Apple's Google Voice Rejection Wakes Up A Dormant FCC; Investigation Begins

from the whoops dept

We've had a bunch of stories about Apple's rather arbitrary nature in rejecting iPhone apps it doesn't like -- including ones where it claims that they're not allowed because they compete with Apple. However, Apple's recent decision to reject Google's Voice application didn't just attract general public interest in Apple's policies, it appears to have awoken the latest crop of FCC bosses. Yes, the FCC has requested more info from Apple, AT&T and Google concerning Apple's rejection of the Google app. I wonder how the random Apple drone who made that decision is feeling right now?

Either way, this isn't good for anyone. The FCC's reasoning is that it:

"has a mission to foster a competitive wireless marketplace, protect and empower consumers, and promote innovation and investment."

That's actually a bit of a stretch on the FCC's actual mandate. And as ridiculous as I think Apple's actions are here, having the FCC get involved doesn't seem good for anyone either. The FCC shouldn't be involved in deciding what applications get put on phones. Apple's decision has angered a bunch of people, with some swearing off the iPhone because of it. In those cases, those people have other options and other phones to go to. The situation doesn't require the FCC to get involved. It should just require Apple coming to its senses and getting rid of its silly policy of outright rejections of apps it doesn't like.

77 Comments | Leave a Comment..

NAB Cries To The Court About White Spaces Spectrum Plans

from the same-old-story dept

One of the better decisions to come out of the FCC during Kevin Martin's reign was the decision to free up the "white spaces" spectrum that lies in between TV broadcasts for other uses. The white spaces are unused spectrum that sit in between TV broadcasters' signals. They were important in analog broadcasts to keep stations' signals from interfering with each other, but they are less crucial in digital broadcasts (like the ones the US will eventually switch to). White spaces proponents say that they can effectively be reused by unlicensed devices that can seek out empty spectrum and use it to communicate, without interfering with licensed broadcasts, and the FCC concurred -- and, of course, made that a key part of its approval of the technologies. But as ever, the National Association of Broadcasters disagrees, and has sued to block usage of the white spaces, arguing it will interfere with their members' broadcasts.

We might be more sympathetic to the NAB's claim if it didn't have such a long and glorious history of trying to stifle anything that competes with incumbent broadcasters, and have such an annoying way of doing it. The FCC has put significant stipulations in place to ensure that white space devices don't cause interference, and despite the NAB's contention, the prototypes that failed in the testing process didn't do so. The FCC got it right by approving use of the white spaces with the restrictions and rules it put in place to tame interference; the NAB has once again got it wrong by trying to stifle innovation, and perhaps competition.

Carlo Longino is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Carlo Longino and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

13 Comments | Leave a Comment..

FCC Says Not So Fast To TV Stations' Itchy Switch Fingers

from the not-completely-surprising dept

The digital TV transition mess rolls on. After lots of TV stations said they planned to move ahead with the shutdown of their analog broadcasts, as the recently passed delay allows them to do, the FCC is now telling more than a quarter of them they can't do so without first meeting a number of regulations. The FCC contends (PDF alert, thanks to Fat Tony for sending it in) that 123 stations' plans to switch their analog signals off soon pose "a significant risk of substantial public harm," not because people who haven't figured out the switch was coming will miss Judge Judy and Wheel of Fortune, but because they need their TVs for access to "local news and public affairs."

The regulations say that one station in the broadcasters' metro areas must maintain analog service until at least the middle of April, but also that the stations must increase their "educational" programming about the switchover, and also provide both "local or toll-free telephone assistance, including engineering support" and "provide a location and staff for a consumer 'walk-in' center to assist consumers with applying for coupons and obtaining converter boxes, to demonstrate how to install converter boxes, to provide maps and lists of communities that maybe affected by coverage issues, and to serve as a redistribution point for consumers who are willing to donate coupons, converter boxes, televisions and for those in need of these items."

