Google’s Response To The FCC
by Jason Kincaid on August 21, 2009

And here’s the third piece of the puzzle: Google’s response to the FCC. The document includes a description of Google Voice, why a native application would be beneficial, and how many other apps Google has pending with Apple (none). There is one section redacted, pertaining to the conversations Google had with Apple over the Google Voice ban. Also see AT&T’s response and Apple’s Response, in which both companies deny any wrongdoing, and AT&T denies any involvement at all.

Google Response to FCC

Next Post
Previous Post
Advertisement
  • Actively Discussed Posts

Responses

Comments rss icon

  • Chad Windnagle - August 21st, 2009 at 2:35 pm PDT

    awhh. I wanted to read the confidential part.

    reply
    • Alex - August 22nd, 2009 at 12:18 pm PDT

      The problem is not denial of google voice app, the problem is that Apple set up a capacity to deny installation of applications other than from app store. They also try to prevent jailbraking with updates and if you do it they void warranty on hardware.

      Our ability to install software on iPhone should be respected like on any other computer.

      App store is not a store. It is a checkpoint into a concentration camp.

      reply
  • Alberto Vildosola - August 21st, 2009 at 2:36 pm PDT

    the confidential part was the best part, damn it

    reply
  • Alberto Vildosola - August 21st, 2009 at 2:43 pm PDT

    I liked how they explained how the Android Market works, in your face Apple

    reply
    • Rahul Krishnakumar (@rahulkumar) - August 21st, 2009 at 3:17 pm PDT

      Google’s answer on that question sounds like a bunch of bull, since the Android Market does not have a fully-functional Skype application for a reason. This has caught the eye of many public policy makers, which the USA Today has published: http://www.usat...lls-apple_N.htm

      “Consumers who use Android, the Google-developed operating system for wireless devices, can’t use Skype, a leading Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) service. A pioneer in free Internet calling, Skype allows you to talk as long as you want without draining cellphone minutes.

      Android users get Skype Lite, a watered-down version of the original that routes calls over traditional phone networks — not the Internet. As a result, long-distance calls are still cheap or free, but cellphone minutes are gobbled up every time a Skype Lite call is made.”

      reply
      • Noah - August 21st, 2009 at 3:30 pm PDT

        The original version of Android didn’t support full VOIP apps. Now it does. Expect to see a full version of Skype very soon for Android phones.

        reply
      • Mr. Majestyk - August 21st, 2009 at 3:31 pm PDT

        I think you have that backwards. The USA Today story is a bunch of bull.

        http://googlepu...plications.html

        “Here are the facts, clear and simple: While the first generation of our Android software did not support full-featured VoIP applications due to technology limitations, we have worked through those limitations in subsequent versions of Android, and developers are now able to build and upload VoIP services.

        While individual operators can request that certain applications be filtered if they violate their terms of service, USA Today is wrong to say that:

        “Google’s explanation would seem to suggest that T-Mobile requested the block on Skype, but the carrier says that’s not the case. “T-Mobile has not asked Google to block that service,” says spokesman Joe Farren, referring to original Skype.”

        As we told USA Today earlier in the week Google did not reject an application from Skype or from any other company that provides VoIP services. To suggest otherwise is false. At this point no software developer — including Skype — has implemented a complete VoIP application for Android. But we’re excited to see — and use — these applications when they’re submitted, because they often provide more choice and options for users. We also look forward to the day when consumers can access any application, including VoIP apps, from any device, on any network.”

        reply
      • Twirrim (@Twirrim) - August 21st, 2009 at 3:31 pm PDT

        Google have also refuted that pointing out that you can get a fully featured Skype client for Android and that there were technical reasons it failed in the original Android release, which have since been resolved.

        reply
      • Stefan - August 21st, 2009 at 5:15 pm PDT

        Actually, it’s USA Today that’s telling a bunch of ignorant bull.

