Sprint and Alltel said this week that they signed an expanded roaming agreement covering not only voice calls but also messaging and 3G EV-DO data services. The 10-year agreement, which goes into effect July 1, will reduce roaming fees for customers of both carriers as well.

Sprint praised the deal and said it will allow the carrier to expand coverage of its multimedia Power Vision service by the end of the year. Alltel customers should also benefit, as the access to Sprint's network will allow them to make calls in more places around the country.

Permalink | Post a comment

• Read also: cell phones
• Email to a friend | Print this post

According to 3jam CEO Andy Jagoe, one-third of all e-mails go to more than one recipient. Where'd he get that figure? He wouldn't tell me, but it sounds about right, and this observation was powerful enough for him to found a company based on it. Andy's service, which launches in two months, will enable your cell phone to send a text message to multiple recipients, and when anyone replies, the replies will go to everybody in the conversation. In other words, it's like sending an e-mail message to multiple people and having everybody use "reply to all" to communicate back.

How it works: You send your text messages to 3jam (since the service isn't launched, I can't tell you the SMS code). On your behalf, 3jam forwards the messages to your indicated recipients. When one replies to a message, 3jam again forwards that to everybody in the conversation.

I can see this being very handy to help groups organize places to meet. It's better than e-mail (who checks their e-mail all the time on their phone?), and it's better than mobile-based IM, because your buddies don't have to be logged on. And it's certainly better than trying to coordinate several different people via several different SMS conversation threads or phone calls.

Could it be abused? Absolutely: It could lead to a plague of cc's, like we have on e-mail. Hopefully this won't happen. Hopefully 3jam users will understand the value of a good message--and the social costs of annoying people with pointless copies.

Permalink | 6 comments

• Read also: cell phones
• Email to a friend | Print this post

Panasonic and Sony announced today that they're working on technology to record HD video on Secure Digital (SD) cards. That makes sense, given that Panasonic has a huge investment in SD manufacturing, but thankfully, it also makes sense from a technological standpoint for camcorders. The write speed for HD-DVD (PDF) and Blu-ray, mini versions of which are the current contenders for HD camcorders, are currently limited to about 4.5MB per second; even the theoretical maximum transfer rate for Blu-ray is only about 55MB per second. That's fine for playback, but real-time DVCPro HD-quality recording requires 12.5MB per second, and uncompressed 720p or 1080i takes 45MB per second or more. They could probably handle HDV, but IMHO, that's a stopgap format to allow everyone to continue using MiniDV tapes.

In contrast, SD cards today can handle 22MB per second, and the current controller interface can handle 66MB per second. And manufacturers can ramp up capacities far faster than with optical formats. In addition, obtaining the higher transfer rate with an optical drive requires spinning the disc faster, which results in a noisier mechanism. I bet a camcorder microphone is bound to pick that up. Plus, SD is more durable and easier to work with, especially in the field, and I believe it's cheaper to implement an SD solution than an optical-based one.

But...alas, there's always a but. In conjunction with the SD work, the two companies are also plowing ahead with promoting a recording format that can fit HD on mini DVD discs. AVCHD, which stands for the marriage of the MPEG-4 Advanced Video Coding (a.k.a. H.264) and HD, has a maximum transfer rate of 2.3MB per second. That's not bad. But even though AVC is a high-quality MPEG-4 codec, it's designed to produce a high-quality playback stream from high-quality source material that's passed through complex, iterated, variable-bit-rate compression--not real-time compression from iffy source video.

Furthermore, they're imposing this suboptimal encoding solution on SD-based recording, rather than aiming higher and taking advantage of the format's available bandwidth.

I dunno. Maybe they have some magic algorithms up their sleeves that can produce silk playback out of a sow's video. Or maybe I'm just seen too much bad MPEG-4 and MPEG-2 video come out of camcorders, despite the occasional exception in a higher-end model.

Guess I'll just have to wait and see.

Permalink | 7 comments

• Read also: digital imaging, camcorders
• Email to a friend | Print this post