FCC Head Wants New Wireless Devices Unlocked

[TheBORG] writes with news that FCC chairman Kevin Martin wants 700-MHz wireless devices and services to be unlocked. Spectrum auctions for the 700-MHz airwaves, being opened up for fixed and mobile broadband, are scheduled for early next year. "The proposed rules would apply only to the spectrum being auctioned, not the rest of the wireless business, which still makes most of its revenue from voice calls. But Martin's proposal, if adopted by the FCC, could reverberate through a U.S. wireless industry that has tightly controlled access to devices and services... Like most devices sold in the USA, the iPhone ... allows only features and applications that Apple and AT&T provide and works only with an AT&T contract. The FCC chairman said he has grown increasingly concerned that the current practices 'hamper innovations' dreamed up by outside developers. One example:... 'Internationally, Wi-Fi handsets have been available for some time,' Martin noted. 'But they are just beginning to roll out here.'"

Comments

Is this as good as it sounds?

[jollyreaper]

It sounds good but I have a sneaking suspicion something in there is going to bite us in the ass. What is it?

Re:Is this as good as it sounds?

[erroneus]

I love that we cannot trust our government.

I TOO had the same reaction... "Who is to benefit from this initiative? What's the catch?!"

As a people, we're just unaccustomed to anything but self-interested actions by and through government activity. It's not cynicism, it's just the plain unbiased truth. The only time any government units will feel inclined to serve the people or community is near election time... it was kind of like the mysterious way gasoline prices dropped during the last elections.

So I hope people have their thinking caps on and are considering if this may be yet another way to screw us. If they are pushing for something as simple as "no more locked devices" then I'll just be amazed.

Re:Is this as good as it sounds?

[TheRaven64]

This only applys to a newly auctioned off part of the spectrum True, but how long until the market ensures that it happens in other parts? At the moment, mobile providers don't offer this kind of service because it would cut their voice and SMS profits. If one provider did, then how long could the others remain competitive? These rules would force one provider (whoever buys the new frequencies) to, which should have a knock-on effect on the other parts of the market.

I really don't understand why voice data is so much cheaper than other data for a mobile phone. Voice has all sorts of guaranteed bandwidth / latency requirements, while things like HTTP can just be squeezed into spare channels and bursted when there is spare capacity without issue, yet the data used for HTTP costs more. Why not let users run whatever they want, respect QoS flags in the packets, and charge more for ones with stricter requirements?

Re:Is this as good as it sounds?

[Vancorps]

The problem with that is that it makes sense to us. Most people would see that cell phone companies raising the rates of their voice service though. They had a general trend of reducing the cost of voice calls before data arrived on the spot. Now that data is here it's being treated as a separate beast to consumers even though from a technical standpoint it's just a different QoS priority.

It gives them a chance to charge more for added services which don't cost them anything additional so it's largely profit.

Of course the other side of the coin is the problems they've had with SMS and how unreliable it was when it was initially rolled out. Why could I call my friend in the UK but I couldn't SMS her? So people got used to the other idea that the quality and reliability of one service was unrelated to the other services the same company offered. That means they can charge different rates as well.

Re:Is this as good as it sounds?

[Alex P Keaton in da]

If you are over what, about 35, you remember that land line phones were heavy items you leased from the phone company. If you wanted an additional one, you called, and waited for them to bring it... People under 30 tend to be shocked by that whole concept, now you can buy a phone for a few dollars at Wal Mart or buy a complex expensive one, regardless of who you get your land line phone service from. I imagine in the coming decades, young people will be shocked that we used to be stuck getting our cell phone from the cell phone company, and didnt just buy the one we want at Wal Mart of Best Buy and get service from the company we chose...
And for more proof that things dont change- people used to have "illegal" or "Hot" phones that they got from God knows where and hooked up themselves... Just like some people crack the software in their phones and use them outside of the cell company that sold the phone...

Re:Is this as good as it sounds?

[vertinox]

It sounds good but I have a sneaking suspicion something in there is going to bite us in the ass. What is it?

I dunno... Either a lobby of an ATT competitor is involved, or the FCC head wants an iPhone without changing carriers.

Re:Is this as good as it sounds?