        reply
  • goit - August 21st, 2009 at 2:47 pm PDT

    part of your job isn’t it to expose particularly sensitive matters to the public? Or you couldn’t get the confidential part…if so please use your power to get it out…

    reply
  • Justin Noel (@appbeacon) - August 21st, 2009 at 2:48 pm PDT

    Apple won’t send a response. You know – all secrets over there. Take that FCC!

    reply
  • notedscholar (@notedscholar) - August 21st, 2009 at 2:55 pm PDT

    Google and Apple are obviously planning a monopoly. What will happen – mark my word – is that they will make it seem like they are being dragged tooth and nail into each other’s software, and then they will come out of the woodwork controlling the industry.

    NS

    reply
  • Geo (@Belea2008) - August 21st, 2009 at 3:01 pm PDT

    The 3 responses to the FCC (Google, AT&T and Apple) are very long. I understand the reasons for which you posted all of them in full detail.

    I kindly ask you to extract the most important parts of them (you already did it for 2 of them), make an internal analysis of the 3 documents and write an editorial with TechCrunch’s opinion about them.

    It would help the persons who do not have time or do not have inclinations towards reading (kind of) legal documents to understand better how the situation is evolving, how the documents change what has been already written about the event.

    Also, I think that offering your full opinion about them will offer an important view about (I’m following the same “story” on other 3 tech sites).

    Thank you!

    reply
    • Josh Lovison - August 21st, 2009 at 3:42 pm PDT

      Here – I’ll make it simple for you:

      AT&T: We didn’t, and don’t, actively police the AppStore.

      Analysis: AT&T could very well have contractual limits on what can run in the AppStore, but in the case of Google Voice, they claim they did not take action to prevent it.

      Apple: We didn’t reject it; we didn’t approve it because it duplicates a lot of the features already on the phone. Some apps have been denied because of contractual agreements with AT&T, but that hasn’t been the case with GV.

      Analysis: Apple is trying really, really hard to make it look like they aren’t a Machiavellian overlord of the AppStore. Of the three involved in this, Apple comes out looking the worst – as has been pointed out in the comments on their response, their arguments don’t hold up under close examination, and they confirm a number of rumored restrictions with AT&T that don’t exist for open handsets.

      Google: Our Google Voice app was awesome, it didn’t duplicate functionality, in fact we made sure it used the carrier voice and data networks to avoid this issue. Apple were big jerks, and our Android marketplace is much more open. Even if an app wasn’t approved for the marketplace, it could still exist with third party distribution, which is not the case for the iPhone Alcatraz.

      Analysis: Google’s pretty upset with this. From the Newton crack in the FAQs for their audio search app, to the succinct “No.” in their response to “are there any other pending Google apps in the AppStore,” they aren’t so thrilled with Apple. Their descriptions of how they run Android are also pretty clear attempts to push the FCC to compare and contrast with Apple’s policies, and come in with some regulation love. I would really like to see the redacted answer to question 2.

      reply
    • Stefan - August 21st, 2009 at 5:18 pm PDT

      I agree with your point that TC could have written at least a little bit of an overview of what google said.

      But, in all fairness, the google document isn’t really that long, and you could have read in the time it took to write that post.

      reply
  • cbemerine (@cbemerine) - August 21st, 2009 at 4:44 pm PDT

    Nice Josh, thanks for the summary.

    Of course Apple tightly controls what goes in their store, they are on the record about this. Will be entertaining to see how their language in court of their actions on apps being allowed in/out of the store pans out. Wonder if it will come up that they remove IPhone user’s paid content without their permission? Can you say hypocritical, I knew you could.

    A user you can call a SkypeIN phone number from any phone, including Google Voice, Android or a cell phone.

    No tethering issues with the Nokia N770, N800, N880, N900 (released this month).

    So any “smart” (means it will run Linux) hand held will allow you to either use a VoIP program (like Skype, there are many, many others) to make, forward or receive calls. Non issue.

