Group Pushes FCC To Investigate Skype for iPhone

Macworld is reporting that an internet advocacy group has asked the FCC to investigate whether the WiFi-only restriction on the Skype for iPhone app is in violation of federal law. "Since its release on Tuesday, Skype for iPhone has been downloaded more than a million times — that's a rate of six downloads a second, according to the company. All this despite the fact the software only works via the iPhone's Wi-Fi connection, and not AT&T's 3G network. [...] The letter cites the FCC's Internet Policy Statement (PDF link) which states that 'consumers are entitled to run applications and use services of their choice' in order to 'preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet.'"

Comments

is the cellular network "public internet"

[irtza]

well, if the cellular network is not running on IP and requires a bridge, then technically this is not an issue. Does anyone know how software developers interact with the data stack on cell phones? Is it the same as the wifi stack with another device name given or does it have its own API?

Re:is the cellular network "public internet"

[irtza]

well, my main issue is that you can embed http or ftp content in non-TCP/IP packets and have it reconstructed into proper TCP/IP packets at the verizon end. This essentially allows them to declare their network "private" and their protocols proprietary thus making their software at the server end the only Internet connected portion of the communication.

Re:is the cellular network "public internet"

[forand]

Perhaps the issue is that AT&T sells us internet access (at least that is how it appears on my bill).

Re:is the cellular network "public internet"

[sortius_nod]

You are confusing TCP/IP with the term "public internet". The protocol is different to the concept. Public interconnected networks, no matter the protocol, seem to fall under this FCC Policy.

On top of this, if you are serving up TCP/IP packets to the user but the technology in between is not TCP/IP, well, there is no difference as far as the user's perception. Add to this that interception of traffic goes against laws (at least where I live it is), and you've got a very strong case for knocking down any interference in the service.

I've had a phone company here in Australia try to claim that internet traffic on a phone isn't internet traffic and therefore they didn't need to update the usage meter under ACMA (Australian Communications & Media Authority) regulations. After a year of the TIO (Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman) investigating I was advised I wasn't liable for the charges that were acrued due to their meter not updating. Their case of "it's data not internet" didn't wash. I'd like to see how a case like this goes in the US where you don't have consumer protection like we do in Australia.

And no, I didn't have to pay any legal fees, or even turn up to any court hearings. The TIO investigates and refers the matter to the ACMA for enforcement. The company that did this was not only told to fix the usage meter, they were charged a minimum of AU$1500 for the case going to a level 3 investigation (which was much more than the amount they would have received from me).

Re:Consumers vs. Business

[geekoid]

Considering how often consumer win these thing, I don't know who is going to win.

What about tethering?

[Timothy Brownawell]

an internet advocacy group has asked the FCC to investigate whether the WiFi-only restriction on the Skype for iPhone app is in violation of federal law.

If it is in violation (or rather, if AT&T's requirement that led to the software being restricted is in violation), wouldn't they already be having problems with their no-tethering rules for some data/internet plans?

Re:What about tethering?

[Ungrounded Lightning]

If it is in violation ... wouldn't they already be having problems with their no-tethering rules ...?

That comes apart into two issues:

  1) Wouldn't no-tethering rules also be in violation?

IMHO: Yes.

(If it's a bandwidth issue they should cap the sustained data rate in the plan and its pricing, not distinguish between the handset with crippled apps and an attached device that is likely to impose higher loads.)

  2) Wouldn't they already be having legal issues over them?

Not necessarily. The affected consumer constituency for full functionality over a tether is smaller. Also the violation of the policy is less obvious.

The limits on the Skype app are an obvious attempt to protect the billing structure of the old phone-call infrastructure by suppressing the development of VoIP over broadband, in violation of the FCC's policy. As such it has both an obvious violation AND a much larger constituency of consumers who are harmed by the policy - anybody using an internet-enabled cellphone capable of running the Skype or another VoIP app. So the pressure is on for the FCC to act.

Once the precedent is established, the tether-users can try to expand it to force removal of the tether limits.

Let the big army with the just cause break the first hole in the empire's wall. B-)

Thank You

[MikeD83]

Maybe now consumers will actually get to use their devices. I have a Blackberry from Verizon and the ex parte filing addresses 1 of my concerns: tethering. If I pay for an unlimited data plan... why can't I tether?
My second issue isn't mentioned but seems anti-consumer. Why can't I use the GPS on my Blackberry Pearl in Google Maps? I even pay for the stupid VZ Navigator software and Google Maps still can't use the GPS.

Re:Consumers vs. Business

[spire3661]

If the FCC steps in, they may not be ABLE to pull it without incurring their wrath. The FCC DOES have teeth when motivated.

Re:Consumers vs. Business

[HTH NE1]

The FCC can't regulate what apps Apple makes available in their store. However, they might be able to force Apple to open the platform to other stores. Then again, Apple is free to kill the platform to prevent that (would they? could they be forced to if AT&T's contract demands of restrictions can't be met?).

And if Apple gets off by saying a 3G network is not an Internet network but rather a digital telephony network through which the Internet can be tunneled, expect other providers like cable and DSL to make similar declarations to justify restricting what their users can put through their television delivery and wired analog telephony networks.

Re:3g Good enough?

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny you mention this because I just made a call a few hours ago with skype using the 3G from my (tethered) G1 phone and the call was crystal clear on both ends.

If you have a G1 you can tether it with http://graha.ms/androidproxy/ and use it with skype's proxy option.

Re:This is interesting for another reason as well.

[GameMaster]

I understand that there is a difference between the QOS settings for voice and data. That makes sense. I don't think anyone is saying that they have to stop differentiating between voice and data, but if I choose to use my data connection to run VoiP (assuming I'm willing to put up with the increase in skipping, if there is one) or to tether to my laptop then that should be my decision to make, not theirs. They have no business even knowing what kind of software/hardware I'm using on my end of the wireless connection.

The idea that a laptop, inherently, uses more bandwidth than a smart phone is just pure bull-crap. A laptop or smartphone uses only as much bandwidth, at any given time, as the cell phone company has set their servers/towers to provide. If they sell an "unlimited" plan then I have every right to run my smart phone at max bandwidth 24/7 if I choose to. Otherwise, they shouldn't be calling it unlimited. They could implement usage caps if they're afraid of people over using they network, but they choose not to. Instead, they try to run a bait-and-switch scam by selling you a connection that is supposed to be "unlimited" 128kbps-384kbps (grabbed from an above post as the rated speeds for 3G) and then, artificially, ban selective applications that, if used, might require them to, actually, hold up their end of the bargain.