.”

Republicans aren’t the only ones going after the FCC’s net neutrality regulations. Several large telecommunications companies have voiced strong concerns over net neutrality. Verizon has even filed a suit against the FCC in an attempt to stop the bill.

[Image credit: Bloomberg]

Senate blocks GOP bid to repeal net neutrality is a post from: The Inquisitr

While the cost of high-speed internet access has come down significantly in recent years, the average $40 a month most families pay for home broadband is still out of reach for millions of cash-strapped American families.

It may seem like a First World Problem: “My internet isn’t fast enough!” But in today’s rough economic climate, access to the full breadth of the internet and ability to use certain technologies may not solely affect your ability to play Angry Birds from your desktop. As colleges and even primary education moves online and job applications become more interactive on the web, not having a workable home computer or relying on a dial-up connection could keep millions of Americans from an ever-growing world of educational and professional opportunities.

In the US, the lack of access is becoming an issue, and the Federal Communications Commission is trying to head it off at the pass. Citing concerns that other countries are getting a technological edge over the US, the FCC is launching a $4 billion program to provide $10 broadband internet access to more than 25 million disadvantaged American families to open up access to all the internet has to offer.

Using federal subsidized lunch guidelines as an indicator, the government agency has teamed up with local broadband providers like Time Warner Cable and Comcast as well as computer manufacturers like Microsoft and Redemtech to offer cut-rate equipment like desktops to qualified families. Under the program, computers will be available to eligible families for between $150 and $250.

FCC chair Julius Genachowski said that disadvantaged families could benefit tremendously from the program:

“Steve Jobs was born into a lower-middle-class family, but part of his story is he had access to then cutting-edge technology because his father was a mechanic in Silicon Valley. If we give children better digital technology, we’re much more likely to see the next generation of innovators like Steve Jobs develop.”

As of now, 1/3rd of American families do not have home broadband internet access.

Internet Access For $10 a Month? FCC Launching Cheap Broadband Initiative is a post from: The Inquisitr

AT&T has recently claimed that a merger with T-Mobile would create upwards of 96,000 jobs, a statement that FCC Wireless Bureau leader Rick Kaplan casts doubts about.

According to Kaplan AT&T officials have done “almost nothing in response” to calls for proof regarding their jobs claim. In terms of what AT&T has promised they would only create 5,000 low-level call center jobs by returning them from offshore call centers to the United States.

A study by several advocacy groups with the endorsement of Sprint Wireless recently pointed out that almost all mergers have resulted in job cuts as company’s look to eliminate overlapping jobs while attempting to earn back the money they spent to make the merger a reality. In fact AT&T called for “synergies” when announcing the merger, a term that typically means cost-cutting measures will be taken, often in the form of job loss.

In the meantime the Department of Justice has sued AT&T to block the merger, arguing that it is anti-competitive while the FCC may also follow suit and reject the merger.

As Electronista points out:

“AT&T may have sabotaged its own case after an unintentionally unredacted FCC filing revealed an internal estimate that it only needs $3.8 billion to reach its 95 to 97 percent LTE coverage claims, not $39 billion and eliminating a major competitor.”

I can’t possible understand how eliminating one of the four largest wireless company’s in American can be good for customers. Do you believe the AT&T/T-Mobile merger is anti-competitive and bad for the cellular industry in general?

FCC Doesn’t Buy AT&T Claim That T-Mobile Merger Will Create Jobs is a post from: The Inquisitr

U.S. Ranks 9th For Overall Broadband “Adoption” and “Download Speeds” is a post from: The Inquisitr

Now that’s a nice bonus for a job well done.

It seems that FCC Comminsioner Meriedith Attwell Baker has left the FCC for a new job.

With who you ask?

Well as amazing as it might seems she is now employed as, or will be as soon as her term is up, a lobbyist for .. wait for it … yup … you guessed it – Comcast.

Not only did she approve the deal but apparently she also did her best to defend Comcast from any attempts by the FCC to impose further restrictions and conditions on the merger.

“At the time, Baker objected to FCC attempts to impose conditions on the deal and argued that the ‘complex and significant transaction’ could ‘bring exciting benefits to consumers that outweigh potential harms.’”

via Ars Technica

Baker’s title at Comcast when she joins will be Senior Vice President of Government Affairs, and most likely a nice raise in pay from her inflated government check.

Wonder if she got a signing bonus as well?

FCC bureaucrat joins Comcast after helping approve NBC merger is a post from: The Inquisitr

The Personal Localized Alerting Network, or PLAN, is a new program devised by the FCC to keep Joe Citizen abreast of imminent safety threats in his area within the US.

