My, how the tables have turned. Earlier this week, we learned that Apple had suddenly begun to pull third party iPhone applications for Google Voice, citing the unconvincing rationale that they “duplicated” some of the iPhone’s functionality. We then broke the news that Apple had also rejected Google’s own official Google Voice application submitted six weeks prior, sparking a din of complaints from developers and users alike over the arbitrary and possibly anti-competitive restrictions being imposed by Apple. AT&T, too, has been a target of frequent criticism as many of us believe it may have also played a part in the decision. Of course, nobody really knows who is to blame — AT&T has hinted that it was ultimately Apple’s decision, and Apple continues to remain mute on the issue. But now we may get our answers: the Dow Jones newswire reports that The Federal Communications Commission is looking into Apple’s rejection of Google Voice, and has sent letters to AT&T, Apple, and Google to find out what’s going on. We’ve obtained copies of the letters and reprinted them below.
The newswire report notes that this is part of the FCC’s ongoing investigation into wireless handsets and their exclusive deals with carriers. Of course, this all comes years after Google CEO Eric Schmidt sent a letter to the FCC, urging it to adopt open standards that would gives users the freedom to use whichever applications they’d like on their wireless devices, on whichever network they preferred. At the time the suggestions seemed perhaps a bit idealistic, but now it’s becoming clear just how badly they’re needed.
It has been just over one year since Apple released the App Store, and already we’re beginning to see just what can happen when major companies collude to restrict user choice without fear of recourse. As I’ve written before, Google Voice offers a service that innovates in the telephony space in a way that hasn’t been seen for years. But rather than try to improve and offer a better service, Apple and AT&T are doing what they can do to protect their sacred cash cow. But it looks like the government isn’t going to stand for that any longer. With this move, the FCC is showing that it’s not going to let Apple carry its famed culture of secrecy into the telecom space.
FCC Letter to Apple
July 31, 2009
Catherine A. Novelli, Vice President
Worldwide Government Affairs
Apple Inc.
901 15th Street, NW, Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20005RE: 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
FCC Letter to Google
July 31, 2009
Richard S. Whitt, Esq.
Washington Telecom and Media Counsel
Google Inc.
1101 New York Avenue, NW, Second Floor
Washington, DC 20005RE: 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
FCC Letter to AT&T
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 20036RE: 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
Photo credit: Billogs.
about time.
ridiculous.
What’s ridiculous is the fact that we think whenever we don’t like something a company does, we should lobby the federal government to step in and make the company bend to our whim.
Apple invested the money into R&D. Apple produced the product. Apple signed a contract with AT&T. Therefore Apple owns and operates the App store. Therefore Apple has the right to accept or reject the submission of an app for whatever reason Apple wants.
(The same goes for Microsoft, BTW)
Whatever happend to voting with our dollar?
The whole point of these kinds of investigations, and the existance of these federal organisations, is that certain business practices make it *impossible* to vote with your dollar. That’s why we crack down on those anti-competative practices.
Why do I have to explain the rationale behind antitrust law to an American?
What is AT&T ? A cellular phone
provider, Its primary function is
to be able to call and talk to
someone, secondary as a data
provider. If we all start to use
VOIP phone calls. All phone
providers will go bankrupt or
we all will see HUGE markups
in our data service. As simple
as that.
Ivo said…
Why do I have to explain the rationale behind antitrust law to an American?
Check your premise to see if your conclusion does follow from it, rather than you starting from the conclusion then back-chaining it all the way to the premise.
This means that you should start with the US constitution then work your way from there to the anti-trust and see if you can make a connection that has no contradiction. If you find one, then you’re wrong. You have to ask yourself. Is the anti-trust constitutional? If so, then show us.
Also ask if Apple or AT&T has violated the constitution? Just agreeing with a piece of legislation such as anti-trust simply because it is embedded in the law doesn’t mean it is right or it is constitutional. If it is unconstitutional then that is called lynch mob rule. You see these various kinds of mob rule from Cuba, North Korea, Zimbabwe and many other countries. The citizens of these countries are at the mercy of government bureaucrats. They interpret the law to fit what they want. If they can’t find anything in the lawbook to charge you with, then they’ll just make up one on the spot in order to detain you. You don’t see that in the US but the underlying principles are the same, ie, your rights & properties can be violated at any time depending on the mood of that specific (or group of ) bureaucrat/s on that day.
Nathan Rice’s comment above is right on the mark.
Mike Reynolds,
The Google Voice app is NOT a VOIP software. It is simply a dialer that enables some features that make their dialing interface more desirable than the native iPhone. When using the app it is still using the AT&T voice network.
@Falafulu Fisi: This is possibly the most idiotic logic I have ever seen. Go to the constitution? Do you really think the framers of the constitution were thinking about the behavior of mobile computer manufacturers and their exclusive deals with voice and data service providers? That’s why we make laws!
As for Nathan Rice, he simply does not understand US law. It’s complex so I don’t blame you but your comments are foolish in light of the law. It boils down to two things: 1. Apple has nothing to gain from denying the app, AT&T does. It is against the LAW to use your relationship with another company to stifle/crush competition. 2. The rules of Net Neutrality say that a internet service provide does not have the right to block certain traffic from their network. AT&T is using it’s influence over Apple’s app store to prevent VoIP and video traffic. This is against the rules that the FCC has shown themselves quite willing to enforce.
As was said GVoice does not use VoIP. It uses the AT&T voice network. You are still billed for minutes. AT&T really has no leg to stand on and if the FCC finds that Apple and AT&T are working together in this way the case will likely be forwarded to the Department of Justice. Complain to the DOJ, your Senators and your congressman. If this is allowed to continue it hurts the market in general.
