Gregarius » BetaNews.Com » septembre 23, 2009

BetaNews.Com (8 non lus)

Senate Republicans suspend opposition to FCC net neutrality regulation

Publié: septembre 23, 2009, 10:35pm CEST par Scott M. Fulton, III

By Scott M. Fulton, III, Betanews

As first reported in the Washington Post this afternoon, and as has been independently verified by two other Washington news sources, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R - Texas) has agreed to withdraw her amendment to an Interior Dept. spending bill that would have cut off funding to any Federal Communications Commission effort to regulate "net neutrality." This as aides to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, as reported by Congressional Quarterly, approached Sen. Hutchison seeking her withdrawal, at least until the Chairman can put forth a complete proposal.
On Monday, Chairman Genachowski made a public policy speech outlining a framework for new FCC regulations that would prohibit service providers from disabling certain Internet services on behalf of customers, as well as more transparently specify for customers what allowed measures they are taking to regulate traffic on their networks. The implication of these "Fifth" and "Sixth Principles," as they're being called, is that the FCC would in turn prohibit ISPs from being able to provide better bandwidth to certain classes of content providers willing to pay a premium.
That latter provision has long been part of proposals by Sen. Hutchison and others in Congress to create state- and/or federal-level broadband franchising operations, when they believe would simplify carriers' ability to build out broadband services in outlying and rural areas. Permitting ISPs to charge premiums has been offered by Senate Republicans as an incentive for ISPs to seek state- or federal-level franchises to carriers, since carriers would still have to pay local-level franchise taxes -- or, at least, pay into a fund that would in turn compensate municipalities for the taxes they would have received through municipal licenses.
Hutchison's next move may also have been influenced by Chairman Genachowski's appearance earlier today at a luncheon of the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies. There, accompanied by newly appointed Commissioner Mignon Clyburn, he promised the same broadband plan that would include new net neutrality initiatives would also create incentives for businesses to expand broadband to low-income areas -- one of Hutchison's hot-button issues.
There, Comm. Clyburn formally received the Joint Center's Broadband Imperatives report, a set of recommendations for the FCC that could play into Genachowski's final policy proposal. Many African-American policy organizations contributed to the report (Clyburn is herself African-American); and her father is no less than House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D - S.C.). Assuming Hutchison's amendment would have passed the Senate, the Interior Dept. bill would then have faced opposition in the House.
Last month, Sen. Hutchison announced her candidacy in the 2010 Texas governor's race.
Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009
Intel's Moblin platform takes big steps

Publié: septembre 23, 2009, 10:15pm CEST par Tim Conneally

By Tim Conneally, Betanews

While Linux-based operating systems have been well-received for netbook form factors, some of the highest-profile distributions have not yet taken a strong hold there, especially when competing against desktop operating systems like Windows XP. One of those not-yet-a-hits is Moblin, an Intel-endorsed open source platform designed especially for Atom-powered devices.
Today, however, Moblin received a couple of big boosts as a result of the Intel Developer Forum going on this week, helping to grow the project's scope considerably.
First, Dell and Canonical announced that they have collaborated to create an Ubuntu Moblin remix for the Dell Inspiron Mini 10v netbook. Dell already offered the Atom N270-powered Mini 10v with Ubuntu 8.04 pre-loaded. This new remix --t echnically called Ubuntu Moblin Remix Developer Edition -- will be a new pre-install option for the netbook on Dell's Web site beginning tomorrow. Dell will be making this remix available to any who want to install it, but does not guarantee it will perform as well as it does on its intended platform, the Mini 10v.
In her keynote this morning, Intel's corporate vice president and general manager of software and services Renee James, announced that Samsung will follow Dell's, Asus', and Acer's lead, and release its own devices running Moblin 2.0 in the near future. No precise date was given.
Secondly, Intel and Microsoft announced that Silverlight 3 and Moonlight support are coming to all Atom-based devices. Renee James presented both Moblin and Windows 7 Atom devices running IIS Smooth Streaming this morning, the variable streaming technology that can provide live streams up to 1080p resolution.
"We are excited by further support of Silverlight by key industry leaders and how this collaboration delivers on Silverlight's cross-platform, cross-browser, and cross-device promise by going beyond just the PC to allow developers to reach more endpoints for their applications and services. We see this is a clear extension of our current efforts with Novell where we are building an open source implementation of Silverlight called Moonlight that is targeted at the broad range of Linux-based PCs," the Silverlight team blog said today.
Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009
Microsoft should dig into the WebKit to stop Google from framing IE

