Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
typodupeerror delete not in
  • Preferences

Book Reviews

Recent reviews from Slashdot readers:

Submitting a review for consideration is easy; please first read Slashdot's book review guidelines. Updated: 2008114 by samzenpus

Comments: 204 +-   FCC Probing Apple, AT&T Rejection of Google Voice on Saturday August 01 2009, @07:16AM

Posted by Soulskill on Saturday August 01 2009, @07:16AM
from the now-you've-done-it dept.
government
business
communications
google
internet
news
apple
suraj.sun writes with an update to the news from a few days ago about Apple pulling Google Voice apps for the iPhone. Their actions have raised the interest of the FCC, which is now beginning an investigation into the matter. "In a letter sent to Apple, the FCC asked the company why it turned down Google Voice for the iPhone and pulled several other Google Voice-related programs from the iPhone's only sanctioned online mart. The FCC also sent similar letters to both AT&T — Apple's exclusive carrier partner in the US — and Google, asking both firms to provide more information on the issue. The FCC's letter asked Apple whether it rejected Google Voice and dumped other applications on its own, or 'in consultation with AT&T,' and if the latter, to describe the conversations the partners had. In other questions, the FCC asked Apple whether AT&T has any role in the approval of iPhone applications, wants the company to explain how Google Voice differs from any other VoIP software that has been approved, and requested a list of all applications that have been rejected and why."
story

Related Stories

Submission: FCC Probing Apple, AT&T Rejection of Google Vo by suraj.sun (1348507)
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

FCC Probing Apple, AT&T Rejection of Google Voice 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Has Apple ever taken a position on net neutrality? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by lseltzer (311306) on Saturday August 01 2009, @07:19AM (#28907895)

    Just askin'

  • This investigation has been brought to you by Google.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      As new internet-based markets are established, say for cell phone software, should they really be exempt from regulations on existing markets?

      • Regulations are stupid (Score:5, Funny)

        by copponex (13876) on Saturday August 01 2009, @08:18AM (#28908149) Homepage

        Of course, if you regulate an industry, you make it slow and impede business and you're a socialist. Everyone knows that self regulation [wikipedia.org] leads to utopia [wikipedia.org], much as disbanding our police departments would lead to a lower crime rate.

          • Re:Regulations are stupid (Score:5, Insightful)

            by EQ (28372) on Saturday August 01 2009, @09:29AM (#28908557) Homepage Journal
            You're in error: don't confuse "the right" with the Republican Party. The latter is just as big a bunch of big-government fat cats as are many of the Democrats -- they proved it by setting up the deficits with massive overspending during the Bush presidency. The Republican party as it exists now is "right" only when it suits them and can get them money. Pretty much about the same as anyone else in side DC - they are after money and power for its own sake, and could give a crap less about rights, responsibilities, etc.

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by spud.dups (1371655)

            You're error lies in the fact that the amendment voted against by the Republicans (no 'the right') was an amendment to completely abolish Medicare overnight. After having much of society live on Medicare for so long, then have it suddenly removed, would create a serious market problem. It was written in an extremest point of view, not allowing for a gradual decline but a sudden stop. I don't believe may people would agree with this procedure, and voting against it definitely does _not _ imply an 'embrace of

    • in unrelated news, MS Strategist / FCC director (Score:5, Interesting)

      by SgtChaireBourne (457691) on Saturday August 01 2009, @01:11PM (#28910545) Homepage

      This investigation has been brought to you by Google.

      And in unrelated news, Bill Gate's assistant and strategist and MS exec for 13 years has been appointed managing director of the FCC [informationweek.com].

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by davester666 (731373)

      Well, the FCC also sent a letter to Google about what apps Google has rejected from it's Android store and why they were rejected.

      One of the most important things (IMHO) with these requests is that the FCC ordered that the replies NOT be covered by a blanket secrecy request...

  • Woot (Score:2, Interesting)

    by mrwolf007 (1116997)
    Free market vs Jobs dictatorship.
    This was bound to happen, the iTunes situation is growing too similiar to the Windows monopoly.
    Now please excuse me while i get some popcorn.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by mrwolf007 (1116997)

        Wouldn't it be a free market if Apple could just do that? If monopolies would act uncontrollably?

