Does The FCC Really Not Understand The Difference Between A Device Operating System And A Mobile Network?

from the these-are-the-people-who-regulate-us? dept

Wed, Dec 22nd 2010 7:47am — Mike Masnick

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.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: android, fcc, net neutrality, openness, operating system
Companies: fcc

26 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

jsl4980 (profile), 22 Dec 2010 @ 8:02am

Ahh that's the difference
Well that really clears it up for the FCC. Because the first ever open source OS is only available on wireless phones so they don't have to make rules regarding wireless.

By their logic, if there was ever an open source operating system that could be installed on wired devices then they wouldn't have to make rules on wired services either. Unfortunately Linux and other FOSS operating systems have never existed in wired devices.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ChronoFish (profile), 22 Dec 2010 @ 8:06am

A Potential (long term) Solution
Wireless Community Internet + wifi enabled phones + skype

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_community_network

Wifi Phones being those that support 802.11b/g/n (etc) such as the Iphone and Android

Skype (or other IP based phone service).

Short term solution? Punt.

-CF
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jeremy Lyman (profile), 22 Dec 2010 @ 8:24am

Re: Ahh that's the difference
I'm pretty sure I saw some kind of experimental linux OS on a computer when I was in the top secret computer science wing at college. Uh-oh, I probably shouldn't have said that... Helicopters! The FCC is coming in the windows; save yourselves!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
interval (profile), 22 Dec 2010 @ 8:32am

Typical Government Ivory Tower Stuff
A head in an FCC office is trying to come to grips with the lay of the consumer land and doesn't really grasp it. These people don't compete in the real world, so this stuff isn't second nature. He/she/they are briefly glancing though web pages and maybe a few magazines trying to understand what this technology is that they feel the need to lord over and only getting part of the picture, as anyone new to discipline would.

The FCC is desperate to justify their existence as illustrated by last 10 years of fines levied against broadcasters who let a nip slip or a "bad word" cross the radio waves. Not the most pressing issues of our time, in my opinion. They want their cut of the largess being shoveled out the back door of the white house too in the most dramatic expansion of government ever. The chickadees who don't chirp loud don't get a worm.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Almost Anonymous (profile), 22 Dec 2010 @ 8:34am

They understand
I bet they understand just fine. I liken their statement more to misdirection than misunderstanding.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
crashoverride, 22 Dec 2010 @ 8:38am

The most baffling is that the main job of the FCC is to regulate the "AIRWAVES" so they have a mandate that allows them to enforce Net Neutrality as strict as they wish for airwaves.

The part they are trying to add this year is the ability to enforce it on the in ground internet which they have a limited ability to control as proven by there recent Comcast ruling loss in the court.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
:Lobo Santo (profile), 22 Dec 2010 @ 8:39am

Je sui Napoleon!
"Never ascribe to malice, that which can be explained by incompetence."
-- Napoleon Bonaparte
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RobShaver (profile), 22 Dec 2010 @ 8:40am

Here's a link to the original FCC news release
"FCC ACTS TO PRESERVE INTERNET FREEDOM AND OPENNESS"

http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2010/db1221/DOC-303745A1.pdf

I like to see the original document before writing to my congress person.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Grimby, 22 Dec 2010 @ 8:40am

Re: A Potential (long term) Solution
Yep, that's until carriers start telling manufacturers to exclude wireless connectivity from their devices so users will be forced to use their services for all their data. Then they'll be charged rate on whatever app they're using. I'm pretty glad I don't live in the US where the government makes decisions everyday without understanding a single thing about the decisions they are making.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
interval (profile), 22 Dec 2010 @ 8:54am

Re: Re: A Potential (long term) Solution
"I'm pretty glad I don't live in the US where the government makes decisions everyday without understanding a single thing about the decisions they are making."

As though the US Gov. is the only Gov. that does that. Come on...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
interval (profile), 22 Dec 2010 @ 8:58am

Re: They understand
"I bet they understand just fine. I liken their statement more to misdirection than misunderstanding."

Sure, but in this case, as is usually the case in the technical realm, if you write regulation with enough double talk and mumbo jumbo its easily struck down by appellate courts. THAT they understand. So in this case I really do feel like they simply don't understand the technology.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
m3mnoch (profile), 22 Dec 2010 @ 8:59am

About WiFi and Vendor Lock-in Maybe?
maybe the read-between-the-lines is just about wifi-enabled phones and vendor lock-in.

meaning, these days, with open handset operating systems and a crap-ton of available wifi, you can't be locked in and forced to use a providers wireless network. thus, being crazy overcharged without real recourse.

i mean... it's a stretch, right? but i can't fathom they don't understand the difference between a phone and the network it's on.

m3mnoch.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Coward, 22 Dec 2010 @ 9:49am

Re: Re: A Potential (long term) Solution
"I'm pretty glad I don't live in the US where the government makes decisions everyday without understanding a single thing about the decisions they are making."