If this didn't involve the government, it would almost be remarkable. The government botched the converter coupon program, has caused more confusion with the delay, and now wants TV stations to set up call centers and walk-in locations to deal with it. What's even more galling is that stations will be forced to toss resources at an issue that effects a small sliver of the population: take the small subset of Americans that watch TV, but don't have cable or satellite, then the subset of those that haven't yet gotten with the program. From those few people that are left standing, will they be any more ready in June than they would be on the 17th, when the switchover was supposed to happen? And why should broadcasters have to devote so many resources to them, particularly when it's the bungled coupon program that's largely to blame?

Carlo Longino is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Carlo Longino and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

23 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Kevin Martin Agrees To Drop Filters From Free Wireless Web

from the still-doesn't-have-much-support dept

M2Z's big plan to provide wireless internet to the entire country, if the FCC would just hand over free spectrum, never made all that much sense to us. Yes, the country could have a much better broadband infrastructure, and there are some interesting possibilities in the wireless space, but simply handing over a bunch of spectrum to a single startup company with a promise to provide free wireless to most of the country just seems like a boondoggle. There's little evidence that the plan would work or that it is even necessary. So, it seemed good that the plan went down in flames earlier this month -- though, most of the criticism was focused on the pointless requirement for anti-smut filters on the free connectivity.

However, Kevin Martin is making some news today by telling everyone who will listen that he's willing to drop the filters part if he can get the rest approved. This is a little surprising from Martin, as he's been a pretty big anti-smut crusader in his role at the FCC, but perhaps he's looking to leave a legacy beyond "AT&T lackey" now that he's about to leave the FCC. It still doesn't appear that he has the support to push this through, but that could change. Still, it would be good if someone (anyone?) could explain why it makes sense to just give a single company this spectrum without any clear reason why it should get the spectrum or proof that it can provide what it wants to provide in a reasonable manner? We've seen tons of promises about broadband wireless over the years from upstarts and very few have gone anywhere. Before just handing over valuable spectrum to one provider, why not see if (a) it's actually necessary and (b) if the company in question can actually provide what it claims it will provide.

13 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Cablevision Caught Blatantly Lying To Customers About Digital TV Switch

from the don't-blame-us,-blame-the-fcc dept

As you probably have heard, in early 2009, over-the-air TV stations will no longer be broadcasting analog signals to those who receive television over-the-air (with an antenna). This is part of a necessary effort to reclaim valuable wireless spectrum that the broadcasters have held (for free) for many years, and put it to much better use. This change only impacts those who watch TV over-the-air. That means it has no impact whatsoever on anyone who receives their television via cable or satellite TV (representing the majority of TV viewers out there). Yet, this apparently didn't stop at least one cable company from claiming otherwise.

Consumerist has caught Cablevision telling customers that they need to upgrade to a digital cable box by order of the FCC. This is simply untrue. Cablevision is upgrading many of its channels to digital format from analog, and those channels will no longer be available to customers who don't have a digital cable box. But, that's entirely a business decision made by Cablevision, and has absolutely nothing to do with the the FCC-mandated switch for over-the-air broadcasts. It's just that Cablevision timed this deal to coincide with all the stories about the over-the-air switch, and is using that to make people think that it's the FCC's fault. Cablevision responded to Consumerist admitting that the change has nothing to do with the FCC's mandated change -- but refused to explain why every customer support person Consumerist spoke to gave the FCC as the reason, even after they specifically went to check their training notes. It's a rather sneaky (and likely illegal) move to claim that people need to upgrade due to the FCC when the FCC has nothing to do with it.

81 Comments | Leave a Comment..

AT&T-Funded Politicians Accuse Google Of Gaming The Spectrum Auction System

from the please-explain dept

We've already explained why Google's actions in the recent 700 MHz spectrum auction wasn't "fleecing" taxpayers as some lobbyists had contended. Yet, it appears that the lobbying has been effective. A set of Congressional representatives have started asking whether or not Google gamed the system. This is a pretty bizarre claim against a company that put up $4.6 billion in an auction and was then outbid. Clearly, in putting up the bid, there was a chance that Google could have won and had to pay the $4.6 billion. There's no rule that Google had to keep bidding. The company stopped at the point at which it was comfortable bidding. Of course, it will probably surprise no one that if you look at the top campaign contributor to all 3 representatives attacking Google's actions, you'll notice a pattern (in the letters A, T and T). Check it out for yourself. There's Fred Upton, Cliff Stearns and John Shimkus. You think that had something to do with their opinion on the spectrum auction process? Nah...

