New FCC Boss Shifting FCC Back To Tech, Science Loves his iPhone, still not answering questions on incumbent regulation.... FCC boss Julius Genachowski showed his agency's at least paying attention, this week acting to quickly ask Apple & AT&T why Google's Voice app was banned from the iPhone application store. While we've grumbled that his early interviews with the press were painfully vague and designed not to offend, the new boss's interview this week with Om Malik does a better job at least touching on the core issues, sort of. He's still doing a bit of tap dancing, questions on managing metered billing or regulating cable are met with more vague answers: We have a relentless focus on competition, consumers and innovation, and we’ll tackle all the hard questions. There are rules that exist that apply to the cable industry now that the FCC has enforced the neutrality principle for the cable industry. Having said that, you’re raising an important issue about what the regulatory landscape will look like in the 21st century given the changes in the landscape. As it stands, the neutrality principle policy statement (pdf) Julius refers to isn't law and may not even be enforceable in court -- something Comcast's currently trying to prove. Coming from an entrepreneurial background, where all government regulation is seen as synonymous with puppy torture, Genachowski may try to apply the rules already on the books to the current marketplace before pushing Congress for new ones. That's good news to regulation-phobic carriers and the investors that love them -- since most existing rules are toothless. On the other hand, Genachowski's positives so far include a promise to renew the agency's focus on science, after more than a decade of FCC policy based on bad data. The new FCC boss also touches on another key annoyance with the agency: the fact that it's stocked primarily with lobbyists, partisan loyalists and lawyers -- and not technologists. According to Genachowski, the agency's trying hard to bring in a lot of "great engineers, strong economists and people with entrepreneurial backgrounds."
|
  baineschile2600 ways to livePremium
join:2008-05-10
Sterling Heights, MI
 ·Comcast
 ·magicjack.com
| Network Neutrality Since when should the goverment interfere with how a company does business (as long as its not illegal). If apple/att doesnt want the google app, they should have the right to deny it. If someone REALLY wants the google app, they have a half dozen other wireless providers they can choose from.
the minute the government starts meddling, capitalism will turn to socialism, and the acceleration of product innovation will slow immensely. | |
|  | | | Re: Network Neutrality It's a question of what you are PAYING for. If AT&T/Apple want to SELL the 'internet aware' Iphone, then what gives them the right to deny ANY legitimate internet application? As far as I can see, all the Apple Ads say 'internet', which by my definition, means I should be ABLE to USE the internet in ANY manner I see fit. If AT&T is SELLING internet access, then I have the RIGHT to use however many bytes I paid for in whatever manner I choose to. The problem of course, is that the google app BREAKS the massive profit model of AT&T, by changing the price of a SMS from $.15 cents to $0.0001 cents, which is what the real COST is. AT&T can't afford to give up their cash cow, so they threatened apple, who of course caved, because APPLE doesn't want to give up their cash cow either. Who is the LOSER in this scenario? Anyone who CAN'T use google apps to bypass the rip off charges that AT&T fosters on people.
--
The happiest countries are the most secular. The struggle AGAINST corporations is the struggle FOR humanity! | |
| | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | Re: Network Neutrality You have the right to the service that you signed a contract for a pay monthly. Does your contract give you carte blanche to do whatever you want, whenever, and however you want to do it? I'm guessing not. Does your contract highlight the Apple/AT&T relationship and how Apple will manage the app store? I'm guessing so. | |
| | | | | | Re: Network Neutrality said by openbox9:You have the right to the service that you signed a contract for a pay monthly. Does your contract give you carte blanche to do whatever you want, whenever, and however you want to do it? I'm guessing not. Does your contract highlight the Apple/AT&T relationship and how Apple will manage the app store? I'm guessing so. Openbox, it's called "consumer rights", and there are laws in place to protect and enforce those rights. The contract's restrictions are meaningless in the face of those rights. These laws not only protect the consumer in a situation where the provider has all the leverage, but it also forces the provider to compete with other services, such as Google Voice. | |
| | | | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | Re: Network Neutrality I understand that certain laws exist to protect consumers and enforce fairness in marketplaces, I'm trying to understand the claims that consumer rights have been violated. | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Network Neutrality they haven't been since the customer should have read the contract before signing the contract and using the phone.
