regulation
Latest
Google's South Korean offices raided over alleged antitrust violations
Google's South Korea offices have been raided once again -- this time, over alleged antitrust violations. According to the Wall Street Journal, the Korean Fair Trade Commission (KFTC) stormed Google's Seoul offices on Tuesday, amid claims that the company unfairly stifles competition by making its search engine the default option on Android handsets. South Korea's largest mobile search operators, NHN and Daum Communications, filed a complaint with the KFTC in April, claiming that Android is "systematically designed" to discourage users from switching to different portals, and that Google excludes competitors by delaying OS certification for phone manufacturers that attempt to pre-load devices with other search engines. Similar charges, as you may recall, fueled an FTC investigation in the US, where anti-competitive allegations have been flying around for a few months, now. Google neither confirmed nor denied that yesterday's raid took place, but a spokesperson said the company would "work with the KFTC to address any questions they may have about our business," adding that its OS does "not require carriers or manufacturers to include Google Search or Google applications on Android-powered devices."
AT&T may get a discount if T-Mobile bid concessions prove too expensive
When the DOJ blocked AT&T's deal to snatch up T-Mobile, did you think Ma Bell would end up shelling out some ridiculous sum to lock things up? Well, the opposite may be the case -- according to Bloomberg, the company can get a reduced rate if regulator's requests become too pricey. A discount of sorts would be available to AT&T if the remedy to-do list surpasses 20 percent of the deal's original $39 billion price tag (about $7.8 billion). Also of note here: the company could leave the proverbial table altogether if the concessions top the 40 percent mark, only owing a break-up penalty... and shelling out the $3 billion contingency fund to Deutsche Telekom AG.
AT&T willing to make concessions to save T-Mobile merger, sources say
Now that the US government has moved to block its merger with T-Mobile, AT&T is gearing up for a long and potentially pricey legal battle with the Department of Justice. According to Reuters, however, the provider is also working on a settlement offer, in the hopes of bypassing the courtroom altogether. Sources close to the matter say AT&T will soon present its proposal to antitrust regulators, who are concerned that the company's purchase of T-Mobile may hinder market competition. Details on the proposal remain vague, though it will likely include promises to keep T-Mobile's low-cost data and calling plans, along with pledges to sell off some of its own assets. But some insiders say the carrier may have to sell up to 25 percent of T-Mobile's business in order to put regulators' minds at ease. AT&T has yet to comment on the report, though one of Reuters' sources claims that its lawyers are "pretty determined that they can find a solution, and they are pretty confident."
FCC hails spectrum alliances with Canada and Mexico, seeks to reduce border conflicts
It's not every day that the FCC enters into new multinational agreements, so you'll have to forgive us for getting excited over the latest communique between Chairman Julius Genachowski and his counterparts in Canada and Mexico. After much negotiation, the regulatory heads have created a framework to resolve frequency conflicts along our nations' borders. While the deal with Mexico only applies to the 700MHz spectrum, the agreement with Canada also covers the 800MHz range. By reducing interference and maximizing spectrum allocation, Genachowski believes "these arrangements will unleash investment and benefit consumers near the borders by enabling the rollout of 4G wireless broadband service and advanced systems for critical public safety and emergency response communications." Once the policies become official mandates, license holders must coordinate and implement techniques to mitigate signal interference or face some nasty regulatory intervention. If you're a sucker for policy, just leap the break for the full press release.
WTO says China's rare earths export controls violate international rules, US applauds
China's monopolistic approach to the rare earths market is in violation of international trade regulations, according to a new ruling from the WTO. The verdict, issued yesterday, covers exports of nine minerals -- including zinc, manganese and magnesium -- that are used to produce a wide variety of smartphones, tablets and other gadgets. China, which controls about 95-percent of the world's rare earth supply, had previously argued that its export restrictions were needed to prevent overproduction and to conserve natural resources, but the WTO determined that the country was "unable to demonstrate" these environmental benefits. The investigation was originally spurred 18 months ago, after the US and other countries complained that China's quotas and tariffs unfairly favored domestic manufacturers, while distorting global prices. Experts expect Beijing to appeal the ruling, but this extra international pressure, combined with shifting supply chains and newfound deposits, may bring about the changes many have been calling for. If it doesn't, we'll all be stuck with corn phones.
