FCCがGoogle Voice拒絶の件でAppleとAT&Tを調査–まず質問状を送付

次の記事

YahooとBing、合体後の名前はBingo?!

おやおや、状況は急変した。今週の初め本誌は、Appleが突然、Google Voiceを使うiPhone用サードパーティアプリケーションをApp Storeから提供しなくなったことを報じた。iPhoneの機能の一部と“重複している”という、説得力の乏しい理由からだ。それに続いてさらに本誌は、Googleが6週間前に承認を申請したGoogle Voiceの本体アプリケーションを拒否したというニュースを載せた。Appleのこの恣意的でおそらく反競争的でもある措置に対して、デベロッパもユーザも一斉に不満の声をあげた。この決定に関与していると思われているAT&Tも、あちこちでやり玉に上げられた。しかしもちろん、非難をぶっつけるべき正しいマトがどっちなのか、誰も知らない。AT&Tは、それはAppleの決定だとほのめかしているが、かんじんのAppleは黙(だんま)り姿勢のままだ。しかし、ここにきてついに、真相が分かりそうになってきた。Dow Jonesの速報によると、Federal Communications Commission(連邦通信委員会, FCC)がAppleによるGoogle Voiceの拒絶の一件を調査しており、AT&T、Apple、Googleの三者に事実解明のための質問状を送付した。本誌はその質問状を入手したので、この記事の下に原文のまま添付する。

Dow Jonesの速報記事は、これが、携帯電話のようなワイヤレス製品とキャリアとのあいだの特殊な利用契約全般を調べる調査の一環だと述べている〔ワイヤレスにおいても完全にフリーなインターネットアクセスを目指す…ブッシュ政権はキャリア企業擁護の立場から反対〕。GoogleのCEO Eric SchmidtがFCCに、ユーザが、自分のワイヤレスデバイスがたまたまどのキャリアに結びついていようとも、自由にどんなアプリケーションでも使えるようになるための、オープンスタンダードが必要だという書簡を送ったのが、今からちょうど2年前だ。当時その提案は理想主義的すぎると思われたが、今明らかになりつつあるのは、そのような自由の絶対的な必要性だ。

AppleがApp Storeを立ち上げてから1年になるが、今私たちの目の前にあるのは、複数の大企業が共謀してユーザの選択を制限し、そのまま平気な顔をしていると、その結果何が起きるかという光景そのものだ。前にも書いたように、Google Voiceは電話サービスの歴史における、何十年に一度と言えるぐらいの大きなイノベーションだ。しかしAppleとAT&Tは自分のサービスを改善改良しようとせず、一方的に自分たちの大事な金ずるを守ろうとしている。しかし今の政府はもはや、大企業のそういう態度の味方ではないようだ。今回の措置によってFCCは、Appleがその有名な秘密主義的文化を、全国民に対してオープンであるべき通信の世界に勝手に持ち込むことを、阻止しようとしているのである。

〔訳注: あの熱心なMacファン/iPhoneファンで知られるTechCrunch編集長Michael Arringtonが、愛用のiPhoneを捨ててAndroid機を使っている。大反響を呼んだ記事だが、日本語版では未訳である(8/1/2009現在)。〕

〔以下英文ママ〕

Apple宛のFCCの書簡

July 31, 2009

Catherine A. Novelli, Vice President
Worldwide Government Affairs
Apple Inc.
901 15th Street, NW, Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20005

RE: Google Voice and related iPhone applications

Dear Ms. Novelli:

Recent press reports indicate that Apple has declined to approve the Google Voice application for the iPhone and has removed related (and previously approved) third-party applications from the iPhone App Store. In light of pending FCC proceedings regarding wireless open access (RM-11361) and handset exclusivity (RM-11497), we are interested in a more complete understanding of this situation.

To that end, please provide answers to the following questions by close of business on Friday, August 21, 2009.

1. Why did Apple reject the Google Voice application for iPhone and remove related third-party applications from its App Store? In addition to Google Voice, which related third-party applications were removed or have been rejected? Please provide the specific name of each application and the contact information for the developer.
2. Did Apple act alone, or in consultation with AT&T, in deciding to reject the Google Voice application and related applications? If the latter, please describe the communications between Apple and AT&T in connection with the decision to reject Google Voice. Are there any contractual conditions or non-contractual understandings with AT&T that affected Apple’s decision in this matter?
3. Does AT&T have any role in the approval of iPhone applications generally (or in certain cases)? If so, under what circumstances, and what role does it play? What roles are specified in the contractual provisions between Apple and AT&T (or any non-contractual understandings) regarding the consideration of particular iPhone applications?
4. Please explain any differences between the Google Voice iPhone application and any Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) applications that Apple has approved for the iPhone. Are any of the approved VoIP applications allowed to operate on AT&T’s 3G network?
5. What other applications have been rejected for use on the iPhone and for what reasons? Is there a list of prohibited applications or of categories of applications that is provided to potential vendors/developers? If so, is this posted on the iTunes website or otherwise disclosed to consumers?
6. What are the standards for considering and approving iPhone applications? What is the approval process for such applications (timing, reasons for rejection, appeal process, etc.)? What is the percentage of applications that are rejected? What are the major reasons for rejecting an application?