This is a clear issue with the customer not reading what they signed. | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Network Neutrality said by hottboiinnc:they haven't been since the customer should have read the contract before signing the contract and using the phone. This is a clear issue with the customer not reading what they signed. We need terms that are understandable by the layman. Perhaps something short as well. That way these terms can be limited. | |
| | | | | | | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | Re: Network Neutrality The contracts aren't that difficult to read and understand. It just takes a little time, which most people aren't willing to invest. I read all of everything that I sign. I learned that painful lesson long ago. | |
|
| | | | | | said by sonicmerlin:Openbox, it's called "consumer rights", and there are laws in place to protect and enforce those rights. The contract's restrictions are meaningless in the face of those rights. I hope you don't make your living as a lawyer.
Neither AT&T nor Apple sell the iPhone as Internet access. They sell it as a phone with apps which work though the Internet. As that is precisely what you get there is no consumer rights "violation" here. Just because you want something they don't sell means nothing. I want Wal*Mart to sell BMWs but the fact that BMW won't sell through Wal*Mart does not mean either is violating my consumer rights. | |
|
| | | | | | | | Re: Network Neutrality said by Romney2012:You can still access Google Voice without the Google app to send SMS msgs. Go to browser and then go to » www.google.com/voiceSo tell me again why you need the app and how AT&T is blocking sending SMS thru Google Voice. You know, you asked this exact same question in a previous thread, and I answered it quite succinctly.
The GV app is an extremely slick and convenient way to access and use Google's services, and that is what the iPhone is all about anyways. | |
| | | | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | Re: Network Neutrality You have to admit though that the fact that you can still utilize GV to send SMS, does smack in the face of those claiming collusion amongst Apple and AT&T to deny a free, competing SMS capability. | |
| | | | | | | said by sonicmerlin:that is what the iPhone is all about anyways. Who are you trying to kid? The iPhone is about making AT&T and Apple warehouses full of money, which it is doing very nicely. The GV app is irrelevant to that functionality. | |
|
| | |  cdruGo ColtsPremium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:5
 ·Frontier FiOS
| I bet if you look at total traffic sent, the number of bytes required to load up Google Voice's web interface, navigate to the page to send a SMS, and actually send it is several orders of magnitude greater then what a simple app would require. If it really is all about "saving the network" they why wouldn't they want to allow it? Oh wait...it cuts AT&T out of the picture. | |
| | | | |  Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 | Re: Network Neutrality said by cdru:I bet if you look at total traffic sent, the number of bytes required to load up Google Voice's web interface, navigate to the page to send a SMS, and actually send it is several orders of magnitude greater then what a simple app would require. If it really is all about "saving the network" they why wouldn't they want to allow it? Oh wait...it cuts AT&T out of the picture. This commentary says it ISN'T AT&T doing the decision, but Apple because Apple has its own app coming out soon:
»www.eweek.com/c/a/Mobile-and-Wir···-189443/
Why would Apple deny customers the Google Voice functionality and risk the ire of the FCC? eWEEK Labs' Andrew Garcia suspects it's because Apple is building a similar service for MobileMe.
AT&T has been the logical scapegoat in the App Store rejection, and surely over time the inclusion of the application on the iPhone could eventually lead to a reduction in minutes used by AT&T's customers. But while AT&T may have voiced some displeasure to Apple over the application, the service provider has done nothing to remove vestiges of the application from the rest of its network—it hasn't denied the application from other devices (BlackBerrys), nor has it blocked access to the Google Voice Web application.
However, since Google Voice appeared this spring, the Website works just fine through the iPhone's browser. Users can check messages, change settings or initiate calls. An on-device application would certainly make the experience cleaner and easier, and provide integration into the phone's contact database, but is absolutely not required for Google Voice mobile operation.
Instead, Apple rejected Google Voice outright, under the "Conflicts with existing services" blanket rejection, without specifying exactly where the conflict is. As we've seen in the past (with the Podcaster application and with NullRiver's tethering application, NetShare), Apple feels free to use this excuse even if it doesn't actually offer a comparable service at the time of rejection.
In hindsight in both of these cases, the conflicting features were in development at Apple at the time of rejection.
