Right about now, Apple probably wishes it had never rejected Google Voice and related apps from the iPhone. Or maybe it was AT&T who rejected the apps. Nobody really knows. But the FCC launched an investigation last night to find out, sending letters to all three companies (Apple, AT&T, and Google) asking them to explain exactly what happened.
On its face, it might seem odd to some people that the FCC is investigating the rejection of a single iPhone app. After all, iPhone apps are rejected every day. But the Google Voice rejection caused an unusual amount of uproar, and there is nothing like a high-profile case to make an example out of in pursuit of pushing a bigger policy agenda. The FCC investigation is not just about the arbitrary rejection of a single app. It is the FCC’s way of putting a stake in the ground for making the wireless networks controlled by cell phone carriers as open as the Internet.
Today there are two different sets of rules for applications and devices on the Internet. On the wired Internet, we can connect any type of PC or other computing device and use any applications we want on those devices. On the wireless Internet controlled by cellular carriers like AT&T, we can only use the phones they allow on their networks and can only use the applications they approve. This was fine when the wireless networks were used mostly just for voice calls. But now that they are increasingly becoming our mobile connections to the Internet and mobile phones are becoming full-fledged mobile computers, an argument has been growing that the same rules of open access that rule the wired Internet should apply to the wireless Internet.
While Apple and AT&T cannot be too happy about the FCC investigation, Google must secretly be pleased as punch. It was only two years ago, prior to the 700MHz wireless spectrum auctions, that it was pleading with the FCC to adopt principles guaranteeing open access for applications, devices, services, and other networks. Now two years later, in a different context and under a different administration, the FCC is pushing for the same principles.
In its letters requesting more information from all three companies, the FCC cites “pending FCC proceedings regarding wireless open access (RM-11361) and handset exclusivity (RM-11497). That first proceeding on open access dates back to 2007 when Skype requested that cell phone carriers open up their networks to all applications (see Skype’s petition here). Like Google Voice, Skype helps consumers bypass the carriers. The carriers don’t like that because it erodes their core business and turns them into dumb pipes.
But dumb pipes are what we need. They are good for consumers and good for competition because they allow any application and any device, within reason, to flower on the wireless Internet. So if you look at the questions the FCC is asking, it wants to know why the Google Voice app was rejected and whether AT&T (the carrier) had anything to do with that rejection:
2. Did Apple act alone, or in consultation with AT&T, in deciding to reject the Google Voice application and related applications? . . .
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?
The FCC also wants Apple to explain the arbitrariness of its app approval process:
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?
Good questions. Hopefully, the FCC will share Apple’s answers with the rest of the us. It is all a bit absurd, though. Why does it take a formal request from a government agency to get Apple (and AT&T) to explain what the rules are to get on the wireless Internet? More importantly, why are these companies allowed to be the gatekeepers to the wireless Internet? The iPhone needs to be smashed open, and the FCC is swinging the hammer.
Update: AT&T responded to this post with the following statements:
AT&T does not manage or approve applications for the App Store. We have received the letter and will, of course, respond to it.
Customers can use any compatible GSM phone on our network, not just the ones we’ve approved and sell. And they also can use apps we don’t approve. We don’t approve iPhone applications.
So there you have it. You can use any mobile app you like on AT&T—unless it is an iPhone app (that’s been rejected by Apple). Does Apple ever reject apps at the request of AT&T though? Maybe they’ll give the FCC a straight answer.
(Flickr photo credit:Stephen Heywood).
“why are these companies allowed to be the gatekeepers to the wireless Internet?”
I think those days are numbered, it’s just going to be an uphill battle to get there.
To unlock and jailbreak your iphone use this software. It worked for me in less than 6 minutes!
easyiphoneunlocker.us
yeah right, nice trojan horse you have there.
spam, come on moderators! lol
Ultimately Apple has to accept it!
I bet this is more about regulation/control of call data: archives of calls, who gets to run software/metrics on your conversations, identity of callers, building ad profiles from calls, etc.
Wow…this is too good. Apple and AT&T asked for this and they are getting what they deserved. However, I would have loved to see this go on for a little longer so that enough unrest brews within the users and people give a chance to other manufacturers. It would have been wonderful for the entire industry. Read more http://truvoipb...ce-app-opinion/
DUDE … please.
@Alok — “give a chance to other manufacturers” ???
What do you mean? Apple is still a minority player in this market. I say the majority of people give plenty of chances to companies not named Apple. This blind hatred of a successful company is idiotic. Either you do or do not use and enjoy the product and that’s about it, all the rest is gas bag noise.
They are the current majority in the smart phone department. If you bother watching every apple keynote of the iphone you’ll see them brag about it.
perpetuitas
I don’t completely disagree with you. I use an iPhone and I’m quite happy with it, albeit a few glaring issues with AT&T. The current crop of iPhone haters is an example of what happens to anybody on the top. It has been happening to Wintel PC’s for years from Apple and their fanboys.
Apple has been guilty of pouring gasoline on that fire and spewing “Gag Bag Noise,” so you really can’t blame people for giving them a taste of their own medicine.
