Telecom Incest: The Fon-BT Deal Sounds Screwy

On closer inspection, today’s deal between Fon and British Telecom sounds like it could be a costly one for Fon and its investors. GigaOm is suggesting that Fon may have agreed to pay $8 to $10 to BT for every one of its broadband customers who agrees to sign up and activate the Fon service. If that’s true, with three million broadband subs at BT, that represents a potential liability of as much as $30 million. (Update: Just got off the phone with Fon USA CEO Joanna Rees, who says she has been closely involved with the BT deal. She categorically denies that Fon is paying BT for subscribers: “I have never heard that,” she says).

Buying customers is never a good thing if you can avoid it. Fon might need to do another round of fund-raising to pay for this deal. The $35 million it’s raised so far from Google, Skype, Index Ventures, and Sequoia, among others, might not be enough, especially if it cuts more sweetheart deals with other telcos around the world.

But here’s the really screwy part: BT is also now an investor in Fon, according to founder Martin Varsavky. So at the same time that it is presumably putting money into Fon with one hand, BT is about to potentially extract millions of dollars out of Fon with the other. I say presumably because it is possible that BT did not even put any cash into Fon for its stake in the first place (terms were not disclosed). Often in these deals, as the price of admission, the telco demands not only cash from the startup but an equity stake as well. In the telecom world, some things are never free. (Update: Rees says BT did invest cash. So maybe the deal isn’t so screwy, after all.)

Source : Digg here

Are Terrorists Using Second Life To Plan Attacks?

OK, so sensationalistic headlines targeted at Second Life are so last week; from FBI related gambling bans to animal sex, we’ve seen a lot. Now there are allegations being printed by News Corp in Australia that suggest that the next major terrorist attack on a Western country could be being planned in Second Life, and yes, as can be seen in the picture to the right, 9/11 is being used as a reference point as well.

The report describes in detail various griefer operations as being terrorist attacks and goes on to say that:

On the darker side, there are also weapons armouries in SL where people can get access to guns, including automatic weapons and AK47s. Searches of the SL website show there are three jihadi terrorists registered and two elite jihadist terrorist groups.

The fear factor is so thick, it can’t be easily paraphrased

With the game taking such a sinister turn, terrorism experts are warning that SL attacks have ramifications for the real world. Just as September 11 terrorists practised flying planes on simulators in preparation for their deadly assault on US buildings, law enforcement agencies believe some of those behind the Second Life attacks are home-grown Australian jihadists who are rehearsing for strikes against real targets. Terrorist organisations al-Qaeda and Jemaah Islamiah traditionally sent potential jihadists to train in military camps in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Southeast Asia. But due to increased surveillance and intelligence-gathering, they are swapping some military training to online camps to evade detection and avoid prosecution.

The terrorists must get broadband in their caves now.

Rohan Gunaratna, author of Inside al-Qaeda, says it is a new phenomena that, until now, has not been openly discussed outside the intelligence community….”They are rehearsing their operations in Second Life because they don’t have the opportunity to rehearse in the real world”

Be alert, but not alarmed

“Community representatives are relied on to report suspicious or inappropriate behaviour to the owners or the SL authorities, just as in the real world.”

Long Live The User

There’s a rather strange meme spreading at the moment that argues that the term “user” is dead.

The short argument is that because we are all users, the term is redundant. Josh Bernoff claims that because we don’t refer to people as users of dishwashers, we shouldn’t refer to people using computers as users either, but simply people. Max Kalehoff believes the user is dead, but can’t define what a user is. Thomas Vander Wal believes that the term user is a put down that stops companies from seeing people as individuals.

I’m a user and I’m proud of it. I’m not “people”, nor do I want to be. If you’re reading this post there is a 100% chance that you’re a user as well. People is a plural expression that treats us all as sheep. User is a term that in referring to the individual can be owned by one and owned by many at the same time. In being users we are all individuals as it refers to us. Web 2.0 is the pinnacle of being a user. Not only do we use the internet, we use it for self gratification as well. Use cuts both ways. Users are not users of technology alone but users of other people. We share our personal thoughts and creative endeavors with as many people that would care to view, listen or watch it. The people providing the drugs to a generation of user junkies are now nearly unilaterally expecting attention in return as well. What I don’t understand is why? is there a better term than user? referring to “you can” instead of “users can” might work well on personal blogs, but it dosn’t work well anywhere else, Web 2.0 junkies is somewhat rude, even if it’s partially accurate for some, and Youse or Y’all only works well in Queensland and certain Southern States in America. Perhaps others may have more creative suggestions.