21 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Kevin Martin's Latest Gift To Telcos: Dismissing Skype Petition

from the we-don't-need-no-discussion-at-all.. dept

A little over a year ago, Skype filed a petition with the FCC asking to extend the Carterfone decision to mobile networks. The Carterfone ruling was what allowed people the opportunity to connect non-AT&T telephones to the phone network, and kicked off an awful lot of innovation in the telephone arena (getting everyone past the black rotary phones). The Skype petition was a bit misguided, because the situation in the mobile world was quite different than the AT&T telephone monopoly of the 1960s. In fact, there is a lot more competition and openness in the mobile world -- and that competition has pushed many of the players to continue to open up at a greater rate, knowing they need to in order to compete.

So, it probably doesn't come as much surprise to find out that telco buddy Kevin Martin is dismissing the Skype petition outright. He announced this at the CTIA conference, where it was greeted by applause -- suggesting that it was mostly employees from mobile operators in the room. Martin pointed out that there was a lot of competition in the mobile space and also noted Verizon Wireless' move towards openness. Of course, it may be a bit early to declare Verizon Wireless truly open, and it seems a bit odd to dismiss the Skype petition out of hand without any public discussion. While it's probably true that the Skype petition was asking for unnecessary regulations, you would think that at least a discussion could have been held around questions of openness on mobile networks before the petition was totally dismissed.

14 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Yet Another Microsoft White Space Device Stops Working

from the er...-maybe-test-that-a-bit-longer dept

A bunch of tech firms are asking the FCC to allow them to make use of valuable spectrum that is unused, but controlled by television broadcasters (who don't want to give it up). The FCC has been open to such an idea for many years. Broadcasters own a ridiculously large portion of spectrum, with large parts of it totally unused. The "white space" was designed to prevent interference by not letting anything work on spectrum anywhere near broadcast spectrum. However, many are pointing out that with today's technology, that spectrum could be put to use without any interference. Microsoft and Google have both been big proponents of opening up that white space for use. In order to help show that the interference bogeyman wasn't a real issue, they've sent prototype devices to the FCC to test. Unfortunately, they seem to have trouble keeping those devices in operation. Back in August the FCC noted that the device didn't work, and now a new device from Microsoft has also stopped working.

Now, to be totally clear, the problems with these devices have nothing to do with causing interference. The devices haven't been shown to cause interference -- just to have trouble working. But, of course, the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) quickly used these failures to slam the idea of freeing up the whitespace, even though there's still no evidence of interference. With the way the NAB has acted around this issue and the recent XM-Sirius merger debate, you have to conclude that the NAB thinks everyone out there is just completely stupid, and will believe any false or misleading statement it makes. Otherwise it makes no sense for the NAB to make the types of claims it makes on a regular basis. These devices are prototypes, and production devices will be totally different. Either way, the point is not whether the prototypes can keep working, but whether there's interference. That said, it would probably make sense for Microsoft to test these devices a bit more before tossing them over the wall to the FCC.

11 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Forget Google, Watch Out For Chevron In The 700 MHz Auction

from the my-ISP-is-Chevron? dept

Everybody's been buzzing about the likelihood of Google bidding on the 700 MHz spectrum that's up for auction in a few weeks, that's allowed a few other interesting characters to get in on the auction below the radar. The FCC has now announced that 266 separate entities have filed to take part in the auction, so it's quite a long list. So far, only 96 applications have been accepted, but the others have until January 4th to get their applications in order. Everyone knew Google was on the list, and it's no surprise to hear names like Verizon Wireless, Alltel, MetroPCS, Vodafone and AT&T (who already got a head start buying some other spectrum in the 700 MHz realm earlier). There was some speculation about cable companies participating, and sure enough, Cox and Cablevision will show up at the auction. Then there are a few surprises. Qualcomm is planning to bid -- which could upset some of the US carriers who consider Qualcomm more of a partner than a competitor.