[cbreaker]

Yea, I'd be amazed too, but it DOES make sense. There is a point where ALWAYS catering to big business will bite us in the ass. I feel as though one of those issues is outsourcing, and another is communication. If we, the US, fall too far behind everyone else in communication tools because of corporate greed and the government does nothing, the government is only hurting itself.

I suppose we could take this as face value for now, until special stipulations are put in place to allow Verizon, ATT, and T-Mobile to do whatever they want.

Re:Is this as good as it sounds?

[chernevik]

I love that we cannot trust our government. It's the founding idea of our constitution. The idea that _this_ administration is the only one that shouldn't be trusted is confusing and dangerous. It makes people vulnerable to trusting other administrations, or institutions like Congress or the courts, or politicians when really they all bear watching. None of them get anything like the scrutiny they deserve.

Re:Is this as good as it sounds?

[Eunuchswear]

I imagine in the coming decades, young people will be shocked that we used to be stuck getting our cell phone from the cell phone company, and didnt just buy the one we want at Wal Mart of Best Buy and get service from the company we chose...

Young people? I'm 48 years old and I'm still in shock about the way the US replaced the USSR as the horrible anti-free-market economy.

I still can't get my head around the idea that French telephone regulators are doing a better job than the FCC. What the fuck is going on? Has the universe been replaced by a poor parody of itself?

Re:Is this as good as it sounds?

[erroneus]

Okay, my intended meaning was different, I'm sure you knew, than the "correct" meaning you are expressing. I do agree that at NO time should we simply "trust" our government or the judgment of the people making decisions on our behalf. I wish that were the FIRST thing stated in elementary school government/civics classes. (Do they even have those classes any longer?) After all, the US was founded on the notion that the government cannot be trusted and so checks and balances were installed everywhere they could think of.

But as shown, the Bush administration claims executive privilege at every turn and the vice president claims he's not in the executive and so doesn't have to follow the rules governing the executive branch... and really, I blame all the "better behaving" presidents before them as it's clear that part of the reason that the senate and house of representatives aren't fighting these outrages harder and faster is that they are simply unprepared to deal with such misbehavior. There was a way things were done and Bush and co. have really shaken things up and it seems like they really don't know what to do.

Re:Is this as good as it sounds?

[Sparks23]

My guess is some cell company might decide to charge for unlimited wifi calls, even though you're not using they're network.
I'm cheating 'cause I already saw the t-mobile ad. As I understand it, though, the T-Mobile WiFi handset actually does have a fairly significant added value over most generic WiFi SIP or Skype handsets.

With T-Mobile's proposed service, if you find a WiFi hotspot it automatically logs into a VoIP service provided by /T-Mobile/, and your cellular number suddenly becomes your VoIP number. People call the same number, but it now rings over your WiFi connection and you talk without using minutes. Plus, the report I read on it suggested you could transition seamlessly between WiFi and GSM; walk out into cellular coverage, and it switches back to GSM and the handset and T-Mobile's network handle seamlessly moving the call from VoIP to GSM cellular without even hanging up.

The idea is that you just have one number, and those calling you don't need to know or care whether you're on a WiFi hotspot or out in cellular service areas. What you're paying for in their proposed service is not the network bandwidth, but a flat service fee for their VoIP system and related services.

Re:Is this as good as it sounds?

[ehiris]

Reducing the cost of wireless services reduces the expenses of Oil companies.

Re:Is this as good as it sounds?

[erroneus]

Correction friend: Bush et al have consistently ignored legal instruments such as subpoenas presently and in the past. Further, while he cites many executive privileges, there are many that come encumbered by due diligence procedures that have also been ignored such as commuting the sentence of Scooter Libby. Bush and company are consistently acting as if they are above the law and are persistently ignoring legal measures directed against them. There's only one measure they will not be able to resist and I pray it starts soon -- Articles of Impeachment. And they SHOULD act against Cheney first, otherwise impeaching Bush would place Cheney in the president's seat allowing him to create all manner of complications and impediments to justice. Frankly, I don't see why they don't order impeachment of both simultaneously.

Whoa...

[Abalamahalamatandra]

Who is this guy and why hasn't Bush fired him yet?

Re:Whoa...

[Etrias]

You're assuming Bush fires anyone. If it's good for us, just wait for the eventual announcement saying he's retiring to spend more time with his family.

Say it ain't so!!

[Enrique1218]

A public official actually concerned about businesses reaming the consumer. What has become of the United States?

