Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
Not to sound jaded, but Slashdotters know the outcome of this already.
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
I...if this...orking or...an you he...ause I ca...ou...Wha...er...is...ucks.
Good thing I bought Apple Care.
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
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?
skype works well enough on my windows mobile phone and umts. 128 kbit/s is plenty for speech, especially if compressed (euro isdn uses an uncompressed 64 kbit/s channel for speech and it is way better than analogue landline).
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
not just skype...and that would be the wireless telcos policies and various restrictions (hardware and software) and additional fees, etc., surrounding tethering and data transfer in general terms. Bits are bits are bits, they shouldn't be allowed to charge "extra" for moving bits based on what the bits are doing, or if they are traveling through an additional legal device the consumer may own and use. Since when are there different flavor bits, like voice bits, text bits, some web page bits, or whatever? They are getting away with charging different fees for different things like that, when it is all just the same "bits" moving around.
Ahem. I am an iPhone user. I am not a fanboi. There are millions of other iPhone users just like me, you just don't hear from us over the high pitched whine that the minority of users put off.
Just because I like owning an iPod and I feel that the iPhone has a superior browsing experience than any other mobile device out there does not mean that I defend the devices inadequacies to the death. In fact, I think the thing fucking sucks for doing much other than surfing the web and playing media. Thankfully that's what I use it for the most and thus it's fine for me. I put it into the same bucket as using Windows. The OS works and is supported very well. It has its faults and those faults suck but it does what I need it to do easily and it works well enough. *shrug*
Please don't assume that just because a small portion of users of Foo rant and rave about its wonders that the rest of us are like that.
Dude, GSM datarate is 13Kbps, ulaw which is what better VoIP handsets use is 64Kbps. Bandwidth is NOT the issue, the loss of stupid per minute revenue is.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
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).
"Apple provides the product and they should be able to tell you how you are allowed to use it."
Exactly. Read your EULA, or whatever the iPhone's equivalent is. You were pitched a locked-down device with a closed software stack, and you went "fine, whatever, as long as it Just Works(TM) you can do what you want."
Now they're doing what they want -- leveraging the closed platform to shut out competition. And you're bitching.
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love