Google Voice does not replace any phone service. You still need AT&T (or whomever is your telephony provider). The only thing Google Voice can make better for the consumer is better mobile international rates & free texting. International calling on a mobile device has always been ridiculous and texting prices are as well.
I agree with you, Falafulu. The constitution is where we should start. This is a property rights issue.
AT&T bought those airwaves and Apple created the iPhone and the market for all the apps and the rules governing it. How is it someone’s business even to make these demands for information.
@ Alan Brown
AT&T did not buy the spectrum. They are licensing it from the American Public, which means they also have to abide by the conditions of those licenses and oversight from the FCC, FTC.
David D said…
It is against the LAW to use your relationship with another company to stifle/crush competition.
You didn’t answer the question that I posed in my first message? Where does it say in the constitution that both Apple and AT&T actions are a violation in this case? I bet that you would find none, that’s why you generalize in your answer that I should go and look at the constitution.
@Falafulu Fisi: David D. is correct, you don’t only look at the constitution to decide whether government intervention is proper; you start with law. It is not in the constitution that you go to jail for murder either. You don’t “start from the constitution” to decide whether or not the government should interfere in a given situation.
Democracy dictates law, law dictates government intervention, the Constitution provides bounds for law.
The logic that you are looking for can be found here: http://en.wikip...tes_v._AT&T
@Ivo
“Why do I have to explain the rationale behind antitrust law to an American?”
Because individuals who understand the essence of America’s founding principles, i.e., freedom, justice and individual rights, will never understand such an indefensible, unenforceable, irrational body of legislation.
Antitrust is as anti-American as it gets.
And btw, there’s no practice that would make voting with our dollars impossible. When you can think of an example, please enlighten us.
@Matt
“Democracy dictates law”
Only in a corrupt, mob-rule, collectivist nation. A free country’s laws are based on principles – which never change.
Don’t worry you two… you’ll get your way – better enjoy it while it lasts though.
And what if some iPhone owners want to give their dollar to Google?
@Sam Hocevar
> And what if some iPhone owners want to give their dollar to Google?
They buy a different phone arsehat.
that’s the stupidest reasoning i’ve ever heard. it’s simple – the moment apple sold you the product, it becomes yours. you can do whatever you chose to with it.
you know, sort of like your computer. microsoft has no say in which applications can run on your computer if you have windows, and neither does apple if you have mac. so pray tell, how exactly is the iphone so different?
But the App Store is Apple’s. And they can decide what they put in it. It’s as simple as that.
you’ve sorely missed the idea of a good business that doesn’t fuck it’s developers.
what’s ridiculous is the fact that you seem to support the way that apple has basically treated google. “maps will make people buy our product, everything else you can fuck off, thanks for maps”
who the hell bothered to lobby the FCC over apple? give me a name or stfu. apple clearly had no good reason to reject either of google’s apps. why is it ridiculous and automatically consumers bending a company over backwards that someone with enough power to do something about it actually noticed this?
Apple screwed up with /its/ app store. It pissed off a large amount of people. if apple jobs were up for election do you think these guys would get back in? HELL NO. your point is herefore moot that it’s apple’s store when you dwell on that point.
voting with our dollar… didn’t that always get a reply from taxes?
so now, you can quit defending your precious mothership there.
The reason why is because the wireless spectrum is a public resource and a very finite one as well. It has to be regulated to ensure fair practices by the companies operating on these spectrums, and as a result there can be trickle down effects into the way certain products operate on the network. The wireless market will always have a healthy dose of public and private stakeholders.
You have to consider that our government owns the wireless spectrum (the very reason FCC is involved).
Our government also helped establish the monopolies that telecommunication companies have. We provided them land for next to nothing, etc etc. If the government provided the land and assistance in the building of a toll road (which it does frequently) would you expect the government to step in when the road starts denying entry to construction company X? In a completely free market I’d agree with you, we don’t have a free market, most of the infrastructure was paid for by your tax dollars.
Nathan, I would completely agree with you except for one thing. AT&T uses “our” wireless spectrum that is a national property and must be used to benefit citizens.
If you read the letters, the problem FCC is trying to solve is how to appropriately use a national resource to the benefit of consumers.
What if your energy and water company decided to shut down supply to your city? You cannot argue that it is their business and govt should not step in.
Once wireless spectrum is open, then it is a fair game.
This is a dangerous game that both Apple and AT&T are playing with Google. Google has total control over the Google network. Yes, that also means that just as Apple presently has the right to bar Google’s Voice app, Google has the right to cut off iPhone access to Google’s services (which would severely cripple the iPhone’s usefulness). This sword is double edged and cuts both ways. Would Google do this? If Apple gives them a firm enough push, anything is possible.
The problem with the concept of “voting with your dollar” is when the provider doesn’t disclose everything.
Direct example: Apple’s TV commercials say “there’s an app for EVERYTHING”.
Really? Is that the honest truth? No. So what if I then believe their ad, go out and buy an iPhone under the assumption that I can do X, Y and Z on it? I’d be fairly pissed when I couldn’t do it, given the public position that EEEEVERYTHING is available.
In general I support Apple’s ability to run it’s store the way it likes. But there’s something *very* weird about these last two Google rejections…and I support the questions asked by the FCC.
All Apple has to do is answer….then cool…we move on.
Other than iTunes Music Store support, Android and Windows Mobile 7 should provide good alternatives in the next 12 months.
@Nathan Rice
You my friend are a freaking retard!!!
There wouldn’t be a problem with the app store if there was an alternate app store where iPhone owners can purchase apps without having to jailbreak their iPhones!
It’s like buying a computer and having Microsoft and Dell dictate which programs you can buy. Do you get it now?!!!!