Re:Say it ain't so!!

[paulthomas]

Kevin Martin actually isn't that great of a guy.

Aside from this, I agree with the premise that phones shouldn't be artificially locked to a network, but I think that this is an issue for customers of cell phone manufacturers and not an FCC issue. I can buy and use an unlocked phone right now and use it with my current AT&T plan. I just won't have AT&T subsidizing the purchase.

Re:Say it ain't so!!

[paulthomas]

Why more consumers aren't demanding this, I have no idea. I would guess it has something to do with intellectual laziness, in which a subsidized phone from a provider is considered "free." I think a lot of people do not think of a phone as something that they can purchase from someone outside of their service provider.

Interesting points about the need for standards. Hopefully we'll see standards evolve over time to incorporate things that aren't currently standard, like visual voicemail.

Re:Say it ain't so!!

[nine-times]

I can buy and use an unlocked phone right now and use it with my current AT&T plan. I just won't have AT&T subsidizing the purchase.

I don't know what the exact policies on these things are, but I've run into trouble with this. T-Mobile wouldn't sell me data services because I had an unlocked phone, and a friend of mine had the same problem with Verizon.

Therefore, I don't believe it's as simple as you imply. The government might have to step in and require carriers to offer unlocked phones for an increased price and/or cease penalizing customers who buy unlocked phones. If carriers want to subsidize phones, it should be enough that the consumer is required to enter into a contract. Locking the phone shouldn't be necessary.

Re:Say it ain't so!!

[TheRaven64]

Can you name a single American computer company that owns a significant global market share? What about a software company?

Now fast forward ten years; the desktop era is over, the ubicomp era is starting.

Now backtrack to the present, and look at the companies poised to take control of that market. How many successful mobile phone companies are based in the USA?

It's simple economics; there's an important technology market that is likely to grow enormously in the next few decades, and the USA is well behind the rest of the world. Why? Because US mobile phone networks are less regulated than those in other countries, and so lock down the hardware more. It doesn't make sense to develop a mobile phone in the USA, because the networks won't let you use the most innovative features, and who wants to develop a consumer product they can't use and get their friends to use? Look at the iPhone; it's got a nice UI, but to anyone outside the USA its feature set looks like something from 3-5 years ago (more if you're in Japan).

In summary, the neo-cons want the next Microsoft, IBM, Intel and Dell to be US companies, not Finnish or Japanese (and I don't blame them). The only surprising thing is that someone in power is thinking further forwards than the next election.

Re:Say it ain't so!!

[Oldsmobile]

I find it interesting, that the US has probably the most liberalized mobile communication market out there -and is always lagging behind the rest of the world in mobile phone technology.

This even though it's one of the top economies in the world.

Most popular phones are old fashioned, the service is lacking, spotty and uses several standards and only in the US could they come out with a brand new smart phone and NOT feature 3G on it -and sell a shitton of them anyway!

The aliens have landed

[Phil_At_NHS]

For those of you who thought aliens would take over by pretending to be human and infiltrating government, I apologize for calling you nasty names. If the Chairmen of the FCC is doing something consumer friendly, there is no other explanation. Now, I AM hardpressed to figure out who such action forwards the cause of these aliens, unless maybe they too are just sick and tired of crippled phones....

Re:which FCC?

[Anonymous Coward]

Federal Christian Coalition
(head by a former AT&T lobbying professional, what can possibly go wrong?)

If he were really interested in helping consumers

[Scareduck]

he'd come out against spectrum auctions. Is there any single policy that's proven as pernicious lately? One of the most annoying things to come out of Congress has been the forced conversion of the VHF and UHF spectrums to, well, something else, and the retirement of NTSC broadcasts, mainly because Congress is greedy and wants the money such an auction would give them. Never mind that there's no compelling reason to ditch NTSC broadcasts, or that it will cost billions for consumers to convert their TVs to HD. Those auction costs eventually get passed on to the consumers of those products, too, and that's nothing to sneeze at.

But...but...

[R2.0]

He's a Republican...he's Eeeevilllll!

My world is shaken to its core.

Actually, he is a Bushite

[RingDev]

Actually he is a Bush appointee. He was one of the lawyers/advisers to Bush and Chenney in the 2000 election. He was then coat tailed into the White House as a legal aid working with the FCC and on some other telecomm/technology groups. He worked in the FCC under the previous FCC Chair before Bush nominated/appointed him to the Chair in 2005. His wife is one of Chenney's aids to boot.