In a list of 266 companies, there are always going to be some long shots -- but it still doesn't hurt to point out some of the more interesting bidders. Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen plans to bid via his Vulcan Spectrum LLC (reusing his favorite "Vulcan" name for companies). It's unclear what he would do with the spectrum. Perhaps even more surprising is the news that oil giant Chevron is planning to participate. What the company would do with the spectrum should it win (and it certainly has the money to win) is an open question, but there are a few intriguing ideas. As for Google, don't hold your breath for a win here. It has seemed pretty clear from the beginning that the company is only in the auction to bid $4.6 billion -- the lowest point necessary to force open access rules to kick in. It would be a huge surprise if the company bid much more than that, and it would be an even bigger surprise if no one outbid Google.

21 Comments | Leave a Comment..

FAA Seconds FCC On Grounding In-Flight Mobile Phone Calls

from the but-what-about-voip? dept

Over the weekend, a story out of the UK began to get some buzz, when an American FAA representative supposedly told a British newspaper that the FAA will not approve in-flight mobile phone calls after the agency received a ton of complaints when it publicly began considering the shift in policy. Of course, this is somewhat meaningless, because the FCC had already said no to the change in policy, and both agencies would likely need to agree before any change went into effect. So, for those of you (and we know there are lots of you) who were terrified by the idea that you might get stuck sitting next to someone jabbering away into a mobile phone for a cross-continent flight... rest easy. Well, rest easy until you realize that voice is just a form of data, and it's only a matter of time until internet access in the sky means the person sitting next you will be jabbering away via Skype for a cross-continent flight no matter what gov't agencies have to say about mobile phones in the sky.

16 Comments | Leave a Comment..

More 700MHz Auction Fun: Frontline Asks FCC To Ban Verizon Wireless From Bidding

from the ah,-the-one-up-manship dept

For something as boring as a spectrum auction, the upcoming 700MHz auction sure has its fair share of excitement. There are the rumors of Google and even Apple potentially bidding on the spectrum. Google requested that the FCC attach some specific conditions to the auction, which the FCC gave some lip service to, but hardly a full endorsement. Meanwhile, Verizon Wireless initially liked the conditions set by the FCC (meaning it thought it had a good chance of getting the spectrum) until it began to think through the scenarios (or heard more credible stories about competitive bids) and then suddenly decided to sue the FCC, claiming that the rules being set are illegal. Of course, others can play the lawsuit game too. Frontline Wireless, a new company basically built to bid on this spectrum, is now accusing Verizon Wireless of breaking the law in not disclosing the details of a recent meeting between Verizon Wireless officials and the FCC about the auction -- as required by the law. Thus, Frontline is asking the FCC to sanction Verizon Wireless, including the extremely unlikely possibility of barring it from the 700MHz auction. Of course, just imagine the resulting lawsuits should the FCC actually agree and bar Verizon Wireless. Somehow, given Kevin Martin's chummy relationship with the telcos, it seems unlikely that Verizon Wireless will be stopped from bidding.

9 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Verizon Decides It Doesn't Like Open-Access Wireless Rules After All

from the damn-competition dept

Discussion of the upcoming auction for licenses for 700 MHz spectrum has been dominated by the desire of Google and other groups to have "open-access" rules put in place. These rules would force license winners to sell wholesale access to their networks, allow any compatible device to be used on them, and follow net neutrality principles. The FCC paid some lip service to the issue by attaching just two of the conditions (net neutrality and allowing the use of any compatible device) to just a portion of the spectrum, and adding that the conditions will be dropped and the auction for the relevant licenses restarted without them if a reserve price of $4.6 billion isn't met. This was a political show that made it look like the FCC was taking some action, but the likely overall impact on the market will be minimal. Perhaps what made it clear that the rules were toothless and wouldn't have much competitive impact was the fact that incumbent telcos AT&T and Verizon voiced some support for them. But it would appear Google execs' comments that the company will "probably" bid on the spectrum, even though the FCC didn't adopt all its proposed principles has spooked Verizon, as the telco is now suing the FCC, saying it overstepped its authority in putting the conditions on the licenses.

