The Inquisitr » FCC

Many Americans Refusing Broadband Internet, Congress Tells FCC To Figure Out Why

James Allen Johnson — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 01:02:06 +0000

It’s not an issue you would think Congress would be worried about, but it turns out that the refusal to get high speed broadband service is a big concern for not only the U.S. government, but governments worldwide, so much so that Finland has promised universal broadband for all their citizens by the end of 2010.

The issue has become such a big problem that Congress this week ordered the FCC to research the lack of broadband acceptance and find out by February 2010 how they can turn around broadband subscriber numbers (hint, give it to us for free, just a thought).

Early numbers according to SlashGear are misleading, with 96% of American households being able to receive broadband services, but 33% of those same households refusing high speed services.

According to a New York Times report many of those households refusing service are lower income families who can’t afford the service and senior citizens who rarely or never use the internet. In fact only 30 percent of users 65 and older actually subscribe to any broadband services, with 18 to 29 years old users still at a low 77 percent.

What current reports don’t include are the number of users who simply refuse high speed internet because they don’t see the need for the services, a fact that the FCC will try to broach in their upcoming studies.

I’d like to save the FCC some tax payer cash and suggest they just figure out how to provide inexpensive broadband to the masses, rather than questioning why low income families aren’t paying $50 a month or more for those services, there you go, problem solved.

AT&T getting snarky with Google – file complaint with FCC

Steven Hodson — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 21:22:09 +0000

The idea that AT&T would file a complaint with the FCC over Google Voice, Google’s service that let’s users unify all their phone numbers under one common number, almost seems like a case of the kettle calling the pot black.

However AT&T’s argument is that because Google is in violation of telecommunication rules because Google Voice is blocking some calls to rural areas to cut down on network access expenses. This goes against the laws that require phone operators to offer unrestricted access says AT&T.

Google argues that Google Voice isn’t a traditional phone service and therefore the FCC shouldn’t be treating it as such. The FCC says they have received the letter and are reviewing it.

Interestingly enough AT&T says that even if the FCC takes Google’s side in the matter the search giant would be breaching the FCC’s own net neutrality rules as they stand today.

AT&T said in the letter that even if the FCC agreed with Google and defined Google Voice as a Internet service, the search giant’s practices would be a breach of net-neutrality principles already in effect at the agency and a violation of broader net-neutrality rules proposed Monday by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski. AT&T has said it does not support the adoption of additional net-neutrality rules, which Google has backed.

"By openly flouting the call blocking prohibition that applies to its competitors, Google is acting in a manner inconsistent with the spirit, if not the letter, of the FCC’s fourth principle contained in its Internet Policy Statement," Quinn said. "Ironically, Google is also flouting the so-called ‘fifth principle of non-discrimination’ for which Google has so fervently advocated."

Source: Washington Post – AT&T Accuses Google of Violating Telecom Laws

Well I’ll be damned – FCC to propose ‘Net Neutrality’ rules

Steven Hodson — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 21:30:12 +0000

Surprise, surprise but it seems that against all odds the FCC is going to be proposing new rules regarding network neutrality this coming Monday.

Amy Schatz in a post at the Wall Street Journal says that FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski will be outlining the new rules that would prevent Internet providers like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast from slowing Web traffic or selectively blocking it.

If adopted, rules to promote so-called net neutrality could be a win for consumers who want to get movies online or access big data files, and in turn benefit Internet companies like Google Inc. that want to offer new video or other services online.

While this is still only at a proposal stage it is encouraging to see that consumers actually stand a chance of seeing something like net neutrality actually come about.

Apple lied to FCC according to just released Google documents

Steven Hodson — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 17:33:50 +0000

Back in August the FCC wanted some explanations from the parties involved regarding Apple’s rejection of the Google Voice application for the iPhone App Store. Apple tried to deflect the whole issue by telling the FCC that they hadn’t rejected the application but rather it was still under review.