It’s a shame that when an American based company succeeds with anything, its Americans who want to bash it. If you can compete, just have the government steal for you. Google has a smart phone, its just not as good as the i-phone, so the dominate player in the internet space decides to have its government act like the French and attemot to steal technology and innovation it can do itself. The resignation of the Google CEO from Apple’s board shows exactly what the master plan for Google is – domination of the wireless internet like it dominates the wired internet. Whose going to be able to take on the 900 pound monkey when its partner is the US govenment’s FCC. The FCC had an opportunity when auctioning spectrum to put in place “open policies” for the wireless internet and failed to do so at the time. Now Google, who didn’t want to spend the money for spectrum, wants a free ride on the back of those companies that have invested heavily in the wireless internet (infrastructure and hardware). If Google wants a free highway, let them buy the spectrum and do as they want. I am no fan of AT&T, since it represnts the worst of deregulation, but I don’t believe they should have to justify not doing business with Google or any other company US-based or foreign.
“why are these companies allowed to be the gatekeepers to the wireless Internet?”
Oh, I don’t know. Because they invested billions of dollars building cell towers and all of the other infrastructure needed to provide that access?
That’s why they can charge us to use that infrastructure.
The issue here is that they’re also dictating *how* we use that infrastructure after we’ve already paid for the privelige of access.
ANALOGY ALERT: It’s like your electricity company telling you which brand of appliances you can plug into your outlets.
GREAT analogy.
And what you can bake in it – or not;
Roasts are fine but fry-ups are not, etc
No it’s not quite like that. It’s like saying “you can only buy this sexy appliance if you buy your electricity from us”.
Seems to me that this is a market thing — if consumers don’t like being tied to AT&T, then they can shop elsewhere. Any buy a different product.
Unless you think that the iPhone is so important for national interests that consumers should have a _right_ to use the iPhone.
The electric utilities don’t act quite like AT&T because they are heavily regulated, state-sanctioned monopolies.
Even they aren’t “dumb pipes” for electric power. They charge more during the day than at night. They make you install a 220VAC line if you need power above some limit (for clothes dryer, table-size power tools, etc.) They charge double for usage above your baseline. They don’t have to put a hard limit on energy consumption because your circuit breaker will do it for them.
Sounds about like tiered pricing, no?
Because of limited bandwidth, airwaves are considered public domain. That’s the whole point of the FCC. Because there are only so many frequencies, society has decided that they should be publicly controlled. Imagine if one company bought every single frequency available? It would not be in the interest of the public for one company to control what is considered to be a shared, limited resource. We allow private institutions to have access to these frequencies, but we do not give them unfettered permission to do anything they want.
Michael, The Telecommunications Act of 1996 gave these companies billions of dollars worth of tax breaks to help them update their infrastructure and provide broadband, so I think I could make a pretty good argument that it wasn’t the carriers money that was invested.
good, now we will know and then what? apple will be forced to accept all apps and open up the iPhone. I guess not.
AT&T which is one of the biggest networks in the world that are transmitting traffic will be made an example for the rest of the pack of predators.
Basically, in case you didn’t understand, FCC is threatening AT&T that if it won’t justify it’s deeds properly or retreat it will revoke it’s licences for data transmission (which is a much bigger business than these Apple toys).
I’m surprised they miscalculated on this, Apple’s brand could take a hit if they don’t respond in the right way.
maybe they can’t respond at all……
The problem for Apple is that they cannot / won’t answer any questions. We don’t really know if it was AT&T or Apple that nuked the app, and we don’t know what the contract says about the ability of Apple to disclose reasons if AT&T red flagged the apps.
As most of us have found out AT&T’s only virtue with the iPhone is their initial acceptance. Their network is overloaded and hasn’t scaled to meet the demands of the new device.
Does Apple ever reject apps at the request of AT&T though? Maybe they’ll give the FCC a straight answer.
That’s really the thing, right? AT&T says they don’t “approve” iPhone apps, but that leaves a nice, truck-sized loophole as to what might happen behind the scenes. I won’t expect any clarity on this in the future, as anything negative would certainly open them both up to collusion charges. See also: “compatible phone.”
My thoughts as well.
It could be innocent but AT&T’s wording looks to have been chosen very carefully. They say that they don’t manage or approve apps and I don’t doubt that is the truth. But they don’t say if they have any influence over the approval process.
There was a statement at the bottom of the three letters stating that confidentiality can be given.
But the confidentiality request cannot be a “blanket” request.
I can’t wait for the day when the mobile world is as open as the the www is now. Imagine comcast telling you only Dell computers running xp are permitted if you use their service. The thought of that is just silly. Transfer that over to Apple/ATT telling me I can only use this handset and these applications.
Dats some bullcrap.
That’s not what’s going on here. Its more analogous to Comcast giving you a discounted Dell computer if you signed up, and but you demanding an HP at that same discount. AT&T offers many phones, and you can buy an unlocked phone of another brand, and use it on their network.
And if you do buy one of these “other” phones, you’re completely on your own connecting it to their data network. The won’t provide the proper configuration or have staff capable of such a task. Been there, done that.
Ok, then get a blackberry. It has all the data connectivity you could every want.
Nokia has tools on their website that automatically sets carrier setting on their unlocked phones
Apple does not have to answer the governments questions anymore than you have to answer a nosy cops questions.
Oh.
They certainly shouldn’t have to, at least until the carriers start colluding on these decisions.