Publié: septembre 23, 2009, 9:30pm CEST par Joe Wilcox
By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

Internet Explorer is in a state of crisis so severe that Microsoft may yet lose most of the browser market territory claimed during the browser wars. Microsoft has no choice but to make a leap of development faith, by abandoning the IE rendering engine and releasing new WebKit-based desktop and mobile browsers. IE is a dead platform. It's long past time for Microsoft to end its "Weekend at Ernie's" behavior.
What a difference a decade makes. Ten years ago, Microsoft won the browser wars with Netscape, only to abandon the territory after Internet Explorer 6 launched. Many end users are still stuck in the IE 6 past, whether it's the browser directly or progeny Internet Explorer 7 or 8. According to Net Applications, IE 6 usage share is higher than either of the newer versions. Perhaps IE's market position would be better had Microsoft not let browser development lay idle until after Mozilla started working on Firefox about six years ago. AOL and Mozilla reignited browser development because of paid search -- that Google box -- as did several other software developers. AOL eventually gave up on Netscape, but Apple, Mozilla and Opera continued developing browsers.
Google entered the market just a year ago and already has released three versions of browser Chrome. The speed of Chrome development is eerily familiar. Microsoft rat-tat-tat released new browser versions in 1996 and 1997, going from IE 2 to IE 4. Through IE 6, Microsoft released new versions every year. In the new browser wars, Google is to Microsoft as Microsoft was to Netscape in the late 1990s. Microsoft fought to protect its Windows platform. Similarly, Google is fighting to protect its search and informational platform. If will determines winners, Google has got it over Microsoft.
Framing IE for Posterity
Matters bad are worse, with Google's Chrome Frame announcement and Microsoft's weak position in the mobile browser market, where WebKit-based Chrome and Safari rapidly gain users. Chrome Frame, which has just entered beta, is an Internet Explorer plug-in supporting HTML and JavaScript, among other technologies or tags. Google is trying to redefine Internet Explorer on terms that suit its product and platform objectives. It's Google's most ambitious drive into Microsoft controlled territory ever, even more than desktop search, Exchange email sync or toolbar products/services.
For Microsoft, Chrome Frame and forthcoming Google Wave are a looming crisis of IE's character, as expressed in end-user features and the browser's appeal -- or lack thereof -- to developers. By Framing Internet Explorer, Google seizes control of the end user experience away from Microsoft. If Google can succeed widely distributing Frame, the easy step is next: Moving those same users to Chrome.
Chrome browser usage share doesn't seem like much -- 2.84 percent -- according to Net Applications. But that's up from zero a year ago. Meanwhile, Internet Explorer usage share continues a long slow decline -- 66.97 percent in August down from from 79.49 percent about two years ago. Firefox is up from 15.45 percent to 22.98 percent during the same time period.
If Chrome Frame succeeds, Firefox could easily be collateral damage. Firefox uage gains have largely come from Internet Explorer, which if Framed could give up many fewer users. Meanwhile, should Google succeed moving end users en masse from Framed IE to Chrome, Firefox growth likely would stall and over time recede. Looked at that way, Chrome Frame poses potentially more risk to Firefox than IE. Remember, Mozilla is dependent on Google paid search revenue through the browser.