At that time Google’s response was released to the press as well but in a redacted form which several portions of the document blacked out. Google’s reason for requesting this from the FCC was because in Google’s words the document contained sensitive commercial conversations between two companies. In this case it turns out those conversations were between Alan Eustace, Google Senior Vice President of Engineering and Research and Phil Schiller, Apple Senior Vice President of Worldwide Product Marketing.

The apparent switch around between the reasons for originally publishing the redacted version in August and the newly released full version of the document is apparently a result of – in Google’s words:

several individuals and organizations submitted Freedom of Information Act requests with the FCC seeking access to this information. While we could have asked the FCC to oppose those requests, in light of Apple’s decision to make its own letter fully public and in the interest of transparency, we decided to drop our request for confidentiality. Today the FCC posted the full content of our letter to their website (PDF).

As to what the real reason for Apple’s rejection according to Google’s submission to the FCC it is pretty much as everyone assumed

Apple’s representative informed Google that the Google Voice application was rejected because Apple believed the application duplicated the core dialer functionality of the iPhone. The Apple representative indicated that the company did not want applications that could potentially replace such functionality.

… In a series of in-person meetings, phone calls and emails between July 5 and July 28, 2009, Apple and Google representative discussed the approval status of the Google Voice application that was submitted on June 2, 2009. The primary points of contact between the two companies were Alan Eustace, Google Senior Vice President of Engineering and Research and Phil Schiller, Apple Senior Vice President of Worldwide Product Marketing. On July 7, Mr. Eustace and Mr. Schiller spoke over the phone. It was during this call that Mr. Schiller informed Mr. Eustace that Apple was rejecting the Google Voice application for the reasons described above.

Here is the full document from Google as submitted to the FCC

Google Filing iPhone

Apple pulls app, says developer is responsible for refunds

Steven Hodson — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 15:55:32 +0000

This story just doesn’t want to end as well it shouldn’t I guess but the saga of Riverturn, Google Voice, and Apple takes a new twist today with word that Apple says it is up to the developer of VoiceCentral, a Google Voice iPhone app, to refund those users who bought the app before Apple pulled it from the store.

At the same time as customers are asking Riverturn if they will continue to support the app or if at some point it will magically be deleted from their iPhones there are also some looking to get a refund for what is basically a dead in the water app.

“Apple made it impossible for our customers to receive the fixes, updates, and support by pulling the app. We were fulfilling our end of the bargain. Why should those refunds come out of our pocket?” says Duerr. “The refund issue and lack of respect for our mutual customers has further soured us on the belief that Apple cares at all about their developers … other than the dollars they bring in.”

Riverturn, which develops apps to sell as well as apps for its customers to distribute, has now put all iPhone development on hold until they see how the situation pans out.

“We are interested in both the Android and WebOS (Pre) platforms. But at this moment, we have not made any final decisions at all, other than that it would be really hard to continue to invest our own dollars in the iPhone development program for our own apps. We think that we will continue to develop apps for our clients but will strongly caution them that they too could lose their investment if Apple ever decides to pull their app.”

Source: MacLife :: VoiceCentral Developer Talks About Being Pulled from App Store and Apple’s Lack of Communication

Add to this the news that the FCC has decided that all the companies involved need to start answering some serious question over this fiasco the next month or so could be pretty interesting on the Apple front.

Warrantless searches courtesy of the FCC

Steven Hodson — Fri, 22 May 2009 20:00:00 +0000

I’ll bet that you didn’t know that if you have any of the following

wireless router
cordless phone
cellphone
remote control for
baby monitor

you are now subject to warrantless searches by the FCC.

The FCC claims they have this right as a direct privilege of the Communication Act of 1934. While the constitutionality of the power has yet to be tested in court the proliferation of devices using the radio waves makes the potential for such a test much more likely.

The rules garnered some attention this month when an FCC agent investigating a pirate radio station left as copy of a 2005 FCC inspection policy on the door of the residence suspected of hosting the an unlicensed radio transmitter. While most lawyers familiar with this section of the FCC policies agree that its use of warrantless searches probably wouldn’t survive a court challenge refusing FCC admittance can carry a harsh financial penalty.

