6 ms·
FCC Takes On Apple And AT&T Over Google Voice Rejection
- zhyder 17y agoI'm impressed with how quickly the FCC is responding (and that it's responding at all). The questions are thorough and well thought-out too. There's still hope...
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- rosser 17y agoMy favorite part is the bit where the respondents will have to specifically justify each bit they want kept confidential. To wit: Accordingly, “blanket” requests for confidentiality of a large set of documents are unacceptable. We may actually get some visibility into the embarrassingly capricious and opaque App Store policies.
- andreyf 17y agoWe may actually get some visibility into the embarrassingly capricious and opaque App Store policies. I wouldn't hold my breath. This just adds a lot of busywork for Apple's lawyers. I'm sure they'll justify in detail every piece they want to keep private, and the FCC isn't interesting in pissing people off by blowing their secrets.
- jacquesm 17y agoWhat possible reason could they have to keep things secret that should have been public in the first place ? My guess is that this list of questions is just for openers. The answers will lead to follow up questions.
- jonursenbach 17y agoIf Apple's lawyers can can justify that legally unlocking phones will lead to more drug deals and collapse of cell towers, they will be able to justify this.
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- paul9290 17y agoThe head of the FCC is now Julius Genowaski(sp?). He's a Internet tech guy. He's an investor and one of the principals who started the DC incubator LaunchBox Digital. I would assume he's a great proponent for net neutrality issues!
- Scriptor 17y agoIn case anyone's still interested, actual spelling is Julius Genachowski.
- wheels 17y agoI remember being excited when I saw that he was appointed. Ironically, being as the head of the FCC co-founded a YC-ish thing, it's entirely possible that he also reads Hacker News, and almost certain that he reads TechCrunch – so it's really not surprising at all to see that they're monitoring the nerdier channels.
- dkokelley 17y agoIt looks like there's some pending legislation that requires immediate investigation. "In light of pending FCC proceedings regarding wireless open access (RM-11361) and handset exclusivity (RM-11497), we are interested in a more complete understanding of this situation." I'll bet those have something to do with the swift response by the FCC.
- fauigerzigerk 17y agoI have to say it makes me a little uneasy how quickly this is happening. Isn't the market supposed to sort this out on its own? I'm not familiar with the relevant law, so maybe I just don't understand. Is it illegal to run a proprietary phone platform and lock competitors out?. Isn't that basically what has always been the case in the pre smart phone era? Don't get me wrong, I don't like what Apple/AT&T does and as a developer I'm not going to sign up to a platform that puts me in such a weak position. But I see that as an issue between me and Apple. I'm not sure why I need the government in it.
- stevecooperorg 17y agoI think a free market has to be free -- that practices that stifle competition hurt consumers immediately. I think Apple's locking out of Google is very similar to Microsoft's locking out of Netscape. It's reasonable tobring the samre monopolies law to bear, I think.
- fauigerzigerk 17y agoI agree in principle, but it's a difficult line to draw. There is no clear distinction between contracts that stifle competition and contracts that are legitimate means of competing. There are all sorts of exclusivity arrangements or vendors selling only their own branded wares or that of their partners in their own store. It's not like Apple invented this scheme. For a very long time telcos selected every single application that was allowed to run on their network. Consumers have their own means of defending against such practices. They can simply stop buying iPhones for instance. It's not like there were no alternatives. As a consumer, in this case, I have to say don't need the government.
- jacquesm 17y agoIt's not really comparable, sizewise Microsoft was much bigger than netscape at the time, and the only route to the desktop was through microsoft. The iphone is not a monopoly by any stretch of the imagination, even though the 'hip' people all seem to have them. (hm, the implicit conclusion is that I'm not hip...)
- mcav 17y agoIs this likely to cause any change of course? Does the FCC's inquiry have enough weight to spur a different stance on the issue?
- darkxanthos 17y agoJust an inquiry no... I think most of us are hoping that it's the beginning of something larger and that Apple/AT&T will be forced to compromise. EDIT: typo
- jwhitlark 17y agoParticularly interesting are the last two questions: 5. What other applications have been rejected for use on the iPhone and for what reasons? Is there a list of prohibited applications or of categories of applications that is provided to potential vendors/developers? If so, is this posted on the iTunes website or otherwise disclosed to consumers? 6. What are the standards for considering and approving iPhone applications? What is the approval process for such applications (timing, reasons for rejection, appeal process, etc.)? What is the percentage of applications that are rejected? What are the major reasons for rejecting an application?