Rep. Eshoo intros 4G disclosure act, hopes to turn consumers into techies
We're gonna shoot from the hip here -- wireless carriers have gotten a little out-of-hand with their 4G marketing. Even industry standard setter, the ITU, can't figure out a way to keep the story straight. This consumer disinformation loop is exactly what Rep. Anna Eshoo plans to undo with her "Next Generation Wireless Disclosure Act." Like its title says, the bill would force carriers to be absolutely, unfalteringly crystal clear on minimum data speeds, network reliability, accessible coverage maps, and, of course, the technology being used. Think the T-Mobile girl can handle that in thirty seconds? We didn't think so, either. Retailers tried a similar consumer hand-holding effort during the DTV transition, although that came without a regulatory shove. Hit the source for legalese in all its undisturbed glory, and while you wait for Uncle Sam to act, you can clear up any lingering confusion by diving into our primer. [Image credit via Going WiMax]
France bans Twitter, Facebook mentions on TV, in the name of market competition
The words "Facebook" and "Twitter" are now verboten on French TV, because France thought it'd be a good idea to follow its own laws. Last week, the country's Conseil Supérieur de l'Audiovisuel (CSA) ruled that TV networks and radio stations will no longer be able to explicitly mention Facebook or Twitter during on-air broadcasts, except when discussing a story in which either company is directly involved. The move comes in response to a 1992 governmental decree that prohibits media organizations from promoting brands during newscasts, for fear of diluting competition. Instead of inviting viewers to follow their programs or stories on Twitter, then, broadcast journalists will have to couch their promotions in slightly more generic terms -- e.g. "Follow us on your social network of choice." CSA spokeswoman Christine Kelly explains: "Why give preference to Facebook, which is worth billions of dollars, when there are many other social networks that are struggling for recognition? This would be a distortion of competition. If we allow Facebook and Twitter to be cited on air, it's opening a Pandora's Box - other social networks will complain to us saying, 'why not us?'" It didn't take long for the US media to jump all over the story, with many outlets citing no less objective a source than Matthew Fraser -- a Canadian expat blogger who claims, in ostensible sincerity, that the ruling is symptomatic of a "deeply rooted animosity in the French psyche toward Anglo-Saxon cultural domination." Calling the ruling "ludicrous," Fraser went on to flamboyantly point out the obvious, stating that such regulatory nonsense would never be tolerated by corporations in the US. But then again, neither would smelly cheese or universal healthcare. Apple, meet orange. Fueling competition via aggressive regulation may strike some free-marketeers as economically depraved, but it certainly won't kill social media-based commerce. Facebook and Twitter have already become more or less synonymous with "social networks" anyway, so it's hard to envision such a minor linguistic tweak having any major effect on online engagement. That's not to say that the new regulation will suddenly create a level playing field -- it won't. But it probably won't put America's social media titans at a serious disadvantage, as some would have you believe. Rather, these knee-jerk arguments from Fraser and others seem more rooted in capitalist symbolism and cross-cultural hyperbole than anything else -- reality, included.
Transportation Department to propose mandatory black boxes in passenger vehicles?
