<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Digital Daily &#187; probe</title>
	<atom:link href="http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/tag/probe/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com</link>
	<description>by John Paczkowski</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Nov 2009 11:00:29 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>FCC Google Voice Probe: Ask, AT&amp;T, and It Shall Be Given Unto You</title>
		<link>http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20091009/fcc-google-voice-2/</link>
		<comments>http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20091009/fcc-google-voice-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Oct 2009 22:27:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>John Paczkowski</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Digital Daily]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Google]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[John Paczkowski]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[digital]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hardware]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[innovation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[search]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[software]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[telecom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[America]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[AT&T]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[carrier]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[compensation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[consumers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FCC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Communications Commission]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[GOOG]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Google Voice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[House members]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[land]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[letter of inquiry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[line]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[network neutrality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[outbound calls]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[phone service]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[probe]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[regulation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[regulatory capitalism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rick Whitt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rural communities]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Skype]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wireless]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/?p=26361</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Well, look at that: Google Voice has inspired another Federal Communications Commission probe. Days after a group of House members, echoing a call first made by AT&#38;T in September, asked the FCC to investigate Google Voice, the Commission obliged, sending a letter of inquiry to the company.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img src="http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/files/2009/10/googvoice-150x1501.jpg" alt="googvoice-150x150" title="googvoice-150x150" width="150" height="150" class="alignright size-full wp-image-26362" />Well, look at that: Google&#8217;s Google Voice service has inspired another Federal Communications Commission probe. Days after a group of House members, <a href="http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20090925/google-att/">echoing a call first made by AT&#038;T (T) in September</a>, asked the <a href="http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20091008/lawmakers-ask-fcc-to-probe-google-voice/">FCC to investigate Google Voice</a>, the Commission obliged, sending a letter of inquiry to the company. </p>
<p>&#8220;Recent reports indicate that Google’s Google Voice service restricts calling from consumers to certain rural communities,&#8221; <a href="http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2210A1.pdf">the FCC wrote</a>. &#8220;We are interested in gathering facts that can provide a more complete understanding of this situation.&#8221;   </p>
<p>Though Google (GOOG) has until Oct. 28 to file a formal response, the search giant was quick to thump the tub in its defense on its Public Policy Blog. There, Rick Whitt, the company&#8217;s telecom and media counsel, argued again that Google Voice is not a traditional phone service and should not be regulated like one. </p>
<p>&#8220;Google Voice is not intended to be a replacement for traditional phone service&#8211;in fact, you need an existing land or wireless line in order to use it. Importantly, users are still able to make outbound calls on any other phone device,&#8221; <a href="http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2009/10/sex-conference-calls-and-outdated-fcc.html">Whitt wrote</a>. &#8220;&#8230;AT&#038;T apparently now wants web applications&#8211;from Skype to Google Voice&#8211;to be treated the same way as traditional phone services. Their approach is what a former FCC chairman has called &#8216;regulatory capitalism,&#8217; the practice of using regulation to block or slow down innovation. And despite AT&#038;T&#8217;s lobbying efforts, this issue has nothing to do with network neutrality or rural America. This is about outdated carrier compensation rules that are fundamentally broken and in need of repair by the FCC.&#8221;</p>
<span class="fdPrintIncludeParentsPreviousSiblings"></span><span class="fdPrintIncludeParentsChildren"></span>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20091009/fcc-google-voice-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>SEC Won't Let Steve Be</title>
		<link>http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20090708/sec-wont-let-steve-be/</link>
		<comments>http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20090708/sec-wont-let-steve-be/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Jul 2009 16:09:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>John Paczkowski</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Apple]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Digital Daily]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[John Paczkowski]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[digital]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[financial]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[AAPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art Levinson]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bill Campbell]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bloomberg]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[common bug]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[directors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[disclosure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Duke University]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[health]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hormonal imbalance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[investigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[investor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[iPhone]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[iPod]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[James Cox]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law professor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[leave of absence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[liver transplant]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mac]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[medical condition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[medical records]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[probe]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sabbatical]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SEC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[securities]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities and Exchange Commission]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Steve Jobs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[stock]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/?p=20924</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[What happened between Apple’s January 5 disclosure of Steve Jobs’s “hormonal imbalance” and the company's January 14 announcement that the CEO would be taking a six-month leave of absence? That’s the focus of an ongoing Securities and Exchange Commission probe into Steve Jobs’s health, an investigation that seems to, well, be going nowhere.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img src="http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/files/2009/07/stevewtf-150x150.jpg" alt="stevewtf" title="stevewtf" width="150" height="150" class="alignright size-thumbnail wp-image-20927" />What happened between Apple’s January 5 disclosure of Steve Jobs’s &#8220;hormonal imbalance” and its January 14 announcement that the CEO would be taking a six-month leave of absence? That’s the focus of an <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&amp;sid=a3N36w1tFNbc&amp;refer=home">ongoing Securities and Exchange Commission probe into Steve Jobs&#8217;s health</a>, an investigation that seems to, well, be going nowhere. </p>