Frame would be a seemingly small problem, if not for:
- The surge in competing browsers
- Monetization of browsers around search
- Increasing demand for browsers on mobile devices
- Declining developer interest in IE technologies like ActiveX
- Increasing developer interest in other Web browsers or technologies
Microsoft won the browser wars by several means, with establishment of IE as a development platform being one of the most important. Today, other than businesses with legacy dependencies, is there really any core developer interest in Internet Explorer? That's a question for comment; please pipe in on the topic.
Apple, Google and Mozilla are doing much better wooing new developers to their browsers, and, again, Chrome and Safari are based on WebKit, whether for desktop or mobile device. Mobile applications are the future, and it's there Microsoft looks surprisingly pale before brawny Apple and Google. Regarding Google, that's without factoring Chrome OS, which could directly rival Windows.
Commercial Open-Source is the Solution
Microsoft should answer WebKit for WebKit, by releasing a new browser based on a new rendering engine; put on the IE brand and ship it for desktop and mobile. For businesses and consumers that need backward compatibility, there would be IE 8. But people wanting something new and fresh or developers looking to do cool development could choose the new IE, which Microsoft should tout for its standards support.
Something else: Such an approach would be in line with Microsoft's so-called "Interoperability Principles." Additionally, about two weeks ago, Microsoft opened the CodePlex Foundation, which is supposed to bridge commercial and open-source software development. WebKit may be open source, but the practical development comes from commercial developers like Apple and Google. Microsoft could extend WebKit, much as Apple has done with Safari and drive standards around it. Example: Silverlight integration.
Bundling IE with Windows certainly helped Microsoft win the browser wars, but the company did much more, such as either developing or coming to effectively control emerging Web standards during the late 1990s and early 2000s. Microsoft isn't really driving Web standards today. A commercially developed WebKit browser, supporting HTML 5 and other standards, would strengthen Microsoft's position of influence against Apple, Google, Mozilla and other developers supporting open-source browsing engines. Done right, WebKit-based IE could even steal marketshare from other open-source browsers. IE's 67 percent usage share is helluva starting place.
By releasing WebKit-based IE, Microsoft could also:
- Offer a better IE alternative to users than Google Frame
- Nip the Google Chrome bud before it grows any meaningful usage share
- Quickly bring to market a competitive mobile browser and development platform
- Increase IE's appeal among developers and to governments demanding open-source development
- Better support emerging Microsoft Web technologies that do interest developers, such as Silverlight
- Level the compatibility and performance playing field with open-source browsers, such as Chrome and Firefox
- Unload from developers Windows baggage -- legacy technologies like ActiveX and constraints for backward compatibility
Left unchecked, Google will take Internet Explorer and Frame it. Perhaps Apple and Mozilla will break the glass. Microsoft is posed to become the Netscape of the 2010s, otherwise. Microsoft must act to preserve and even reclaim territory taken during the browser wars. There's still time, but not for long.
Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009
Chrome Frame erodes IE from the inside: Can Google get away with this?