The bar should be higher for gov’t intervention in commerce. Otherwise we wind up with crap products and and more corrupt gov’t, as more and more private decisions have to be made in association with campaign contributions (and hoping that a competitor doesn’t pay more or marry his daughter into a regulator’s family).
yeah, they can “plead the 5th”, but if they do, they’ll answer in court. just like you would with a nosy cop.
Thats not how the 5th amendment works, you always have the right to not answer a question, even in court, if it would cause you to incriminate yourself.
It’s all part of Google’s master plan to do a 3G only phone to a VOIP solutions. Just don’t tell anyone. You might upset cash cows.
Basically. Google can’t compete with Apple strictly in the market place, so they tap their friends in Washington DC to get some help.
i agree with you, Apple is simply protecting their market.
We know the limitation is not put in by AT&T because they allow the Google Voice app to work on Blackberries.
Not necessarily, iPhone and BB are more or less in a different market segment – at least the BBs that ATT offers.
iPhone users rely both on data and messaging. Most iPhone users are going to want a messaging plan. BB users, many of which use their phones for work, rely on phone and data. A contractor who needs to approve invoices while traveling to a site isn’t going to be texting suppliers 24/7, he’s going to be on email. A regional sales rep isn’t going to text msg a potential client trying to woo them into buying their goods or services, he’s going to call them. I could be wrong, but I would say a good deal of BB users don’t need a txt plan.
Therefore, GV on BB isn’t nearly as big a threat to ATT as it would be on iPhone.
Ummm, wouldn’t the exact opposite be true?
iPhone txt more, BB users call more.
So wouldn’t BBs use GV more?
I was referring to the free SMS provided in GV. Is it possible to get a BB on ATT without a voice plan? If so, then I see your point.
Save that comment and read it in 5 years.
Why would anyone doubt it’s Steve ‘control freak’ jobs driving the bus at Apple?
This type of phyco control is EXACTLEY why I and millions like me would NEVER buy a Mac anything! Has this bloke ever heard of the free market?
I know you don’t know what is a free market. Apple owns the app store and they can limit the content of THEIR store. The competitor can build their own store and make their own phone if they want. That is the free market there.
+1. I can’t believe how many people don’t understand that the government is interrupting the free market with this investigation.
I can’t believe you don’t understand that the spectrum ATT operates on is owned by the people of the US. They were awarded the privilege to operate their service on the public airwaves.
Free-market purists don’t seem to comprehend that the government was involved from the beginning with leasing this public resource to ATT in the first place
@coldbrew Exactly, it’s less about free market forces and more about giving back to the people what was theirs to begin with.
These days, it’s almost impossible to get by in a professional world without a cell phone, internet access, etc. so when we see carriers and utilities (who often hold a monopoly in many areas) try an get away with squeezing every nickel and dime out of the customers they rely on, something has to be done.
Thank you coldbrew for making an excellent point.
Free market purist also don’t understand that it will devolve competition. A non-restricted “free” market leads to the exact opposite, a closed market.
One of the innovations of American capitalism is the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, the Claytain Antitrust Act of 1914, and subsequent amendments to those which basically outlawed anti-competitive practices such as exclusive dealing agreements, price discrimination, tying arrangements, etc.
Interesting to see if the FCC’s investigation may lead to a DOJ referral regarding violations of antitrust. The Europeans wouldn’t be far behind starting their inquiries.
If so, then Apple will certainly regret pulling the Google Voice app.
Free means not being able to reject something on one reason and then accepting another on the same basis as Apple does over and over again. Their reasoning is that it mimics certain features of the iphone while the app store is littered with many phones that do the same thing…but who are they to pick and choose…in a FREE market. I hope the FCC makes them change this ridiculous practice they have going on.
Explain how this has anything to do with the spectrum? AT&T isn’t preventing you from using the spectrum. You can easily buy a blackberry and ride their data network, and use Google Voice. RIM produces a fine phone. We are talking about one phone. If the iPhone had 50%+ market share, then I’d be on your side. That’s not the case here. Many people are of the opinion that because the phone companies use spectrum, they can’t run their operation like a real business.
Very well said.
Sanjay here won’t understand what your saying because he’s being blinded by his apple fanboyism and religious wing nut ideology.
If Sanjay calls that free market, then I don’t see any reason why google shouldn’t cut prevent AT&T and Apple to access any of their services like maps or the search engine. Google owns them so since Apple and AT&T pissed them off, I don’t see why Google can’t tell them to fracked themselves and find another search engine and maps to use. I would love to see AT&T and Apples executives faces if that happens.
If you really believe in Free Market, lett whoever has the strongest transmitters win. Let’s all blast the airwaves.
Oh, but then your precious monopolies won’t make any money and no one will have service.
So perhaps they benefit from government regulation after all… It makes them money.
So then you’re arguing which regulation you want, and you’re supporting government just as much as the rest of us.
Really? You got this far, using a computer to access the internet and everything, and you’ve never heard of “The Goose That Laid The Golden Eggs?” Wild, man! You should Google “Aesop” some time, you might get a kick out of it.
Public airwaves. Read it again.
