Over the years, we've noted that mobile phone jammers were getting more popular in the US, even though they're completely illegal. However, it looks like the FCC has had enough and has announced plans to start cracking down on both mobile phone jammers and GPS jammers. The initial crackdown appears to be targeted at companies selling such jammers, but it hints at going further than that. The concern, of course, is that these jammers don't discriminate and block all sorts of legitimate communication among others. Still, the usual excuse about how it may prevent emergency responders rings a little hollow. It wasn't that long ago that no one had mobile phones and emergency responding still seemed to work. Obviously, having working mobile phones can be quite beneficial, but the FCC shouldn't overplay its hand here. Just stick with the truth: a jammer interferes with a public resource.

As we still wait for the details of the FCC's net neutrality ruling, some have noticed that the FCC's justification for not caring much about wireless networks is somewhat baffling. Specifically, the FCC used the openness of the Android operating system as evidence that things are open in the mobile networking world:

Further, we recognize that there have been meaningful recent moves toward openness, including the introduction of open operating systems like Android.

Now, whether or not you agree with the FCC's plans, or with the idea of "net neutrality" regulations in general, this statement is a bit of a head scratcher. It's kind of like saying "because cars use gasoline, we see no reason to set speed limits." I mean, the two are kinda sorta related in that they both involve cars (or mobile computing), but they're not the same thing at all. Just because Android is a more open operating system has nothing to do with network discrimination or questions about the end-to-end principle of networks. Making such a statement suggests that the FCC doesn't understand the difference between an operating system and a mobile network... and that's just scary.

A few weeks back, Verizon finally admitted what the press had reported for years (and which Verizon Wireless had denied for years): that it had erroneously charged 15 million customers $1.99/month fees for supposedly accessing data on their phones, even though many had specifically declined to allow data services on their phones. At the time, Verizon Wireless said it would pay back "up to $90 million." The FCC noted that it wasn't satisfied with this response, and now it's come out that Verizon Wireless will also pay a $25 million fine to the federal government over these actions. That's separate from paying back customers, but the amount Verizon Wireless will have to pay seems to be shrinking. The original report was "up to" $90 million, but now people are saying "a minimum" of $50 million in refunds. So, it's still possible it'll pay $90 million in refunds, but it seems unlikely.

Of course, as Broadband Reports points out, something in the math doesn't make sense. This apparently went on for 2 to 3 years and impacted 15 million customers. While not every customer was charged the fee every month, many claim they did see it pretty much every month. So, start doing the math. Even if we assume that, say, one third of the users saw it every month for just one year and the rest saw it only once, we're already talking $90 million. But if it's true that many of them saw it for multiple years, and even if you throw in the $25 million fine, it sounds like Verizon Wireless could come out ahead in the end... Oh, and in case you were wondering, Karl Bode confirmed that no one at the FCC audited Verizon Wireless's estimates for how many people were charged this fee, so it's going on faith that Verizon Wireless -- who for years denied this fee existed -- is telling the truth about how many times it was charged.

Well, well, well. For over a year now there have been widespread reports of how Verizon Wireless would charged users $1.99 for data services, even if they have data services turned off. This was happening sometimes to users with phones turned off or even batteries drained. The whole thing was incredibly questionable. Verizon customer service folks insisted that the people in question clearly accessed the internet, but there were so many reports that they had not, that this response didn't fly. Then, after the NY Times reported about it, the FCC finally woke up and asked Verizon Wireless to explain. Its response was basically a non-response, insisting that it had done nothing wrong -- and when David Pogue from the NY Times pushed the company about the over 400 accounts of it happening to his readers (and himself), Verizon Wireless' response was "I'm going to let the letter to the F.C.C. speak for us," repeated for every question Pogue asked.

That was in December of last year. Now, ten months later, Verizon has just announced that it's going to pay back "up to" $90 million in such bogus fees that it never should have charged to about 15 million subscribers. Apparently, those claims of not having done stuff wrong... well... it looks like that wasn't the case. It looks like they incorrectly charged people to the tune of perhaps $90 million (the company apparently thinks it could be more like $50 million once they've found all the false charges). Seems like a pretty big "accident," which they denied for so long. The latest statement suggests that Verizon Wireless "just" noticed these errors while "reviewing customer accounts," but given the number of complaints, and the fact that it's been going on for so long, including massive press coverage and an FCC investigation, you would think the company would have figured this out sooner.