The government must step in whenever big corporations abuse their position of power. That’s why you have laws for fair competition, anti-trust, etc.
@Falafulu Fisi
According to you, I can go buy some crack from a dealer down the street and if I get arrested I’ll just tell the cop, “hey buddy, let’s backtrack this shit from the Constitution and see if I’ve violated it”
The Constitution is a framework that is open to interpretation and dare I say AMENDMENT. Ohhh!
Jesus Christ man, go to law school, if any accredited one will actually have you, and then maybe you’ll realize what an idiot you are.
It is certainly not ridiculous. AT&T operates on a public radio spectrum, that belongs to the American people, to make profits. We certainly do have the right to petition our government to make inquiries about monopolistic behavior.
I’m wondering if SJ will have a “to heck with Janet Reno” moment.
hope not
Did you say Janet Reno?? KNOCK, KNOCK…Is anyone home…she is not with the Justice Department any longer, and the Justice Department didn’t inquire about this issue.
look fool. I’m talking about Steve Ballmer’s dismissive attitude to Janet Reno way back when.
Hoping that Steve Jobs takes this inquiry seriously
Oh hey, that looks fun! Let me try this…
Did you just assume he mean that literally?? KNOCK, KNOCK…Is anyone home…he did not put parenthesis around that phrase to indicate a quote, but to use a fairly well-known quote that illustrates a disdain for the government.
Did I do that correctly?
I don’t think he meant that like you took it….”to heck with Janet Reno” would be an expression….
fail
Wow, I have never seen someone miss a reference so hard in my life.
And then act arrogant about it.
I see TC removed my reply
What about the fact that google links everything automatically to its gmail account? Isn’t that the same thing? How I can’t use a 3rd party email for a blogger account? How is google so open? Maybe I want to use blogger but I don’t want to use gmail. If you use youtube a lot they keep trying to make me link to my gmail account which I don’t want. I know it is a bit different but if google really wants an open system maybe they should start by allowing users to keep things decoupled. Truly being open means if I want to use my hotmail.. ok I don’t use hotmail but say I did I should be able to get a blogger account without having to get a gmail account.
I think you mean Google Account, which is not the same as a gmail account.
You can have a Google Account based on a hotmail e-mail address
Whatever. You understand the point, don’t you? Google is using their dominance in one industry to take over other industries.
that is part true and part not so true. Yes Google owns many web area and links to them when they can and tries not to step on anybodies toes. for example, if I look up Bing on google, the first result shouldn’t be Google.com followed by Google Maps and then Bing.
so yes they grew to there dominate state through growth and strategy BUT why would google use Yahoo Video as a way to sign into video? No its going to use YouTube. Same for calender and gmail and so forth.
Anyway, I have been expecting this eventually when it came to either Apple, Google or… well, thatt’s it LOL sooner or later they will get too big and by there sheer dominance of the field will dictate what happens where and with who.
Sort of like this Health Care Plan… whooooooah Oh No he didn’t go there!
Have you ever heard of single sign on??? Microsoft does it too (Passport). It’s a great concept BTW too from a functional POV.
No. Google has not leveraged their market power in one market into another, because they don’t have market power in emails, in blogging sites, blah blah.
Additionally, even if arguendo Google does have market power in email, there is still no leveraging. For leveraging to exist, Google has to take advantage of the fact you want GMail, and force you to use something you don’t want, like Blogger. In the hypothetical you presented, it is the opposite — you want Blogger but not GMail.
Lastly, even if Google had market power in Blogger and Gmail, this would still not be a violation of antitrust laws, because there is no foreclosure of competition. You can be required to sign up for GMail to use Blogger, and vice versa, but that doesn’t prevent you from using another email address for everything else, or a blogging account for everything else.
If you’re interested, refer to the MS case to see how a court could analyze an antitrust case against Google. MS’s problem was that people wanted their OS, which MS had monopoly power in, but MS forced the consumers to also take IE. Then MS prevented alternatives like Java and Firefox from reaching customers by foreclosing most avenues of reaching customers in that day and age (namely OEM’s, ISP’s, et cetera).
It’s almost like… they’re running a business!
g00gle’s search results are algorithmically biased to the political left. They fine tune those algorithms to proffer results to their own ends. I use Yahoo whenever possible, and recommend that everyone do the same.
Unless of course you’re a flaming liberal-socialist- progressive; if so, g00gle is your friend.
Uuuh … no … the point is wrong, hence the correction. A Google Account is not the freakin’ same as a gmail account. A Google Account is a point of entry into the various services – that’s not product typing, that’s just having a freakin’ account with a provider. Aside from that – Google doesn’t charge you anything for the having the account, so what’s the freakin’ issue? The problem is paid product tying is that the user are required to cough up MONEY for a locked-in service/product. Not really the same thing, dude.
All big companies one the either way has monopoly and they rule their world the way they want. Microsoft, Apple, Google they all are same. Google and Apple shout on Microsoft for their profit but if you closely, they are also monopolizing everything. For say, Apple rejects any application on Mac or IPhone like Flash calling it – duplicate feature. LMAO…same way, Google holds minute details about everyone’s online world.
@davebroham – that is very true.
@Gebadia Smith – whats wrong with requiring an account to access some youtube features or setting up a blogger account. how many other websites require an account with them before using their free products?
but it just so happens that if you sign up for Gmail that automatically becomes your Google Account – which is where the confusion lies
Let me explain. I have one gmail account I would like to use for my personal life. I have another I would like to use for my business but I can’t have both open. If I have my personal one open I can’t access my blogger account without signing into my business email account which means I don’t have access to my personal.
I have 4 different youtube accounts. I use url specific email @gebacards.com or @cybersweetness.com for the different youtube accounts. It is just how I organize things. It will sign me out of whatever gmail account I am locked into. Furthermore every chance they get google tries to get me to link my youtube accounts to my gmail.