This has nothing to do with the “free market.” Let’s drill down a bit into elementary basics. If you paid for an iPhone 3G, do you own it or not? If you do own it, then why is there an intermediary that can regulate what you can use on it? Why should you have to jailbreak it to use Cydia and why does that violate the warranty? The FCC and FTC are probably not happy about Amazon deleting peoples’ books off the Kindle as that has violated some basic ownership rights. Since Amazon has refunded the money and the CEO has personally apologized, somebody else has to be made an example of and a line has to be drawn in the sand regarding ownership of digital content.
If you do not own it, then you are paying for a service like a leased car you can return it or pay a balloon fee to keep it. However, that is not what your contract states – you do own the device. The point is that this model of ownership is flawed and needs to be revised and reviewed, because the Apple app store personnel have been “winging it” and that leads to arbitrary distinctions, which leads to consumer marginalization and eventually, government intervention. I know you are used to the last 8 years of hear no evil, see no evil… well, that has changed. Screaming “free market” at every instance is like the boy who cried wolf and people are getting bored of hearing it.
Because of limited bandwidth, airwaves are considered public domain. That’s the whole point of the FCC. Because there are only so many frequencies, society has decided that they should be publicly controlled. We allow private institutions to have access to these frequencies, but we do not give them unfettered permission to do anything they want. Those airwaves belong to the public and it’s the FCC’s job to make sure that our “renters” don’t trash the place. If they do, they get “evicted.”
@Sanjay
You seem like an idiot monkey with a keyboard – typing without thinking.
Pause for a minute – think and seek help from other if you cannot understand govt. is trying to make it more open so that customers are not held hostage by Apples of the world.
Sanjay is a religous wing nut from the right. THat’s all you need to know. ^_^V
And why should AT&T dictate what those in other countries can and can’t do with our iPhones? Why can’t we download files over 10mb for example, in Australia where unlimited* data plans are unheard of, since we’re paying per MB.
Basically, its pricing and service availability. They priced their service, and built certain cost assumptions into the model. And they build certain protections to acknowledge the limitation of their network.
I don’t think AT&T is dictating these things.
Orange France has long allowed features such as tethering and MMS that have been locked out by AT&T in the US.
+1
“The carriers don’t like that because that’s their erodes their core business and turns them into dumb pipes.”
I think i r could right a bettttr article then’s this one.
Difficult to take seriously with so many grammar mistakes by the author.
puh-leeze. Eric’s got a crazy schedule – he was just on Charlie Rose – and I would guess is constantly sleep-deprived. He got his point across. Give him a break!
Does anyone know why the FCC is even “investigating” this?? Last I checked the FCC was supposed to be concerned about content on the radio/air waves and making sure devices do not interfere with govt frequencies. I dont see a reason for a govt agency to be interfering in what is plainly and clearly a disagreement between 2 private companies (maybe 3 if AT&T is involved). Honestly something as small an issue as a redundant Google iPhone app is not an issue the US Govt should be worried about much less reviewing and pursuing an inquiry.
Read the first paragraph:
http://en.wikip...ia.org/wiki/Fcc
Do you even know why you’re commenting on this? Last I checked it was helpful to know what you’re talking about before spewing words all over a popular website. I don’t see a reason for a random internet retard to be able to insert themselves into a discussion that is plainly and clearly a technical and factual matter over public resources. Honestly something as simple as reading comprehension should get you most of the way toward figuring out that you have nothing to say on the matter.
I completely agree (with Facebook user). It is this sort of governmental fascism that is being perpetuated throughout our current government. The belief that everyone is entitled to everything whether it belongs to them or not.
If I own a store, why should the government force me to sell a product that would hurt my business or boost the business of my competitor. Capitalism and the good old US of A gives us a choice. If one does not like the iPhone app store and it’s process of accepting or rejecting apps, then go to another carrier and a different phone. It really is that simple.
This has little to do with public domain and the airwaves and more to do with profit and loss. It really is ok for a company to make a decision that is in their best interest, it is after all their company. The govt. is way too involved in pvt. business these days.
In the end the consumer will lose. Yes, dumb pipes are where we are going. So say goodbye to voice plans mr carrier and say hello to all data cell bills. And to my point, say goodbye to unlimited data (in us) mr consumer and say hello to $ per byte. Yeah we sure win don’t we. Anyone for cloud computing (google). You damn right they are smiling. Open you wallets techcrunch. Open cell network here we come.
If we do go to a pay per byte model with all carriers and services providers, I’ll promptly terminate my utility agreement and cell phone plan. I’ll then take a gun, put it to my head, and pull the trigger.
I’d rather be dead than have to scrutinize every 5 minutes how much bandwidth i’m using. Sorry, but I remember what AOL dial-up was like before the 200 free hour bullshit. Never again…
Are you paying for your ISP by the minute? No. Well it’s the same for the big ISP in the sky. There might be some limit above which you are throttled, but there’s no reason to assume pay by the packet.
ISPs also have much much lower profit margins than the cell side. Going to a bandwidth-only billing model would result in many many layoffs of useless people.
That Apple/AT&T deal is really silly having in mind how poor carrier AT&T is. These restrictions are really pushing me away from the use of iPhone which is not really a phone but a computer. You can not make normal phone calls with it. The heck with all the stupid APPs when I can not make normal calls. Apple and AT&T are really losing me, and I and my company do not have 1 line but a lot , a lot more… and if they do not care that they are losing me – too bad. someone else will care to have us ..