When it looked like the open-access rules wouldn't have any effect, and that the auction for the licenses with them wouldn't attract enough buyers to hit that $4.6 billion reserve price, Verizon went the politically and PR-expedient route and voiced its support for them. Now that it looks like Google's going to be ready to pounce on the spectrum and pay the reserve price, Verizon contends the rules are illegal. Without the involvement of Google or another deep-pocketed bidder, Verizon could wait for the auction to restart without the rules, then pick up the spectrum free from the open-access rules. Since it looks like Google will bid up to the reserve price, Verizon faces the prospect of getting caught in a bidding war with the company, and should it win, it would have to operate any network in the spectrum with the open-access rules -- which it clearly doesn't want to do.

20 Comments | Leave a Comment..

FCC Not Convinced To Just Hand Over Spectrum To Startup In Exchange For Potential Future Profits

from the FCC-prefers-its-money-upfront dept

In May of 2006, a VC-backed startup called M2Z petitioned the FCC to hand over some spectrum for free in exchange for a cut of future potential revenues. As you're probably quite aware, the FCC has been focused lately on auctioning off slices of spectrum to private companies for use in various wireless projects. The spectrum seems to only be getting more and more valuable as demands for potential wireless applications and services increase. Of course, as we've seen in the past, these spectrum auctions don't always work out so well, with companies overbidding and being unable to actually do much with the spectrum. Part of the problem is that the FCC wants to put all sorts of rules on the spectrum usage, rather than letting it be used for whatever makes the most sense, like some other countries.

However, the M2Z proposal seemed pretty questionable in its own way, promising nothing up front, and then making plenty of promises on the backend. The company claimed it would cover 95% of the country in broadband in 10 years, would have a "free" tier that was relatively slow and filtered, a more expensive upper tier, as well as offering priority for public safety uses. It may have been intriguing simply for the fact that it was different, but the FCC wasn't convinced. As has been expected for quite some time, the FCC has rejected the proposal, though some believe that the debate over this topic may eventually lead to good things from the FCC with the spectrum it's going to release in the near future. Of course, in the end all this really highlights is that the FCC still is focused on dribbling out bits and pieces of spectrum using different rules and regulations each time -- rather than coming up with a truly comprehensive spectrum allocation plan. Of course, some of us have been pointing this out for years, and the FCC never seems to get any closer to a comprehensive spectrum allocation policy -- and the country continues to suffer for it.

4 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Google CEO Says It Will 'Probably' Bid On Spectrum Licenses

from the here-comes-the-cash dept

Google has been making noise for some time about getting its hands on some wireless spectrum licenses. It's been behind a push to get the FCC to institute "open access" rules for license winners in the upcoming auction of 700 MHz spectrum, and the FCC implemented a couple of rather meaningless conditions to certain licenses in the auction. Google's main goal was to get the FCC to force license winners to offer wholesale access to their networks to anyone who wanted to buy it -- making it clear that Google's real interest isn't in acquiring spectrum licenses and building a network of its own, but rather having the ability to buy wholesale network access, and to do so in a competitive market. Google's push to get the FCC to create this market for free failed; now, Google's CEO says the company will "probably" bid in the auction. If Google were to win some licenses, it could choose to lease them to network operators in exchange for network access, with whatever conditions it wants to attach. This could achieve the same end result -- a marketplace with several bidders competing for Google's business -- as the getting the FCC to mandate open access. Obviously Google would rather have gone down that route than having to shell out several billion dollars for the licenses. Either way, don't expect Google to begin building its own physical network, but its motives in acquiring and redistributing access either as a virtual operator or in some other way are clear.

5 Comments | Leave a Comment..

FCC Says White-Space Spectrum Device Doesn't Work

from the proto-failure dept

A gaggle of tech companies, led by Google and Microsoft, have been pushing the FCC to open up the "white space" spectrum -- open airwaves in between those used by TV broadcasts -- for use by electronic devices and broadband services. This has been talked about for quite some time, and represents one way to more efficiently use spectrum, which is a finite and very valuable resource. The group delivered a prototype to the FCC earlier this year, as a way to show that the technology to allow devices to automatically detect what spectrum's in use and what's available, and route communications accordingly, is viable. The FCC's been testing it for several months, and it's all good, except for one little problem: it doesn't actually work. The Commission says the prototype couldn't detect TV broadcasts, and it also sometimes interfered with them. While this current iteration of the technology sounds like a failure, the FCC is still open to the idea of allowing use of the white spaces; now Google, Microsoft and their friends just need to get the technology right before things can move forward.