Publié: septembre 23, 2009, 8:53pm CEST par Scott M. Fulton, III

By Scott M. Fulton, III, Betanews

Yesterday's revelation by Google that its open source Chromium lab developers have been testing deploying the Chrome browser engine as an Internet Explorer add-on called Chrome Frame, and its subsequent opening up of that project to the public, is a surprisingly ballsy move from a company typically known for being cool, plain, and innocent-looking. Quite seriously, the complete engine is being offered as a downloadable add-on, with the promise that developers will be able to retool their sites to let IE users render them using standards accepted by developers rather than those deployed by Microsoft.
But that's not exactly what happens -- and in fact, that last phrase could apply in any number of cases to how the browser-within-a-browser actually works. First, for developers to be able to utilize these standards, they're being invited to include tags in their code that target a specific browser, such as <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="chrome=1"> But as you can plainly see, that browser isn't IE. It's Chrome, which means that Google Frame is actually an incentive to get more developers to target Google's browser specifically.
"When Google Chrome Frame detects this tag it switches automatically to using Google Chrome's speedy WebKit-based rendering engine. It's that easy," reads yesterday's blog post from a trio of Google engineers. "For users, installing Google Chrome Frame will allow them to seamlessly enjoy modern Web apps at blazing speeds, through the familiar interface of the version of IE that they are currently using."
But that's not exactly what happens. Chrome Frame doesn't completely replace the IE rendering system, nor does it give the user (yet) any option to do that -- at least, not an obvious one, though we're actively looking for a non-obvious one and we won't be surprised if we find it. You would think that, by "modern Web apps," Google would mean its own, naturally. However, our own tests clearly reveal that not even Google itself has utilized its own tag; if you launch Google Docs, for example, in Internet Explorer 8, the rendering engine will be IE8.
Did IE8 just score 100 on the Acid3 test? No, it was actually Chrome Frame rendering Acid3 on IE's behalf in the background. Note the URL in the address bar.
To overcome this little hitch, users themselves can trigger the Chrome Frame add-on by adding cf: as a prefix before the URL prefix, as in cf:http://spreadsheets.google.com... For our Google Docs test, we had to log in through the ordinary IE8 page, then hack the address line ourselves with the prefix to engage Google Frame. (One way to tell which rendering engine is responsible for what you're seeing is by right-clicking on a blank spot on the page. Chrome Frame's options only appear when it's in control.) But not even this method is foolproof: In Betanews tests this afternoon, we were unable to get Chrome Frame to load locally saved Web files, probably because the two browsers' protocols for local files (Chrome uses file:// with forward slashes, while IE reverts to the DOS-style filename with the backslashes) are incompatible.
We also noted that Chrome Frame didn't leave IE in good running order after returning to a page rendered by IE -- for instance, when pulling up a locally stored bookmark. IE frequently crashed, though was able to restart itself and pull up the crashed pages. Still, this leaves open the question of exploitability -- whether by crashing Internet Explorer, Google is actually creating a new security hole.
We also noted Chrome Frame expects to be Chrome -- it doesn't know how to respond to some user events in the context of a window other than Chrome. For example, dragging and dropping a page from the Desktop or an Explorer file listing into an IE tab that's being rendered by Chrome Frame, crashes Chrome, which responds with its "sick folder" icon reminiscent of old Macs. It does not crash IE, however; it still permits the crashed tab to be closed.
Until we discover, or someone kindly tells us, the secret to getting Chrome Frame to render locally-stored files, we can't test our complete Betanews browser test battery within Chrome Frame. We were able to obtain a few scores in some computational tests: In the SunSpider JavaScript benchmark, for instance, Chrome Frame in Windows 7 RTM posted a phenomenally high score of 58.32 on our index -- representing over 58 times the performance of Internet Explorer 7 on Windows Vista SP2, on the same physical platform. That was a surprise for us, since the most recent scores we'd obtained for the stable build of Google Chrome 3 was 49.76 on the same test. IE8 posted a 5.66 for the SunSpider battery.
In the Celtic Kane computational test, Chrome Frame posted an 8.94, compared to 9.22 for Chrome 3, and 1.97 for IE8.
Click here for a complete introduction to the Betanews Comprehensive Performance Index.
What's even more curious than how well Chrome Frame performs is the subject of what Google may intend to do with it once it's done (if it's done). From a standpoint of pure user convenience, it appears much easier for folks who want to see Web pages rendered in Chrome, to download and use Chrome -- it's a free product, and there's nothing stopping them. It can import bookmarks from IE, and although it doesn't make use of IE's other add-ons, there aren't too many that are exclusive to IE anyway. So there doesn't really appear to be much of a value proposition in encouraging users to install Chrome Frame either as an alternative to Chrome, or as an add-on to IE triggered either by developers' tags or user influence.
But if Google Apps, including Docs and Gmail, or possibly the Google Toolbar add-on were to at some point include Google Frame, then the company might have a way to grease the wheels for Chrome to pick up a few more points in usage share. Google tools users would end up using Chrome, assuming its engineers figure out the "seamlessness" part. Yet that would be an uncharacteristically snake-like way for Google to begin marketing Chrome, reminiscent of when Apple iTunes users woke up one morning to discover they were connected to MobileMe.
Even as a simple experiment to "augment" the most widely-used browser by replacing it, the Chromium team's project does seem a little wanton, and appears to have taken Microsoft completely by surprise. Not only is there the issue of Chrome Frame's appropriateness, but also the legal issue of whether someone licensed to produce add-ons for a product may market an add-on that actually contains the competitor of that product, in essence or in its entirety.
Responding to Betanews' inquiry, Microsoft's corporate communications team has deferred comment on Chrome Frame, for now, to the Internet Explorer team which has yet to craft a response.
Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009
New Google tool adds a comment section to every Web site