I love google but this one feature of linking everything together makes it hard to have both a personal online persona through google and a business one. I want them seperate. This is what Facebook doesn’t get as it follows twitter. Twitter and blogs are public, Facebook is just for friends..
I am here marketing myself like the rest of you and it is fine to have a fanpage but sharing that feed.. it feels wrong because my friends are in that feed.. sorry I am ranting..
Just I really wish Google would allow a person to decouple accounts and have two different gmail accounts open at the same time…
Let me explain. I have one gmail account I would like to use for my personal life. I have another I would like to use for my business but I can’t have both open. If I have my personal one open I can’t access my blogger account without signing into my business email account which means I don’t have access to my personal.
I have 4 different youtube accounts. I use url specific email @gebacards.com or @cybersweetness.com for the different youtube accounts. It is just how I organize things. It will sign me out of whatever gmail account I am locked into. Furthermore every chance they get google tries to get me to link my youtube accounts to my gmail.
I love google but this one feature of linking everything together makes it hard to have both a personal online persona through google and a business one. I want them seperate. This is what Facebook doesn’t get as it follows twitter. Twitter and blogs are public, Facebook is just for friends..
I am here marketing myself like the rest of you and it is fine to have a fanpage but sharing that feed.. it feels wrong because my friends are in that feed.. sorry I am ranting..
Just I really wish Google would allow a person to decouple accounts and have two different gmail accounts open at the same time…
Let me explain. I have one gmail account I would like to use for my personal life. I have another I would like to use for my business but I can’t have both open. If I have my personal one open I can’t access my blogger account without signing into my business email account which means I don’t have access to my personal.
I have 4 different youtube accounts. I use url specific email @gebacards.com or @cybersweetness.com for the different youtube accounts. It is just how I organize things. It will sign me out of whatever gmail account I am locked into. Furthermore every chance they get google tries to get me to link my youtube accounts to my gmail.
I love google but this one feature of linking everything together makes it hard to have both a personal online persona through google and a business one. I want them seperate. This is what Facebook doesn’t get as it follows twitter. Twitter and blogs are public, Facebook is just for friends..
Just I really wish Google would allow a person to decouple accounts and have two different gmail accounts open at the same time…
sorry..oops..
@Gebadia: Okay, so you hate it because you think it is a poorly designed feature and an inconvenience. That has no impact on competition and in no way prevents alternatives.
Google does nothing to preclude the use of a competitor’s services. You can still use another email system, you can still use another video posting site, et cetera. You can even use multiple emails, multiple video posting sites.
However, if you have the iPhone, you CAN’T use Google Voice apps. Apple has actually taken steps to prevent competition from Google. How has Google gone out of its way to prevent a competitor’s product from working with a Google product?
An inconvenience or bad feature is not the same as precluding competition.
Gebadia Smith …. Are you my physics professor? You sure like to explain a lot
@igebadia
You can have both accounts open. Your browser Google cookie will be set for the last account you logged into. So use a different browser for one account. For example, IE for one and Firefox for the other.
@Gebadia: Your situation is unique. No one has need for 4 accounts open at the same time.
The solution to your problem is simple, get 4 different browsers
@Gebadia – there IS a way to have multiple email addresses in one Google inbox. Similar to mulitple mailboxes in Outlook.
I have my personal, *old* personal (before marriage) and business emails all viewable in ONE browser window. When I reply, I can choose the account to reply from. Since you haven’t done your homework, here’s a link to explain how it works:
http://news.cne...gmail-accounts/
(BTW – I found that article from Googling “multiple accounts in Gmail”)
@igegadia Google apps will allow you to have a business account which uses your business’ domain. This can be used concurrently with your personal GMail account. Find it here: http://www.goog...roup/index.html
The standard is free and the premier is for fee service.
This is Apple’s product, Apple should be able to do what it wants.
I agree.
It’s not like anyone has to buy an iphone, there are plenty of other products (though I don’t want ‘em).
Google wants to develop a product for the hottest selling phone/pda. If Google’s product can take market share away from Apple and AT&T, they would be stupid to support it.
I love google, but they are getting microsoft big.
As long as users are not affected… But clearly that is not the case. I’m actually happy that FCC is looking into this…
not!
I bought it, it’s mine. It ceased being Apple’s at approximately that precise moment they, or their agents, accepted my payment.
Yes, but should not engage in discriminatory practices without valid reason, for eg. If others applications are allowed on the app store, why not Google voice.
The other issue in this case is collusion. Because Apple and AT&T are significantly large companies, there is a possibility that they might collude and engage in monopolistic practices that stifle fair competition
Because we can reach to any conclusions, its important to understand why they did what they did, and I guess FCC is trying to find that out.
No, there is no fear of collusion.
They have openly acknowledged agreements, their is no need to hide in the shadows. There maybe antitrust concerns, but not because of “collusion”.
And no, they cannot engage in monopolistic practices because they are not in the same industry, and neither of them have anything close to a monopoly.
Also, the FCC’s concern is not antitrust. That is the concern of DOJ and FTC.
With the logic that its apples product they can do what they want is the same thing the euro trade commision is going after Microsoft for. Windows is microsofts product why should they have to include a choice of browserrs when they have IE already?
To that why should Microsoft let itunes run on Windows when they have a vested intrest in the zune?
Because MS, unlike Apple, has monopoly power. Apple doesn’t have monopoly power in any market. MS has it in at least Desktop OS.
Also, it is important to note that the EU is focused on competition, and the US is focused on antitrust. If you care about competition, you will be more proactive in deciding what business should and should not do. The US is focused only on preventing monopolies from abusing their power. A more laissez-faire attitude.