Although the system won’t be available nationally until next April, it is rolling out in New York City and Washington DC later this year. And while towers sometimes get jammed with traffic during catastrophic events like the September 11th attacks or recent weather outbreaks, the government assures us that the geographically-targeted, text-like messages for your mobile-enabled device won’t be impeded by higher than normal network activity.

In a statement released by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), FEMA Administrator Craig Fugate explained the genesis for the program:

“Following the devastating tornadoes in the Southeast, we are witnessing yet again the critical role the public plays as part of our nation’s emergency management team. Making sure that they get useful and life-saving information, quickly and easily, right on their mobile phones, will help more people get out of harm’s way when a threat exists,” said FEMA Administrator Fugate. “This new technology could become a lifeline for millions of Americans and is another tool that will strengthen our nation’s resilience against all hazards.”

PLAN will be free to users, and is slated to deliver three types of alerts: alerts issued by the President, alerts involving imminent threats to safety of life and Amber Alerts. Carriers have the option of allowing users to block all but Presidential alerts.

One one occasion last year, location-aware social game Foursquare alerted some New York City users to a possible bomb threat in Times Square.

FCC rolling out Emergency Broadcast System for text message is a post from: The Inquisitr

When word came out that AT&T was looking to buy up its competitor T-Mobile the tech blogosphere was quick to jump on it as being one of the worst ideas to come along in a long time. Unlike tech bloggers regular web users had to be happy with using Twitter or Facebook to voice their opinions on the matter; which by all accounts was much like the tech bloggers – this idea sucks.

Well for those of you that want to have a more direct way of expressing your thoughts on the matter the FCC has made it really easy. Just head over to the FCC Express Upload Form page and fill in the form with your thoughts on the proposed deal.

Note: the FCC filing number on the ECFS Expert Form list page is 11-65

via Engadget

Think The T-Mobile / AT&T Deal #Sucks? Tell The FCC Why. is a post from: The Inquisitr

The Acer Iconia with it’s 4.8-inch display and 1024 x 480 pixels of resolution was suppose to arrive in April and in one way it has, the phone has been dropped on the FCC’s doorsteps.

The device features a brushed aluminum frame, features Android 2.3 and offers quad-band GSM capabilities (850, 1900 and 2100MHz 3G frequencies for the U.S. version which makes it a lock for AT&T). Inside the device users will find a 1GHz Qualcomm MSM8255 processor alongside 512MB ROM and 512MB RAM. While the outside of the phone offers up an 8-megapixel camera with LED flash and autofocus which is complemented by a 2-megapixel front-facing camera.

Users will also be greeted by a micro-HDMI output with 720p capabilities, 802.11 b/g/n WiFi capabilities and Bluetooth 2.1 with GPS and a 1500mAh user-replaceable battery.

Acer Iconia Hits FCC, Delivers 1024 x 480 Display, Android Goodness is a post from: The Inquisitr

A new FCC filing is suggesting that the Motorola Xoom with it’s Android Honeycomb OS and Dual-Core NVIDIA Tegra 2 processor is heading at some point to AT&T Wireless.

Documents are fairly vague for the product which has been passed onto the FCC, however it does describe what appears to be the Xoom with GSM capabilities and support for the WCDMA standard on 850Mhz and 1900Mhz bands (the same bands used by AT&T in North America).

In other news, the expected Sprint Wireless version with 4G WiMAX is rumored to be halted, although Sprint has not confirmed that fact and they are still expected to feature at least a WiFi only version.

At this time no release dates have been given for either the Sprint or AT&T Wireless versions.[via WirelessGoodness]

FCC Receives Motorola Xoom Specs For AT&T Wireless is a post from: The Inquisitr

Broadband speed disclosures can be quite confusing, especially for users who are not necessarily tech savvy, that’s why the FCC is calling for the standardization of broadband speeds by all ISPs.

The FCC’s major concern is that the definition of “performance” is vague, allowing company’s to create their own standards, thereby marketing products as superior, when in fact the performance of those services may be less than stellar. In fact the word “broadband” is often used for services that offer slower than FCC termed speeds.

In a public notice the FCC writes:

“Some broadband providers advertise that their offerings support certain applications, but consumers lack standardized tools to determine which speeds and other features they need for a range of services,” while adding, “The lack of such information hampers consumers’ ability to compare services offered by and among broadband providers.”

While the FCC has not stated what type of disclosures they would require, they are asking consumers and other agencies to help them define how internet speeds can be advertised to consumers.

Currently the FCC has raised broadband terminology to 4 Mbps downstream and 1 Mbps upstream, a number most users reading this article were probably unaware of, mostly because as stated there is currently no standardization.

FCC Calls For Standardized Broadband Speed Disclosures is a post from: The Inquisitr