WebProNews

Tag: FCC

  • LightSquared Files For Bankruptcy

    LightSquared Files For Bankruptcy

    LightSquared, a wireless venture started by Philip Falcone, has filed for bankruptcy today. The would-be wireless company ran into difficulties with regulators concerning plans for a wireless network that had the potential to interfere with the existing Global Positioning System.

    According to a report this afternoon by Bloomberg, the company has debts and assets of over $1 billion. Negotiations between the company and its creditors broke down over the creditors’ insistence that Falcone leave the company.

    LightSquared was founded to created a nationwide 4G LTE network that relied both on existing cellular towers and satellites. It faced significant regulatory concern, though, over the fact that the spectrum on which the LightSquared would operate was dangerously close to that used by the Global Position System. Numerous organizations, including the United States Air Force, which currently runs the GPS system, gathered to protest LightSquared’s plans, and sought to block the network’s implementation.

    In February, the FCC ruled that the GPS interference from LightSquared’s network would be unavoidable, and that LightSquared’s earlier conditional authorization to proceed should be revoked.

    The FCC’s ruling effectively killed LightSquared’s plans, leaving the company with no way to pay its bills. After attempts to negotiate with creditors failed, the company filed for bankruptcy this morning in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Manhattan. The company said in a statement today that it hopes to use the time gained by the filing to restructure the company and continue to work to “resolve regulatory issues” that have thus far interfered with the company’s plans.

  • FCC Blocks Liberty Media From Sirius XM Control

    FCC Blocks Liberty Media From Sirius XM Control

    On saturday the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) blocked 40% Sirius XM shareholder, Liberty Media from taking control of the company’s operating licenses. Liberty took control of the shares in 2009 after investing over $500 million to help the company avoid bankruptcy.

    The FCC claims Liberty does not hold the proper documentation to transfer ownership, but also need to amass at least 50% ownership to gain control of sirius XM. Currently Liberty has five seats out of thirteen on the Sirius XM board of directors.

    Sirius XM CEO Mel Karmazin comments on the recent play for control by Liberty Media:

    “If the time comes that Liberty’s interests are different than the other 60 percent of shareholders, we will do what we have to do to protect the interest of our 60 percent of shareholders,”

    Liberty’s play for control comes just after Sirius XM released their Q1 2012 report where they produced an over 10% increase in revenue year-over-year and an 8% increase in subscriptions. They also experienced a 38% increase in net income to $107.8 million.

    It sounds like this is going to become an ongoing issue for Sirius XM and the other shareholders. We will keep you posted on further attempts from Liberty to gain control over Sirius XM.

  • NAB Backs Off on TV Broadband Objections

    NAB Backs Off on TV Broadband Objections

    Back in 2010, it was reported that the FCC and Google had been working with moving forward with white spaces, which are unused television bands that can be used for ultra-fast wifi connections. The National Association of Broadcasters had objected to this, citing that using prime spectrum white spaces for broadband internet connectivity might interfere with existing television broadcasts. Now the NAB has withdrawn its legal objection, further clearing the way for a white spaces rollout.

    In 2009, the NAB sued the FCC over white spaces, stating that the program “will have a direct adverse impact on NAB’s members because it will allow harmful interference with reception of their broadcast signals.” The white spaces have been historically used as a buffer to prevent interfering signals. But then on Thursday, NAB withdrew its own lawsuit, citing that the FCC had adjusted to the interference concerns. The Wireless Innovation Alliance calls the legal green light a “major step forward,” and states that the “NAB should be congratulated for withdrawing its court challenge to the FCC’s white space order.”

    The remaining white spaces hurdles are primarily technical – a method of tracking where and when white spaces are available for internet use is being put together, on a market by market basis. Databases are presently being built to coordinate the locations.

    I’d recently reported on a new patent that was secured by Google, surrounding the ability to auction wireless network services. Perhaps the new patent pertains to the white spaces network, to where broadband signals would fluctuate in availability in regards to time and place.

  • Advocates to FCC: Forbid Cell Phone Jamming

    Advocates to FCC: Forbid Cell Phone Jamming

    The Electronic Frontier Foundation, Public Knowledge, and the Center for Democracy and Technology have implored the Federal Communications Commission to prohibit federal, state, and local governments from resorting to cell phone shutdowns. The request stems an FCC inquiry from 2011 regarding the incident where the Bay Area Transit Authority shut down cell phone activity in order to hopefully suppress protests related to the killing of Charles Hill.

    BART allegedly had information from a “credible” source that protesters had planned to disrupt transit on August 11, 2011, to demonstrate against the killing of Hill. BART believed that the protesters had planned to organize via cell phone communication, so between 4PM and 8PM, the time that protesters had planned to gather, BART shutdown cell phone service throughout parts of its system.

    The attempt to disrupt the protesters was widely condemned and it’s been said that the move may even have been illegal. Pro-democracy groups have decried BART’s decision to jam cell phones, saying it’s a violation of rights protected by the First Amendment. Sherwin Siy, of Public Knowledge, detailed the ways in which such an action by a government entity violates the Federal Communications Act. The EFF has submitted comments to the FCC about the cell phone jamming, comparing the act to similar practices in countries with oppressive governments, Egypt and Syria, and saying that it violates the public’s First Amendment rights.

    Yesterday, BART defended its actions in a letter to the FCC, saying that the temporary interruption of cell phone service was “a necessary tool to protect passengers and response to potential acts of terrorism or other acts of violence.” The letter, written by BART General Manager Grace Crunican, goes on to enumerate fantastic scenarios including cell phones disguised as bombs used to kill passengers and flood the transit tunnels.

    As much as that is a truly spectacular fantasy, the act of protest is much, much older than cell phone technology and so, even though protesters may have been relying on the devices as a means to organize, shutting down cell phone service is no way to prevent protesters from causing disruptions in the transit system. Further, the shutdown hindered the ability of transit passengers who probably need that service, too.