Except the FCC needs to regulate a public resource (frequency spectrum) for the public good (innovation, customer products, et cetera).
If there were infinite amount of frequency available for practical use, I doubt we would have the FCC we do.
This is my phone, I should be able to do what I want.
Haha – you must be a US citizen.
What about your “freedom”?
It’s the CUSTOMERS product. He bought it. HE should be able to do with it what he wants.
Did you ever see any wood company rejecting certain colors from a paint company??
> This is Apple’s product, Apple should be able to do what it wants.
Google’s network is Google’s network and they can likewise do what they want. The Google sysadmins could firewall the AT&T 3G network from access to Google’s services. Think about that for a few minutes. Then, you’ll realize just how much Apple and AT&T are playing with fire.
Not when they LIE about it. People on one hand will bitch and moan about banks keeping secrets, but all you prats are okay with Apple’s culture of secrecy. Stop being a flipping fanboy, and THINK for once.
About f-ing time. My app was just rejected for the most ridiculous 2 reasons (which are easily addressed but still ridiculous). i hope this moves apple in the right direction. my sense is they can’t cope with growth within the iphone diviision and specifically app store / itunes, and this (e.g. inconsistent policies) is just a sign that they are cracking.
Does your iPhone belong to Apple?
If you purchased a TV set from Sony and Sony controlled the shows that were played on your TV…you don’t think there is anyting wrong with that?
Once your purchase a product its yours. No matter what terms and conditions come with it. Its up to the Government to protect consumer rights. Dictatorship by Apple will soon pass.
Well, crap…I never thought I’d say this, but…go FCC!
Exactly! Me neither, lol. The excitement over this story is so awesome. Go Google and GVoice!
Call or text my Google Voice #
(614) 585-9235
http://bit.ly/dU8mv
Walkie-talkie insanity.
yep, but I’m sure a lot of people could see this coming a mile away. Even us Apple Fan Bois.
They crossed the line with the GV dis
Please explain the “why” using logical thought. I really don’t get it.
It would be illogical to do so, since you wouldn’t get it
“Go FCC?”
Morons… jesus christ they are duplicating by the minute.
Go FCC! Just what we needed, I think. The fact that Apple blocks good apps like the GV app makes me even less inclined to buy an iPhone, and go for a new and shiny Nokia N86, or something… Not that I really want or need a new phone right now…
I’m going to go out on a limb and blame this whole controversy on Steve Jobs. It’s been reported that Phil Schiller was personally involved in helping to move some of the Google Voice apps through the App Store approval process. Doubtful the timing of Jobs’ return is just a coincidence.
(Tables have *turned*)
Wow. I’m actually pleased by an instance of government interference in private industry.
ha ha. Yeah, who the fuck says “tables have changed?”
People who have just returned from Ikea.
No, then they say “the Koonstnørd have Bloërcked!”
Weird, I thought comments with with swear words were auto-moderated.
Would you say you’re being hypocritical?
Some people have no principles. Where is the libertarian outrage at this intrusion of government interference?
Go FCC!!!
The system works!
oh yeah, every time lol
Disillusionment in Apple land?
Give Scientology a try.
Lol awesome…you otta print that on stickers
Hahahaha comment WIN!
LOL. Best comment yet!
@jason
But doesn’t your statement show that there is competition in the market? There’s nothing in free market ideology that suggests everyone on every carriers is entitled to an iPhone. If consumers want it they have to deal with some restrictions, or clamor loud enough to make the companies change that. I don’t think we really need the fcc butting in with this. I swear, the new head of the FCC must be a smartphone freak or something, because they’re going after the carriers. Here’s an idea: go after texting rates first.
I agree, texting rates do need to be looked at. In fact… I think that being charged for receiving a text is wrong. What if, in the next few years, the profitability of SMS spamming goes through the roof in the US, and everyone gets at least 5, if not 10 SMS spam messages a day. It might not seem like much at the beginning, but over the course of the year, that can *really* add up, and all from texts you received, and therefore have no control over.
+1
You guys get charged to *receive* a text??? For real? Are you able to reject them? In Australia, the person who sends it pays for it. The receiver pays nothing. Like mail.
+1
yea they are out of control but a company should be able to charge whatever they want. if you don’t like it then go somewhere else.
Awesome!! @arrington can probably switch back to iPhone now..
Holy crap. I would never have guessed that would happen. I actually looked to make sure it wasn’t April Fools
Interesting development!
http://www.traderbots.com
Go to any website with “bots” in its name at your own peril.
spam, lol
It’ll be interesting to see whether this has impact on AT&T’s common carrier status. They could potentially be in all kinds of legal trouble if it’s lost by proving they’re not being neutral enough with their network.
The will not end well for developers. In an ideal world things will suddenly open up and all will be happy.
The reality is this action will force Apple to produce air-tight agreements on what developers can actually produce and distribute via the app store and possibly secure even more the walled garden.
Atleast developers will know exactly what is off limits. The more air tight there aggreements are the better off developers will be because finally we’ll see exactly the negative impact the closed garden approach of Apple.
Can’t wait for Microsoft’s app store, they know how to treat developers, always have and always will do right by us developers…
Oh, I don’t know about that, Microsoft does ok by the game developers and vertical market players, but they have a long history of releasing products that compete with their developers (e.g. Stac Electronics, Lotus, Word Perfect, Ashton-Tate) and use private APIs to give themselves a competitive advantage.
Apple competes with its developers too, but Microsoft is not a shining example.
Thank god. Apple has been one of the most anti competitive companies out there for the past couple of years.
What are you talking about? A bunch of dolts on here have no concept about what anti-competitive means.
