4 ms·

I'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.

by zhyder 17y ago

I'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 ago
My 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 ago
  We 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 ago
    What 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 ago
  If 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 ago
The 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 ago
  In case anyone's still interested, actual spelling is Julius Genachowski.
- wheels 17y ago
  I 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 ago
It 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 ago
I 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 ago
  I 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 ago
    I 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 ago
    It'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...)

by zhyder 17y ago

I'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 ago

My 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 ago
We 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 ago
  What 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 ago
If 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 ago

The 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 ago
In case anyone's still interested, actual spelling is Julius Genachowski.
wheels 17y ago
I 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 ago

It 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 ago

I 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 ago
I 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 ago
  I 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 ago
  It'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...)