My first thought is that Haliburton is getting into the wireless device industry and doesn't want to have to play nice with the existing heavily stacked market. Remember, the only thing better than big business to a Neo-Con is a big business that the Neo-Con has investments in.

-Rick

Re:Actually, he is a Bushite

[that IT girl]

Or maybe, just maybe, he actually hired someone with a decent idea in his head.

It could happen.

Re:Actually, he is a Bushite

[MarsDefenseMinister]

More often than not, decisions which are good for business are good for the American people if those decisions lead to more products or more uses for existing products. If this opening up of the handset is good for the phone companies, they might expand their business and hire more people. And maybe there'll be new companies starting up to take advantage of the new opportunities, thus hiring more people. And maybe those new companies will get some venture capital, making the money circulate around instead of sitting in someone's pockets.

Don't get to excited

[TubeSteak]

"Whoever wins this spectrum has to provide ... truly open broadband network - one that will open the door to a lot of innovative services for consumers," Martin said in an interview Monday.

What this would mean in practice: "You can use any wireless device and download any mobile broadband application, with no restrictions," Martin explained."

Unless he makes "in practice" the official FCC rule, I can't imagine that the networks are going to anything other than provide network unlocked phones. Just because a phone is network unlocked doesn't mean it will not have shitty firmware that locks out features.

Most Americans are not willing to pay the full price for a phone. As long as the networks have people hooked on subsidized phones, the phones will be feature locked down.

Re:If he were really interested in helping consume

[cfulmer]

What is your alternative choice for deciding who gets the spectrum?

The most compelling reason to ditch NTSC is that the spectrum it occupies is very valuable, in part because it is not as impeded by obstructions as other frequencies. The switch to HDTV is a catalyst that provides an alternative. A portion of the money gained from the auction of the previous UHF/VFH space will be used for vouchers for consumers to buy conversion devices for their TVs. I suspect, though, that these will be mainly unused, as the large majority of TV viewers are on either cable or satellite, neither one of which will be directly affected.

it ain't... sorry.

[RingDev]

I believe he is actually concerned with the effects on other businesses the spectrum lock is having. He sites technological advancement and sales as his concern, not the well being of the people. He believes that there is more of a profit to be made by opening the door, between new competition, new sales, and new taxes. And I agree. As an added bonus, the American people might get to see some new technology and alternative wireless communication devices.

-Rick

Re:If he were really interested in helping consume

[CajunArson]

OK, hold on, I think there is just a pinch of 'hate Bush no matter what' in your post. If none of the auctions were taking place, I could just as easily spin this as the Evil Bush administration staying in league with media giants to retain control over UHF and VHF spectrum that was being wasted (which it is in buckets by the way) and cut off from any and all new innovation. I could further decry the fact that the US was continuing to languish with the old NTSC transmission standard instead of moving into the 21st century with digital & HD standards, and how consumers were being hurt by the stifling entrenched interests that wanted to stop the growth of new technology. I have a question: If Hillary were auctioning off the spectrum would you still hate it, and if the Bush administration canceled the auction would you say it was a good idea?

We need competition in mobile phones and homebrew

[backslashdot]

Just like how there are hundreds of brands of PC's to choose from (this helps keep the price down, improve selection, and companies innovating) we need to have hundreds of brands of cell phones.

We need to be able to home build cell phones. Personally I'd assemble myself a cell phone with a 3.5" (maybe only slightly higher) touchscreen 800 px wide display, 3G, Live Video Share and GPS. I'd run my own distro of Linux or OpenMoko on it.

WTF

[Orig_Club_Soda]

While I'd love for my iPhone to be unlocked, I am wondering what authority does the Constitution give the government to mandate unlocking.

Re:WTF

[Zcar]

My (simplified) understanding is that the frequency spectrum is public property and the FCC is tasked with administering that property for the benefit of the public. The money paid is not so much a purchase of spectrum but purchase of a license to use a block of spectrum. The unlocked device restriction is a term of that license. The constitutional mandate probably comes from Congress's Article IV Section 3 powers to "dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States".