You think it has anything to do with free SMS through Google Voice? How much does AT&T make on a yearly basis on just SMS?
Well, let’s do the math. I’ll be conservative in my estimate and say that a quarter (19.9 million) of all AT&T customers have some sort of SMS plan (which I think we can agree is more than that). Now lets say that hypothetically all of those customers got the base $5 plan which is the lowest msg plan you can get with ATT. So the minimum amount of cash AT&T is making on SMS alone is $99.5 million…a month.
To answer your question about how much it makes a year, $1.2 billion. And we haven’t even gotten into the fees and charges assessed if you go over your 200 msg limit…
And that’s not the worse part. You probably know that your phone is talking to the cell tower 24/7 so it knows where you are when you get a call. It sends packets back and forth in order to do this. You know how big the packets are that it’s sending? Yep, 160 bytes – the limit on SMS texts. So basically your provider is texting you all the time without you knowing it, which is fine since you’re phone would work if they didn’t.
But what if you want to do the same thing, only to your mom, or friend. They charge you. Whether you use a plan or pay 5-20 cents per msg, it doesn’t matter. They’re making a boatload, either way. How much does it cost the provider to send a txt from one phone to another over a network? On Verizon, it’s $0.015 per KILOBYTE. It’s $1.09 per Kb for customers. That’s a markup of 7314%.
So yeah, it might have something to do with the free SMS on Google Voice.
Sources:
http://www.spoi...25-Mark-up.aspx
http://en.wikip...AT%26T_Mobility
Everyone is right, and wrong. it’s simple math — i’m certain that the entire US wireless industry and consumer behavior will be fine but very different when carriers are treated and paid as dumb pipes, and if you want an iphone, you pay the $600 that AT&T is fronting $400 of to you right now. Just a different math issue, that’s all — buy vs. lease
wow, you’re a genius, it IS simple math!
2 + 2 = 4…depending on who you ask!
Nevermind that the $600 & $400 numbers are completely made up.
Buy vs. Lease? I’m sorry, but if I went into an Apple store right now and threw down $600 to “own” an iPhone, it would work just as well (or not so well as the case may be) as someone who paid $200 and got locked into a contract. In fact, the phone I paid $200 for is mine. That’s right, I own it. Fuck you AT&T, this is MY iPhone. You just get to send me a bill for the next 24 months or charge me $175 if I decide you suck enough.
Truth is, there is no difference between buy vs lease other than you’re locked into a contract. Does the quality of the calls change? Nope. Do the problems with visual vmail disappear? Nope. Can I put an app on there that can compare the quality and the cost of different prostitutes based of my location (thanks, aGPS!!)? Upsettingly, that’s a no, as well.
So really, the different math issue that you were talking about doesn’t really apply.
This is possibly the best thing that could ever happen to Apple. Hopefully now, in addition to great engineers and great designers, they may also hire great decision makers.
There is a discussion going on here: http://www.dipl...-aspects-of-the
I don’t want to give you the clicks until I find out whether the discussion on your site is as retarded as your comment here.
days of the “Telcom Cartels” may soon be over.
Erick, you’ve asked all the tough questions. But left out an easy one. “Did Google incite the fcc to action?”
This is kinna a big deal in that it may impact the antitrust heat bearing down on google …. which directly impacts its stock price in light of recent industry messiness.
I’m am following this closly. It’s interesting to see which one of the 3 at the end will lose
Also a Court Case regarding Skype going on at the moment as well,
No Mention in Tech Crunch though about the crank down regarding this story and other VOIP Services.
If you take the carriers candy (subsidized phones), you can’t expect freedom. I spend a little more on my phones (unlocked Nokia’s, $299 for a kickbut E71). But have absolutely no carrier controls on what my phones can and can’t do. In fact, my unlocked Nokia even has a built in VoIP client that makes my calling dirt frickin cheap. Google Voice connects my calls over a Gizmo Project SIP number, so I get free calling wherever I’m, on Wifi. Programming Google Voice to show as the incoming number gives me free incoming calls (T-Mo myfaves), and dailing from the GV web interface gives me free outgoing. I pay $39.99 a month for the plan, and $20 for unlimited SMS and EDGE data. Yeah, the EDGE data’s not too zippy, but hey I have a Sprint Myfi that gives me EVDO Rev A speeds to three different devices (yeah, another $60 a month, but it’s a neat toy), and I’m not limited to one device (I am thinking about dropping the cellular voice and simply going VoIP over the MyFi, but the MyFi’s battery life is pretty short).
Ok, but if you bought an unsubsidized iphone you would still be facing the same restrictions.
It’s not subsidized it’s financed directly by you over the two year contract. There is even a schedule of that payment that changes depending on how much you pay per month.
Cash for clunkers is a subsidy. This is just an amortization.
APPLE + GOOGLE + ATT vs. FCC
This is gonna get real ugly, real soon, Let’s just hope we don’t need another damn bail out plan
Apparently you are having trouble comprehending the situation.
It is:
Apple + AT&T vs FCC + Google
Or is it Google, Apple and the FCC going against AT&T and current industry practices?
