UK radio disturbance caused by satellite network bug

An error with the Global Positioning System (GPS) network has been blamed for causing problems with digital radio broadcasts last week. The US Air Force said that removing a satellite from service had caused a software error. A BBC spokesman confirmed that the decommissioning of a GPS satellite led to difficulties for listeners receiving digital radio signals. The BBC understands several other satellites were affected. "I live on the Worksop side of Sheffield and for the past two days the reception of the BBC National Ensemble [BBC radio stations] has been virtually non-existent indoors," wrote Darcy72 on Digital Spy's online forums last week. In a response to the reported issues, the BBC said: "The outages were caused by a rogue GPS satellite (SVN23), which was taken out of service in the evening of 26 January." The BBC has now learned that the problem occurred after a decommissioned satellite caused software problems which affected several other satellites. DAB radio signals were disrupted thanks to a dodgy GPS satellite Image caption DAB radio signals were disrupted because of a dodgy GPS satellite DAB transmitters must broadcast at exactly the same frequencies and, in order to synchronise, they lock on to GPS satellite signals. The GPS signals themselves broadcast the time and are supposed to be accurate to within a few nanoseconds. 'Microseconds' error However, on 26 January, one of the GPS satellites - named SVN23 - orbiting the Earth was decommissioned. This unexpectedly caused problems for the whole network. "While the core navigation systems were working normally, the co-ordinated universal time timing signal was off by 13 microseconds which exceeded the design specifications," said the US Air Force in a statement. "The issue was resolved at 06:10 MST, however global users may have experienced GPS timing issues for several hours." In fact, as a result of the problem, some GPS positioning would have been thrown off by nearly 4km. The time discrepancy was picked up by the Metsahovi Radio Observatory in Finland. It is not yet clear whether other systems around the world, such as navigational tools, were affected. The BBC is still chasing the US Air Force for further details about the incident. Even a tiny error in the time reported by GPS satellites can cause positioning miscalculationsImage copyrightThinkstock Image caption Even a tiny error in the time reported by GPS satellites can cause positioning miscalculations "They knew they were decommissioning it so shouldn't they have been aware this would happen?" questioned Prof Danielle George, a radio engineer at the University of Manchester. "It was decommissioned after 25 years - actually it should have just had a seven-and-a-half-year lifespan so it lasted a lot longer than it should have done." Depending on GPS Prof George added that had there only been a problem with one satellite, DAB transmitters would probably not have experienced difficulties. "They shouldn't have seen an issue with that because as far as I understand the way they work is they need two frequencies to lock and there are a number of GPS [signals] to look at," she told the BBC. "This should be treated as a warning of what could go wrong," said Martyn Thomas, a fellow at the Royal Academy of Engineering who has criticised technological reliance on GPS. "The world is dependent on GPS for a vast range of critical applications from navigation to financial trading, and precision docking of oil tankers to high tech farming." In the future, Prof Thomas said, it was "essential" that there was back-up.

Briton wins Apple Watch court case over cracked screen

A man who challenged technology giant Apple in court over a cracked screen on his new smartwatch has won the case. Gareth Cross, from Aberystwyth, Ceredigion, found a crack in the screen of his Apple Watch Sport 10 days after buying the £339 device last year. Apple responded to an initial complaint by saying the problem was not covered by the warranty. Mr Cross then successfully took his case to a small claims court for breach of the Sale of Goods Act. Apple must pay Mr Cross a total of £429 - the cost of the watch plus court fees - by 22 February. The legal action lasted six months, and Mr Cross - who describes himself as a "Mac fanatic and all-round geek" on Twitter - told the BBC: "I couldn't understand why they would want to go to court over the issue, but ultimately I wanted [to] stand by my consumer rights," he said. "The case did start to become a little stressful, especially toward the end with the prospect of having to attend court to defend my claim against what was the most valuable company in the world." Mr Cross added that he had been "relieved" when the judge ruled Apple had breached the contract of sale by refusing to fix the watch. "I plan to buy another Apple Watch, as for the 10 days I had it, I really liked it," said Mr Cross, "but I may wait until the next model is out." Apple has been approached for comment.

