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...
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!
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I think the uproar is not so much about Apple banning aplications willy nilly, it is more about them simultaneously trying to portray an image (vs Microsoft, specifically) of being holier than thou, but at the same time REFUSING to state what applications are allowed and what are not. As it is, they have thousands of freelance programmers working their asses off developing awesome apps....they take the good ones, and anything that threatens their platform, the quash, and refuse to say why.
I think people want some honesty, especially from a company that uses slogans like "Think Different".
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.
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.
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 ...
So can I have the right to broadcast my own GSM signal in the 900 MHz range, or a perpetual sweet-heart franchise agreement with my local municipal government to run last-mile internet to my neighborhood's houses?
These are natural monopolies we're dealing with. My options are constrained to carriers that have been granted guaranteed access to public airwaves by the FCC. The carriers then use technical (carrier locks), legal (contracts), and social (difficult cancellation processes) means to lock consumers in.
The carriers then collude with handset makers to restrict consumer choice further by locking handset features, and restricting the applications that they run. There are ways around this (such as buying third party unlocked, unrestricted phones), but carriers and handset makers leverage their government-backed market position to discourage consumer adoption.
I see no reason why Apple and AT&T - who are corporations, not people - should have the right to do as they please. Our government grants corporations the ability to exist because doing so is beneficial to society. If a corporation is doing something that is harmful to consumers - and potentially society as a whole - then I want the government to step in.
Not 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.
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.
There 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.
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!
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).
There 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)
I 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.
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!
[+] [-] zhyder|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] paul9290|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rosser|16 years ago|reply
We may actually get some visibility into the embarrassingly capricious and opaque App Store policies.
[+] [-] fauigerzigerk|16 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] dkokelley|16 years ago|reply
"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.
[+] [-] unknown|16 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|16 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] jwhitlark|16 years ago|reply
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|16 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] mikedouglas|16 years ago|reply
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:
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.[+] [-] mistermann|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] abalashov|16 years ago|reply
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|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mistermann|16 years ago|reply
I think people want some honesty, especially from a company that uses slogans like "Think Different".
[+] [-] tc|16 years ago|reply
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|16 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] antonovka|16 years ago|reply
So can I have the right to broadcast my own GSM signal in the 900 MHz range, or a perpetual sweet-heart franchise agreement with my local municipal government to run last-mile internet to my neighborhood's houses?
These are natural monopolies we're dealing with. My options are constrained to carriers that have been granted guaranteed access to public airwaves by the FCC. The carriers then use technical (carrier locks), legal (contracts), and social (difficult cancellation processes) means to lock consumers in.
The carriers then collude with handset makers to restrict consumer choice further by locking handset features, and restricting the applications that they run. There are ways around this (such as buying third party unlocked, unrestricted phones), but carriers and handset makers leverage their government-backed market position to discourage consumer adoption.
[+] [-] scott_s|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] neilk|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wglb|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stalf|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] keltex|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rosser|16 years ago|reply
Disclaimer: IANAFCCW (I am not an FCC wonk.)
[+] [-] jrockway|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mcav|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] darkxanthos|16 years ago|reply
EDIT: typo
[+] [-] paul9290|16 years ago|reply
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|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] litewulf|16 years ago|reply
http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/07/29/att-dont-blame-us-for-t...
[+] [-] octover|16 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] shimi|16 years ago|reply
Same here once you release a software product that carries an API you policing it can result in an unwanted results!