Not Far Enough

[MBCook]

I like this idea quite a bit, I just don't think it's far enough. It shouldn't just be the new 700MHz spectrum. If you buy ANY new space, you should have to comply with this. If you USE any space you should have to comply. No locking cells to the carrier after Dec 31st, 2007. Not 2015, not 2010, THIS YEAR. Since this is just locking and it's not a problem over seas, they have no excuse why this couldn't be done.

I'd also say contracts should be illegal (or at least termination fees) and ditto with subsidizing phones (you want to subsidize? Must be and instant rebate, none of this mail-in stuff). But I don't expect those to happen.

I'll still be surprised if this was passed.

But please, free the cell phones. Won't someone please think of the cell phones?

Locking is not the problem, FCC

[dada21]

It sounds good -- use the force of the law to regulate businesses to provide unlocked devices "for the consumer's rights." But the idea of locking a device is irrelevant to this discussion, Mssrs. FCC, because it isn't the provision of locking a device that is anti-consumer.

The best situation for any consumer of a given market product is competition -- the ability for newcomers to a given market to try to provide better features at a lower cost and a higher quality. This gives consumers choice. Locking a device is the equivalent of removing a feature from a product, but the idea of locking a device may allow a manufacturer to offer better service because they won't have to pay for the support of third party hardware and software. In the print industry, I get significant breaks on same-day warranty service if I buy my toner and ink from the manufacturer (generally at a fairly competitive price, these are industrial machines).

So what is the anti-consumer situation here? Again, it isn't locking the device. The biggest anti-consumer provision in the communications market is also one that is anti-competition (amazing). It is called the Patent. In a market where almost every product is seemingly identical, we still see each product having patents or patents pending on the devices. Yes, the iPhone seems unique, but it really isn't. Apple just realized that the interface is more important than other features -- and they're proven correct so far in the short run. Yet the market is artificially disturbed because of the force of law (patents, copyrights, trademarks), and the FCC wants to patch the Congressional error by adding more regulation to the market?

Actually, this struck me as pro-business in a way

[PIPBoy3000]

If the auction grants exclusive rights, that means other businesses can't develop the spectrum even further. Sure, the consumers get extra gizmos, but it'll be other businesses that are making those gizmos to sell.

Still, it does suggest a shift away from monopoly business practices and more towards competitive business practices. I did read that Republican money-raising efforts are floundering, so perhaps it's a way to either shake down the AT&Ts of the world, or get money from smaller businesses.

It's a good thing I'm not that cynical.

Re:If he were really interested in helping consume

[RingDev]

Uhg, do we have to choose between the Republicrat and the Neo-Con? Can't we just get Nader or someone to drop a loaf on the spectrum and call it a day?

In all seriousness though, spectrum auctions cut both ways. Getting rid of NTSC over UHF/VHF will open up tons of new opportunities. But at the same time the cost to each and every station has been millions of dollars. A lot of the smaller/NFP organizations (like PBS stations) have had a hell of a time pulling off the change over, and a number of stations are just closing rather than dealing with the financial risk. Tack on to that the direct cost to the consumer of HD tuners, converters, or new TVs, and the indirect cost through advertising and taxes. Personally, I agree with the auctions to some extent. I do not have the knowledge to make a well qualified statement on the decision, but there are many trade offs between licensed and open frequencies. Just imagine if you had to file with the FCC just to plug your WiFi router in. ;)

And feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the initial move to retire NTSC start under Clinton's presidency?

-Rick

if iPhone was truly open

[victorvodka]

if iPhone was truly open I'd buy it as a PDA - i have no interest in using it as a phone. i like the touch screen interface and wifi - it would replace my laptop. but im not buying something that commits me to thousands of dollars worth of business to AT&T, a known monopolist (who, like the liquid metal terminator in T2, has reconstituted itself from its fragments).

We Win!

[Bellum Aeternus]

I had given up on waiting for the day that something the US government did made sense. Looks like somebody does have a clue. Too bad lobbyist, and greed mongers won't ever let this idea see the light of day.

To a certain extent

[Midnight Thunder]

The problem is that specific models are designed so that, even if you could unlock them, certain features will only work with a specific carrier. Even if you could buy an unlocked iPhone for example, most of its features are only going to work with AT&T.