EU and US clinch data-transfer deal to replace Safe Harbour

The EU and US have agreed a new pact to make it easy for organisations to transfer data across the Atlantic.

The agreement should head off the threat that both tech giants and smaller companies would be unable to send personal information for processing in US data centres. It follows a court ruling last year that invalidated an earlier data transfer mechanism called Safe Harbour. The announcement was welcomed by businesses. However privacy groups still have concerns. 'Day and night' The British lobby group TechUK was quick to hail the news. "The European Commission and US administration must now show total commitment to implementing this agreement and getting trans-Atlantic data flows back onto a secure and stable legal footing," said its deputy chief executive Antony Walker. "Businesses large and small across Europe need reliable and affordable legal mechanisms to enable the data transfers that underpin their operations and ability to serve customers. "The fact that EU and US negotiators have worked day and night for several months to secure this agreement reflects how important transatlantic data flows are to the global digital economy." The deal coincides with a two-day meeting of EU data protection watchdogs in Brussels. Many had predicted the regulators would block transfers that had been authorised by the earlier Safe Harbour pact as well as by other legal means, potentially causing havoc. Not only might Facebook, Google and Apple have been restricted from sending data to the US to be used by their cloud services, but European firms might also have been unable to rely on American firms to process their payrolls and carry out other backroom tasks. It might also have disrupted US-based travel websites from processing customers' bookings and European's online purchases from being completed. New deal The European Court of Justice ruled against Safe Harbour in October following leaks by whistleblower Edward Snowden that suggested the US security services were scrutinising foreigners' personal data held in the US. For the previous 15 years, thousands of US companies had been able to self-certify that they had taken the necessary steps to protect data to avoid having to seek permission for each new type of transfer. Negotiators for the European Commission and the US State Department had already been attempting to formulate a new deal for months, but the ruling put them under pressure to conclude the talks. "This solution is much better than the one we had in the year 2000," commented Andrus Ansip, the European Commissioner for the digital single market. The new agreement is called the EU-US Privacy Shield. Under its terms: The US will create an ombudsman to handle complaints from EU citizens about the Americans spying on their data The US Office of the Director of National Intelligence will give written commitments that Europeans' personal data will not be subject to mass surveillance The EU and US will conduct an annual review to check the new system is working properly European data privacy watchdogs will work with their US counterpart, the Federal Trade Commission, to address any flagged problems Companies could be prevented from making use of the deal if they are found to fail to comply with privacy safeguards Not satisfied The privacy campaigner Max Schrems prompted Safe Harbour's demise when he demanded the Irish data watchdog audit Facebook to see if it was willingly sharing data with the NSA - a charge the social network denies.

Carbon emissions boosted 2014 January storm risk 'by 43%'

Severe storms in the south of England in 2013/14 were made more likely by human emissions of carbon dioxide.

A new study says that climate change increased the chances of a once-in-a-century wet January in 2014 by 43%.

Researchers were also able to estimate the climate impact on rainfall, river flow and properties at risk.

Citizen scientists made key contributions to the study using their computers to run simulations of UK weather patterns.

The winter of 2013/14 was marked by a near continuous line of severe storms that rolled across southern England and Wales.

In Somerset, Devon, Dorset, Cornwall and the Thames Valley, the incessant rain lead to significant flooding. Some 5,000 homes and businesses were under water, and there were nearly 19,000 insurance claims with £451m in insured losses.

Warming suspected

At the time, many commentators suggested that climate change was having an influence on the scale of the storms and flooding.

When asked about this in the House of Commons, Prime Minister David Cameron replied: "I very much suspect that it is".

UK researchers first presented evidence in April 2014 showing that climate change had increased the risk of flooding.

This new study includes a much more detailed perspective, with estimates for the impact of climate change on river flow, levels of inundation and the number of properties at risk.

The scientists used a range of models and observational data to try and work out the human influence

The research team asked citizen scientists from all over the world to use spare processing time on their computers to run over 130,000 simulations of what the weather would have been like with and without this human influence on the climate.