- sengan 17y agoYes, this is very good. A clear definition will help most developers not waste resources on executing a great idea only to see it rejected later. The light of day clears up many issues. http://www.tuaw.com/2009/07/30/yeah-theres-an-app-for-that-but-for-how-long-and-at-what-cos/ http://www.tuaw.com/2009/07/30/yeah-theres-an-app-for-that-b... Not only did Riverturn see its app pulled, it is also responsible for the resulting refund requests... That's just wrong.
- keltex 17y agoI'm curious what jurisdiction the FCC has over Apple (other than clearing the devices for interference). AT & T I can understand. Anybody know?
- rosser 17y agoApple is manufacturing and selling telecommunications devices. That being the case, the FCC's purview extends well beyond simply clearing the devices for interference. That's the standard a device is held to if it may emit EM radiation, but that emission is not meant for communications purposes, AIUI. The bar is set rather higher, and the FCC's powers rather deeper, if the EM spectrum the devices emit on is actually meant to be used for communicative purposes -- particularly if it uses a licensed band. Disclaimer: IANAFCCW (I am not an FCC wonk.)
- lutorm 17y agoIs this a fair shortening of your comment: Because Apple sells devices that use the public airwaves, they are subject to regulation, and the agency in charge of that is the FCC?
- jrockway 17y agoThere are no legal proceedings, the FCC is just asking so it can have the full story. If AT&T is leaning on Apple, then it is possible that AT&T is illegally using the radio spectrum we licensed to them. They need to know what's going on, though; they don't want to guess.
- dtf 17y agoYou've hit the nail on the head. It's not what Apple's doing - it's what the carriers may be doing. Given the way the carrier market works at the moment, consumers do deserve competition protection. The FCC is quite right to stick its oar in here, even it it's only to say "hey guys, I'm watching you".
- tc 17y agoThis can't end well. At the end of the day, Apple and AT&T have the right (or should have the right) to make any agreements they find necessary, and customers obviously have the power to reject the iPhone and AT&T if this matters enough to them. The government gets involved when consumers want to have their cake and eat it too -- you want the iPhone Apple & AT&T are offering BUT you aren't willing to accept their price and terms. I know this isn't going to be a terribly popular point here, because, well, we all do want to get our way. But just consider how much you'd like to find yourself on the receiving end of one of these letters.
- neilk 17y agoNot necessarily. Some of the FCC's questions are simply about clarifying policies. Maybe the average consumer won't read through (or care about) a list of prohibited app or app categories, but it sure would help developers.
- tc 17y agoThat's nice and all, but no one is forcing developers to support Apple and AT&T either. Apple was never really thrilled with the idea of having third-party developers. Let's not be too patronizing to AppStore developers -- they all knew (or should have known) what they were getting into. Apple's agreement has always put developers at their mercy.
- jwhitlark 17y agoNot true. AT&T does not own the spectrum they use, it is a publicly owned natural resource, licensed to them under specific rules, and can be revoked by the FCC for failing to comply with the regulations. The government is not getting involved because people want to have their cake and eat it to, (although that is a pretty good default assumption), but because there appears to be collusion involving regulated resources.
- paul9290 17y agoAnyone think a lot of apps are rejected due to AT&T network not being able to handle bandwidth intensive or highly popular apps? The network is not able to handle the load now and if they allowed Skype, Sling and others it probably be even worse. Though if iPhone was not exclusive to them, a lot of their problems would be solved!
- litewulf 17y agoThere is a Techcrunch article where AT&T disavows any actions in this regard. (As always, take with grain of salt. Gruber says its AT&T's fault, etc etc) http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/07/29/att-dont-blame-us-for-the-iphones-google-voice-ban/ http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/07/29/att-dont-blame-us-for-t...
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- jkincaid 17y agoThis is an argument that can fly with Skype and Sling, but not with Google Voice. When you make a call on Google Voice, you're still using your regular AT&T minutes (in other words, it's not going over the data connection).
- paul9290 17y agoSure that's why I said apps that are bandwidth intensive or highly popular. Although just recently released GV if released on the iPhone would become a staple app; free SMS. Thus, with everyone using it would put a further strain on AT&T's already drained network, as well cut into PROFITS. So, it could possibly be both.