Speaking of the FCC, it appears that it's not entirely satisfied with this customer refund, as the head of the FCC's enforcement bureau (or some PR staffer working there) amusingly quipped that the FCC was: "gratified to see the repayment, but for millions of Americans it's a day late and a $1.99 short."

Satellite-radio company Sirius XM has never been the best of friends with the FCC, thanks largely to the molasses-like speed with which the Commission moved to approve the Sirius-XM merger and the silly restrictions it attached to its approval -- measures which helped push the company into bankruptcy. The animosity is bubbling up again, as Sirius XM isn't happy that the FCC may soon allow some radio spectrum that's near the company's spectrum to be used for wireless broadband services. The spectrum in question is in the 2.3 GHz range. One chunk of it was auctioned off to telcos in 1997, and it's since been used for fixed backhaul transmissions for their networks, but the FCC (and the telcos) would like to see it used for wireless broadband services like WiMAX. An adjoining chunk is used by Sirius XM's network of terrestrial repeaters that complement its satellite signal coverage, and the company is concerned about those repeaters being overpowered and interfered with. This is the typical sort of posturing that comes out of any company who has spectrum that's "threatened" -- like broadcasters seeking to use regulation to stifle any competition from new technologies. The interference issues are important, but the FCC knows that, and typically works to ensure that they aren't a problem. What makes this objection from Sirius XM a little bit ironic, though, is that the the two companies have been cited in the past by the FCC because their terrestrial repeaters violated interference rules. Rules that allow for the more flexible use of spectrum -- while respecting interference -- are the best way forward for everyone, and like the NAB's spurious arguments against the Sirius-XM merger, the satellite company's objections should be rejected here.

Back in 2006, a startup called M2Z Networks asked the FCC to give it a sizable chunk of valuable spectrum for free, and in exchange, it would set up a nationwide wireless broadband network to offer free (and slow) "family-friendly" service and pay the government 5% of the revenues from a paid premium service also running on the network. We were skeptical of the plan because of its aggressive rollout schedule and the network's slow speed ("512 kbps" -- keep that figure in mind -- for the free tier/3 mbps for the paid tier), but mostly because of the huge expenditure required to build out a wireless network covering 95 percent of the US population -- expenditure which would be very difficult to recover from a free, slow service. The FCC wasn't convinced, either, and rejected M2Z's proposal in 2007, though that wasn't the end of it. A congresswoman introduced a bill tailor-made for M2Z's specs, but it went nowhere. Still, M2Z lives on, and it's now looking for a chunk of stimulus funding to start building its network.

It doesn't look like M2Z has updated its plan at all since 2006, doing nothing to address any of the concerns, beyond replacing the need for private investment with a second government handout, on top of its free spectrum. In particular, they don't seem to have upped their targets for the speed of their network. What the company was proposing wasn't exactly fast in 2006, is pretty pokey now, and will be even less attractive by the time its network would get up and running. In addition, it's worth clarifying that the "512 kbps" M2Z talks about is arrived at by adding the 384kbps downstream speed plus the 128 kbps upstream speed they plan to offer. That's a new trick we haven't seen before, even in the world of "up to" broadband speed advertising.

There was lots of press coverage about the FCC's broadband plan on Monday, as the commission released an exec summary of its nearly 400-page plan for broadband in the US. If you want to wade through the details, it's all there online for you. But, if you want a basic summary, it appears that, like pretty much everything this FCC is doing, it's a lot of talk and little of consequence. So far, I've seen statements from lobbyists on pretty much all sides of the issues "commending" or "applauding" or "supporting" the FCC. And that's because there's basically nothing controversial and nothing big at all in the plan. It appears to try to thread the needle and keep everyone happy -- and in doing so, it appears to punt on the all-important questions. If it was really about making the necessary changes, key players would be up in arms. But they're not.

The report pays lip service to greater competition and talks about getting better data and about making better use of wireless spectrum. Well, duh. But it takes no bold steps -- does nothing to really take control out of the hands of the incumbent telco providers -- just as we originally expected, even if really disruptive, but necessary, ideas were considered, they don't appear in the final plan.