Agreed. Sanjay = 1 dolt
Wtf are you idiots talking about?? Anti Competitive?
Jesus christ i think if i read another comment my brain is going to explode from all the stupidity.
the iPhone has created competition. PERIOD
Have the companies been making anything good to compete with it? So far no.
Is that fair? Lifes not fair, this is business, Make a better product or don’t.
instead what i see here are companies Whining and crying and seeking out the government’s help??
Christ the country is in bad shape right now. Idiots like you all are making it worse.
“Go FCC” be careful what you wish for. Morons
Good move although I’d rather the FCC looks into carrier text messaging pricing practices.
that might take care of itself if GV gets approved (and if GV supports push)
Yes! I am a proud Google Voice customer, and this is damn good news.
Yes! I am a proud Google Voice customer, and this is damn good news.
Yeah, the rejection sucks, but honestly the FCC has no business here. Apple can do what it wants here. Legitimate or not.
Not true. Although we say we have free markets. They are not really free. You can’t do whatever your crazy brain thinks of even if it’s with your business. It’s kinda like personal freedom. Just because you have the power, you can’t expect to harass people for your own good.
“Apple can do what it wants here. Legitimate or not.”
Do you even conscious of what you’re typing? O_o
I hope Apple gets slapped with some kind of anti-competition lawsuit over this.
When I buy a computer, the manufacturer DOES NOT dictate what software I can install. Why should Apple?
Balls
Its a phone you burk.
it’s a computer you twit
Its New Shimer! A desert topping AND a floor wax.
LOL!
It’s a fine-piece-of-something-that-all-people-need.
So? It’s my device. If I don’t care about getting support I should be able to do anything I want with it.
Even if it is a phone cant you install software on Symbian, Windows Mobile, Android and other os’es so why is this different.
But you can install anything you want. It’s just that GV won’t be available from Apple’s App Store, for Apple’s phone, isn’t it?
The really really hot girlfriend’s mom has stepped in and hopefully will give the spoiled brat a good ol’ fashioned spanking. Go Mrs. FCC!
Worst analogy ever.
Accounting for DRM, that comparison only works if the hot girlfriend’s mom is into bondage.
Also, is the hot girlfriend the spoiled brat? Who’s Mr. FCC? Would that be your really really hot girlfriend?
I would send you a chill pill if I had a spare. I ran out earlier, so you’ll just have to be still for some time and think about bubbles and kittens, or whatever else floats your boat.
I, for one, just can’t quit her. She’s a lot of trouble, but she’s also a lot of hot. =\
haha I remember your comment from last article. This is the sequel right?
Just this morning on my drive to work I was thinking this was about time for someone (I was thinking DOJ) to get involved in the Apple-AT&T-Google shenanigans.
If this were AT&T’s decision, they would also be protesting GV on Blackberry. But they are not, which would indicate that this was Apple’s decision.
Also throw into the mix that Apple has refused to support push Gmail on the iPhone, while push email for other email (yahoo, mobileme) IS supported on the iPhone and push Gmail is supported. All to create demand for MobileMe with push email.
Apple’s starting to rot.
GV may still be available on other devices such as the Blackberry, but they aren’t subject to the strict control of the walled garden. In addition, iPhones are a giant percentage of the devices on their system now, so keeping GV off of of the iPhone alone is enough to make a pretty big big difference to AT&T’s bottom line.
See my blog post “Has Apple Jumped The Shark?!? http://ghendar....mped-the-shark/ ( or if that link gets mangled… http://bit.ly/rjxLm ) if you don’t believe that AT&T has a hand in this.
Who ever thought the voice of reason would be the FCC? Regardless of who’s to blame, it’s nice to see that the decision makers are being held accountable.
FCC has no business in this.
Agreed. This is BS. If they want Apple to give up its business, I say its time to regulate Google to stop funneling their search revenues into other lines of businesses. That, my frields, is much more anti-competitive that this BS.
That’s not anti-competitive any more than MS subsidizing MSN is, or the grocery store offering milk at a discount to lure you in to buy other expensive products. Millions of businesses would be at risk of lawsuit for offering a loss leader. The closest anti-competitive practice to this is dumping, and this is clearly defined in law. So basically, you’re wrong.
…any more than MS subsidizing Internet Explorer. Whoops, that WAS anticompetitive, and cost them billions of dollars.
There was nothing wrong with MS subsidizing IE, it was the bundling. The FCC is entirely within their boundaries because they regulate the spectrum that AT&T and all get to play in, and that Apple gets to access with their devices. What’s it going to take to get a little fact checking around this comment section?
Hello Apple…I know you are right there on a meeting right now trying to find a way out of this…think of this..you made people say GO FCC…something is wrong…sit and fix
Wow! Is this a sign of hell freezing over ?! What happened in the FCC that they started to become useful again. I can’t believe that I am actually happy with something they are doing!
New administration?
Exactly. Obama wants to bring Apple down because he’s a Blackberry fanboy.
Or something.
This is awesome, I would rather not have to jailbreak my iphone so can get updates on an approved GV Mobile app that I paid for in the app store.
“Talkin ’bout 1, 2, 3…..F,C,C , come on baby you and me girl”
Gay.
“We are interested in a more complete understanding of this situation.”
Yes we are, we the public, from whom you licensed the spectrum to build your business upon.
“If we can hit that bull’s-eye, the rest of the dominoes will fall like a house of cards. Checkmate!”
Zapf Branigan
What if it was Apple that gave the FCC a nudge in order to get out their contract with at&t?
-1
Exactly ,Wally…….Apple has been giving ATT enough rope to hang itself.., knowing that its greed and monopolistic practices would eventually cause it to slip the noose over it’s own neck.
Techcrunch has become a crapshot of a blog. How did this place get overrun by a pack a whiny b**ches?