Request for Confidential Treatment. If Apple requests that any information or documents responsive to this letter be treated in a confidential manner, it shall submit, along with all responsive information and documents, a statement in accordance with section 0.459 of the Commission’s rules. 47 C.F.R. § 0.459. Requests for confidential treatment must comply with the requirements of section 0.459, including the standards of specificity mandated by section 0.459(b). Accordingly, “blanket” requests for confidentiality of a large set of documents are unacceptable. Pursuant to section 0.459(c), the Bureau will not consider requests that do not comply with the requirements of section 0.459.

Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation.

Sincerely,

James D. Schlichting
Acting Chief
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
Federal Communications Commission

Google宛のFCCの書簡

July 31, 2009

Richard S. Whitt, Esq.
Washington Telecom and Media Counsel
Google Inc.
1101 New York Avenue, NW, Second Floor
Washington, DC 20005

RE: Apple’s Rejection of the Google Voice for iPhone Application

Dear Mr. Whitt:

Recent press reports indicate that Apple has declined to approve the Google Voice application for the iPhone and has removed related (and previously approved) third-party applications from the iPhone App Store. In light of pending FCC proceedings regarding wireless open access (RM-11361) and handset exclusivity (RM-11497), we are interested in a more complete understanding of this situation.

To that end, please provide answers to the following questions by close of business on Friday, August 21, 2009.

1. Please provide a description of the proposed Google Voice application for iPhone. What are the key features, and how does it operate (over a voice or data network, etc.)?
2. What explanation was given (if any) for Apple’s rejection of the Google Voice application (and for any other Google applications for iPhone that have been rejected, such as Google Latitude)? Please describe any communications between Google and AT&T or Apple on this topic and a summary of any meetings or discussion.
3. Has Apple approved any Google applications for the Apple App Store? If so, what services do they provide, and, in Google’s opinion, are they similar to any Apple/AT&T-provided applications?
4. Does Google have any other proposed applications pending with Apple, and if so, what services do they provide?
5. Are there other mechanisms by which an iPhone user will be able to access either some or all of the features of Google Voice? If so, please explain how and to what extent iPhone users can utilize Google Voice despite the fact that it is not available through Apple’s App Store.
6. Please provide a description of the standards for considering and approving applications with respect to Google’s Android platform. What is the approval process for such applications (timing, reasons for rejection, appeal process, etc.)? What is the percentage of applications that are rejected? What are the major reasons for rejecting an application?

Request for Confidential Treatment. If Google requests that any information or documents responsive to this letter be treated in a confidential manner, it shall submit, along with all responsive information and documents, a statement in accordance with section 0.459 of the Commission’s rules. 47 C.F.R. § 0.459. Requests for confidential treatment must comply with the requirements of section 0.459, including the standards of specificity mandated by section 0.459(b). Accordingly, “blanket” requests for confidentiality of a large set of documents are unacceptable. Pursuant to section 0.459(c), the Bureau will not consider requests that do not comply with the requirements of section 0.459.

Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation.

Sincerely,

James D. Schlichting
Acting Chief
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
Federal Communications Commission

AT&T宛のFCCの書簡

July 31, 2009

James W. Cicconi
Senior Executive Vice President-External and Legislative Affairs
AT&T Services, Inc.
1120 20th Street, NW, Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20036

RE: Apple’s Rejection of the Google Voice for iPhone Application

Dear Mr. Cicconi:

Recent press reports indicate that Apple has declined to approve the Google Voice application for the iPhone and has removed related (and previously approved) third-party applications from the iPhone App Store. In light of pending FCC proceedings regarding wireless open access (RM-11361) and handset exclusivity (RM-11497), we are interested in a more complete understanding of this situation.

To that end, please provide answers to the following questions by close of business on Friday, August 21, 2009.

1. What role, if any, did AT&T play in Apple’s consideration of the Google Voice and related applications? What role, if any, does AT&T play in consideration of iPhone applications generally? What roles are specified in the contractual provisions between Apple and AT&T (or in any non-contractual understanding between the companies) regarding the consideration of particular iPhone applications?
2. Did Apple consult with AT&T in the process of deciding to reject the Google Voice application? If so, please describe any communications between AT&T and Apple or Google on this topic, including the parties involved and a summary of any meetings or discussions.
3. Please explain AT&T’s understanding of any differences between the Google Voice iPhone application and any Voice over Internet Protocol applications that are currently used on the AT&T network, either via the iPhone or via handsets other than the iPhone.
4. To AT&T’s knowledge, what other applications have been rejected for use on the iPhone? Which of these applications were designed to operate on AT&T’s 3G network? What was AT&T’s role in considering whether such applications would be approved or rejected?
5. Please detail any conditions included in AT&T’s agreements or contracts with Apple for the iPhone related to the certification of applications or any particular application’s ability to use AT&T’s 3G network.
6. Are there any terms in AT&T’s customer agreements that limit customer usage of certain third-party applications? If so, please indicate how consumers are informed of such limitations and whether such limitations are posted on the iTunes website as well. In general, what is AT&T’s role in certifying applications on devices that run over AT&T’s 3G network? What, if any, applications require AT&T’s approval to be added to a device? Are there any differences between AT&T’s treatment of the iPhone and other devices used on its 3G network?
7. Please list the services/applications that AT&T provides for the iPhone, and whether there any similar, competing iPhone applications offered by other providers in Apple’s App Store.
8. Do any devices that operate on AT&T’s network allow use of the Google Voice application? Do any devices that operate on AT&T’s network allow use of other applications that have been rejected for the iPhone?
9. Please explain whether, on AT&T’s network, consumers’ access to and usage of Google Voice is disabled on the iPhone but permitted on other handsets, including Research in Motion’s BlackBerry devices.

