PDAPhoneHome.com - View Single Post - Terminate i760 Short Term Confidentiality; Complain to FCC!

OK, all of this made me mad over the past week, especially with the announcement of the iPhone on the FCC, and Apple admitting to marketing, and still the FCC allowed it.

Here is my letter (thanks to KBAM for his letter from above, since this is HEAVILY borrowed from his work and research):

Quote:

Honorable Commissioners of the FCC:

In the recent months we the public have seen an increase in the abuse of the Short-Term Confidentiality provisions of DA 04-1705 (June 15, 2004), and that the request for short-term confidentiality have become routine and shameless, as they defeat transparency and mock/compromise the public interest.

I am writing to request that Short-Term Confidentiality protection granted to Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. ("Grantee") & Apple, Inc. (“Grantee”) for the above devices (FCC ID#A3LSCHi760 & FCC ID#BCGA1203, respectively) and applicable to certain filing attachments, effective March 30, 2007 & May 17, 2007, be terminated forthwith. (Equipment Short-Term Confidentiality is requested by device manufacturers or distributors under DA 04-1705, and subject to 47 CFR §0.457, 47 CFR §0.459, 47 CFR §2.803, and/or 47 CFR §2.1204, and to §552 (b) (4) of the Freedom of Information Act.)

Discussion of the FCC ID A3LSCHi760:

Substantial merchandising and publicity initiatives on behalf of the above model appear to have commenced even prior to Grantee's submission to the FCC of its confidentiality request letter, dated January 17, 2007, and are ongoing.

https://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/oet/f...ive_or_pdf=pdf

For example, Samsung featured this product in its January “Insight” E-Newsletter, a promotional vehicle dispatched to an extensive consumer mailing list. The newsletter was distributed on or about January 18, 2007, just one day after the manufacturer/importer’s request for FCC privacy protection.

http://pdaphonehome.com/forums/attac...f?d=1175799864

As further shown by the below-hyperlinked references--and in violation of both the spirit and letter of FCC regulations governing temporary confidentiality requests--Grantee has facilitated, and engaged in, pervasive public marketing activities throughout the pendency of its Application for Equipment Authorization.

In addition, it is apparent that Samsung has requested Short-Term Confidentiality for a blanket period of 180 days. My understanding is that, perhaps to prevent "squatting," FCC policy confers an initial grant of confidentiality for just 45 days--renewable in like increments, subject to continued justification and upon timely written request, up to a maximum of 180 days.

Thus, as a general request, I ask that the FCC audit, and revisit the implementation and effectiveness of, its permissive current policy.

Representative Public Marketing Activities for FCC ID A3LSCHi760:

CNET TV (CNET Networks, Inc.), "Product Spotlight, CES 2007," January 8-11, 2007
CES 2007 videos - Consumer Electronics Show Las Vegas - CNET.com

Samsung Electronics, Press Release and Product Overview, January 8, 2007
SAMSUNG's Digital World - Press Release
imagine the possibilities

PhoneScoop.com (Phone Factor LLC), "CES 2007," January 8-11, 2007
CES 2007 + iPhone (Phone Scoop)

Samsung Telecommunications America, Press Release, March 27, 2007
Four Samsung Telecommunications America Products Named CTIA Emerging Technology Award Finalists

MobileBurn.com (Michael F. Oryl, Jr.), "CES Gallery," January 8, 2007
Samsung SCH-i760 Live Photo Gallery (MobileBurn)

Discussion of the FCC ID BCGA1203:

In regards to the FCC ID BCGA1203, Apple, Inc. (“Grantee”) even admits to marketing activity in their Cover Letter (Confidentiality Letter):

http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/oet/fo...ive_or_pdf=pdf

Specifically:

“Although Apple has begun to market the device publicly, these documents reveal technical and design information that has not been publicly disclosed in such marketing and that is protected by Apple as confidential and proprietary trade secrets. This information has been disclosed to those required to maintain its confidentiality, and is not customarily disclosed publicly prior to the commercial release of a device. As a result, disclosure of this information by the Commission prior to the commercial release would hard Apple by giving competitors an unfair market advantage. Apple believes the period of confidentiality requested is necessary to protect the information until the commercial release of this device.”

In this statement Apple, Inc. admits to having marketed the device publicly, which is in violation of the guidelines set forth by the Equipment Short-Term Confidentiality which is requested by device manufacturers or distributors under DA 04-1705, and subject to 47 CFR §0.457, 47 CFR §0.459, 47 CFR §2.803, and/or 47 CFR §2.1204, and to §552 (b) (4) of the Freedom of Information Act. The short-term confidentiality is to protect the company BEFORE such marketing happens, and Apple, Inc. has engaged in the marketing of the FCC ID# BCGA1203 since January 9, 2007 when the CEO of the company announced the product to the public at MacWorld 2007 in San Francisco. Next this device was shown during a commercial on February 25, 2007 during the broadcast of the Oscars. This same commercial has been publicly available on Apple.com since the original airing, as well as a full product information page on their publicly available website:

Apple - iPhone

There are also countless other websites that have made the device publicly available, as well as countless tradeshows having the device presented and available for the press and general public.

It’s this type of blatant abuse of the Government system, not following the guidelines set forth by the FCC, that is hurting the public interest. I, and the general public, would have no issues with these companies if they followed the guidelines set forth by your agency, but both companies are in violation of these guidelines and I ask that the FCC audit, and revisit the implementation and effectiveness of, its permissive current policy, and terminate the Short-Term Confidentiality of both FCC ID: A3LSCHi760 and FCC ID: BCGA1203. If companies are continually allowed to violate these policies, then why are they in place? We must hold the companies responsible for their requests, and need to follow the guidelines set forth.

Thank you for your consideration.

Very Truly Yours,

.....

I borrowed from KBAM's letter above, and added some more....