World Of Gadget

On July 20, Blizzard held an event for the press to allow game writers to get their first taste of StarCraft 2 single-player. Ars Technica received what amounted to a golden ticket for the event, but I was unfortunately busy attending to a personal issue and had to politely decline… no matter how great the temptation. What Blizzard revealed was a completely rethought single-player experience that goes beyond what was attempted in the first game. While some are still hung up on the lack of LAN play, what is offered to those playing alone is substantial.

The single-player game is no longer a linear, mission-to-mission affair. You’ll be given different hubs that allow you to click on people and items in order to gain understanding about the game world, and pick and choose which missions you would like to tackle. “These hubs operate in a similar fashion to briefing rooms from games like Wing Commander or X-Wing, but with an even greater degree of interaction,” Shacknews explains. “You can talk to characters, interact with and examine various items in the environments, upgrade your units, and start up missions.” Successfully completing these missions allows you to unlock new units, as well as cash to hire your own mercenaries to aid you in battle.

“The mercenaries function kind of like Hero Units from the Warcraft games. For a large fee, you can contract with various groups of mercenaries,” Destructoid reports. “Once you’ve contracted them, you can then use them in battle by constructing a Merc Compound and then buying them like any normal unit.”

Single-player gameplay is given some unique twists

The missions described include a race to grab an artifact, and a lava-infused map that includes unique environmental challenges. There was also a mission on display that incorporated a day and night cycle into the strategy. “During the day, it’s build, research and destroy every Zerg infested structure. At night, the player must retreat, as hundreds of infested humans emerge from their hidden burrows, swarming the camp,” Kotaku reveals.

Missions will also include unique units that almost sound like something out of the world of Diablo. “When trying to secure the relic, Raynor’s forces are attacked by a quartet of Stone Zealots, gargantuan statues brought to life to protect the prized artifact,” Kotaku describes from its playthrough. There will also be achievements to unlock during each mission, giving you a reason to go back and improve your performance.

Single-player is no longer just a mutliplayer trainer

These sweeping changes to how single-player missions are organized and how you unlock units and items should make the solo experience a much more fulfilling experience. No longer just a way to learn how to use your units, now it seems as if the single-player will be an almost fully unique experience. If you’re a fan of the world and lore of StarCraft, expect it to be explored in a much deeper-than-expected way.

This also raises some interesting questions about the Zerg and Protoss releases. While Terrans drink in bars and organize their attacks from ships, what will the Zerg hubs be like? It will likely take a while to find out, but it’s a question that should be fun to answer.

While I don’t regret skipping out on Blizzard to take care of my family, this is the one invitation that tempted me to leave the hospital and hop on a plane. A new son… or single-player StarCraft 2? No man should ever have to make that choice. Be sure to read the previews that are scattered around the Internet, there are many interesting tidbits in each one.

Further reading

• Shacknews “First StarCraft 2 Singleplayer Hands-on Preview“
• Destructoid “Preview: StarCraft II single-player“
• Kotaku “First StarCraft II Single Player Campaign Hands-On (With Spoilers)“

Almost a year ago, Comcast pledged that it would sue the Federal Communications Commission over its Order sanctioning the cable ISP for peer-to-peer throttling. Now, the company has filed its case with the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Although Comcast’s legal arguments are complex, the crux is simple: there were and still are no statutes or credible regulations that support the Commission’s authority to act on this matter, the company says.

“For the FCC to conclude that an entity has acted in violation of federal law and to take enforcement action for such a violation, there must have been ‘law’ to violate,” Comcast’s Opening Brief to the court contends. “Here, no such law existed.”

Undoubtedly, many parties will soon file with the court in opposition to and agreement with Comcast’s legal claims. But Comcast had to file first. Here’s a summary of what they say the FCC did wrong in punishing the company.

Doing so 24/7

First, let’s recap: After months of proceedings, hearings, and investigations, the FCC concluded on August 1, 2008 that Comcast was discriminating against certain P2P applications using deep packet inspection techniques. These methods thwarted the ability of users to share video and other files via BitTorrent. “Comcast was delaying subscribers’ downloads and blocking their uploads,” declared then FCC Chair Kevin Martin. “It was doing so 24/7, regardless of the amount of congestion on the network or how small the file might be. Even worse, Comcast was hiding that fact by making effected users think there was a problem with their Internet connection or the application.”

Comcast had an anti-competitive motive for this behavior, the Commission argued, as P2P apps offer consumers a video sharing alternative to cable television. The agency told the company to stop its current practices, disclose what it was actually doing, come up with a new, non-discriminatory system by the end of the year, and let consumers know how the new system will work. The company quickly complied with these orders, and announced the deployment of a new “protocol agnostic” network management system in mid-September.