<p>People familiar with the matter <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&#038;sid=ammDViTHaP0U#">tell Bloomberg</a> that Apple’s handling of the matter remains under scrutiny and that company directors Art Levinson and Bill Campbell had been briefed by Jobs’s doctors on his medical condition at the time of the January disclosures, but little else. </p>
<p>Now, the path from “Steve is suffering from a common bug” to “a hormone imbalance has been robbing Steve of the proteins his body needs to be healthy” to “Steve has undergone a liver transplant” is obviously something of an eyebrow-raiser. But whether it was material to Apple’s business and therefore required disclosure isn’t clear. After all, Apple (AAPL) did just fine while Jobs was on sabbatical; the debut of new Macs, iPods and iPhones is testament to that. Beyond that, there’s this: <em>Apple’s stock posted a 59 percent gain while he was away.</em></p>
<p>“The issue is not going to be whether they needed to disclose the medical records,” James Cox, a securities law professor at Duke University, told Bloomberg. “It’s going to be whether they monitored the disclosures about his health, in relation to investor expectations that Apple would continue to be led by Steven Jobs&#8230;.[Apple] did fine. Do you need to say more than, ‘Our CEO has health problems and he’s out on leave?’ The question I think the SEC is looking at is whether it’s material.”</p>
<span class="fdPrintIncludeParentsPreviousSiblings"></span><span class="fdPrintIncludeParentsChildren"></span>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20090708/sec-wont-let-steve-be/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>DOJ Confirms Antitrust Investigation Into Google Book Settlement</title>
		<link>http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20090702/doj-officially-opens-antitrust-investigation-into-google-book-settlement/</link>
		<comments>http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20090702/doj-officially-opens-antitrust-investigation-into-google-book-settlement/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Jul 2009 20:41:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>John Paczkowski</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Digital Daily]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Google]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[John Paczkowski]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[digital]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[search]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[attorneys general]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[books]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[competition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[copyright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DOJ]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fairness hearing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gabriel Stricker]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[GOOG]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Google Books]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[investigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Justice Department]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[monopoly]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mountain View]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[online]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[orphaned works]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[probe]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[settlement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sherman Antitrust Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S.]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/?p=20671</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Looks like the fireworks have begun early in Mountain View. On Thursday afternoon, the Department of Justice officially notified Google that it is investigating its book deal for violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The notification after the jump.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img src="http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/files/2009/07/googfireworks.jpg" alt="googfireworks" title="googfireworks" width="150" height="57" class="alignright size-full wp-image-20685" />Looks like the fireworks have begun early in Mountain View&#8230;</p>
<p>The Justice Department probe of the Google Books settlement is heating up. On Thursday afternoon, the agency officially opened an investigation into the deal, which would allow the search sovereign to make millions of books available online. </p>
<p>“The United States has reviewed public comments expressing concern that aspects of the settlement agreement may violate the Sherman Act,” wrote William F. Cavanaugh, a deputy assistant attorney general. “At this preliminary stage, the United States has reached no conclusions as to the merit of those concerns or more broadly what impact this settlement may have on competition. However, we have determined that the issues raised by the proposed settlement warrant further inquiry.”</p>
<p>The move is the strongest sign yet that the DOJ may block the settlement, which critics claim would grant Google (GOOG) a monopoly on orphaned works&#8211;copyrighted texts without an identifiable copyright holder. The notification, included below, is the first time the DOJ has confirmed the investigation publicly and said that it is indeed looking at possible violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act.</p>
<p>Odd that the letter was filed this week inasmuch as the &#8220;fairness hearing&#8221; that will determine whether final approval is given to the settlement is still months away.  Clearly, <a href="http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/google-makes-a-case-that-it-isnt-so-big/">Google&#8217;s recent public relations offensive</a> claiming the company is just as vulnerable to competition as anyone else hasn’t had much effect.</p>
<p>Reached for comment, Google spokesperson Gabriel Stricker offered the following statement:</p>
<blockquote><p>&#8220;The Department of Justice and several state attorneys general have contacted us to learn more about the impact of the settlement, and we are happy to answer their questions.</p>
<p>It’s important to note that this agreement is non-exclusive and if approved by the court, stands to expand access to millions of books in the U.S.&#8221;</p></blockquote>
<p><object id="_ds_8068529" name="_ds_8068529" width="350 " height="550" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" data="http://viewer.docstoc.com/"><param name="FlashVars" value="doc_id=8068529&#038;mem_id=780373&#038;doc_type=pdf&#038;fullscreen=0&#038;showrelated=0&#038;showotherdocs=0&#038;showstats=0 "/><param name="movie" value="http://viewer.docstoc.com/" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /></object> <br /> <font size="1"><a href="http://www.docstoc.com/docs/8068529/2009.07.02 Order _ DOJ Letter"> 2009.07.02 Order _ DOJ Letter</a> &#8211; </font> </p>
<span class="fdPrintIncludeParentsPreviousSiblings"></span><span class="fdPrintIncludeParentsChildren"></span>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20090702/doj-officially-opens-antitrust-investigation-into-google-book-settlement/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