    Although BART has since ratified a new policy that states the organization will not turn off cell phone service in circumstances like that of the August 2011 shutdown, the actions of BART set a dangerous precedent for other governments to use similar tactics. It is with this caution that the advocacy groups have requested that the FCC expressly forbid any body of government from resorting to a cell phone shutdown in the future. Hopefully, the FCC will take their words to heart.

  • Privacy Advocate Wants Hearing on Google’s Wi-Fi Spying

    Privacy Advocate Wants Hearing on Google’s Wi-Fi Spying

    Now that the non-redacted version of the Federal Communication Commission’s report on Google’s unsettling habit of eavesdropping on unsecured wi-fi network via the Street Car has been made available, the same privacy advocate that chastised the FCC for letting Google off with a relatively small fine is now calling on the U.S. Senate to investigate the matter.

    Consumer Watchdog sent a letter to Sen. Al Franken, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology, and the Law, that urged the Senate to require Google CEO Larry Page to testify to the Senate and explain why the wi-fi eavesdropping program was permitted to happen. Additionally, the privacy advocacy group asked that the Senate grant immunity to the engineer who developed the program that culled the payload data from unsecured wi-fi networks. In the non-redacted FCC report, the engineer was referred to only as Engineer Doe.

    “I urge your Subcommittee to subpoena the engineer, identified in the FCC order as Engineer Doe, and grant him immunity for his testimony,” wrote John M. Simpson, Consumer Watchdog Privacy Project director. “Immunity from prosecution for his testimony is a small price to pay so the American people can finally understand what actually transpired.”

    Simpson goes on to call shenanigans on Google’s previous claim that the data collection was the work of a rogue engineer.

    As early as 2007 or 2008 Street View team members had wide access to Engineer Doe’s design document and code in which the plan to intercept “payload data” was spelled out. One engineer reviewed the code line by line, five engineers pushed the code into Street View cars and, according to the FCC, Engineer Doe specifically told two engineers working on the project, including a senior manager about collecting “payload data.” Nonetheless, they all claim they did not learn payload data was being collected until April or May 2010. There is no believable explanation for this. Clearly the Street View team knew or should have known that payload data was being intercepted.

    Over the weekend, a spokesperson with Google told the Los Angeles Times that the reason Google had decided to release the non-redacted FCC report was to hopefully “put this matter behind us.” However, Consumer Watchdog is claiming in a separate statement that Google released the FCC report after the pro-privacy group filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the FCC for an unedited version. Additionally, the Electronic Privacy Information Center also filed a request for an unedited version of the FCC report.

    In other words, it doesn’t sound like Google was releasing the unedited report out of the goodness of its heart.

  • Google Knew About Street View Wi-Fi Spying Software After All

    Google Knew About Street View Wi-Fi Spying Software After All

    Nearly two weeks after the Federal Communications Commission released a heavily redacted report about Google’s sponging up of emails, passwords, and other personal data via unsecured wi-fi networks, the company has released a full version of the report that reveals that, in spite of Google’s previous claims that the data-collected software was unauthorized, supervisors and others were actually aware of the program.

    In 2010, Google acknowledged that its Street View cars had been gathering information about wi-fi while they were out and about photographing streets for the ground-level imagery feature but that it was not collecting payload data (e.g., entire emails, browsing histories, passwords, etc.). After it was discovered that Google had in fact been collecting payload data this way, it refused to reveal to the FCC exactly what information had been collected. Although Google has claimed that it had cooperated with the FCC investigation, the FCC nonetheless charged Google with obstructing the investigation and fined the company $25,000.

    Google has previously defended itself by saying that the software that was harvesting personal information from wi-fi networks was an unauthorized program created by a rogue developer. However, the full, unedited version of the FCC report, which was first obtained by the Los Angeles Times, reveals that at least two other engineers had corresponded with the developer about the program. More, those associated with the Street View team told the FCC that they had no knowledge of the payload data collection yet a document describing the program was sent to the Street View team by the allegedly rogue developer in October of 2006.

    Whether Google has claimed the software was a mistake or the actions of a rogue developer, the more that is learned about Google’s wi-fi snooping via Street View Cars, the more that the company’s prior defenses fail to stand up to scrutiny. In a statement to the New York Times, Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, said, ““Google’s rogue engineer scenario collapses in light of the fact that others were aware of the project and did not object,” before adding that the debacle is the result of an absence of enforcement and regulation.

    Jill Hazelbaker, a Google spokeswoman, explained to the LA Times Google’s decision to release the rather damning report. “We decided to voluntarily make the entire document available except for the names of individuals,” she said in an emailed statement. “While we disagree with some of the statements made in the document, we agree with the FCC’s conclusion that we did not break the law. We hope that we can now put this matter behind us.”

    The full, non-redacted report released by Google can be viewed below.

    Fcc Report on Googles Street View

  • FCC Vote Requires TV to Reveal Political Ad Funding

    FCC Vote Requires TV to Reveal Political Ad Funding

    Though broadcast station owners have been lobbying heavily against the change, the FCC voted yesterday to make political advertisement funding sources available online. This mandatory new guideline supersedes the previous mandate to make them available at the station. This meant interested parties would actually have to physically go to the station to review the funding contributors.

    FCC Commissioner Mignon L. Clyburn comments on the new regulation:

    “In putting these files online, the FCC is requiring broadcasters to take a step that innumerable other entities have opted for since the World Wide Web became a part of our daily lives, and putting public files on the Internet in 2012 makes sense,”

    “It is the expected means of data viewing, and this action requires no unreasonable amount of production or disclosure.”

    “I see no reason to limit the reach of the online public file. We do not restrict, in any way, shape or form, who can access the existing paper files, and I see no need to do so for this new regime.”

    FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski also comments on the new regulation:

    “The record does not show that there’s any likelihood of … commercial harms coming out of this, because we’re talking about information that is already publicly available,”

    “While it’s information that is difficult for an ordinary consumer to access, it’s not difficult for commercial businesses to access. So any existing commercial business that believes there’s value in those rates is already getting them.”