Publié: septembre 23, 2009, 6:51pm CEST par Tim Conneally

By Tim Conneally, Betanews

Today, Google launched a new project called Sidewiki, which is a browser sidebar that lets users add footnotes to any existing Web page, even if the main site doesn't allow comments. Sidewiki has been added as a feature on Google Toolbar for Firefox and Internet Explorer, and the team today said they're working on an edition for Chrome, too.
Sidewiki appears as a field on the left hand side of the browser, where users can post contextual commentary. If it's a site paraphrasing a piece of literature and a user happens to have a link to the full text, it can be added there. While it can very easily suffer from "FIRST!" syndrome or serve as a spam advertisement platform, posts are not anonymous. And as Sundar Pichai, VP of Google Product Management and Michal Cierniak, Engineering Lead for Google Sidewiki today said the content will be ranked by quality.
"In developing Sidewiki, we wanted to make sure that you'll see the most relevant entries first. We worked hard from the beginning to figure out which ones should appear on top and how to best order them. So instead of displaying the most recent entries first, we rank Sidewiki entries using an algorithm that promotes the most useful, high-quality entries. It takes into account feedback from you and other users, previous entries made by the same author and many other signals we developed," Pichai and Cierniak wrote in Google's official blog today.
The API for Sidewiki is available in Google Code Labs.
Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009
T-Mobile and Clearwire reportedly in early 4G discussions

Publié: septembre 23, 2009, 6:21pm CEST par Tim Conneally

By Tim Conneally, Betanews

According to a Bloomberg report yesterday, Deutsche Telekom is in early talks with Clearwire and MetroPCS about 4G development.
The report cites unnamed sources who said that a bid to buy Sprint, as had been previously rumored was highly unlikely. Instead, the sources said Clearwire needs a $2 billion investment by the end of the year to complete its WiMAX expansion, and that Deutsche Telekom could provide that funding in exchange for access to the network.
But alignment with WiMAX would be out of character for T-Mobile. The company decided to go with LTE as its 4G standard in 2008, and at Mobile World Congress In February, the company set up a live LTE demo network with equipment vendors Nortel and LG.
Only a couple of weeks ago, T-Mobile announced it had set up the first multi-user mobile LTE test network in the city of Innsbruck, Austria with equipment provided by Chinese manufacturer Huawei. "With this showcase we implemented a completely new generation of mobile network...these tests are paving the way to the customer experience of the future," T-Mobile Austria's CTO Jim Burke said at the time.
However, talks between T-Mobile, MetroPCS, and Clearwire -- assuming Bloomberg's report is accurate -- do not necessarily mean T-Mobile will be changing its plans for supporting LTE. All three companies are significant wireless spectrum license holders, and the construction of a new network depends largely upon what wireless real estate can be obtained.
Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009
Composers await Thursday release of radically updated Notion software