Human induced warming, they found, increased the capacity of the air to hold moisture but also caused a "small but significant" increase in the number of January days in the UK with westerly winds.

"We found that extreme rainfall, as seen in January 2014, is more likely to occur in a changing climate," said lead author Dr Nathalie Schaller, from the University of Oxford.

"This is because not only does the higher water-holding capacity lead to increased rainfall, but climate change makes the atmosphere more favourable to low-pressure systems bringing rain from the Atlantic across southern England."

The team concluded that this increased the risk of a once-in-a-century wet January by 43%. They also found that the heightened risk of rainfall in the meteorological modelling, led to an increase in the peak 30-day river flow at Kingston-on-Thames of 21%, and they were able to use flood risk mapping to indicate that about 1,000 more properties being at the risk of flooding.

"It is a small increase, but it is a robust increase," said Dr Friederike Otto, another author, also from Oxford University.

"It is not that a flood that has been a one in a hundred year event is now happening every three years, it is still that a once in a hundred years flood is now happening every 70 years."

Uncertainty range

The researchers say that there are significant uncertainties in the range of their findings - The 43% figure for the increase in the risk of a once-in-a-century wet January is a best estimate in a range that runs from 0-160%.

"We know relatively well what the weather in the world we live in is, we can model that and test the model against observations," said Dr Otto.

"But there are no observations of the world that might have been without anthropogenic climate change, and this is why we used 11 different ways of simulating the world that might have been because we need to sample the possibilities and this is something we have no observations on, this is where the uncertainty comes from."

The scientists believe this type of attribution study will be important going forward - not just to show when climate change has had a significant influence on an extreme event, but also to show when it hasn't.

"We have estimates of the impacts of climate change in the future, but we have no inventory of what the impacts are today, we don't really know that," said Dr Otto.

"Especially in the short term, extreme events will be the way that climate change shows, and this type of research helps to paint a more realistic picture of what it is."

The research has been published in the journal, Nature Climate Change.

Follow Matt on Twitter @mattmcgrathbbc or on Facebook.

Fine Brothers spark fury with YouTube trademark attempt

The creators of one of YouTube's biggest channels have sparked fury over plans to trademark and license a popular video format.

The Fine Brothers produce a popular series of "reaction videos", in which people watch online clips and respond.

On Tuesday, they revealed a scheme to let other video-makers use assets from their version of the format.

But they have faced a backlash from viewers for trademarking "react" - a term widely used by other creators.

Typically, reaction videos feature a group of people, for example children or YouTube personalities, looking at an object or video and talking about it.

The format is hugely popular on YouTube, and countless content creators, including US chat show host Ellen DeGeneres, have produced videos in this style.

Reaction videos have proved particularly successful for the Fine Brothers, who produce a number of regular series, including Kids React, Teens React and YouTubers React.

In 2015, the brothers applied to trademark terms, including "Kids React", "Adults React" and "Celebrities React", as well as the word "react" itself, which could be used to form new variations of the format.

On Tuesday, the brothers announced a licensing scheme called React World, which they said would let other video-makers use the "react" title and assets such as their graphics and music.

But the plan was negatively received by the YouTube community because so many people already make similar reaction-based videos online, using the word "react" in the title.

"They had a bunch of trademarks already and nobody minded," said Jon, a YouTuber from Many A True Nerd. "But the moment they got to just the word 'react', it was just too commonly used.

"People aren't sure whether they will fall foul of the trademark.

"As creators, we have sympathy that you want to protect your content from being stolen - but in this case it's too far," he told the BBC.

The Fine Brothers have insisted they are planning to license only a complete package of "structural elements" and assets - in the same way any television company can produce a singing talent show, but a complete format such as the X Factor is protected.

However, critics of the Fine Brothers have expressed concern they may use the trademarks to stifle competition. "People don't trust them because a few years ago when Ellen DeGeneres did a similar video - not that similar, it didn't have the same format or branding - they claimed it was their format," said Jon.

A number of people have alleged the Fine Brothers have already had other video-makers' content removed from the internet.

One critic on Reddit said: "They've used their leverage with YouTube to take down channels that were making kids-react videos and seniors-react videos."