    Without these new regulations, it’s damn near impossible for viewers to know where the message is truly coming from. If broadcasters are going to air these ads, there should be a degree of transparency. We are definitely living in a time of big government crackdown, and revealing funding sources will prove to be only part of the movement. We’ll keep you posted as more news becomes available.

  • Google To FCC: We Didn’t Delay Street View Investigations

    Google To FCC: We Didn’t Delay Street View Investigations

    Earlier this month, the FCC decided to issue a $25,000 fine to Google for so-called “delays” in their investigation into Google’s street view-data collecting privacy flareup. Google says they’re going to pay the fine, but they’re not quite sure that the blame should rest solely on their shoulders. The $25,000 fine isn’t a punishment for the Steet View activities themselves, but for the lack of cooperation with the FCC’s investigation.

    In a filing made to the FCC on Thursday, Google hit back at the FCC for saying that Google “obstructed” their investigation.

    “Over the course of the 17 months it took the FCC to officially conclude its investigation, the commission did not contact Google for weeks and months at a time,” Google wrote. There were apparently a period of almost three months and another period of 52 days where the FCC never contacted Google.

    “It is difficult to reconcile those lengthy delays with the FCC’s criticism of Google’s responses as ‘untimely,”” said Google.

    Back in May, 2010, Google admitted that they had collected some data from Wi-Fi networks with their Street View cars. More than a year later, reports emerged that Google had not only collected locations of Wi-Fi access points, but actual addresses and identifiers of multiple devices attached to the networks as well. Google blamed the data collection snafu on a “rogue developer.”

    Google addressed their inability to legally provide access to that developer in their filing:

    “The fact that the engineer was legally unavailable did not leave any significant factual questions unanswered.”

    Another new piece of information from the filing revealed that the U.S. Department of Justice had already looked into the issue and declared the matter closed back in May of 2011. The DOJ reportedly declared that they “would not pursue a case for violation of the Wiretap Act.”

    Some people aren’t too pleased with the fine. The non-profit group Consumer Watchdog blasted both Google and the FCC, saying:

    We’re pleased that the FCC called Google out for its blatantly obstructionist violations, but $25,000 is chump change to an Internet giant like Google.

    By willfully violating the Commission’s orders, Google has managed to continue to hide the truth about Wi-Spy. Google wants everyone else’s information to be accessible, but in a demonstration of remarkable hypocrisy, stonewalls and keeps everything about itself secret.

    The Daily Show’s Jon Stewart also called out the FCC for the fine, saying it was “less than what you would get for a particularly flashy NFL touchdown dance.”

  • Chrome OS Will Get Google Drive Integration

    Chrome OS Will Get Google Drive Integration

    Yesterday Google launched its new Google Docs replacement/Dropbox competitor Google Drive. The new service retains all the functionality of Google Docs, while also allowing users to store files of any kind. They even promise that eventually users will be able to edit and otherwise manipulate all sorts of files.

    Now it looks like Google also intends Drive to be tightly integrated into a forthcoming update to Google’s notebook operating system, Chrome OS. Though Chrome OS generally works pretty well using only web apps, the one glaring oversight in its design is any kind of actual method of managing files and file locations. Google Drive, it seems, will serve to rectify that. Google’s product manager for Google Drive, Scott Johnson told Wired that a Google Drive will be integrated into Chrome OS’s native file system, so that when the user clicks “save file” in their Chrome window, they will be taken to Google Drive.

    This, interestingly, will have the effect of not only improving the way Chrome OS handles files, but also making the OS even more cloud-based and dependent on the web. With Google Drive integration, a user could save a file to their Chromebook and be able to access it from any other computer with a functioning internet connection via Google Drive.

    According to Johnson and Google Senior Vice President Sundar Pichai, Google Drive integration will be coming in version 20 of Chrome OS. The OS is currently on version 18, with version 19 in development. So, don’t get too excited about getting Drive on your Chromebook just yet, because it looks like you’re in for a bit of a wait.

  • FCC Fights to Make Sense of Mobile Bills

    FCC Fights to Make Sense of Mobile Bills

    If you’ve ever gone over on your mobile phone minutes or exceeded the number of text messages you can make you’ll love this next story. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) actual cares that surprise charges on your mobile bill are scaring the hell out of you. You know what I mean, you tear open the envelope from Verizon or whoever, and expect to see $55 or $56 and it’s more like $100. Yes, you are not the only one. People go over on minutes and texts all the time and I’m sure it has been the cause of a heart attack a time or two.

    So the FCC estimates that about 30 million American’s have suffered from what they are calling “bill shock”. I am sure this is true, but as an American I can honestly say that I cease to be shocked by anything that I get billed for anymore. Seriously, for the amount of times I get billed for things I don’t owe, I would would be flat broke if I just blindly paid them all. Either way, the measures the FCC is taking are a good step in the right direction.

    What they want to happen is for consumers to receive a warning message when they get close to going over on their plans minutes or data usage. You would receive a message before you go over and another reminding you that you have indeed gone over. It sounds like a good strategy to me. Why didn’t anybody think of this before?

    So far T-Mobile has this feature on voice, data, and roaming, but not on texts. Verizon has it on data and roaming, and AT&T has it on data. Sprint has it only on roaming. So, as you can see, T-Mobile is the only one who offers it in a useful capacity. Hopefully other carriers are working with the FCC to put this consumer protection into action.

    The four alert types included in the FCC system include voice, data, text, and international roaming. All US carriers must have at least two of the four alerts by October 17th, 2012, and add the rest by April 17th, 2013. Relief from “bill shock” is on the way courtesy of the FCC!

  • Jon Stewart Derides FCC for Weak Google Spying Fine

    Jon Stewart Derides FCC for Weak Google Spying Fine

    Do you remember earlier this week when the Federal Communications Commission issued a $25,000 fine to Google? You know, because of the unauthorized collection of personal information Google obtained from unsecured wi-fi networks while the Google Street View car was cruising around taking photos for Google Maps? If you do, good on you – you’re olfactory senses are keen to the smell of rotten. However, you would be forgiven for not remembering because the risible amount of the fine was hardly of note. In Google terms of money, it was less a fine and more like losing a few quarters to the cushioned trenches of the living room couch.