Given that history, I think we can assume Apple is truly the primary culprit in the rejection of both Google Voice and associated third-party tools (GV Mobile) because it is building out its own one-number solution. I, for one, think that Apple was planning just such announcement for early next year, before the current brouhaha arose.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Network Neutrality They themselves repeatedly said "we can assume". Furthermore AT&T can't do anything to phones like the blackberries because they don't have a binding contract that gives them control over the blackberry's software products. | |
|
| | |
approval from:
Romney2012 
| I heard the GV app when used ... uses the phone to directly call out as opposed to GV calling you and then calling the person you dialed.
I'm a total GV fan boy! Free SMS, create different voicemails for friends and tell solicitors to go F off, as well as the ability to give out your free number to anyone yet know they wont get thru unless you authroize them to. Goodbye all telemarketers you may have my number but either your not gonna get through or your gonna get a rude message! LoL | |
|
| | | | | | | said by karlmarx:...changing the price of a SMS from $.15 cents to $0.0001 cents... Which is it? Is it .15 dollar or is it .15 cent? Is it .0001 cent or is .0001 dollar? Don't be putting a $ sign before a number and the word cent after it. Make up your mind -- dollars or cents??? The two are off by a factor of 100.
Unless of course you believe like Verizon Wireless CSRs do... that .002 cent is equal to .002 dollar. | |
| | | | | | Re: Network Neutrality Camon... any 2nd grader can figure this one out. The word cents is redundant... It's not that hard to understand...
--
Does Microsoft mean small and squishy? | |
| | | | | | | Re: Network Neutrality said by ender7074:Camon... any 2nd grader can figure this one out. The word cents is redundant... It's not that hard to understand... The amount you pay is not the same...please do watch the youtube video the verizon CSRs trying for further explanation.
Unless you were just being sarcastic  . | |
|
| | | | | $ = dollars. As stated, the word 'cent' is redundant. If I write $.15 cents, that's still 15 cents. If I write .15 cents, without the dollar sign, then it's 1 1/2 cents.
--
The happiest countries are the most secular. The struggle AGAINST corporations is the struggle FOR humanity! | |
| | | | |  gimme5
join:2002-12-23
Kissimmee, FL | Re: Network Neutrality said by karlmarx: If I write .15 cents, without the dollar sign, then it's 1 1/2 cents. You mean 15 hundredths of a cent. | |
|
| | | said by baineschile:Since when should the goverment interfere with how a company does business (as long as its not illegal). If apple/att doesnt want the google app, they should have the right to deny it. If someone REALLY wants the google app, they have a half dozen other wireless providers they can choose from. the minute the government starts meddling, capitalism will turn to socialism, and the acceleration of product innovation will slow immensely. Woha, someone forgot to take their anti-crazy pill today.
It's not a matter of the government telling them how they should run their business but merely a guidelines that they should abide by.
In the course of American history has the government ever stepped into a private business (without some sort of due cause, GM for example) and said you will run your business like this? The government has put in guidelines for different businesses to make sure that everyone is playing fair.
Would you want businesses to pollute as much as they like? I don't, and neither does the gov't so they set limits on businesses on how much pollution they can put into the atmosphere.
Look at landlines, our gov't forced telocos to share the lines, and our world hasn't come crumbling down now has it?
In my opinion, the gov't should set rules for ISPs and providers, such as:
+ Always stating in clear language what exactly any data caps are
+ Allowing any applications on the network if one type already exists or can access the application through another means (Example: you can still access Google Voice through the web on the iphone, so therefore the App should be allowed)
+ Requiring authorization from customers who are incurring large roaming fees (such as data)
+ Unrestricted network access to all protocols equally, unless a block to a protocol is broadcasted to all customers with the option to "opt out" of the block (this should include port 25 blocks!)
+ Established definition of the word "Tethering": some CSRs would consider plugging a usb cable to the laptop tethering, some definitions would say that it's using the phone as a modem, others would say using the data connection that is on the phone on your computer.