However there is a real concern as pointed out by Carlo Longino at Techdirt that this could be a back door around search and seizure laws

While it’s unlikely that the FCC will begin raiding homes to confiscate WiFi routers and garage door openers, there is speculation that should FCC agents enter a home and see evidence of unrelated criminal behavior, that evidence can be used for criminal prosecution. This could give law enforcement a potential back door around search and seizure laws, a move which certainly merits some concern.

Who has the best mobile penetration data? Not the FCC

Steven Hodson — Tue, 19 May 2009 20:21:11 +0000

As the agency tasked with keeping track of all things telecommunication based one would think that it would be the FCC who would have the most accurate numbers regarding wireless penetration in the US. It turns out that this isn’t the case in fact the source of the more reliable numbers found the FCC an unreliable source so it went out and found out for themselves.

Who is this mysterious agency you might ask.

Well it turns out to be none other than the US Centers of Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). More precisely it is the statistical clearinghouse, National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), for the CDC that compiles the actual data. It was the NCHS that figured out about six years ago that its stats gathering was suffering from a major problem – the rapid growth of cellphone use and the decline of wired telephones.

As Stephen Blumberg told Jordan Lite from Scientific American

Why is this an issue? Wireless-only folks differ from those who still keep a landline, Blumberg explains. Not only do they skew younger, but they behave differently, too. Introduce those differences into health surveys, he says, and the results are biased.

[….]

That said, "even if we control for age, renting, income, education, for family structure, where they live, race — minority individuals are more likely to be wireless only — we still see health differences," Blumberg says. "Wireless-only [users] are more likely to binge drink, they are more likely to smoke, they’re more likely to be uninsured so therefore, if these wireless-only adults are excluded from these surveys, they may underestimate binge drinking, smoking and the prevalence of uninsured adults. That’s why the CDC is concerned."

The actual numbers as discovered by NCHS breakdown as follows

number of wireless households rose from 3.5 percent in 2003 to 17.5 percent in the first half of last year
6 million adults and 2 million kids were wireless only in 2003 but as of last year 36 million adults and 12 million kids were wireless

This kind of begs the question – if the CDC has better data on wireless penetration what is the FCC doing?

Comcast: The More You Surf, The Slower Your Speed

JR — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 19:59:59 +0000

Already under fire for its traffic management practices, Comcast is now considering a plan to slow down the connections of users transferring the most data during peak times. The company has just officially said it’s “made no final decisions” about such a practice, but it makes no qualms about the fact that it’s been testing the idea.

So, what is this — some kind of misguided Internet tax system? The more you use, the less you get?

Remember, now, that Comcast first made waves over reports last year claiming it was intentionally slowing BitTorrent transfers to improve its overall network speed. The FCC formally issued its penalty just a day ago, saying that was a violation of communication law and requiring Comcast to disclose detailed information about its other practices. The newly passed regulation makes it illegal for ISPs to “slow any specific applications.”

The user-targeted tactic, then, wouldn’t technically be a violation, since a user isn’t considered an “application.” But give me a break…is it any better? It seems to me to be violating the same principle that led to that law — just doing so in a workaround, loophole-type way.

Comcast says it only seems “fair” to go after the people who are using the most bandwidth. Sure…if by “fair,” you mean “absolutely out of line.” Someone paying for access deserves to get it equally, whether he’s sending five e-mails a day or transferring 20 videos an hour. If Comcast can’t build a network that can handle that, maybe it should just stick to screwing up cable service and let someone else deal with the Internet.

Comcast

Stop Blocking, FCC Tells Comcast

Dominic Rivera — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 19:20:55 +0000

In a move to preserve the open nature of the Internet, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted to uphold the complaint against Comcast that it had illegally inhibited its users from using a file-sharing software, the New York Times reports.

“We are preserving the open character of the Internet. We are saying that network operators can’t block people from getting access to any content and any applications,” Kevin J. Martin, the FCC’s chairman said.

Aside from putting an end to the practice of blocking, the FCC also ordered Comcast to provide details about its Internet practices. No monetary fines were imposed.