You get:

• Mostly unlimited talk, text, and data for $19 a month.
• No contract.
• $199 initial cost which ships you a LG Optimus S Android smartphone.

The Optimus S you get has been modified to seamlessly use WiFi whenever it is connected, switching to Sprint's cellular network as a fallback when you are not. What's the catch? You have to conform to a certain, but common, user profile where you are connected to WiFi most of the time. Apparently the cut off point where Republic starts sending you concerned correspondence is some combination of 550 minutes, 150 texts, and 300 megabytes of data used on the cellular network. Anything you use while on WiFi anywhere in the world *is*, however, truly unlimited.

If you're around WiFi more than cellular networks, like Alice and I, this might just be a great deal.

http://republicwireless.com/

The downside of UMA over WiFi is that it isn't always rock solid, with the chance of annoying latency and dropped calls. If you google UMA problems you will find a bunch of "solutions" ranging from opening ports on your router, enabling IPSec, changing router channels, and putting aluminum foil on your head. In our current living situation, we don't have access to the router, so our options were a bit limited. Both my Blackberry 8120 and Alice's Blackberry 8320 were dropping out of UMA constantly and we were on the verge of buying a Verizon prepaid phone to get us through this. Note: Verizon prepaid plans really suck, so you can see the level of desperation.

Finally I ran into a forum post somewhere suggesting reconfiguring the phone's WiFi connection to static IP address from the default of dynamic. Well, it worked! Both phones are rock solid on UMA now saving months of frustration for just a few minutes of work.

• Options > WiFi Connections > Edit (ConnectionName) > uncheck "Automatically obtain IP address and DNS".
• Enter in a valid IP, subnet, DNS and Gateway.
• Save, exit, and restart the WiFi on the phone.

Good luck, and long live UMA.

For a list of phones that support UMA or WiFi calling, Smart-wi-fi.com is a reliable and complete reference.

Update: In my excitement over UMA working all day, I may have posted this a little prematurely. Alice's UMA dropped the next day. It seems to be an improvement, but it isn't a final solution. The UMA error code is W006.3 - ISP or T-Mobile network error.

Meaning: The phone is unable to establish network connectivity: This could be a problem on the ISP side or the network side.

1. The connection to the WAN port of the wireless router is down: either the cable is unplugged or the DSL/Cable modem (whichever applies) is turned off. This could also be caused by an outage of the DSL/Cable service.

2. Check if MAC filtering is enabled on the wireless router. If it is, check that the phone MAC address is on the Safe List, if not, add it.

3. The network that the user is trying to connect to uses Web Redirection: this means that when trying to connect to the network in question with a laptop, you are required to enter username and password or pay to use the service. The phone cannot connect to such networks.

4. IPSec is not enabled on the router you are trying to use. Enable it in the router settings and try again.

5. The problem can be caused by network issues. At this point, the user might want to try at a later time.

I can rule out 1, 3, and 5 since my phone was still connected. There is no reason for MAC filtering to be enabled, leaving only #4 as a likely option. I am going to take a wild guess and say that we still need IPSec enabled on the router.

http://www.engadget.com/2011/03/20/atandt-agrees-to-buy-t-mobile-from-deutsche-telekom/

Combine AT&T's draconian and invasive cellular plans with the only other independent GSM operator in the entire Unites States of America? This isn't something that should be allowed. Where are the Hoover anti-trust busters when you need them??

Dogs and cats living together... seriously.

--Jack

Are America's Best Days Behind Us?

I first read Mr. Zakaria's work years ago when he was doing a regular column for Newsweek. There was always something unique about his writing: a sense of clarity, the perspective of someone who isn't entrenched in one dogma or another. It was one of the things I missed most when I cancelled my Newsweek subscription. Not so much from being tired of its pages but more having less time to read them. I also suspect they stopped offering me the new subscriber rate.

Anyway, if you'd like a thoughtful, non-partisan, intelligent read on the reasons America is where it is and where it may find itself without thoughtful guidance, look no further.

--Jack

It's pretty clear that I believe in an individual's choice to use the internet in a way that doesn't supply the entire world with their name, their home address, and their mobile phone number. Part of the incredible richness that exists on the internet is exactly because people can use it without full disclosure. Sure, there are people that would rather have a cleaner, more scripted and controlled user experience. There are others that revel when hints of anarchy color things less black and white as well.

(Copyright Jackrabbitscrewball.com)

This clear division of attitudes made itself clear to me just this weekend as I was browsing the comments on a post about malicious android apps (also on Engadget). If you disregard the chaff comments (which are exactly why people decry anonymity on the internet) it's clear that there are two camps: those that prefer a guided controlled experience (iTunes apps) and those that prefer the freedom of an unguided market and accept the inherent risks (Google's Android market). Those same two camps will vote identically when asked if they approve of the TSA security measures before boarding an airplane. Full body scanners? It's either "Sign me up, I love being safe!" or "No thanks, I'd rather keep a shred of privacy and decency than give it up for unproven potential increases in safety."

You'll never reconcile these two groups, no matter how you ask the same question. All we can ever hope for are useful real world compromises that make the first group feel safer and take the least away from the second. I'll be opening comments up on this thread. Maybe we'll get a few that aren't anon spam too!

--Jack

Engadget link 3/27/2011: http://www.engadget.com/2011/03/07/editorial-facebook-single-identities-and-the-right-to-be-anon/

Well thank god that's all settled now. I'm sure the Jewish people are sighing with heartfelt relief that finally they are no longer to blame for Christianity's loss of its one and only prophet. Perhaps we can shift the blame to fanatical Islamic terrorists since they're clearly to blame for just about everything else. Aren't scapegoats grand?

The Pope's new book is now available for electronic download but all digital copies should be checked against the Vatican's posted MD5sum to ensure your copy has not been altered during transmission by the Scientologists.

--Jack

Sony Internet TV

--Jack

Now, I don't have a Facebook account simply because I disagree with the default loss of personal privacy one must accept to utilize the social networking site. Is my lack of a Facebook account going to throw up red flags the next time I am looking for a job? I can see it now - I'm sitting across from an interviewer and they ask "So, we, you know, require that you provide us with your Facebook password. It's for our safety you understand, and we promise we won't friend Michael Dukakis while we're checking you out."

Me: "Oh, I'm really sorry but I don't have a Facebook account, is that a problem?"

Interviewer: "Well, uh... I'm not sure. This hasn't come up before. Is there a reason you don't use Facebook? Are you trying to hide something? Don't you have any friends??"

This is going to become a more and more serious issue... Mark my Zuckerbergs.