    The FCC would do better to analyze why Cable Internet providers are throttling service below their (FCC) definition of high speed internet access. I believe the FCC’s current defintion is only 768Kbps even though Japan has had 100MB / 100MB bandwidth since 2000, yet another story and point.

    Hey FCC, if you deem high speed internet to be 768Kbps or higher, why are you allowing any company to throttle (bandwidth) service below that?

    The other day I was throttled to below 4Kbps downstream and 0Kbps upstream; at those throttled speeds social network skins will NOT load, so the internet from a social media perspective becomes unusable.

    80 – 90% of the time I am throttled below 30Kbps for almost $50 per month. Not that it would be acceptable at $15.00 per month.

    98% of the time I am throttled below 100Kbps, Hey FCC are you listening?

    Have seen 1 sec spikes to 1 GB, 3GB and one time 6GB, but only for 1 second. I have seen the 6GB only one time and for only 1 second in over 2 years of service.

    Hey FCC a 9 yr old standard would be 100Mbps / 100Mbps for $55 or less. That would be a 9 year old standard that Americans would love to have today! Please.

    reply
  • Jonathan Dusing (@Row27) - August 21st, 2009 at 4:48 pm PDT

    If you can get the Twitter docs, I’m hoping you can find a leak an get those redacted parts, that is the meat of the story.

    reply
  • magnus (@magnusaudunson) - August 21st, 2009 at 5:20 pm PDT

    And everybody hates Microsoft…Any one can write any software on their OS…but noooooo that’s what breaks them…u can’t have both. We live in a pseudo democratic society where the buck stops here. so…live with it..or go somewhere else. That’s pretty much the nitty gritty of it all. Not hapy…move on folks..Apple are being communists because they want to control everything. MS is socialist…everything goes..who’s right? DGAF.

    reply
  • jimmy7019 - August 21st, 2009 at 6:10 pm PDT

    it would be interesting to know if Eric Schmidt and Steve Jobs talked about Google Voice. Is that why Google wouldn’t allow their answer to be made public on that question from the FCC???

    reply
    • Zandr (@amilewski) - August 21st, 2009 at 8:03 pm PDT

      There’s nothing sinister here that we didn’t already know. Google’s answer was redacted because the Developer Agreement puts the rejections under NDA. Of course, this isn’t common knowledge because the developer agreement itself is under NDA.

      reply
  • zato - August 21st, 2009 at 7:58 pm PDT

    magnus: “Apple are being communists because they want to control everything. MS is socialist…everything goes..who’s right?”

    Apple knows the iPhone may become the dominant smart-phone and they don’t want to make the same mistakes Microsoft made. They don’t want their platform to turn into a sewer of malware.

    95% of the commenters on Tech Blogs are Apple-hating PC Gamers, all of whom want the iPhone to fail. They want malware, spyware, virii, etc. to ruin the jPhone. They want AT&T to fail. They would never buy anything from Apple.

    reply
  • chinamobile - August 22nd, 2009 at 9:44 pm PDT

    The rumor is that Apple will soon sign a deal with Chinese mobile carrier for 5 million iPhone deal. If you think FCC probing is interesting, wait for Chinese government/regulators probe Apple for any fishy practice :)

    reply
  • Bonnie Noel - August 22nd, 2009 at 10:29 pm PDT

    If Google are so keen on openness and net neutrality, why don’t they ship Android with a SIP-compliant VoIP client? That would prevent questionable VoIP service providers from rolling their own — clients that flout interoperability or even intentionally lock in users, suck the battery dry in a matter of hours, feature obscure GUIs, etc. Nokia has already done the honors with S60.

    Google want the cake and eat it too.

    reply

Leave Comment

Commenting Options

Enter your personal information to the left, or sign in with your Facebook account by clicking the button below.

Alternatively, you can create an avatar that will appear whenever you leave a comment on a Gravatar-enabled blog.

Trackback URL
Short URL
  • Actively Discussed Posts
bugbugbugbug
Techcrunch on Facebook