    Worse, the investigation was dropped by the FCC. And the fine wasn’t because Google was eavesdropping on unsecured wi-fi networks, either – it was because of Google’s obstinate lack of cooperation with the FCC’s investigation.

    While consumer advocacy groups have decried the FCC for taking a knee on Google’s wi-fi spying, the scandal officially debuted in the mainstream this past Wednesday when The Daily Show’s Jon Stewart assailed the government agency for producing a yawn in place of its Google investigation.

    Stewart repeatedly expressed his trademark derision-enshrouded-in-sarcasm at the FCC for letting Google essentially get away with spying on people. Mocking the amount that Google was fined, Stewart described the fine as “less than what you would get for a particularly flashy NFL touchdown dance.”

    Stewart’s final three words, delivered in such a way that was meant to clearly entertain, impute a bracing gravity of the entire situation when it comes to the government’s lack of interest or understanding in actually penalizing Google in a meaningful way: “We’re completely f—ed.”

    The full video is below.

    Of course, some have suggested that the FCC’s fine could step up the expected fines Google could receive from the Federal Trade Commission due to the company’s circumvention of the privacy settings of Safari users. Then again, The FCC’s lax punishment to Google could also swing the other way by setting the precedent of going easy on the search engine goliath when they don’t play by the rules.

  • FCC Wants Supreme Court To Hear Super Bowl Nip Slip Case

    FCC Wants Supreme Court To Hear Super Bowl Nip Slip Case

    We were all there. That moment in the 2004 Super Bowl when Janet Jackson gave live television a look at what many a man dreams about at night. It was a national scandal. How dare they allow such a thing to happen on live television? There were children watching! In the end, it was chalked up as a wardrobe malfunction and it quickly faded from the national consciousness.

    Well, it’s back again because the FCC is asking the Supreme Court to hear a case surrounding that very wardrobe malfunction and a fine the commission levied against CBS. For those who stopped caring after the scandal evaporated, the FCC slapped a $550,000 fine on CBS saying that the nip slip was offensive to all the families watching the game. CBS filed suit protesting the fine.

    Let’s look at this critically: the actual showing of the breast lasted for less than a second. The majority of viewers are probably not even paying attention to the half-time show and even then, who really cares. Just look at this year’s scandal of M.I.A. flipping the bird during the halftime show. While it caused an uproar for about a week, people stopped caring. The same goes for Janet Jackson’s “debacle.”

    That being said, the FCC really does feel that it has a case. The commission says that the lower courts ruled in favor of CBS because they agreed that the nip slip caused no real harm because it wasn’t long enough to deal any lasting damage.

    This will be a pretty important case if the SCOTUS decides to hear it. Pretty much ever since the inception of television, the FCC has been in charge of regulating its content. They tell broadcasters what they can and can not air. Live events are not exactly easy to regulate so these kind of things can and will happen. If the SCOTUS sides with CBS, then it will reduce the amount of authority the FCC has over television. If the SCOTUS sides with FCC, the commission will retain its power.

    I was going to add some Twitter reaction to this story, but it turns out nobody cares. I think the FCC can stand to not care either. Granted, this is more about retaining their power to police content on television than it is about a little nip slip.

    Do you think that the FCC should have the power it does over broadcast networks? Is CBS right to protest such a hefty fine? Let us know in the comments.

    [h/t: RBR.com]

  • Does Fining Google Really Achieve Anything?

    Does Fining Google Really Achieve Anything?

    Over the weekend, the Federal Communications Commission released a heavily redacted report that detailed the consequences of Google’s lack of transparency and cooperation with an investigation revolving around the non-consensual collection of information from people using unsecured wi-fi networks. It turns out that, as those Google Street View cars were roaming around and capturing ground-level imagery of cities around the world, the cars were also running some allegedly “unauthorized” software that was sopping up internet activity from people in the surrounding area, everything from emails to browsing habits to chats.

    Sure, some of you may wave off the gravity of the situation by saying that’s what people get for using a network that’s not encrypted, but this isn’t really the time for victim-blaming (as if there ever really is a time for that). Consequently, the FCC hit Google with a $25,000 fine, but that was only because of Google’s obstruction in the investigation. As for the What and Why concerning Google’s activities, the investigation has been dropped.

    While that fine has been described by at least one group as “chump change” with respect to the full corporate value of Google, it does raise a good question: what do fines even mean to Google? As far as we know, the company is still in possession of all of that illicit information the Street View cars collected, which will undoubtedly be applied into some sort of money-making advertising that will likely more than make up for the $25,000 that Google had to pay as a result of obtaining it in the first place.

    Herein lies the question: In this specific case, was it worth it for Google? Was $25,000 worth poaching loads of information from unwitting internet users? If you’re Google and you weigh the costs against the benefits of the situation, does that fine really amount to an investment toward future profits?

    Don’t get me wrong: $25,000 is a lot of money. It’s a small fortune to me and in 2006 that was about how much the average household member in the United States was earning. But in Google terms of money, that’s like scooping a pail of water from the ocean: it’s hardly likely to produce any kind of observable change. The company boasts a $200 billion market capitalization with shares regularly trading above $600. In short: Google is loaded.

    Fining Google is like playing Monopoly against an opponent who owns hotels on all the good properties while you’ve been reduced to a measly one-housed Baltic Avenue property. Google can afford to recklessly roll the dice because it doesn’t matter where their thimble lands. Oh, Google happened to roll a number that scoots it onto your Baltic Avenue? Who cares. The company hands over some bills for their turn but it won’t really feel the burn of that loss because it’s got all the money in the game. What it loses due to minor obstacles is bound to recouped sometime in the near future.

    Thanks to another example of Google’s impropriety, though, that Monopoly-style immunity could be undergoing a severe endurance test in the near future, one that could have more consequences than simply dropping Google’s bank numbers by a couple of number fractions.