Later.
Best. Impersonation. Ever.
WOW, the FCC just earned some mad respect points with that letter. Something tells me that AT&T, Apple & Google’s responses will be quite interesting to read too.
@Simon Vault = Randall Stephenson
Complete ownership of your companies app store and what apps are allowed? No issues.
Requiring phones to be carrier locked if phone is purchased at subsidized rate? No issues.
Not allowing full price unlocked phone purchase? MAJOR ISSUE.
Not allowing installation of apps outside of app store? MAJOR ISSUE.
But is not this the deal you agree to when you buy the phone? Don’t buy the phone if you don’t like those conditions. Buy another phone with another carrier.
@Joeseph Enego
It’s called a change in administrations.
I do find it interesting a mobile OS provider (Google) is getting their exclusion from another mobile OS providers store (Apple) looked at by the FCC. I wonder what the response would have been if the app rejected came from Microsoft?
I do wish Apple was a lot more upfront on what would be approved (like before developers spend time and money), but I get the feeling that this will find a memo from AT&T to Apple about Google Voice.
On another note, was this initiated by Google, developer complaints, or some bureaucrat who is mad he couldn’t get the app himself?
Of course this was pushed by Google. They have tremendous influence in Washington DC.
Time to start putting the anti-competitive screws on Google then, Obama.
Anti-competitive? Are you serious? Anti-competitive is trying to crush your competition. I don’t see how Google is doing that. I think you forgot that Google Maps and Safari’s default search provider is Google. If they are anti-competitive, they should just cut all lines coming Apple and AT&T from using any of their services. Now that’s being anti-competitive.
But i guess you wouldn’t understand why people are happy about this news considering you’re obviously a religious wing nut from the right. You guys don’t even think. You just blindly follow your leaders religiously.
My exact same thoughts
Well said!
Apple is a hardware manufacturer, they always have been. There OS is made to only run on Apple hardware. They are not a Mobile OS provider as they do not provide their OS to anyone else. I think the government should stay out of this and people should get smarter about what they buy.
But who am I to talk… I use a PC to do Graphic design and use every Google product available on my I-phone. I also work in advertising and if this is what gets people upset… HAHAHAHAHA
Look for things to get even more interesting as the players all line up. Maybe they will all sit around and have a beer…
negative.
God almighty himself fears Michael Arrington
You’re obviously praying to the wrong God then…
Apple is the new evil empire.
Posted with my awesome G1
You are seriously idiotic. You don’t even own an iphone!
After having read several of your preceding posts, two things are painfully obvious:
1) You have absolutely not even a basic understanding of economics, the free market, government regulation and business practices in general.
2) You are an Apple fanboy.
Now take your less than feeble understanding of economics to school and learn even just a little something about everything I listed in point number one. Then come back a few years later with a modicum of intelligence and post an articulate, educated opinion if you feel you must.
Agree with you Mike.
Negative. I have a strong understanding of the free market.
Take away the names (APPL, GOOG) and its all very simple. If I ran a business where the government told me how I had to fashion my product simply because some customers and competitors didn’t like what features I included, and how I leveraged my brand equity and market prominence, I would be pissed! This kind of government involvement puts the breaks on entrepreneurship and risk taking, and only leads to LESS consumer choice.
If i had a phone and the phone manufacturer told me what programs I could and couldn’t put on it, and how I used them, I would be pissed! This kind of corporate involvement puts the brakes on innovation and only leads to LESS consumer choice.
wat
You’re a dolt Sanjay. Listen to Mike, u might learn something.
@Sanjay
Again, your attempt at a basic comprehension of economics and the free market fail.
Yeah Mike …….Sounds like you qualify for a Nobel prize in economics…….Let’s see what is Apple’s market share…? 8-9%…? Sounds like a real monopoly to me….and explain to me exactly how Apple benefits by having to drag the ball and chain of ATT around…..??? You are a MicroBot fool and a tool.
J,
I think you should probably head back to school with Sanjay because your reading comprehension is on par with that of a third graders’. Please feel free to point out the words, verbatim, from my post that refer to Apple’s, “monopoly.”
It’s no wonder this country is going down the tubes.
Agree with Mike. Sanjay is a clueless fanboi – he won’t have any clue what you’re saying
He’s not just an apple fanboy, he’s a religous wing nut. Why not try to ask him if he believes in evolution, most certainly he’ll deny it and say the earth is only 6000 years old.
@Open – LOL, probably true!
Hahaha.
this is just all kinds of awesome.
Why? Because its good for the government to interview with legitimate businesses? Nobody forces the iphone on anybody. This whole thing is now politically charged, which can lead to no good for anybody. Let the crap begin.
No because this could be the beginning of the end for bullshit exclusive carrier agreements. I don’t mind paying, but I want to have a choice who I pay.
I’m not a fan of exclusive carrier agreements, but I also believe that Apple has a right to make them. It’s their business that’s on the line, and their risk to take.
Yeah
MG, you and your other short-sighted cohorts cheer when the government happens to force someone to do what you want.
However, it will be a tragedy by the time you realize that giving government power to do “good” is one of the most dangerous things we can do with our lives and our liberty. You’re a blind fool.
This is an interesting case for sure, and the arguments here so far fall along a predictable axis of libertarian hands-off and pro-government intervention.
That’s all fine.
The question, really, is this: Are Apple and AT&T unfairly keeping out competition to artificially inflate prices, or do they have legitimate needs to protect their network?
They aren’t operating in out of a garage; they must have known that this kind of inquiry was coming. Given that the cell phone bill is now one of the most significant single bills people pay each month, I think the government has a proper role to play investigating this. What they find will be fascinating, and I hope all three companies make their answers public.