A few years back, the Department of Transportation recommended that auto makers give car owners a heads up when they slip event data recorders -- also known as "black boxes" -- into new models. Now, it looks like the department is considering taking its policy a step (or several) further: a memo reveals that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration plans to propose later this year that all new passenger vehicles have EDRs. So far, heavy-duty vehicles appear to be excluded, and either way, it's unclear how many years auto makers might have to work black boxes into their future models. Interestingly, when we asked a DoT staffer for clarification, he reminded us that the agency hasn't issued a press release and said he wasn't sure where Wired and other outlets were getting their information. Indeed, the Transportation Department hasn't proposed such a law yet, though it's pretty safe to say it's at least pondering it. Hit the source link to pore over the 197-page doc for yourselves (tip: we suggesting paying particular attention to page 54). [Warning: PDF source link]
European Commission mandates LTE and WiMAX on 900Mhz and 1800MHz bands for 2012
Color us tickled, but the European Commission has revised its technical rules for the use of 900MHz and 1800MHz spectrums, compelling member states to make room for LTE and WiMAX service by December 31, 2011. As a goal, the EU hopes to provide broadband to all rural Europeans by 2013, and foresees 4G signal on the long-range 900MHz spectrum as the solution. The Commission also released guidelines to ensure UMTS, LTE and WiMAX will co-exist on the 1800MHz spectrum -- a decision that lays the groundwork for global LTE roaming. Now, how about some mandates on those outrageous international roaming charges? Check out the details in the press release after the break. [Image courtesy of Flickr]
EU investigation to take a closer look at net neutrality
The EU has commissioned an investigation into how European ISPs handle traffic and manage their networks, in a move that could lead to new legislation on net neutrality. The investigation, to be conducted by the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC), will cover both mobile and fixed Internet providers, with particularly close attention paid to any barriers consumers may face when changing operators. BEREC will also consult with consumers and corporations to determine whether or not ISPs are being completely transparent about their traffic management practices, or advertised connection speeds. In a speech delivered yesterday, Neelie Kroes, the European Commission's Vice President for the Digital Agenda, admitted that some ISPs need to restrict some bandwidth-heavy services in order to protect their networks, but promised to publicly name and take action against any operators found to be stifling competition or consumer choice: "Mark my words: if measures to enhance competition are not enough to bring Internet providers to offer real consumer choice, I am ready to prohibit the blocking of lawful services or applications. It's not OK for Skype and other such services to be throttled. That is anti-competitive. It's not OK to rip off consumers on connection speeds." It's unlikely, however, that the EU will implement legislation as pointed as the net neutrality rules the FCC unveiled in the US, nor as expansive as the law that Chile introduced last summer. In a report issued yesterday, the EU affirmed that "operators should be allowed to determine their own business models and commercial arrangements" -- words that no doubt delighted many in Europe's ISP community. The results of BEREC's investigation are due to be published by the end of the year.
Verizon and MetroPCS objections to FCC net neutrality rules dismissed in case of premature litigation
The FCC wants to put new rules in place ensuring access to the web is, like justice, blind to where a person is coming from and indifferent to where on the web he is going to. Verizon's first reaction to these new directives was to publicly decry them as overreaching, and its second was to file a lawsuit, one that was swiftly echoed by MetroPCS. Only problem with their plans? The rules haven't yet been published in the Federal Register, which renders the legal challenges from the two eager mobile carriers "incurably" premature. Such was the determination of the US Court of Appeals, which refused to make a substantive ruling and just threw the cases out due to the technicality. Verizon isn't discouraged, however, and promises to bide its time until all the dominoes have fallen into place before launching another legal attack. Hey, whatever keeps those lawyers in their fancy suits.
Google tightening control of Android, insisting licensees abide by 'non-fragmentation clauses'?
A storm seems to be brewing over the realm of Android development. Bloomberg's Businessweek spies have received word from "a dozen executives working at key companies in the Android ecosystem" that Google is actively working to gain control and final say over customizations of its popular mobile OS. That might not sound unreasonable, and indeed Google's public position on the matter is that it's seeking to stabilize the platform and ensure quality control, but it does mark a major shift from where Android started -- an open source OS that was also open to manufacturers and carriers to customize as they wish. Not so anymore, we're told, as apparently Mountain View is now demanding that content partnerships and OS tweaks get the blessing of Andy Rubin before proceeding. The alternative, of course, is to not be inside Google's warm and fuzzy early access program, but then, as evidenced by the company recently withholding the Honeycomb source code, you end up far behind those among your competitors who do dance to Google's pipe. Things have gotten so heated, in fact, that complaints have apparently been made to the US Department of Justice. They may have something to do with allegations of Google holding back Verizon handsets with Microsoft's Bing on board, ostensibly in an effort to trip up its biggest search competitor. Another major dissatisfaction expressed by those working with Android code is that Google needs an advance preview of what is being done in order to give it the green light -- which, as noted by a pair of sources familiar with Facebook's Android customization efforts, isn't sitting well with people at all. Google and Facebook are direct competitors in the online space and it's easily apparent how much one stands to gain from knowing the other's plans early. As to the non-fragmentation clauses in licenses, Andy Rubin has pointed out those have been there from the start, but it's only now that Google is really seeking to use them to establish control. The future of Android, therefore, looks to be a little less open and a little more Googlish -- for better or worse. As Nokia's Stephen Elop puts it: "The premise of a true open software platform may be where Android started, but it's not where Android is going."