    The San Jose Mercury News is reporting that, as early as within the next 30 days, the Federal Trade Commission could dish out colossal fine to Google due to the company’s past practices of bypassing security settings in Apple’s browser, Safari.

    For those of you that don’t recall, in February of this year it was discovered that Google had been circumventing Safari users’ (on both mobile and computer versions) privacy settings in order to continue to collect information about their browsing habits. In this day and age, internet user information is as good as gold so of course companies want to mine as much of it as they can. As it were, Google wanted the gold a little too much and, as a result, the FTC said that the company’s behavior violated an agreement made in 2011 when Google agreed not to misrepresent its privacy policies (this was after another occasion of Google mishandling user privacy, one that was related to it’s now-defunct social service, Buzz). After February’s discovery that Google may have broken that agreement with the FTC, the agency declared that Google could possibly be fined $16,000 per violation per day.

    Anybody with even the most remedial grasp of addition can tell you that, given the legions of people who use Safari on both iOS devices and Apple computers, Google’s fines could potentially add up quickly and total into crushing sums.

    Fining Google one defined sum of $25,000 is definitely enough to give the company pause as it will send the message that Google needs to recalibrate how its going about collecting information from internet users to a method more congruent with the expectations of the government. Still, with Google, that kind of penalty is low enough that the company could possibly argue that it was worth the risk. But the FTC fines have the possibility to skyrocket into the millions, thus negating any argument that Google’s actions were worth any risk.

    Google has argued before that it didn’t expect that the whole Safari-gate problem would resurrect the previous settlement the company had made with the FTC, and that very well may be true. But as the president of the American Consumer Institute told the Mercury News, the fine issued by the FCC this past weekend may put the pressure on the FTC to not hold back in penalizing Google over Safari-gate.

    Google is by no means the only tech company to run afoul of the government for the way it’s conducted business. Almost any company that’s currently perched atop of the tech world got there by bending (and sometimes breaking) the rules and hoping to not get caught. No company has clean hands. But if the FTC brings the whip down upon Google and does fine the company upwards of millions of dollars, would even that be enough to change the practices of tech companies in respect to how they handle consumer information? Would the punishment be enough to really drive home the lesson the FTC hopes to teach: don’t mistreat consumers’ trust but, more importantly, don’t try to play the FTC for fools.

    It’s telling of these companies’ success that the only way the government can communicate to them that they’ve done something wrong is to go after the companies’ wallets. It remains to be seen if this type of punishment will actually be effective. In the meantime, how the FTC aims to make an example of Google could have ramifications on how tech companies continue to do business in the future. If Google gets off light, that could embolden it and other companies to continue to risk financial penalty in order to explore possibly extra-legal business practices that could ultimately return much more money than the company spent in trifling fines. If Google feels the full wrath of the FTC, though, business habits of several companies could soon be reevaluated in order to afford such a similar fate.

  • FCC Demands $819,000 From T-Mobile [UPDATED]

    FCC Demands $819,000 From T-Mobile [UPDATED]

    UPDATE:

    T-Mobile has responded to the FCC’s notice. Here’s what they had to say:

    T-Mobile USA is committed to providing high-quality products and services to all of its customers, including a broad selection of handsets that are hearing aid compatible. T-Mobile takes seriously its obligations to comply with its hearing aid compatibility responsibilities as part of our overall commitment to the accessibility needs of our customers.

    ORIGINAL STORY:

    The Federal Communications Commission has issued a notice to T-Mobile that it is liable for forfeiture in the amount of $819,000 for failing to meet requirements concerning the number of hearing aid compatible (HAC) handsets carriers are required to offer. The FCC claims that T-Mobile “willfully and repeatedly violated” the rules in 2009-2010.

    The problem stems from the FCC’s 2003 Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, which was intended to ensure that people who relied on hearing aids would have a reasonable range of options for wireless phones. As part of the rule, so-called “Tier I carriers” were required to offer at least 8 handsets that were compatible with acoustic coupling technology, and three that were compatible with inductive coupling, by February 14, 2009. By February 14, 2010, the carriers were required to have 9 acoustic coupling handset models and 5 inductive coupling models. By the end of 2010, those numbers increased to 10 and 7.

    T-Mobile, the FCC alleges, did not meet those requirements on time. As such, T-Mobile is liable for a forfeiture of $819,000. According to the notice, the company has thirty days to either submit payment or a written reply asking for the forfeiture to be reduced or cancelled altogether. In order to get the fine reduced or cancelled, however, T-Mobile will likely have to prove that they were not, in fact, in violation of the FCC’s rules during the two-year period specified. That could prove rather difficult, considering that it was T-Mobile’s own compliance reports in early 2010 that prompted the FCC to take action in the first place.

    The full notice can be found in PDF form here. A request for comment from T-Mobile has not yet received a response.

  • Consumer Watchdog Demands Uncensored FCC Report on Google Wi-Fi Spying

    Consumer Watchdog Demands Uncensored FCC Report on Google Wi-Fi Spying

    In light of the Federal Communications Commission dropping its investigation of Google’s Street View’s eavesdropping practices that were uncovered in 2010 and releasing a very redacted version of the interim report that was released on Friday, Consumer Watchdog has issued a statement demanding that the FCC release an uncensored version of the report.

    The FCC decided to fine Google $25,000 for the company’s avoidance of answering any inquiries about what private information it was secretly sopping up from unsecured wi-fi networks as the Google Street View car drove down countless streets around the world capturing imagery for the Google Maps service. Consumer Watchdog, a nonprofit, nonpartisan public interest group, is filing a Freedom of Information Act Request to obtain an uncensored copy of the document and is considering what additional legal action may be necessary.

    Google has said that the creepy data collection by the Street View car was not authorized and was actually the result of a rogue developer, although that person is claiming that other people at Google knew about the data-sponging.

    “We’re pleased that the FCC called Google out for its blatantly obstructionist violations, but $25,000 is chump change to an Internet giant like Google,” said John M. Simpson, Consumer Watchdog’s Privacy Project director. “By willfully violating the Commission’s orders, Google has managed to continue to hide the truth about Wi-Spy. Google wants everyone else’s information to be accessible, but in a demonstration of remarkable hypocrisy, stonewalls and keeps everything about itself secret.”