But months earlier, Comcast Vice President David Cohen had warned the FCC that, in the ISP’s opinion, there was no statutory basis for the actions the agency eventually took. What the company has sent to the DC Circuit Court is an extended version of that letter: no law backs the FCC ruling about Comcast.

“If the Commission truly believed that any statutory provision was directly enforceable against Comcast’s conduct, it would not have premised the Order entirely on ancillary authority,” Comcast writes. “Ancillary authority”—what the hell does that mean?

Ancillary madness

As this legal debate heats up again, you can expect to see the following narcoleptic-coma-inducing question repeatedly asked and debated. Does Title I of the Communications Act gives the FCC “ancillary authority” or “ancillary jurisdiction” over network management issues?

People get thrown by the word “ancillary” here. It essentially means an additional, supplementary, or implied power. Title I outlines the FCC’s job. It’s there “for the purpose of regulating interstate and foreign commerce in communication by wire and radio,” Title I says. And section 230(b) of Title I adds that it is the policy of the United States “to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet” and “to promote the continued development of the Internet.”

This Title I authority played a large part when the FCC invoked its famous Internet Policy Statement, which plays a big role in the Comcast drama. That’s the 2005 declaration that consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice and are entitled to competition among network providers. In its Comcast Order, the Commission explained that it created the statement in recognition of “its responsibility for overseeing and enforcing the ‘national Internet policy’ Congress had established in section 230(b) of the Communications Act.” The agency was now committed to integrating the Policy Statement into its ongoing policy-making work, it declared.

Show us the rules

So the obsessive-compulsive question for legal beagles is whether Title I gives the FCC the legal cajones to stomp ISPs if they block your efforts to download the movie trailer for District 9 via BitTorrent, Vuze, or some other P2P app. The consumer groups that petitioned the FCC to do something about Comcast’s behavior say that Title I granted the FCC all the authority it needed to act in this situation. Free market groups like the Progress and Freedom Foundation contend this ancillary authority business is way too vague to be used in something as crucial as regulating network management. PFF calls it a “standardless discretion” contrary to “the foundational principle that agencies only have that authority conferred by Congress, which ensures accountability.”

Defenders of the FCC push back, saying that even the Supreme Court recognized ancillary authority in the Brand X decision, a crucial ISP access case, and that Title I has been used repeatedly. Critics say yeah, sure, but only under certain strict circumstances. We leave it to you to follow the rabbit hole down as far as you’d like on this question. The bottom line is that Comcast, as you’ve probably already guessed, argues that Title I doesn’t give the FCC diddley when it comes to overseeing ISPs.

“Section 230(b) does no more than set forth ‘the policy of the United States,’” Comcast notes. “It does not even remotely establish mandatory standards of conduct” for regulating network management. That means, Comcast charges, that the FCC pretty much cracked down on the company’s behavior based on a Policy Statement that was not created by Congress, and which, well, was basically just a policy statement.

Where is this going?

Comcast’s filing even denies that it did anything wrong in the first place, network management-wise. “To prevent P2P usage from degrading all of its customers’ Internet experiences,” the company says for the umpteenth time, “Comcast managed, in limited circumstances and in a limited manner, those P2P protocols that had an objectively demonstrated history of generating excessive burdens on its network. Specifically, it temporarily delayed certain P2P uploads (but not downloads), on a content-agnostic basis.”

But it’s unclear what the cable giant and its supporters think they will accomplish by this aggressive effort to overthrow the FCC’s decision. As veteran telecom attorneys like Andrew Lipman have noted, if the courts do shut down the FCC’s order on Comcast, “expect Congress to move very quickly” on some kind of net neutrality legislation. The usual suspects on Capitol Hill have already got yet another bill in the hopper, and this time they’re in control of all the key committees in the House and Senate. One wonders whether, in the not too distant future, the big ISPs will look nostalgically back on the happy days when the FCC’s Internet Policy Statement was all they had to obey.

Citizens living in China, Vietnam, Iran, and other countries may soon have another option for bypassing Internet filters, courtesy of a US-based agency. The Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) announced on Friday that it was working on a new system that would use e-mail to carry encrypted data to and from the recipient, including information that would otherwise be blocked.

The system, called “feed over e-mail” (FOE), is not yet ready for primetime, but BBG IT head Ken Berman said that it will be tested in China and Iran when it goes into beta. “China is the benchmark, the gold standard, of Internet censorship,” Berman told the AFP. “We try things. The idea is to extend freedom of the Internet, freedom of the press, freedom of inquiry to those that want to know more.”