FCC proposing data roaming rules, not interested in commonizing carriers
FCC chairman Julius Genachowski briefly mentioned data roaming at CTIA last week, but now he's telling Congress that action is inbound, to ensure rural carriers don't get left behind the rest of the cellular industry. You see, in 2007 the Commission mandated cheap roaming agreements for voice and messaging services to let regional carriers compete, but cellular data is what's important now and those existing agreements won't protect the Tiny Tims of telecom in a world of VoLTE anyhow. So, as he explains in a letter sent to members of the Senate and House, the chairman has come up with a set of rules, which will "incent potential roaming partners to come to the bargaining table to negotiate private commercial deals." "The draft order under consideration eschews a common carriage approach and leaves mobile service providers free to negotiate and determine, on a customer-by-customer basis, the commercially reasonable terms of data roaming agreements," reads another letter. Needless to say, we're looking forward to hearing how the FCC will encourage competition while still letting the big boys negotiate from their multi-billion-dollar spectrum holding positions.
Product placement gets a logo of its own, turns the world inside out
So the UK is finally catching up with the fine money-grubbing nations of this world and allowing product placement in British-made TV programming, starting from next Monday, February 28th. Advertising embedded in internationally sourced films and shows has long been tolerated as a necessary evil within the Queen's realm, but now that the telecoms regulator Ofcom is opening up locally farmed TV content to the blight of commercialization, it's come up with a suitably austere logo to warn us of its dangers. Basically, any future episodes of Hollyoaks that may contain a "stray" Diet Coke or Nokia N8 within the frame will be preceded by the above P placed within a P, which will prep you for the pernicious potentiality that the programming you are perusing may provoke you into purchasing new property. Capiche?
Time Warner, Disney and News Corp. bigwigs speak up against FCC stipulations in Comcast-NBC deal
Hello, inevitable. It simply had to happen, and now, it is. As Comcast, NBC and the FCC attempt to work out stipulations over Comcast's proposed 51 percent buyout of NBC Universal, a smattering of major media companies are paying close attention to the play-by-play. Naturally, the precedents that are set from this deal will affect future agreements of this caliber, and lobbyists for both Disney and News Corp. (as well as Time Warner CEO Jeff Bewkes) aren't standing over on the sidelines any longer. All three outfits have reportedly been "voicing their concerns this week with the FCC, worried that such conditions could undermine their own efforts to profit from the nascent online video industry." We're told that the media mega-corps are worried that the rules -- if hammered down -- could interfere with ongoing negotiations with online video providers, and in turn, give them less leverage to monetize and control their content on the world wide web. In other words, if NBC Universal is forced to provide content fluidly to all ISPs (and not just Comcast), what's to say other content makers and internet providers wouldn't also be forced into similar deals, regardless of whether or not they're involved in takeover negotiations? Needless to say, we're nowhere near the end of this journey, and while the nuts and bolts are pretty dry to think about, the outcomes could have a serious impact on our future viewing habits.
FCC proposes rules for NBC-Comcast deal
As you can imagine, the thought of a marriage between a broadband / cable TV service provider and a content provider for television and movies has more than a few folks concerned, which is why it's taken a while for the FCC and its erstwhile chairman Julius "Caesar" Genachowski to draft the conditions under which it would let Comcast snatch up 51 percent of NBC Universal. According to the Wall Street Journal, the FCC wants to require that Comcast make any content owned by itself and NBCU available to competitors (including streaming video providers) "at reasonable, nondiscriminatory terms." Additionally, Comcast will be barred from prioritizing its own video streams above others or interfering with rival Internet traffic. Of course, without the actual announcement, it's hard to know what impact this will have on everyone involved (especially Hulu), although with any luck the actual proposal will see the light of day soon enough. Even then, it will need to be approved, which could happen early next year.
Regulators push for tough conditions in Comcast / NBC deal, aim to protect internet video
Is it the deal that'll never go through? Some might hope. For the better part of this year, Comcast has been jonesing to pick up a 51 percent stake in NBC Universal (for a cool $13.75 billion), but as you'd expect regulators have been poking and prodding the arrangement from just about every angle. The potential antitrust issues go on for miles, and now officials are paying particularly close attention to how the deal could shape the future of internet video. As you may or may not know, NBC holds a 32 percent stake in Hulu, and in theory, a Comcast buyout would enable it to limit access to other ISPs or force Comcast internet subscribers to also pay for a programming package in order to have access. A new AP report on the topic mentions that the US government is considering forcing Comcast to sell NBC's Hulu stake as a stipulation for the deal to go through, and moreover, they may insist that Comcast provide online access to NBC Universal's content library without a cable sub. Currently, Time Warner Cable requires users to sign up cable in order to access ESPN3 -- a nasty, strong-arm tactic at its finest -- and if the Fed gets its way, it could also set a new precedent for other operators. Needless to say, there's quite a bit to be sorted before NBC bigwigs take on corner offices at Comcast, and there's an awful lot at stake along the way.