    It’s fair to say that Google basically got off with what, in Google terms of money, adds up to the severity of a parking ticket. The lack of stern penalties from the FCC has Consumer Watchdog calling for continued investigation to get to the bottom of what they’re calling the “Wi-Spy scandal.”

    “Google’s claim that its intrusive behavior was by ‘mistake’ stretches all credulity. In fact, Google has demonstrated a history of pushing the envelope and then apologizing when its overreach is discovered,” said Simpson. “Willfully obstructing a federal investigation shows Google has something to hide. Given its recent record of privacy abuses, there is absolutely no reason to trust anything the Internet giant claims about its data collection policies.”

    Consumer Watchdog said the FCC should make all the details of its investigation clear to the public. “There is no reason for the FCC to censor its Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture,” said Simpson. “The public has a right to know as much as possible about what happened with Wi-Spy. Google has been the one to delay and hide information. I cannot fathom why the FCC has gone this route.”

    While the FCC may have rested its investigation of Google, the case is still being investigated by a group of more than 30 state attorneys general. Additionally, a class action suit has been filed in a federal district court.

  • AT&T Aids and Abets Thieves, According to Suit

    AT&T Aids and Abets Thieves, According to Suit

    While it was recently reported that AT&T and other providers are building a database to help track and de-activate stolen cellphones, a group has still brought a class-action lawsuit against the company for helping thieves re-activate stolen devices, mainly the iPhone. The suit was filed in Superior Court, and alleges that AT&T has committed conspiracy, fraud, breach of contract, accessory to theft, unfair trade and other charges, by forcing customers into buying new phones and plans after claiming they “cannot” block calls and service to stolen devices, thus allowing thieves to plainly go into an AT&T store and buy a new SIM.

    The California plaintiffs, with Hilary White and two others being named, are represented by the law firm R. Parker White with Poswall, White & Cutler. According to Courthouse news Service,

    “for years, defendants have actively and without reservation aided, abetted, and assisted thieves, i.e., possessors of stolen cell phones, in earning illegal theft profits, by turning back on, or ‘re-activating’ said stolen phones. Plaintiffs have been told by AT&T representatives that they will not, and ‘cannot,’ block and effectively kill usage of such stolen cell phones by thieves and criminal organizations; however, such representations are false and fraudulent. Defendants actively have, for years, participated in this practice in order to make millions of dollars in improper profits, by forcing legitimate customers, such as these plaintiffs, to buy new cell phones, and buy new cell phone plans, while the criminals who stole the phone are able to simply walk into AT&T stores and ‘re-activate’ the devices, using different, cheap, readily available ‘SIM’ cards (computer chips). Defendants have, for years, profited from this implicit collaboration and conspiracy with thieves and criminal gangs of thieves. Defendants continue to engage in this practice, and knowingly and intentionally continue to refuse to block, disable, or ‘kill’ permanently, or return to their lawful owners these stolen iPhones and other cell phones, to the financial benefit and plan not only of the criminal thieves themselves, but of the defendants, [i.e.], AT&T. These unfair and illegal profits have amounted to many millions of dollars each year, for the past several years, and continuing, reaped by AT&T and other cell phone providers. Plaintiffs have repeatedly asked defendants to track, record, and simply refuse to ‘activate’ these stolen iPhones, however, to date defendants have refused to do so, even though it is readily, easily able to accomplish, because if they take said proper action, their sales of new iPhones and plans will be reduced and diminished.”

    The plaintiffs point out that AT&T and its vendors are well aware of the IMEI identification number that is included with all cellphones, and should be able to tell if a device has been illegally obtained, and seek unspecified punitive and engorgement damages. It’s likely cases like this that have prompted AT&T to align with the FCC to build the aforementioned cellphone database. Once this is put into effect, it is assumed that it won;t be so easy for thieves to re-activate devices by merely visiting company stores and kiosks, which will in turn cut down on petty theft.

  • Is Net Neutrality Being Misrepresented?

    Is Net Neutrality Being Misrepresented?

    Net neutrality is in the spotlight once again after Comcast’s recent announcement about its Xfinity video streaming service. The cable giant said that it would not count the television programming users access through Microsoft’s Xbox against their 250-gigabyte monthly data cap.

    On a FAQs page Comcast set up for the use of Xfinity on the Xbox 360, it states:

    Comcast Xfinity FAQs

    While the announcement is good news for many consumers, some media activists are raising concerns over the implications of the move. Public advocacy groups including Public Knowledge and Free Press fear that it threatens the Open Internet and that it would give Comcast an unfair advantage over other video streaming services.

    Does Comcast’s plan put net neutrality at risk? Please share your thoughts.

    Tim Wu, who first coined the term net neutrality, is also against Comcast’s announcement and spoke out about it in a recent interview with Marketplace Tech Report. According to him, this move will be detrimental to services such as Netflix.

    “The whole idea of net neutrality is to try and guarantee that similar content gets treated similarly,” Wu said to Marketplace Tech Report, “and if you think about it for a second, if something doesn’t count against your cap, obviously it’s getting a preferential treatment. You’re more likely to stream that instead of someone else’s.”

    If you remember, the FCC passed the Open Internet Order in late 2010, which is a set of rules intended to preserve net neutrality. At that time, many of these same public interest groups spoke out about the “potential loopholes” that could result if Internet service providers tried to get around the “spirit of the rules.”

    These groups and Wu are now saying that Comcast’s latest move does this. In a post on Public Knowledge’s Policy Blog, staff attorney Michael Weinberg wrote:

    “This decision is a perfect example of the behavior that net neutrality rules were designed to prevent AND raised additional questions about the true motivation behind data caps… Today’s announcement turns these concerns from theoretical to concrete. Comcast has transformed the competitive online video marketplace into a two-tiered world, where its own online video doesn’t have to play by the same rules as everyone else’s. This is pretty bad–the internet should reward the best services, not the ones with the right corporate owners.”