They get all their wisdom from the Bible. Just look at the energy subcommittee chairman...God promised Noah and all that.
I feel ashamed to be an amerikan 6 months out of the year these days.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rosedale, 22 Dec 2010 @ 10:01am

Linux on wired ports
Wow this is crazy. Do they realize that there is an even more open OS that you can connect to wired connections called Linux? Android is faux open. I like it, and it is the best we got, but Linux takes the cake and there it has been for years connecting to wired networks. Apparently the FCC didn't realize that.

But really the most open OS in the world can't do shit if the network it is on isn't open. Especially given the direction things are heading. More and more services rely on the cloud. I ride the T with my phone and when I loose connection I sort of sit there wondering what to do. It is because all of my apps, pretty much, rely on the internet to function. The FCC needs to figure that out, but my guess is they'll just stay stupid.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2010 @ 10:05am

This is what happens when..
you get your information all from AT&T.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Freak, 22 Dec 2010 @ 10:24am

Re: Re: Re: A Potential (long term) Solution
Yeah, up here in Canada, it's just as bleak, if not bleaker at times.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2010 @ 12:57pm

Android is Linux
Your argument is confused because Android also uses the Linux kernel. Yes, there are more open Linux distributions (Maemo and Meego, for instance).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Steve, 22 Dec 2010 @ 1:20pm

Re: Typical Government Ivory Tower Stuff
Please provide examples of the most dramatic expansion of government to which you are eluding.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Steve, 22 Dec 2010 @ 1:25pm

Re: About WiFi and Vendor Lock-in Maybe?
I was thinking along the same lives as you were.

AT&T probably talked to the FCC and said:

"Look. When we first got the iPhone it was totally unique and there were no competing products so some far left wacko consumer rights groups probably told you we were taking advantage of a monopoly so you had to regulate us 'for the consumers' but all of the carries have Android phones so there's competition among the 4 of us. In fact, we talk about it when we play golf together and discuss raising our rates. So, you don't need to regulate us because there's competition in the wireless market space. Thank Google"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Mighty Buzzard (profile), 22 Dec 2010 @ 4:05pm

Re: Re: Re: A Potential (long term) Solution
It's all good. The rest of us are ashamed you're an American about half the time too.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Mighty Buzzard (profile), 22 Dec 2010 @ 4:16pm

Re: Re: Typical Government Ivory Tower Stuff
- The federal government having partial ownership of auto manufacturers and banks.
- The federal government regulating intrastate (not interstate) commerce. See requiring the purchase of health insurance and regulating insurance companies and hospitals even if no interstate commerce is taking place.
I'd say that's a pretty big expansion. I wouldn't say it's the biggest ever (the Washington administration wins that by default) but it's pretty damned significant.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Mighty Buzzard (profile), 22 Dec 2010 @ 4:18pm

Re: They understand
I dunno... The easy money is usually on the government, bureaucrats in particular, not understanding something.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Duncan Smith, 22 Dec 2010 @ 5:31pm

iyes
It's more likely that they know the difference but find it convenient to play dumb in order to mask their feelings risk upsetting the powers that be.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Dec 2010 @ 6:55am

Context much?
Did you read the two paragraphs preceding as well as the one following the snippet you've taken? The context of the statement is about the innovation on the device side and is completely appropriate. It's meant to give context to their (admittedly lame) attempt to create an "Open Internet" for mobile devices. The gist of it being that the new openness of the OSes on devices has led to more useful handsets that should be able to access more than just the walled garden style internet that providers have given up to this point.

I agree that Android's inherit openness doesn't lend itself to this conclusion any more than Apple's iOS's capabilities; but conflating the statement and the intent is something I would not have expected from Tech Dirt. Is anyone reading the source and considering critical thinking skills above that of a middle schooler before writing these articles?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Steve, 23 Dec 2010 @ 8:23am

Re: Re: Re: Typical Government Ivory Tower Stuff
You're right. We should have just given money to the banks and auto manufacturers and not demanded any say in how it was used. It should have been a gift. I'll give you that one.

The largest 5 insurance companies in the US are national.
(Aetna Inc, BCBS association, Cigna corporation, UnitedHealth Groups incorporated, Wellpoint incorporated)That means interstate commerce takes place.

I'm fascinated by the people who get mad at corporate regulation, but are fine with regulating citizens (who you can marry, and what you can abort).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nick Coghlan (profile), 23 Dec 2010 @ 4:31pm

Re: Context much?
Indeed, I just read a nice write-up on Ars that provides the additional context that Engadget missed:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/12/net-neutrality-and-the-fcc.ars

The FCC is actually making a very reasonable point - competition tends to be much more vigorous in the wireless market and wireless systems are on a trajectory *towards* increased openness. A "wait-and-see" attitude is much easier to justify in that environment than it is in the limited-competition, high infrastructure cost wired environment.
[ link to this | view in thread ]