That may be true to a certain extent, but not totally true. For example the inability to install J2ME apps straight from your computer and the inability to use Bluetooth are examples of elements that are limitations that are imposed limitations and not technology limitations. There are some features that are actually provided by the network and can be added to any phone. For example when I traveled to New Zealand I had got my cellphone unlocked in Singapore and was using a Vodaphone pay as you go SIM. I suddenly found that you get a special Vodaphone sub menu with a whole bunch of extras.

In many ways I support the move by the FCC, since it would help change the business method of cell phone carriers. It would also highlight the limitations of any given carrier, instead of making it seem to be the limitations of the cell phone. Sure it would mean that cell phone carriers would have to compete on both wireless packages and wireless phone prices, but if that helps drive the market then even better. In fact having the cell phone manufacturers play a more active role in the support of their phones would also be a welcome change, since delegating this to the carriers is usually just asking for trouble.

Devil's Advocate

[snilloc]

So, the US market just released the Holy-friggin'-grail Jesus phone, the iPhone, and the problem is lack of innovation?

Sorry, but what allows Apple to bring the iPhone to market is Apple's ability to lock-in with AT&T in order to maximize profits for a 5 year clip. Without lock-in, there wouldn't be an iPhone, or it would be much more expensive (even after you factor out the ATT contract).

700Mhz Pffft

[T00lman]

3300 hz ought to be enough for anyone.

Re:What we really want to know...

[ZeroPly]

How long before Apple unlocks the iPhone?

Well, I certainly don't care. I'm planning on putting in an order for an OpenMoko neo1973. ( details at http://www.openmoko.com/, not affiliated with them ) The cell phone guru at work has offered to help me with the connectivity side. Why should I wait on the benevolent dictator of cute to grace me with the knowledge he feels fit to bestow? I'm the kind of whacko that thinks a microwave should ship with an API CD and serial port.

I'm not an Apple basher, but definitely not a fan. It amazes me that they took a freely developed OS, used it as the foundation for their own commercial OS, used that in turn as a foundation for their proprietary locked down phone, and now won't even let the original BSD freelance guys write code for the phone! You can bet your last dollar anything I cobble together for the neo will be GPLv3.

Again, if you like Apple, go for it. I'm a utilitarian at heart and think it's perfectly OK to use technology without embracing the politics behind the scenes. But if so, you shouldn't honestly be asking for or expecting an unlock - you should take what they give you. Apple's business model is based on closed systems and keeping you locked in and everyone else locked out. If you support them then you implicitly support that philosophy.

Rather than having the FCC force manufacturers to make devices open, it would be more productive to buy from and support a manufacturer that chooses to be that way.

Re:What we really want to know...

[frdmfghtr]

Meanwhile, other manufacturers will have added support for AT&T's new visual voicemail system, and other providers will have added support for those phones.

I bet somebody with a good set of programming skills could write a visual voicemail app for any smartphone...

From what I have observed, visual voice mail works by downloading a copy of the voicemail message to your iPhone, which then pairs up the caller ID phone number to your address book. When you play the message, it plays locally (I put my iPhone in "Airplane mode" to check this; wireless was unavailable but I could still play old messages) instead of over the wireless network.

There could be an app written that, upon notification of a waiting voicemail message, would automatically call your voicemail number, send the password after waiting for some cue, record the messages, and hang up (like an automatic logon script). The calling number would be parsed via voice recognition (since the numbers are read back by a computerized voice), as would the end of the message.

If handhelds can support voice dialing, they should have the horsepower to parse a computerized voice instead of a natural human voice (since it's a computer, it says the numbers the exact same every time).

What do you think...make sense?

Re:This really is not unexpected

[Celandro]

Oh yes, nothing has been invented in this country for years which is why you are posting this from a US machine with US components on a US website, hosted on machines sold by a US company, with a cpu made by a US company likely running an OS created by a US company.

Computers and the internet are the 2 greatest inventions in the last 100 years and both are the fruits of the US military/industrial complex. In addition, the innovations and progress in the field is faster than any other field in the history of the world.

There is plenty of things wrong with the US, there is no need to resort to hyperbole.

I wish I had mode points ...

[Bearpaw]

... although one could say that it's not so much that one should distrust the government, but instead be able to apply the "trust, but verify" approach.

The double threat of the current Admin is that not only have they repeatedly shown themselves to be not worthy of trust, they've gone to unprecedented lengths to block verification as much as possible.