Request for Confidential Treatment. If AT&T requests that any information or documents responsive to this letter be treated in a confidential manner, it shall submit, along with all responsive information and documents, a statement in accordance with section 0.459 of the Commission’s rules. 47 C.F.R. § 0.459. Requests for confidential treatment must comply with the requirements of section 0.459, including the standards of specificity mandated by section 0.459(b). Accordingly, “blanket” requests for confidentiality of a large set of documents are unacceptable. Pursuant to section 0.459(c), the Bureau will not consider requests that do not comply with the requirements of section 0.459.

Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation.

Sincerely,

James D. Schlichting
Acting Chief
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Federal Communications Commission

写真提供: Billogs.

[原文へ]

(翻訳:iwatani(a.k.a. hiwa))

“FCCがGoogle Voice拒絶の件でAppleとAT&Tを調査–まず質問状を送付” への9件のフィードバック

  1. […] FCCがGoogle Voice拒絶の件でAppleとAT&Tを調査–まず質問状を送付. […]

  2. […] 今やAppleはGoogle Voiceと関連するアプリをiPhoneから締め出さなければよかったと後悔しているに違いない。それとも排除の圧力をかけたのはAT&Tなのか? 今のところ誰も真相を知らない。しかし昨夜(米国時間7/31)、FCC〔連邦通信委員会〕は調査を開始した。FCCは関連する3社((Apple、AT&T、Google)にいったい何があったのか詳しく説明するように求める文書を送付した。 […]

  3. […] 2. これは答えづらいかもしれないが、ぼくとしてはどうしても聞きたい: ここ数年Appleは独禁法違反と反競争的な行為に関する正規の訴件申し立てを複数件受けているが、これらに対するAppleの見解はどうなのか? “独禁法違反と反競争的な行為”が何であるかについては、1)Jason Calacanisの記事や2)Google Voiceの不承認に関するFCCのの質問状を読んでいただきたい。 […]

  4. […] 【抄訳】 Appleが、GoogleとサードパーティのiPhoneアプリケーションを拒否した件に関するFCCからの質問状に対し、回答を提出した。 […]

  5. […] すなわち、7月にAppleは突然、サードパーティ製のGoogle VoiceアプリケーションをすべてApp Storeから引き下げた。iPhoeのネイティブの機能と重複しているから、がその理由とされた。さらにその日の午後には、Google Voiceの公式アプリケーションであるGoogle Voice本体クライアントがApp Storeから拒否された。メディアは大騒動し、拒否の正当性についてFCCが調査を開始した。 […]

  6. […] 読者も記憶に新しいところだと思うが、AppleがGoogle VoiceをiPhone(アメリカではAT&Tが独占キャリヤ)に載せることを拒絶したことが強い批判を浴び、FCCの調査まで招く騒動となった。Google Voiceのような通話管理サービスはキャリヤからかなりの自由を奪う可能性がある。だからアメリカ最大の携帯キャリヤ(Verizon Wirelessのユーザーは8500万)が、少なくとも方針として、Voiceの採用を決めたことはうれしい驚きだ。いつ、どのような形で実装されるか大いに注目だ。 […]

  7. […] Voiceの公式アプリも拒否し、FCCの調査にまで発展したが、結局Google VoiceがApp […]

  8. […] このビデオでいちばん違和感をおぼえるのは、1997年のJobsがAppleの核心と考えているものと、今日のAppleのパテントに貪欲で独占的な姿との落差だ。こんなコメントもある: […]

  9. […] Voiceの本体アプリケーションもブロックされ、ついにFCCが調査に乗り出した。1年たった今も、App StoreにGoogle […]

コメントを残す

以下に詳細を記入するか、アイコンをクリックしてログインしてください。

WordPress.com ロゴ

WordPress.com アカウントを使ってコメントしています。 ログアウト / 変更 )

Twitter 画像

Twitter アカウントを使ってコメントしています。 ログアウト / 変更 )

Facebook の写真

Facebook アカウントを使ってコメントしています。 ログアウト / 変更 )

Google+ フォト

Google+ アカウントを使ってコメントしています。 ログアウト / 変更 )

%s と連携中