Publié: septembre 23, 2009, 5:41pm CEST par Scott M. Fulton, III

By Scott M. Fulton, III, Betanews

In the not-too-distant past, professional musicians used dedicated sound modules and sound synthesis hardware to produce realistic representations of full orchestras. We're not so certain what composers used to do before such hardware existed, though they probably all sympathized with Ludwig van Beethoven struggling with his immortal Ninth Symphony while deaf.
As PCs rapidly evolved, their CPUs and everyday sound chips became theoretically more capable of producing and reproducing realistic sound samples than dedicated MIDI sound modules. So software very quickly assumed the role not only of sequencer but of virtual orchestra; and just like in every other field of software, one or two standards-bearers swiftly emerged: Sibelius (named for the composer) and Finale. And a very familiar logic was applied to them: If you were a composer and you didn't produce scores using either or both standards, you were officially declared non-professional.
But North Carolina-based Notion Music is taking a gamble that the state of competition in this niche of the software market has not calcified the way it has in most other segments. Tomorrow, it releases version 3 of its surprisingly capable Notion composition software, which premiered in 2006. Its formula for breaking through the Sibelius/Finale barrier this time just might work, beginning with a price markdown of $50 to $249 for both Windows and Mac (Notion suggested a $249 price for 2.0 last July, though dealers continued to sell it for $299), and an upgrade price for existing Notion 2.2 users of eight bucks.
Notion is the company's top-of-the-line product; up to now, it has sold a scaled down version for journeymen and small band composers called Protégé (which deals with fewer instruments in polyphony at a time), and a separate package for guitar composers called Progression. Starting with Notion 3, however, the company is throwing in the full guitar functionality from Progression, including the fret controls, along with a completely upgraded library of samples featuring acoustic and electric guitars, and electric and upright bass.
Rather than just hire an intern to pluck strings, Notion has borrowed the talents of renowned professional musicians such as Grammy Award-winning soul artist Victor Lamonte Wooten.
"Notion 3 will include an enhanced and expanded instrument library -- more instruments including guitar, bass, and drum samples from Progression -- [plus] close mic recordings," Notion Music Marketing Director Jake Van Wyk told Betanews.
We'd noted that Notion 2 had used a third-party copy protection scheme which was giving Windows Vista (and Windows 7) users fits, especially during installation. Van Wyk acknowledged that in ditching this scheme for Notion 3, the protected samples in Notion 2 would no longer work for upgraders. That could be a problem, because so many of those samples were sold in expansion packages that sold for an average of $40 apiece.
Notion's solution to the problem, however, is to go all out: It's actually throwing in completely re-mixed sound samples, recorded by members of the London Symphony Orchestra at their own studios overseas, from five of those sample packages which used to sell separately, in the new Notion 3 package along with remixed samples from the original set. For example, though Notion 2 came with samples for string sections of the orchestra, solo strings (and the various playing techniques that are associated with them) used to be sold separately; tomorrow, they won't be. Woodwinds used to come standard except for contrabassoon; and brass was standard except for saxophones and euphonium.
As for other instrument samples which Notion used to sell in collected packages, it now plans to take an almost "app store"-like approach, selling instrument samples online a la carte though an "instrument library." There, samples can be collected for prices starting at $1.99 apiece. As Van Wyk told us, "We will be adding to the library on an ongoing basis," although he advised us that the first entries in this library will not include wild percussion instruments or, as I suggested, a harmonica...to go along with the banjo and mandolin. (Hey, if you're composing bluegrass...) "We are focusing on instruments that are more broadly used, and with traditional playing techniques," he said.
But the completely new feature that floored composers during Notion 3's initial demos in August when they saw it for the first time, was a realistic sound mixer panel for regulating recording-quality volumes from not only individual instruments, but digital tracks such as MP3s blended from the outside world. So you can mix demo tracks using the same methodology you'd use if you were still using sound modules and sequencers; plus, Notion is bundling reverb and amplifier simulators from sound software producer IK Multimedia.
"Notion is fully VST and VSTi compatible," Van Wyk told Betanews, "so you can integrate just about any sound into your music."
Tomorrow could be a test for how an underdog breaks into an established, if not yet entrenched, software market with a more competitive product -- a test that publishers and manufacturers everywhere may want to observe. If you care to join in, you may hear me in the background -- I'll be the one making samples of my Hohner Chromatic.
Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009
World put on hold as Google News hiccups again

Publié: septembre 23, 2009, 4:20pm CEST par Scott M. Fulton, III

By Scott M. Fulton, III, Betanews

You can't fault any service for not being capable of providing 100% uptime; but you also can't help but notice the shockwaves when that one-tenth-of-one-percent comes around. This morning, Google is acknowledging that users throughout yesterday had difficulty accessing its Google News server, although it is not calling the event an outright outage.
News publishers whose promotional models rely upon Google News received notices from Google yesterday afternoon saying that users began having access difficulties at about 12:30 pm PDT (3:30 EDT) yesterday. Betanews is capable of tracking its own readership, along with referral sources, on a minute-to-minute basis; and we could actually see the event as though we were watching a seismometer. Assuming our instrumentation is accurate, our traffic from Google News began plummeting almost three hours earlier than this report, at about 1:00 pm EDT. Referral traffic from Google News began resuming its normal pattern at about 5:30.
Although Yahoo News typically receives 2.6 times the traffic of Google News, according to recent comScore estimates (42.3 million readers versus 16.2 million visitors last February), Yahoo is in reality a publisher and re-publisher of news from press sources, and actually does some of its own reporting in certain niches. Google News is a traffic redirection service which leads readers directly to sources, and news sites including those that get more traffic than Google News itself still rely upon Google News to help send readers their direction. Smaller Web publishers actually collect more readers through Google News than their own home pages.
But Google News is almost completely automated, which can mean that it takes enough small Web publishers complaining about traffic dips before administrators can act. Again, assuming our indicators are correct, the time between the start of the traffic event and the time Google was able to acknowledge it, was about three hours. A large news publisher that is not so automated may have been able to acknowledge and respond to a similar event sooner.
Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009