Erick wrote: “… the FCC cites “pending FCC proceedings regarding wireless open access (RM-11361) and handset exclusivity (RM-11497).”
Google wants the open access policies, Apple wants iPhones on other networks. It will be interesting to watch how this plays out.
or this is quite simply Apple’s well played strategy to stick the boot on AT&T…
I’m with j on this one. Apple hates how AT&T has made them look bad and wants EVERYONE to have and use an iPhone. Watch the last keynote and see how many jabs are taken at AT&T.
I just don’t want the FCC involved. The market has spoken; Apple has to wait out the agreement and then open the iPhone to everyone.
Ooh – I like that theory!!
I absolutely refuse to use ATT because of their *incredibly* bad customer service… But I sure would like a phone that’s more cool than what I can get on Verizon. I just don’t want to leave VZ because of their great coverage and CS.
Odd that you didn’t give this article a ‘Die Hard’ movie theme.
Reminds me of when the terrorists are in the building trying to open the safe full of bonds and one of them asks for a miracle that will cut the power. The top bad guy says “you wanted a miracle, I give you the FBI”.
Now it’s Steve Jobs surrounded by underlings and customers complaining about AT&T’s draconian policies and that only a miracle will free Apple. “You wanted a miracle, I give you the FCC”.
“Now it’s Steve Jobs surrounded by underlings and customers complaining about AT&T’s draconian policies and that only a miracle will free Apple.”
Apple wrote the book on draconian policies.
That’s why Steve Jobs is cast as the bad guy
It’s about time someone stepped on Google. For the last few years they’ve been the darling and able to get away with murder. Their control goes all the way back from the moment the company was created versus what many think and believe it to be recently.
I just want fairness and while I’m not a Microsoft fan, we need to treat Apple the same way. I’m glad to see this happening as Google isn’t the only app that is getting screwed. We need to remember some of these developers spend hard earned money and valuable time to develop something only to have Apple arbitrarily say no.
Oops, meant stepped on Apple.
How about we get the government to step on your company/employer too… Just because we all feel like it. Fair?
sanjay, you and apple should drop your pants, uncle sam is about to give you some old time religion!
lol
Seriously, Sanjay your comments are ridiculous. Stop drinking that apple juice.
Sanjay is a gun loving, abortion hating, hyprociritcal religious wing nut. That’s all you need to know.
Ow and he’s an apple fanboy too.
Try a third time. They’re investigating whetHer AT&T is telling Apple what is/not allowed on “their” network.
The questions about Apple’s approval process is to see if there is undue (possibly illegal) pressure from the network acess provider.
In other words, Apple can reject whomever they want, but if AT&T is pulling the strings then there is a problem… for AT&T.
That would seem reasonable, but that’s not exactly what the masses are frothing at the mouth over.
The majority here are rooting for the FCC to force Apple to capitulate on opening up the AppStore to all.
… and prevent carrier exclusivity. Forgot that one.
If you even bother knowing the full features of Google Voice and it’s impact to AT&T, it’s really common sense why FCC is investigating the matter.
But hey your a apple lovin, religious wing nut. So I can’t blame you for being an idiot.
“More importantly, why are these companies allowed to be the gatekeepers to the wireless Internet?”
AT&T built their gates to the internet. If you don’t like it, don’t sign the contract. If they are changing the terms of the contract, then the investigation makes sense. If AT&T’s customers just don’t like the end result of all of the control they signed away to AT&T, don’t try to renege on the contract. Man up and accept it. Or walk away. You don’t need Big Daddy Government to take care of you.
There are numerous providers of wireless access. There is no monopoly in wireless access to the internet.
There is frequently, at least in the USA, a monopoly or duopoly in wired internet access for residential use. That somewhat legitimizes the impetus for government getting involved in private enterprises. The issue in the article does not.
BTW, I am not a fan of AT&T, nor a customer. I am however, a fan of Google Voice and was a GrandCentral customer. Good stuff.
The wireless companies have to be able to produce profit to maintain and expand their networks to provide better service and services. Limiting a service or app that would use “excessive” bandwidth is a no-brainer.
The wireless world is wide open, all you need to do is buy yourself some Govt spectrum, build yourself a network and open it for everyone else to use for free. Why haven’t YOU done it yet?
If companies that have invested tens or hundreds of billions in building their networks are made to give them away then that will put an end to new cool things and you can kiss reliability goodbye.
This has been long overdue
Everyone here are socialists.
Yeah, whenever someone uses the phrases “people” and “taking back”, bet your life savings “the people” are going to get hosed.
Maybe, or simply greedy and self-serving.
Yes we are socialist. And you are a religous, fox news loving wing nut…
I feel it’s important for the FCC to challenge this issue and give us all freedom to choose which carrier we wish to use when buying an iPhone. This is why we haven;t bought an iPhone. I would never use AT&T. We need freedom of choice on phones just like we have on this internet.
You can unlock the iPhone and use it on Verizon’s network…
Uhhhh… no you can’t
iPhone uses GSM technology, Verizon uses CDMA so they are not compatible. Please do some research before talking.
I’m not an iPhone user or ATT customer but I am really glad the FCC is looking into things. The US wireless industry is a racket.