FCC addressing net neutrality on December 21st (updated)
Well, well, look at what's been added to a tentative agenda when the FCC meets on December 21st: net neutrality. Here's how the item reads: Open Internet Order: An Order adopting basic rules of the road to preserve the open Internet as a platform for innovation, investment, competition, and free expression. These rules would protect consumers' and innovators' right to know basic information about broadband service, right to send and receive lawful Internet traffic, and right to a level playing field, while providing broadband Internet access providers with the flexibility to reasonably manage their networks. Presumably, a draft order is now circulating amongst attendees, the details of which are of the utmost concern for both consumers and wired / wireless providers alike. According to the AP, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski will outline his net neutrality proposal in a speech on Wednesday, with plans to bring the new rules to a full vote before the end of the year and ahead of the newly elected Republicans taking their seats in the House. Update: The AP received an advanced copy of Genachowski's speech. Here are the highlights of the FCC proposal: Wired broadband providers will be required to let subscribers access all legal content, applications, and services with the flexibility to manage network congestion and spam as long as they publicly disclose their network management approach. Broadband providers would also be allowed to experiment with dedicated networks to route traffic from specialized services like smart grids and home security systems as long as they "don't hurt the public internet." Wireless providers would also be required to disclose network management practices and be prohibited from blocking access to web sites or competing applications like cellphone VoIP services. However, they'd be given more flexibility to manage traffic due to relative bandwidth constraints. In other words, wireless networks will still be special under the FCC proposal, just not as special as the plan pitched by Google / Verizon (which only required transparency) over the summer. The proposal would leave the FCC's regulatory framework for broadband unchanged as a lightly regulated "information service," not as a "common carrier" as Genachowski had wanted. Another victory for Comcast. Update 2: The New York Times says that the proposal will allow broadband companies to implement usage-based pricing, charging customers higher rates for heavy data usage.
Google to face formal EU antitrust investigation over unfair downranking of search competitors
Way back in February, the European Union announced its intention to look into allegations made against Google that the search leader wasn't ranking its competitors fairly in the results it delivered. Well, that fact-finding mission seems to have unearthed at least some hint of impropriety on Google's part, as it's now shed the "preliminary" label and has become a full-on antitrust probe. The original complaints came from EJustice.fr, Foundem.co.uk, and Microsoft's price comparison service Ciao, and they're still the basis of the investigation, though secondary issues, such as Google's conditions for advertisers and the way it tracks ad campaign data, will also be looked at. Let's not forget, however, that we're still dealing with allegations here, and it's going to be quite tricky to show any misdoing without delving into Google's famed algorithms and internal practices -- then again, maybe that's exactly what Mountain View's competitors are after. Update: Google has responded to the news on its Public Policy Blog.
FCC: white space devices won't require spectrum sensing modules
Phew. For a moment few years there, we thought any device set up to operate on these so-called white spaces -- which have been vacated following the analog-to-digital TV transition -- would be forced to use spectrum sensing modules in order to ensure that no TV station was operating in areas in which it wanted to. Based on the FCC's Second Memorandum Opinion and Order, which was just published a few days back, it looks as if forthcoming white space devices will not be required to ping databases in order to make absolutely sure that it won't interfere with TV stations. That's the long and short of it, which is fantastic (if not expected) news for device makers and anyone who despises red tape, but Ars Technica has taken an in-depth look at why the Commission made such a call. Indeed, the FCC's 2008 Order mandated that white space gadgets check in beforehand in order to "protect TV signals from interference." Essentially, the call that nixed this addition was the fact that this security ring would inadvertently provide "many wireless microphones systems that go to unlicensed use" -- things like wireless systems at churches, football games, concerts, etc. As with anything FCC-related, it's a long and wordy explanation, but those interested in the finer details are just one click away from the nitty-gritty.