In the end, it's the kind of plan you put forward if you're being political and don't want to make waves. It's not the plan you put forward if you're making a bold leadership statement about how to really expand broadband in this country. Too bad.

We've had a bunch of stories about Apple's rather arbitrary nature in rejecting iPhone apps it doesn't like -- including ones where it claims that they're not allowed because they compete with Apple. However, Apple's recent decision to reject Google's Voice application didn't just attract general public interest in Apple's policies, it appears to have awoken the latest crop of FCC bosses. Yes, the FCC has requested more info from Apple, AT&T and Google concerning Apple's rejection of the Google app. I wonder how the random Apple drone who made that decision is feeling right now?

Either way, this isn't good for anyone. The FCC's reasoning is that it:

"has a mission to foster a competitive wireless marketplace, protect and empower consumers, and promote innovation and investment."

That's actually a bit of a stretch on the FCC's actual mandate. And as ridiculous as I think Apple's actions are here, having the FCC get involved doesn't seem good for anyone either. The FCC shouldn't be involved in deciding what applications get put on phones. Apple's decision has angered a bunch of people, with some swearing off the iPhone because of it. In those cases, those people have other options and other phones to go to. The situation doesn't require the FCC to get involved. It should just require Apple coming to its senses and getting rid of its silly policy of outright rejections of apps it doesn't like.

One of the better decisions to come out of the FCC during Kevin Martin's reign was the decision to free up the "white spaces" spectrum that lies in between TV broadcasts for other uses. The white spaces are unused spectrum that sit in between TV broadcasters' signals. They were important in analog broadcasts to keep stations' signals from interfering with each other, but they are less crucial in digital broadcasts (like the ones the US will eventually switch to). White spaces proponents say that they can effectively be reused by unlicensed devices that can seek out empty spectrum and use it to communicate, without interfering with licensed broadcasts, and the FCC concurred -- and, of course, made that a key part of its approval of the technologies. But as ever, the National Association of Broadcasters disagrees, and has sued to block usage of the white spaces, arguing it will interfere with their members' broadcasts.

We might be more sympathetic to the NAB's claim if it didn't have such a long and glorious history of trying to stifle anything that competes with incumbent broadcasters, and have such an annoying way of doing it. The FCC has put significant stipulations in place to ensure that white space devices don't cause interference, and despite the NAB's contention, the prototypes that failed in the testing process didn't do so. The FCC got it right by approving use of the white spaces with the restrictions and rules it put in place to tame interference; the NAB has once again got it wrong by trying to stifle innovation, and perhaps competition.

The digital TV transition mess rolls on. After lots of TV stations said they planned to move ahead with the shutdown of their analog broadcasts, as the recently passed delay allows them to do, the FCC is now telling more than a quarter of them they can't do so without first meeting a number of regulations. The FCC contends (PDF alert, thanks to Fat Tony for sending it in) that 123 stations' plans to switch their analog signals off soon pose "a significant risk of substantial public harm," not because people who haven't figured out the switch was coming will miss Judge Judy and Wheel of Fortune, but because they need their TVs for access to "local news and public affairs."

The regulations say that one station in the broadcasters' metro areas must maintain analog service until at least the middle of April, but also that the stations must increase their "educational" programming about the switchover, and also provide both "local or toll-free telephone assistance, including engineering support" and "provide a location and staff for a consumer 'walk-in' center to assist consumers with applying for coupons and obtaining converter boxes, to demonstrate how to install converter boxes, to provide maps and lists of communities that maybe affected by coverage issues, and to serve as a redistribution point for consumers who are willing to donate coupons, converter boxes, televisions and for those in need of these items."

If this didn't involve the government, it would almost be remarkable. The government botched the converter coupon program, has caused more confusion with the delay, and now wants TV stations to set up call centers and walk-in locations to deal with it. What's even more galling is that stations will be forced to toss resources at an issue that effects a small sliver of the population: take the small subset of Americans that watch TV, but don't have cable or satellite, then the subset of those that haven't yet gotten with the program. From those few people that are left standing, will they be any more ready in June than they would be on the 17th, when the switchover was supposed to happen? And why should broadcasters have to devote so many resources to them, particularly when it's the bungled coupon program that's largely to blame?