On another note, is it confirmed that the GV iPhone app would bypass the ATT voice features? I have the Blackberry GV app and it allows me to make calls from my GV number but still uses Verizon voice calling features.
Look out coming to our monthly bills .. billing by the byte or pay for 50 gigs a month for $70 and anything over you pay per gig.
They will be dumb pipes, but ones that spur gold! Of course that’s sometime down the road, as it would stifle 3g/4g adoption.
I pay $60/mo for 5GB, so I would quickly welcome your proposed scenario. Overages are currently measured in MB, FYI.
Could just be Apple’s strategy to stick it to AT&T…
It doesn’t make any sense for Apple to reject an app that makes the iPhone even more desirable. But if they point their finger at AT&T, it could eventually lead to what all forward thinking people want – a federal law prohibiting exclusive carriers for any device.
Companies like Apple are PR experts – they don’t make high-profile decisions without an agenda.
It would only be Apple sticking it to AT&T if they entrapped AT&T into commenting on whether or not GV was allowed on the phone. I can’t imagine them bringing this shitstorm on on purpose. It’s time people realize that Apple is as evil as any other corporation out there, it’s not a bunch of dudes in a shed anymore…
Being from Germany I don’t really know that much about the FCC and its role as a regulatory goverment agency, so maybe someone can explain to me whether Apple is actually obliged in any way (by law or whatever) to actually answer to the FCC at all…?! Could they simply choose to ignore it and what would the possible consequences be…?! Can the FCC actually force or order certain companies to fulfill their rulings…?!
Thanks!
The Federal Communications Commission or (FCC) regulates all forms of both digital and analog communications. They’re backed by Congress, it’s basically like having the US congress up your ass. It’s a pretty big deal.
Wikipedia has good info:
http://en.wikip...ions_Commission
I guarantee you nothing will come of this investigation, the AT&T network is not a public resource and they in conjunction with apple have the right to restrict what is run on it. They own the pipe whether you like it or not.
Think TV set Dig. Think TV set. You buy it, you pick which cable company to provide the pipe and which shows to watch. Think TV set or better yet PC. Its only a matter of time.
Apple watch your back, your close to being split open and maybe fined!
“You’re,” not “your.”
I don’t think this thing will go too far. It’ll generate a bit more heat and then fizzle. What companies should be scared of is the EU (ask Microsoft and Intel)!
God loves FCC (today)
“More importantly, why are these companies allowed to be the gatekeepers to the wireless Internet? ”
At first I was going to argue that the phone companies are not the gatekeepers, as one can access the wireless Internet via, um, wifi, for example, which I do with the iPod Touch and can even use, say, Truphone to make calls on the iPod without ever engaging a wireless phone operator.
Then I was going to argue that it is we who choose to connect to the Internet via a mobile-phone pipe. No one is forcing us to do so, and also that the mobile operators do need to see an ROI because of infrastructure capital outlays.
But then it occurred to me that the mobile operators are going to fade away anyway, much as have the fixed landline operators. They will need to adjust their business models somehow.
The only crux to this fading away and removing the middleman is the acquisition of millions of mobile towers that connect mobile calls.
I could imagine Google buying a mobile operator and upsetting the existing paradigm.
All good points. The reason why the FCC is involved is because someone at Google made the call and put pressure on them. I think Google just might get lucky and not have to buy any mobile towers. They are gunning for the government to change the laws in the middle of the game – something Obama is getting really good at lately (Health Insurance, Cap & Trade, GM, Bank Bailouts, Taxes, etc). Traditional businesses that have built the capability we have now are going by the way side. It’s tragic.
The wireless internet is there for anyone to access. The wireless companies own the technology to make it easier. If you want to access it, you have to access through them. Just like a country club or any membership based community; to access the benefits you have to abide by the rules you agreed to to use them. When you pay to use, access to the benefits becomes a privilege NOT a right.
The government was put in place to protect our rights, not make sure we all have access to the same privileges; that is our responsibility.
For guaranteed, “free” public access to anything the government would have to “own” it and run it. Who really wants that?
The way Apple decided to design the iPhone made me not want to buy an Apple product ever in my life, and to be honest I don’t think I’ve ever hated a company as much as I hate Apple simply because of one fuck up.
The future of Wireless Devices:
Like a TV set, you will bring it home. Decide on which cable company to connect your set to and which shows YOU would like to watch.
Thats the future of Wireless devices in a Nutshell.
With or without the blurring of nudity?
You get a choice of cable companies?
Does that include the end of the monopoly of one or two service providers in areas i.e. Comcast in MD, DC, and Nothern VA?
@ Bobby -
So wireless devices will become TV sets ?
Like them, yes.
What is this obsession with the iPhone? This is just another phone. Who cares what apps are approved by its weirdo maker?
Why do you care to comment on this article?
Well, he is right. Why the obsession over this?
You clearly don’t have one. I understand that people with horses used to say the same thing about automobile owners.
I understand that some people with a dvd player used to say the same thing about hd-dvd owners.
What is being lost in this is that the government is deciding HOW a company gets to compete in a “free” marketplace not based on policy but whiny crybabies who want is all for free. It is what is called competitive advantage. What everyone here is asking for is more socialist programs. Let the market dictate that, not the government. If more people by iPhones it is because the iPhone is perceived as better to the purchaser. If you are jealous (which i think many non-iPhone users are that use other carriers) you have decided that your carrier is better than AT&T and not having access to the iPhone is the price you pay.