Addressing the issue, Benny Fine said: "When you create series and products, sometimes there's specific situations where your content is being infringed... in very rare cases somebody produces a beat-by-beat version of your exact series, which has happened to us."

Asked on Facebook whether people would be prevented from making a video called, for example, "Kids react to Red Bull", the Fine Brothers replied: "That is a trademarked show name, so yes, that is correct." But clarifying their licensing plan, on Facebook, the Fine Brothers posted: "We are in no way claiming reaction content in general is our intellectual property.

"We are not going after/shutting down/suing anyone who makes reaction-based content," they wrote.

Ryan Morrison, a video gamer turned lawyer, has expressed his disapproval of the Fine Brothers' scheme.

He posted on his website: "If you make reaction videos, which a lot of YouTubers do, you are potentially in a lot of trouble."

He has now offered to help video-makers fight the Fine Brothers' trademark application.

"The public has 30 days to file an opposition," he said.

"Had the Fine Bros kept quiet for another month, they almost certainly would have gotten this trademark, as no-one seemed to notice it.

"Instead, they announced their ridiculous licensing program and turned all eyes on them."

Since their announcement on Tuesday, the Fine Brothers have lost more than 170,000 followers from their YouTube channel.

"I can't remember a channel that lost so many subscribers this quickly. At one point they were losing 10,000 an hour," said Jon.

"The Fine Brothers have become the convenient face of many people's frustrations. A lot of people don't like how YouTube's content takedown system works and that it treats you are guilty until proven innocent.

"That has helped this become the perfect storm of anger."

The BBC has approached the Fine Brothers for comment.

WhatsApp reaches a billion monthly users

Mobile messaging service WhatsApp is now used by a billion people every month, Facebook has reported.

The Facebook-owned app now outperforms the social network's own Messenger mobile app, which has 800 million monthly users.

The company said 42 billion messages and 250 million videos were sent over WhatsApp daily.

But one analyst said WhatsApp still trailed behind local competition in some key markets.

"There are big markets where WhatsApp isn't the dominant player," said Jack Kent, mobile analyst at IHS.

"WeChat in China has more than 500 million users, while Line is popular in Japan, and Kakao Talk is big in South Korea. But WhatsApp is certainly the most internationally successful.

"Part of that is down to its pure focus on communication, providing low cost chat that is very reliable.

"Other apps have focused on monetisation, games and stickers but WhatsApp's appeal is that it is light on monetisation and it has now dropped its small annual fee completely."

Facebook bought the mobile messaging app in 2014, in a deal worth $19bn (£11.4bn).

The usage data the platform generates for Facebook could help the company improve its targeted advertising, which is its core business model, said Mr Kent.

"Facebook had just started pushing people to its own standalone Messenger app, when it bought WhatsApp. But there was a risk it could have been acquired by a competitor and Facebook would lose millions of highly-engaged mobile users to a rival," he said.

"But WhatsApp still faces those challenges from domestic players who monetise their services very well. It remains a competitive area."

Google owner takes top spot from Apple

Alphabet- Google's parent company- has surpassed Apple as the world's most valuable company after its latest earnings report.

The company posted net income of $4.9bn (£3.4bn) for the fourth quarter, an increase from $4.7bn a year ago.

The announcement sent its share price up 9% in after-hours trading.

That means that Alphabet is now worth around $568bn, compared with Apple which has a value of $535bn.

It is the first time that Alphabet has stripped out the results of its Google business - which includes the search engine and YouTube - from its "Other Bets" business, which includes more experimental ventures such as self-driving cars and internet balloon programs.

The figures show that the "Other Bets" lost $3.6bn in 2015.

But advertising revenue for Google rose by 17% to $19.1bn, in the three months to December as the number of ads, or paid clicks, rose.

Alphabet's claiming of the most value company title has been seen by some as a passing of the technology baton. Google apps and devices compete for market share against Apple iPhones.

The title of most value company in the US has been passed between technology companies for several decades.

Apple became the United States' most valuable company in 2010, when it dislodged Microsoft. Microsoft in turn overtook IBM two decades earlier.