- octover 17y agoI know the FCC doesn't care much about the rest of the world, but I am hopeful the questions and answers might force some reevaluation of restrictions to make AT&T happy being worldwide enforced. (Speaking specifically of Skype not being allowed to do voice calls on 3G, no carrier in Sweden would object to it) Also these applications exist and are allowed on other phones on AT&T. Of course the popularity of the iPhone, bundled with the App Store single point of distribution makes it possible for AT&T to insert themselves and have any control. Perhaps if they'd be willing to build out their network more instead of fighting the future.
- mikedouglas 17y agoQuick summary of 47 C.F.R. § 0.459, for those interested in how much will be confidential. Confidentiality requires a "preponderance of the evidence", as judged by the acting chief (James D. Schlichting). He will base his decision off the following information: (1) Identification of the specific information for which confidential treatment is sought; (2) Identification of the Commission proceeding in which the information was submitted or a description of the circumstances giving rise to the submission; (3) Explanation of the degree to which the information is commercial or financial, or contains a trade secret or is privileged; (4) Explanation of the degree to which the information concerns a service that is subject to competition; (5) Explanation of how disclosure of the information could result in substantial competitive harm; (6) Identification of any measures taken by the submitting party to prevent unauthorized disclosure; (7) Identification of whether the information is available to the public and the extent of any previous disclosure of the information to third parties; (8) Justification of the period during which the submitting party asserts that material should not be available for public disclosure; and (9) Any other information that the party seeking confidential treatment believes may be useful in assessing whether its request for confidentiality should be granted. Because this information was requested by the FCC, Apple/AT&T/Google can't withdraw the information if the confidentiality request is denied. They can apply, however, for a judicial stay.
- stalf 17y agoThis is gonna be good.
- shimi 17y agoIt was inevitable that the feds will step in. If MS would have controlled any software running on Windows then how good would have Windows be? But that would have never fly! Same here once you release a software product that carries an API you policing it can result in an unwanted results!
- abalashov 17y agoI know that this is probably not very comme il fait to say on HN, but really, I don't see what all the righteous indignation at AT&T / Apple is about. You signed up for a highly proprietary and controlled walled garden when you got an iPhone. I did too. When you ran into some limitations you didn't like, you jailbroke it and loaded some things Apple and/or AT&T didn't want you to load. If you don't like this whole paradigm, why get an iPhone? Why not get an Android or something else? For that matter, why does Google bother releasing an iPhone app; why not build the Android into a handset that is tightly coupled/integrated with Google Voice? Seems like that would be a fine marketing coup for the former. I'm just not sure what there is to whine about here. Of course enhanced voice application services aren't going to be allowed on the phone because they are perceived as encroaching on possible or actual carrier revenue streams. Of course you can't put applications on it that make a "dumb pipe" of the carrier's data network in order to deliver voice. If you don't like this set of circumstances, pursue a solution by competitive means, not legislating it; vote with your feet and quit buying iPhones until the exclusive distribution contract with AT&T expires, and thusly encourage Apple to diversify its retail blend to include other network operators with more liberal approaches. Really - what, do you expect that a de facto contractually sanctioned monopoly (AT&T) is going to act in the spirit of the public welfare or consumer choice when it perceives a conflict of interest? Seriously? Neither the courts nor the FCC should be looking at this. Consumers just need to take their wallet elsewhere. EDIT: I very much concur with the poster above who speculated that AT&T's 3G network doesn't have the bandwidth to handle a large amount of relatively constant (at a certain baseline) voice traffic generated by something as popular as GV. Anybody who deals with mobile issues routinely can tell you that AT&T's 3G network is positively the worst in the land, and oversubscription in many MSAs is unbearably high. You want 3G bandwidth, go with Sprint, or maybe T-Mobile.
- nixme 17y agoAbout your edit footnote, what do you mean by GV voice traffic? GV is not a VOIP solution, it calls your phone which uses your subscription minutes. Usage might increase a bit because international rates are lower, but I fail to see how that could overload AT&T's bandwidth.
- wglb 17y agoAnd in the wsj: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124908121794098073.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124908121794098073.html
- mistermann 17y agoWow, how great is this? And by reading the questions, it actually seems like there is someone in a government organization that a) knows what they are talking about and b) isn't scared to write in an unequivocal way From a person that usually follows wall street matters, this type of letter is a shot out of the blue. Wall street "enforcement" letters have so many loopholes any reasonably intelligent person could drive a mack truck through them, the wording of this sounds like someone in the government screwed up and accidentally hired someone that has competence, and gives a sh*t. What a breath of fresh air in America.