Apple can’t wait to open up the iPhone to other carriers. Until then be a capitalist consumer, not a socialist crybaby.
Yeah the summit of human evolution… “The Capitalist Consumer”. The sweat-shop owners of the Industrial Revolution would be proud of the find indoctrination you’ve suffered.
No socialism isn’t perfect. Nor is capitalism. The world is not black and white.
I swtiched from Verizon to AT&T to get my hands on an iPhone and for the first year my service was great.. fast-froward to today it’s terrible. I’m dropping calls left and right. As of lately I even get this LOUD white noise that happens in the middle of my call and I can’t hear anything. It about blows my ears out!
As soon as the exclusivity is up on AT&T and Verizon gets their hands on the iPhone then I’m going back to Verizon.
Plus, AT&T is about the only network that doesn’t let you have your favorite x-number of people you can call for free outside of the network.
Skype & Sling Player were dumbed down. GV Mobile, Google Voice, Google Latitude, Podcaster, CastCatcher, Freedom Time & Qik were all killed for unknown reasons or vague reasons. A couple of these are back online but that is besides the point.
Heck even Tweetie was banned for a hashtag on twitter that included #F*ckit, which it has no control over.
The list grows bigger all the time with no definitive explanation. If AT&T came out and said “okay our network sucks we’re trying hard to upgrade because we can’t meet the demand for some of these apps” I might have more sympathetic but somehow I get this feeling that AT&T is jabbing Apple in the side telling them to pull these apps while Apple is sitting back acting like nothing happened.
I have beef with the exclusive contracts too but I’m not going to argue that one because it’s AT&T & Apples baby.
If I have a computer in my pocket then it should function similar to the computer I use at home. Open and accessible to anything I wish to put on it. We shouldn’t have to resort to risky jailbreaking methods to get the apps we want or that don’t meet Apples approval process.
I’d even go as far as to say they should open up the store to these “pornographic” apps but only for adults obviously. I’m all about protecting the children but lets not limit our choices as adults because of it. At least with other app stores you can download whatever you want. Granted, it might not be as secure, but then again you shouldn’t be using the internet if you download viruses every day from browsing shady web sites or downloading shady programs. It takes a brain once and awhile to protect yourself so use it.
” I get this feeling that AT&T is jabbing Apple in the side telling them to pull these apps while Apple is sitting back acting like nothing happened.”
Why? Besides Google Voice stuff, the apps you mention compete with Apple’s products, and not AT&T’s.
“Skype & Sling Player were dumbed down. GV Mobile, Google Voice, Google Latitude, Podcaster, CastCatcher, Freedom Time & Qik were all killed for unknown reasons or vague reasons. ”
As for Sling Player and Qik I am totally agree with AT&T and Apple – these applications can ruin AT&T data network.
It can ruin it, but they don’t have a right to deny it. You pay for unlimited data plan so you should be able to consume as much data as you want. It’s just a pathetic excuse from AT&T since they can’t provide the needs of their customers.
AT&T formerly Southwestern Bell is IMHO evil! I worked there on as a contractor and they are will screw you every chance you get.
For instance, back in 2001, say you called in and asked for vmail for your home phone. They would automatically sign you up for the multiple users vmail, which they don’t tell you. This voicemail was designed if you had multiple roomates and it at the time was $7.95 a month. It wasn’t until you called to complain, forcefully at that, that they would finally admit there was a single user voicemail for like $3 a month.
This is stuff happened all the time and I am sure it still does.
They, IMHO, are evil!!!
Thank you. I am glad someone finally said that “AT&T” is in fact fake AT&T that has nothing to do with the original.
Nice. I want to use my iPhone as a dumb pipe. I do not give a flying f*ck about carriers. I want carriers to be my bitches. Hopefully this will put an end to excessive and anti-competitive profits.
I think Apple needs to address and fix their issues with the App Store submissions, approvals, and VOIP, etc. Like, fix it yesterday, OK?
I don’t think questions 4 and 5 are FCC worthy, however. Maybe the FTC needs to ask those questions as they have more to do with trade than communications, though I can see how the FCC want to glean insight to what would be behind the GV rejection process.
I’m an admitted Apple fan and MSFT hater, but I am not happy with how Apple is handling their current set of problems. It’s very un-Apple and is certainly costing them some Q points, at least with the technobloggy crowd. At least they quickly released iPhone 3.0.1 to addresss SMS as soon as it was shown off at Black Hat.
C’mon, Apple, get with it!
Serves AT&T right for having TERRIBLE service and reception (can’t make a call in my downtown SF Fi-Di office?? WTF??). Plus the false advertising about how their reception is so amazing. This is well-deserved bad karma.
is this post generating a new TC record for # of responses in an hour?
seriously though, it’s great that the FCC took this step *the same day* (on 7/31) as MA published his “i quit the iphone” article! i mean either mike has a special relationship with the FCC’s honchos
or this government agency is getting as agile as a start-up! now that’s a mind-bending thought, no?
(and probably delusional thinking altho i can’t get over how quickly this inquiry/action by them came forward!). that’s the spirit!