
FCC Takes On Apple And AT&T Over Google Voice Rejection - vaksel
http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/07/31/fcc-takes-on-apple-and-att-over-google-voice-rejection/
======
zhyder
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...

~~~
paul9290
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
In case anyone's still interested, actual spelling is Julius Genachowski.

------
jwhitlark
Particularly 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
Yes, 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-b...](http://www.tuaw.com/2009/07/30/yeah-theres-an-app-for-that-but-for-
how-long-and-at-what-cos/)

Not only did Riverturn see its app pulled, it is also responsible for the
resulting refund requests... That's just wrong.

------
mikedouglas
Quick 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.

------
abalashov
I 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
About 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.

~~~
abalashov
I was under the impression that the GV client also provides some degree of
VoIP client functionality.

It would be hard to see what is controversial about this proposal if that
weren't present. What, is AT&T complaining about more subscription minutes
being used?

~~~
blasdel
AT&T is freaked the fuck out because your Google Voice number is _actually
portable_ to any carrier, completely dynamically, in perpetuity.

Number portability in the US as it is now only works if your new billing
address is in the same zip code as your old number, and usually doesn't work
at all when you're trying to port _out_ of a VoIP provider or _in_ to a PoTS
line.

~~~
Elepsis
Really? I ported an Atlanta number from T-Mobile to Sprint without a single
problem here in Seattle. They did ask me for an Atlanta zip code during the
process, but it never came up as an issue.

~~~
joeyo
Phone number portability (one carrier to another) is mandated by law. They
gave you no problems because they mustn't. GV style portability (a virtual
number that works with any carrier) enjoys no such privilege, so they can, and
in Apple/AT&T's case, have, blocked it.

~~~
abalashov
It's not "a virtual number that works with any carrier." I can assure you that
the number is (1) natively homed or (2) ported - to a particular physical,
facilities-based carrier (generally a CLEC) at any time. In a lot of places,
Google Voice is using bandwidth.com's new CLEC license holdings (after they
stopped being a pure Level3 reseller), and probably the usual national-level
multibillion dollar folks that are interconnected to everyone, everywhere and
have a lot of direct end-office trunking: Global Crossing, XO, Level3, etc.

------
mistermann
Wow, 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.

------
tc
This 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.

~~~
jwhitlark
Not 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.

~~~
tc
You are being over-broad with the scary word _collusion._ Collusion would be
AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile, Verizon, etc. agreeing to keep voice revenues for the
industry high by crippling mobile data. Nothing in a carrier's agreement with
a handset vendor could possibly qualify for _collusion._

As for violating regulations, please find for me the regulation that they have
violated. It seems to me that their present sin consists of doing something
_unpopular._

~~~
boryas
This is a valid point, but I'm not convinced that it's OK for companies to
act/co-operate in a way that is this detrimental to their customers just
because they aren't supposed to be competitors. Based on the questions asked,
the FCC seems to be trying to find out if this exclusivity agreement is
harming consumers or not, which seems like a decent goal. If this inquiry
leads to some transparency from Apple/AT&T, so much the better, right?

~~~
rottencupcakes
No! You can't think like that.

Apple and AT&T should have every right to be as opaque as they want. If you
don't support their policies and pricing, switch to another carrier and buy
another phone.

In a completely non-monopolistic scenario, which this is, the government
should have no concern whether a company's action's harm customers or not,
since the customer has complete choice in whether to buy the service or not.

This is precisely a situation in which the customer wants to have his cake and
eat it too. Regulated resources are by definition a case when the customer
wants to have his cake and eat it too.

~~~
sachinag
Oh, for fuck's sake.

The FCC said _why_ they wanted this information. They wanted this information
as part of its examination of net neutrality and exclusive phones. The FCC
doesn't even look at collusion and antitrust - the FTC does.

The idea that there's some monolithic "government" is juvenile at best.

~~~
BrentRitterbeck
_The idea that there's some monolithic "government" is juvenile at best._

Thank you. It should, however, be noted that as Goldman Sachs rehires, the
government will get bigger. Oh wait, I forgot that I'm not Matt Taibbi, so
scratch that last sentence.

------
wglb
And in the wsj: <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124908121794098073.html>

------
stalf
This is gonna be good.

------
keltex
I'm curious what jurisdiction the FCC has over Apple (other than clearing the
devices for interference). AT & T I can understand. Anybody know?

~~~
rosser
Apple 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
Is 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?

------
mcav
Is 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
Just 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

------
paul9290
Anyone 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!

~~~
jkincaid
This 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
Sure 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.

------
shimi
It 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!

