Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Group Pushes FCC To Investigate Skype for iPhone

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the making-the-network-crumble-crumble dept.

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.'"

5 of 131 comments (clear)

  1. is the cellular network "public internet" by irtza · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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?

    --
    When all else fails, try.
    1. Re:is the cellular network "public internet" by forand · · Score: 3, Interesting

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

    2. Re:is the cellular network "public internet" by sortius_nod · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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).

  2. Re:Consumers vs. Business by geekoid · · Score: 3, Interesting

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

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  3. What about tethering? by Timothy+Brownawell · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?