    Larry Downes, Senior Adjunct Fellow at Tech Freedom Not everyone, however, believes this is true. WebProNews spoke with Larry Downes, a senior adjunct fellow at Tech Freedom, who told us that Comcast is not violating the FCC’s rules from both a legal and technical standpoint.

    As he explained, all cable programming is exempt from the rules because it is already heavily regulated by the FCC and on the state and local level.

    “Since these services are already highly regulated, the FCC decided when it passed its Open Internet rules to exempt from them any programming that happens to come down the cable that isn’t actually Internet content,” he said.

    “From a strictly legal sense, the Open Internet rules explicitly exempt any television programming from the rules, so no matter what Comcast is doing here, it’s not gonna violate the letter of the net neutrality rules.”

    Downes also told us the claims based on the “spirit of the rules” were also overblown. According to him, television programming, even though it uses the same “last mile” that Internet services do, does not apply to the rules.

    “From a technical standpoint, it’s very different in terms of how that data stream is handled [and] how it’s compressed,” he said.

    In a piece Downes wrote on CNET called “No, Comcast Is Not Breaking the Internet…Again,” he said:

    “If the Xbox service unreasonably discriminates against over-the-top services, then all cable TV unfairly competes with Internet video. That, however, is not the view of the FCC’s Open Internet rules, nor its extensive regulations of cable TV providers. Nor should it be.”

    It appears that a large part of the concern that media activists have against Comcast’s plan is based on the issue of capping data. Public Knowledge, for example, has filed multiple requests with the FCC asking more information on data caps.

    Downes told us that while he would prefer not to have data caps, he understands why some cable companies are implementing them. He explained to us that the cable infrastructure wasn’t built for the Internet or digital programming. Although cable companies have already invested billions of dollars in order to handle digital services, he said they currently have to make do with what they have until more efficient systems are established.

    He, however, pointed out that the claims that equate these issues with net neutrality risks are wrong.

    “The advocates believe any new service that is not really clear from a competitor’s standpoint… they kind of like to just paste it with the phrase net neutrality,” said Downes.

    “It’s extremely misleading and very unhelpful to try to figure out what is best for customers if we just kind of paste everything with net neutrality,” he added.

    According to him, this misrepresentation of net neutrality takes the focus off of finding the real issues. If the programs are given the chance to work, he believes the market will determine if any anticompetitive concerns exist.

    In a statement released to WebProNews regarding the opposition to its new policy, Comcast told us:

    “Our treatment of the Xfinity services being delivered through an Xbox is wholly consistent with our commitment to maintaining an open Internet and with the FCC’s Open Internet Order.  Our standard is clear. If we are delivering a traditional cable service on a Title VI basis, where the customer is already paying us for that service, and all we are doing is delivering it in IP over our managed network through a different device that effectively serves as an additional outlet in the house, then we don’t believe it should count against their data usage threshold.  There is no ‘discrimination’ here – remember, we do count customer use of XfinityTV.com, the Xfinity TV app and nbc.com against data usage threshold standards (because that’s not a Title VI service being delivered only in the home).”

    As for what happens next, Public Knowledge is currently examining Comcast’s new policy to see if it wants to file a formal complaint with the FCC.

    Is the future of net neutrality in danger, or are the recent claims distorting the true meaning behind keeping the Internet open? We’d love to hear your thoughts in the comments.

  • Verizon Sued For False Internet Speed Claims

    Verizon Sued For False Internet Speed Claims

    Have you ever been disappointed in a piece of technology or service after being convinced by a company salesperson that it is the way to go? I think most of us have. Typically we can return the item or cancel the service, but this isn’t always as easy as it sounds, and sometimes it can get messy if you signed a contract or weren’t explained a return policy correctly.

    A Los Angeles woman is suing Verizon for false claims regarding the speed of their DSL service. Patricia Allen claims she was duked into a plan upgrade that promised more speed (1.5 Mb/sec.), but when it came time to perform her connection barely reached half the speed.

    She tried to dispute her charges and was told by a Verizon technician that she simply lived too far from the source to ever receive the connection speed they advertise with the product. In fact, she was advised to downgrade as her lines can only accept a speed up to 768k /second.

    About three months ago, Cablevision Systems Corporation also filed a lawsuit against Verizon regarding DSL speeds. In this case Verizon was attacking the cable network provider for advertising false claims about the speed of their service.

    The irony of this lawsuit is that the FCC actually reports that Cablevision is consistently broadcasting at 90% of their advertised speed during peak usage hours and even higher during non-peak hours. So, essentially Verizon is accusing Cablevision, in their advertising campaign, of doing what Verizon actually does; promising higher DSL speeds than they can actually deliver.

    I don’t really know what to think about these antics from Verizon. Sometimes the big corporate machine is just full of BS. Possibly I am wrong, but it sounds like Verizon is being hypocritical in their ad campaigns and dishonest in dealing with their customers. Not good!

  • FCC Pushes for Web Disclosure of Political Ads

    FCC Pushes for Web Disclosure of Political Ads

    Local television stations make big bank during election seasons running political ads. Used to be, you could count on ads from the opponents themselves. Nowadays, in a world where money equals protected free speech, many other concerns have an axe to grind on the airwaves. That leads to even more revenue for televisions stations as they run ads paid for by third parties and “SuperPACs”.

    The public deserves to know who is speaking to them on any given political topic. If an ad is not endorsed and approved by a given political candidate – those are easy to spot now – then who aired it? Televisions stations are required to keep a list of organizations that spend for political advertisements. This listing is available for the public to peruse at the station office.

    But who drops in to a television station and asks to see the listing anymore? Generally speaking, if we want to know something like that, we jump on the Internet machine. Only, television stations are not required to publish those lists online. Even though it may make sense to you and me that they should, they generally don’t. And they don’t want to. The FCC thinks they should. The television stations are fighting it tooth and nail. The last time it was brought up,lawsuits rained down on the FCC. But here it comes again.