10 Comments | Leave a Comment..

FCC Pays Open Access Wireless Networks Some Lip Service

from the appearance-of-activity dept

The FCC yesterday approved the rules for the upcoming 700 MHz spectrum license auction, scheduled for early next year. This is an important auction because of the quantity and quality of spectrum it covers, making it particularly suitable for wireless broadband networks. A coalition headed by Google has been pushing the FCC to adopt four "open access" principles for the spectrum, which would require license winners to open their networks to any compatible device, allow users to access any service they wish, and to sell wholesale access to their network to third parties. Google even said it would bid at least $4.6 billion in the auction if the FCC adopted the four principles. Unsurprisingly, the FCC didn't, instead going with rules that were largely along the lines of what Chairman Kevin Martin had earlier proposed: licenses for 22 of the 60 MHz on offer will require winners to allow any compatible device on their network and not block access to any services, but will not have the wholesale requirement that Google and its partners were looking for.

Without question, there's some gamesmanship going on here. If Google really wants to own spectrum licenses and have a network that follows its open access principles, there's nothing preventing it from bidding in the auction, winning licenses, and either running its network that way, or leasing the licenses to somebody who will. What's more likely, though, is that Google simply wants the ability to buy wholesale network access, rather than own licenses or build its own network. Again, there's nothing preventing it from entering into such a deal with any license holder, but requiring all the license holders to wholesale access would create a more competitive market and drive down prices. But perhaps the bigger game here is the political one by the FCC. These open access rules, really, are pretty toothless, and perhaps that's best illustrated by the fact that both AT&T and Verizon support them. The device requirement could easily be rendered meaningless by the winning bidder's choice of technology for their network. Using a proprietary or unpopular technology would likely mean that the only outlet to purchase compatible devices would be from the network provider. The open access to services requirement is one the operators would likely follow anyway, since blocking access to certain sites and services wouldn't make their wireless broadband services too popular with consumers.

While perhaps these rules represent a small first step for the FCC towards fostering a more competitive broadband, they seem much more like a missed opportunity to affect some real change. It seems like more than anything, this is a bit of smoke and mirrors that makes it look, to the casual observer, like the FCC's done something significant, when it's actually done very little -- and that would fit with the persistent whispering about Martin's political ambitions.

5 Comments | Leave a Comment..

FCC Chairman Talks Up Open-Access Wireless Networks

from the different-tune dept

Just last month, we noted how FCC Chairman Kevin Martin sounds like a broken record when it comes to telecom policy, always covering the same ground with his same old ideas of what constitutes a competitive market. Maybe the summer heat has gotten to him, but he's now gone and changed all that, as he's getting ready to propose dramatic new rules for the upcoming 700 MHz wireless spectrum license auction, mandating that winners of licenses for a third of the spectrum build open-access networks -- networks that allow any compatible device to connect and for any service to be run across them. The 700 MHz spectrum is pretty prime real estate, as these things go: there's a lot of spectrum that will be available, and the low frequency gives it excellent propagation and building-penetration characteristics. There's been a lot of talk from tech companies and other groups about handling these licenses differently than previous ones, in order to encourage the development of broadband wireless networks that offer real competition to fixed-line networks. Typically, this entails mandating that license winners build wholesale networks which sell access to any service provider that wants to then sell the service on to consumers. While Martin's draft of rules doesn't go that far, it does offer a significant change to how wireless spectrum licenses have typically been sold and regulated. Unsurprisingly, the trade group of cellular operators isn't happy, and says that there's no need to regulate what it sees as a perfectly competitive marketplace. Whether or not the cell phone service market is competitive is an argument for another day, but it's pretty clear that as things stand now, it doesn't have much of a competitive impact on the broadband market, which is still largely a duopoly of cable and telephone companies. The operators hope to use their deep pockets to buy up as much spectrum as possible -- not just to use it themselves, but to keep it out of the hands of any potential new entrants that could come into the market and actually compel them to compete.

8 Comments | Leave a Comment..