These "rules" don't tell the company how to run day-to-day operations or what prices to set, but merely rules to make it fair for both the customers and the businesses. | |
| | | | said by baineschile:Since when should the goverment interfere with how a company does business (as long as its not illegal). If apple/att doesnt want the google app, they should have the right to deny it. If someone REALLY wants the google app, they have a half dozen other wireless providers they can choose from. the minute the government starts meddling, capitalism will turn to socialism, and the acceleration of product innovation will slow immensely. Wow, you literally don't know anything about political or economic history, do you?
I know this is the internet and anyone can say whatever the heck they feel like, but you keep reiterating the same falsities over and over...and over again. Socialism does not slow product innovation. Pure unfettered capitalism does an extremely poor job of simulating a true free market. Socialism is essentially an attempt to balance the inherent inequalities of a capitalist market. In doing so it also helps to simulate the preconditions of an ideal free market (no barrier to entry, limitless competition, etc.). | |
| | | | I am typing this on a Internet device (a iMac). With my iMac I can install and enjoy any type of application or website I want to.
With my iPhone which is a compact iMac my Internet experience is stifled! I want the full Internet on every and all Internet devices I use.
Also, Google Voice is a competitor to AT&T's current business model; free SMS There is no other market that allows for this type of brazen competition stifling! Any other markets such would be declared illegal! There lack of regulation days are numbered and should be! | |
| | | | | Re: Network Neutrality maybe if you want that same experience you should stop supporting Apple and buy a PC or linux box. After all Mac's OS is based off Unix. | |
|
|  KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| said by baineschile:Since when should the goverment interfere with how a company does business (as long as its not illegal). Lots of LOL. Making it illegal is the time honored way the Government has "interfered" with how businesses were run.
After all, it used to be OK for companies to kill their employees. I wish people would stop acting like Capitalism is some sort of Holy Grail of an economic system, the El-Dorado of enlightenment. The simple fact is, all economies are "Socialist." Government plays a large part in all Nations and their laws and regulations. It simply can't be any other way.
Capitalism = Anarchy.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
| | |
 Duramax08A Challenger AppearsPremium
join:2008-08-03
San Antonio, TX | lol who hires these people? | |
| | | I keep hearing words.... The actions of the FCC so far have been as vague as the as the words we hear from thier staff. Its pretty easy to throw up a comment section on the web, but if all comments aree then dismissed as Levin did, what was the point?
--
BF69~~~Please stop suffocating gerbils! | |
| | Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 | Re: I keep hearing words.... Genachowski's positives so far include a promise to renew the agency's focus on science... FCC boss also touches on another key annoyance with the agency: the fact that it's stocked primarily with lobbyists, partisan loyalists and lawyers -- and not technologists. According to Genachowski, the agency's trying hard to bring in a lot of "great engineers, strong economists and people with entrepreneurial backgrounds." I'll believe that when it actually happens. No evidence of that so far as the FCC commissioners are all lawyers and politicians.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page | |
|
Reviews:
·Charter
1 edit | Start by seeing who trumpeted BPL and give them the ax I think Genachowski can make a good start on determining who needs to be sent packing by taking a look at all of the lemmings that supported the policy altered science that proposed and touted BPL.
Altered and suppressed reports, bad data when they knew it was bad beforehand.
Clean house and get some solid technical people on board. | |
| | | | Re: Start by seeing who trumpeted BPL and give them the ax said by Darkk:Clean house and get some solid technical people on board. That would be waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay to easy!
--
BF69~~~Please stop suffocating gerbils! | |
| | | | All he has to do is listen to his own Office of Engineering and Technology. There are still engineers at the FCC albeit buried somewhere in the avalanche of political dung generated over the last 15 years or so. Turning it back to it's original charter would be a great first step. | |
| | | Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA | Re: Start by seeing who trumpeted BPL and give them the ax said by 60529262:All he has to do is listen to his own Office of Engineering and Technology. The OET has been there all along but that unwritten, unspoken rule of not telling the FCC Commissioners and other lawyers and pols what they don't want to hear has got to go or it won't matter how much listening he does. | |
|
| | Not the same Karl's articles about this FCC aren't generating the venom or excitement as the Powell and Martin ones. Disappointing. Is WWF still available somewhere on the tube? | |
|
| |
|
|
·
The reason that Wireless Carriers can do this sort of thing is that they have you by the calls 