Anti-trust is complete horse shit, philosophically. In fact, the Sherman Anti Trust Act was one of the first stones cast at our original brand of capitalism. Nothing but a foot in the door for opportunistic politicians to start buying votes and seizing power simultaneously.
Look where we are today… we cheer when these thug politicians harass someone… like some mafia wise guys engaging in a protection racket.
Mob rule is where we are indeed heading.
“Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.” – George Washington
You do have a choice of carrier, don’t you? What you want is to pick and choose parts to fashion your own offering.
In the US, you can buy AT&T/iPhone, just as you can buy a Chevy with a Delco stereo. Apple is simply a supplier of hardware to AT&T. Yes, Apple used their superior brand, product design, etc, to demand a premium price for the handset, but that’s the free market! This is quite disappointing from a free market perspective.
I had no idea I could not change my stereo if I bought a Chevy. (sarcasm)
Cut the stupid libertarian crap. You are a single individual. Nobody cares what you do or your tiny insignificant business does. However once you have reached a certain size, your actions affect everybody. Apple has reached that size.
You remind me of people who vote against their own interest because they worry that if they ever became multibillionaires they’d have to pay more taxes. One has to be pretty dumb to believe one’s dreams instead of looking at reality.
@someone You are disconnected from reality. You have offered no legitimate argument as to why Apple is a special case, where the ideals of a free market must be tossed aside simply because Apple chooses to run its business a certain way. Simply because they have sold millions of units does not make government intervention right. And just because a consumer really, REALLY wants their product… on verizon…. doesn’t make it right either.
@Sanjay, so on the same lines explain why M$ was a monopoly. It was their business. Nobody was forcing Windows on anybody!
Apple doesn’t have a monopoly. The mobile device market is very competitive. Consumers have a wide variety of choices. Using Microsoft as a comparison is flawed.
Sanjay,
If you think this is the govt attacking Apple’s philosophies and wanting to put them out of business, you’re missing the point.
Actions like these have far reaching consequences. The implication here is that you have unlimited data and limited voice, then along comes a giant who makes it ridiculously easy to take AT&T out of the game and become a dumb pipe just for local voice calls and data. No long distance, no stranglehold on your number, no say in the matter (even with wireless number portability, there’s a significant barrier to switching phones around). Furthermore, Apple is either pushed by AT&T and is guilty by commission OR it is guilty because it is resisting its own applications like the dialer being replaced.
Of course, in good time it will be Google’s turn.
I completely agree with that statement
Boy that next Apple board meeting will be kind of awkward
And I see it is GOOD
wow. go gummint!
WoW look what TechCrunch has done!
Awesome & congrats!
?
Hell yes! For once, the government is on my side.
Yes, Apple is evil.
Does this mean that Michael will stop being such a drama queen and maybe realize that there are local charities which could do with his $175 much more than AT&T can?
i cannot begin to express how glad i am that someone gave a sh*t that matters!
okay, i guess i did just begin to do that. either way, i’m f**king happy about it!
Oh yeah. This made my day. About time Apple and AT&T’s anticompetitive practices come under FCC scrutiny. It is sometimes necessary for government to step in to regulate abusive practices in private industry that hurts consumers.
What is AT&T ? A cellular phone provider, Its primary function is to be able to call and talk to someone, secondary as a data provider. If we all start to use VOIP phone calls. All phone providers will go bankrupt or we all will see HUGE markupsin our data service. As simple as that.
The Google Voice App is NOT a VOIP client. Using that app would not create a surge in data, it is just a dialing program.
That said, one can argue that a cell phone company’s first function is to provide calls, but that is pretty debatable these days. Data is the new voice, and the telcos know that. In the next decade you will see a switch in the cost of voice compared to data. What happens when video calling kicks off? Will they stick to their old business model, of course not. Things are changing, and AT&T is really not good at going with the change.
Man, I just LOVE the language!
When will FTC mail a letter to Google regarding the AdWords service?
Hey, FTC people! Highlight, Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V !
@Alex – I agree! It is cool to see the big companies being talked to that way!
Yeah, FCC, go in! Go in!
As John Stewart would probably say: When FCC roots for more transparency and openness, you know you messed up.
Will be interesting to see how the govt handles it. As much as I’m sure people would like to believe Michael Arrington initiated this FCC action, and no doubt he has tremendous influence, I suspect it was more likely from AT&T lobbyists being called to action because AT&T was getting tired of taking the consumer heat for an Apple decision. As I’ve said before, banning GV was 100% an Apple move. They have ALL the leverage with AT&T, not the other way around. Heck, if AT&T tried to tell Apple to do anything I’m sure Apple with laugh and tell them to go f&%k themselves.
I disagree. If Apple had that much influence over AT&T then MMS would be working. If Apple did this alone then it was from a concern arising from the fact that they may be looking to move the iPhone platform to a new carrier and how much of a liability these types of apps would be in those negotiations. The fact is that the iPhone does put stress on networks which is why it should not be tied to a single carrier. It should be sharing bandwidth across multiple carriers.
I think the tide may be turning on network exclusivity and closed platforms. The FCC is very interested in this and it should be interesting to see how all of this plays out.
And as far as who called the FCC, my bet is Google. As much as I respect Arrington, Google would have tons more pull. There is no way AT&T called the FCC. Even if you are innocent, if you and your business practices are being investigated, you don’t call them in to investigate something else. And you sure as hell don’t call them in to investigate your business partner. I am not sure AT&T is all that concerned with the bad press. They have to used to it by now. With all the bad press they have gotten, they continue to make the same mistakes. If they were that worried about the bad press, they would make sure to have mobile units at and and all geek gatherings way before they would be asking the FCC to initiate and investigation.