Because the BBG would like to avoid tipping off the two governments before the software even gets to be tested, there are few details on how FOE currently works. It does, however, appear to be taking a different approach to filter circumvention by using e-mail instead of the traditional Web proxies used by some of the more prominent systems. Berman said that FOE uses encryption that comes with most e-mail systems, including Gmail, Yahoo Mail, and even Hotmail, to transmit news. One individual who helped develop FOE, Sho Ho, told Reuters that it could easily be tweaked to work with mobile phones, as well.

The announcement about FOE comes just as Internet censorship seems to be all over the news—China and Malaysia recently scaled back their plans to mandate more filtering, while Vietnam added an additional layer. These three are just the beginning, though; Reporters Without Borders also points the finger at Burma, Cuba, North Korea, Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan for being “Enemies of the Internet,” and numerous others engage in some level of blocking or filtering.

FOE is making headlines because of its different approach to delivering content, not to mention that it’s essentially being funded by taxpayer dollars (BBG is responsible for Radio Free Europe, Radio Free Asia, Voice of America, the Middle East Broadcasting Networks, and all other non-military broadcasting for the US government). For many of the people behind the filters, however, FOE will just offer yet another option for getting around the government’s restrictions.

“Chinese netizens have been using proxy servers to access the information blocked by the government for a long time, FOE is just a more convenient tool,” China New Media Communication Association director Hu Yong told the China Daily. Indeed, the University of Toronto’s Citizen Lab even released a guide to bypassing Internet filters in 2007 that contains a list of proxy and tunneling software, so if FOE makes it to a final release, it will likely be added to the list of possible choices for those looking for forbidden information.

Nokia first unveiled its vision for a next-generation Internet Tablet device when it announced plans for Maemo 5—a new version of the Linux-based tablet operating system—at the Open Source in Mobile event last year in Berlin. Early plans indicated that the OS would be paired with a device that would include 3G connectivity and an OMAP3 processor. Ever since that announcement, mobile Linux enthusiasts have eagerly anticipated the arrival of an actual Maemo 5 device.

A Nokia product codenamed RX-51 recently cleared FCC approval and has now appeared in leaked photos that made their way onto the Internet; it appears to be the long-awaited Maemo 5 product. The source code of Maemo 5 provided some early clues about the RX-51 last year. Maemo fans have been poring through it and documenting various technical details that provide insight into the hardware.

The new pictures also seem to indicate that the device is a phone, and not just a Web tablet like its predecessors. This would be a major step forward for Maemo and could reflect a more Linux-centric mobile strategy for Nokia. The handset maker announced a project earlier this year called ofono, which seeks to build a complete telephony stack for mobile Linux platforms. The emergence of ofono and Nokia’s move to make Maemo a viable smartphone platform has raised a lot of questions about the company’s commitment to its other mobile OS, Symbian.

Nokia acquired Symbian last year; its phones ship with its own S60 variant of the OS, which is increasingly anachronistic compared to modern smartphone platforms. Nokia’s plan of opening the Symbian platform appeared to be part of a move to modernize and strengthen it. Several reports have emerged this year, including one in the past few days, saying that sources close to Nokia are suggesting that the handset giant sees Symbian as a dead end and is preparing to move entirely to Linux.

There are still a lot of unanswered questions about Nokia’s long-term platform strategy, but it’s still far too early to say whether Nokia is switching entirely to Linux. As we have recently described, the Symbian Foundation has launched a number of far-reaching initiatives that aim to address the platform’s weaknesses. The resulting user interface and development improvements could make it much more competitive. The announcement that Symbian is getting a mobile version of Microsoft Office also suggests a long-term commitment.

It’s also important to keep in mind that Nokia has a harmonization strategy: the Qt toolkit, which it obtained through an acquisition of Trolltech last year. Nokia is bringing Qt to S60 and plans to make Qt the foundation of the Maemo user experience in Harmattan, the version that will follow Maemo 5. This means that developers will be able to use Qt to build software that can run on both mobile platforms. This addresses the potential fragmentation issues and makes it practical for Nokia to continue using both platforms, targeting each to contexts in which it’s appropriate.

Maemo products have traditionally been developer-centric and somewhat experimental, but it’s likely that we will see the platform move into the regular consumer market as it matures and Nokia boosts its commitment. If it ends up being a viable and compelling replacement for Symbian, we could potentially see a transition over time. But Symbian is the world’s dominant smartphone platform today, and its considerable momentum means that there is still a strong business case for modernizing it and moving it forward alongside Maemo.

Nokia has recently partnered with Intel to build a somewhat mysterious new class of mobile devices. In addition to delivering Maemo on Internet Tablets, it’s likely that we will see Nokia pushing Maemo in whatever those products turn out to be, while Symbian remains the standard platform for the company’s more conventional smartphone handset lineup.