    The commissioner of the FCC are convening later this month, and they will take up this topic again at that time. They want the stations to upload those records to an FCC-maintained site. The stations say that would cost them too much to do.

    I have mentioned in past articles that I used to work in radio for a bit. The old-timers there told me of all kinds of archaic regulations, hopps to jump through, etc. that existed in the time before Reagan deregulated that industry. Nowadays, it is wondrously easier for them to do their jobs. Of course, two companies now own almost all stations with any power and we have to listen to the same music everywhere we go, but some consider that progress.

    My point is this, things have gotten way better for the broadcast industries over the years. Their employees will likely waste more on Facebook each hour than it will take to maintain the FCC-proposed listing of political ad buyers. It’s even going to be an FCC-maintained site, likely with an easy upload interface. 5 minutes a day to upload the already-required public ad buyer list is a pretty decent regulation to have in place to keep the public suitably informed in a 21st-century world.

  • Political Ad Transparency: Should There Be More?

    Political Ad Transparency: Should There Be More?

    With political ads in full swing during this election year, a debate is heating up in Washington over a proposal from the FCC that would impose regulation on TV stations. The Commission wants TV stations to put the “public inspection files,” which include the names, costs, and running dates of every political ad in recent years on a website that it would oversee.

    Although this information is already available to anyone who wants to physically go to a television station and access the files, the FCC has said the move is part of its bigger effort to transition from paper to digital across the board. It also believes that more transparency is necessary in political advertising.

    Would you like to see more transparency in political ads? If so, what are the benefits? Please share.

    Political ad campaigns have become particularly controversial of late as financial issues continue to plague the country.

    Mark Fratrik, Vice President and Chief Economist at BIA/Kelsey “With the tremendous amount of political advertising that’s being spent already in the Presidential campaign and many other local campaigns, there’s a concern about who’s paying for it all and whether or not there are some interests that are spending an excessive amount of money,” Mark Fratrik, the Vice President and Chief Economist at BIA/Kelsey, told WebProNews.

    In spite of these financial concerns, television stations are against the regulation due to concerns of their own. As Fratrik explained to us, they are not opposed to the digital database specifically, but they are instead worried about the additional burden on them.

    “[TV stations] are a little concerned about the logistics of it, [and] the amount of additional man-hours that each station would have to incur to respond to these proposed regulations,” he said.

    TV broadcasters are also speaking out against the proposal since radio stations were not included. But, according to Fratrik, the vast majority of revenue from political advertising campaigns goes to TV stations. In fact, campaign spending on local TV stations is expected to reach near $3 billion this year. Although radio stations bring in some revenue through political campaigns, Fratrik said it pales in comparison to the amount that TV stations produce. Therefore, the FCC didn’t feel it was necessary to include radio stations in the proposal.

    Another concern that TV broadcasters have is the impact the regulation would have on pricing. They fear that once the prices are made readily available, the competitive marketplace will decrease. This fear is magnified since political campaigns have the privilege of receiving the lowest costs possible for spots.

    “They’re concerned about the lowest prices being out there and that other advertisers will start demanding them,” said Fratrik.

    Various broadcasters have voiced their opposition on this aspect, especially since practices may vary from station to station. In a complaint filed from Allbritton Communications, which owns ABC-affiliated stations in 6 markets, Jerald Fritz, the Senior Vice President, said that the online database would “ultimately lead to a Soviet-style standardization of the way advertising should be sold as determined by the government.”

    Furthermore, many of those in opposition have questioned the FCC’s authority in this matter, since campaign finance does not fall into the realm of its governance. However, some have suggested that the Commission is being forced to step in by way of the media since the Federal Election Commission has fallen short.

    Commissioner Robert McDowell, who is the sole Republican at the FCC, sides with the TV stations in this debate and has called the proposal a “jobs destroyer.” Last week, at a House Appropriations Subcommittee meeting over the matter, he pointed out the harmful impact the regulation could have.

    “While the original goal of such disclosure may have been to create more transparency in the political spending process, the unintended consequence could be to encourage price signaling and other anti-competitive conduct by broadcasters that could produce harmful market distortions,” McDowell said.

    Since neither side appears to be backing down from its stance, Fratrik told us it was not likely that the mandate would be approved this year. What’s more, if the administration changes after the election in November, he believes it could impact everything.

    Which side of this debate do you take: the FCC or TV stations? Let us know.

  • FCC Asked to Investigate Data Caps.

    FCC Asked to Investigate Data Caps.

    Public Knowledge, a Washington D.C.-based non-profit promoting openness on the web, recently demanded that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) begin an investigation into how wireless companies have been capping data usage on wireless devices. Specifically, the group said wireless devices such as the new iPad are designed for the consumption of streaming video, which uses data at a high rate.

    “Millions of consumers and at least two major publications have now discovered that the new iPads which went on sale come with a hidden cost – the caps on data usage which wireless carriers put on consumers.” said Public Knowledge President and CEO Gigi B. Sohn. “It’s a ridiculous situation that the carriers sell millions of these devices specifically designed to view video on one hand, while they restrict the usage of their networks for video on the other.”

    With consumers demanding more video-on-demand, some may be hit with a surprisingly large data bill if they are not careful, or if they don’t know how quickly streaming video can drain their data. With faster 4G wireless access beginning to proliferate around the U.S., this issue may come to a head sooner rather than later.

    This is not the first time Public Knowledge has asked the FCC to look at the data-cap issue. Twice last year, the non-profit sent letters to the FCC, both after wireless companies, including AT&T, had announced plans for data-caps. Public Knowledge also issued a report last August that warned of how quickly even an average user would run up against his or her data cap when introduced to 4G speeds.

    “It is simply inexcusable that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has not even seen fit to ask wireless and landline carriers to explain why those caps are necessary, how they are set and how consumers are affected by them.” said Sohn. “If the Commission is truly interested in consumer protection, it will ask the crucial questions and come up with some answers before consumers start getting hit with ever-increasing bills just for using the devices they bought in good faith.”