        No, it wouldnt be a free market, since you are forbidden from selling something. Monopolies try to destroy the free market economy.
        And especially the "do not duplicate iPhone functionality" is a really obscene practise. Imagine MS having such a clause for Windows software.
        No Opera, Firefox, OOorg.
        Personally i consider Apples business practices worse than Microsofts (and that really means something).
        And BTW, i'm not an American.

  • So Apple is going to join Microsoft in the Ye Olde Convicted Monopolists' club?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Dunbal (464142)

      So Apple is going to join Microsoft in the Ye Olde Convicted Monopolists' club?

            Probably. And like Microsoft, it will just ignore the rulings. After all, in today's economy, companies like Microsoft and Apple are "too big to fail". Perhaps the government will print another few hundred billion and give them a bailout instead.

  • forces apple to sell factory-unlocked iphones leaving at&t to compete like/with the rest of the carriers, i cant guarantee i would buy the shiny little expensive piece of crap but i do believe exclusive deals that tie cellphones to certain carriers to be a hindrance to fair and honest business practices...

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Dunbal (464142)

          You are BOTH wrong. Oligopolies are NOT free markets, and the only difference between an oligopoly/monopoly and communism or fascism is the lack of official support and enforcement by the government. Oh wait, in the case of telcos, there is support and enforcement by the government. Try hanging a wire on a telephone pole across the street - it's the MUNICIPALITY not the telco that will get in touch with you. Or for that matter, try setting up a free inter-city WiFi service...

          Enjoy your "free" country and "f

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Ed Bugg (2024)

            But in this case you are off track. There is one other important aspect of free markets, choice. If you don't like not having access to Google Voice on an iPhone while being locked into AT&T, well then send them a nicely worded letter why you won't use them or continue to use them and go to the mall and toss a rock, you'll hit at least 3 cell phone providers. If Apple/AT&T senses they are loosing enough customers because they aren't allowing Google Voice then they will allow it.

            Free markets depen

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by webheaded (997188)
              Yeah, so the $500 iPhone someone just bought they should have to eat to send a message to some corporation that doesn't give a shit? This is exactly the kind of thing consumer protection laws are for. We don't have the money to dance around with corporations that simply don't care. I don't have the money to pay for a different phone, switch providers, and deal with the new provider's crap. That's crap. None of them care. They have the same base of customers slowly rotating among them...why would they

  • Mmm (Score:2, Funny)

    by cardsinhand (1601329)
    Hope this takes a bite out of Apple's market share.

  • The most interesting section (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sanosuke001 (640243) on Saturday August 01 2009, @07:55AM (#28908043)
    "and requested a list of all applications that have been rejected and why"

    To me, that is the most interesting section of this summary. The FCC wants a list of ALL apps that have been denied and the reasons why. This could be the beginning of a boot up Apple/AT&T's collective asses. If the FCC does what they should do, they probably won't be able to deny the majority of apps anymore. If the FCC gets some cash, it will be SOP as usual. The latter seems more likely, unfortunately.

    • Re:The most interesting section (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 01 2009, @08:28AM (#28908193)

      #69: Dangerously sexy.
      #124: Got tailgated on my way to work today.
      #459: Users can't handle that much power.
      #644: Toothache.
      #692: That background with those buttons? Honey, no!
      #771: Wife threatening to leave me.
      #841: Better than our stuff.
      #1230: Made fun of Apple user stereotypes. Very funny. Not.
      #1599: I know this guy, he's a jerk.
      #1998: Not hip.
      #2000: 2000 GET! Haha, suckers!
      #3922: My God, is that a nipple?!
      #5210: Took His name in vain.
      #6184: Anti-monopolistic.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by yabos (719499)
      I wonder if they even keep very good track of it. The approval process seems to be very random and the reviewers seem to have too much power. They reject apps for blatantly stupid reasons without much recourse for the developer.
  • Since when has the FCC become the government's "private company czar"?

    • Re:How is the FCC even involved? (Score:5, Informative)

      by erroneus (253617) on Saturday August 01 2009, @08:33AM (#28908235) Homepage

      The problem is that the FCC is investigating how AT&T is using its influence over Apple to control how the airwaves that the FCC leases to AT&T are being used. This is not the FCC getting into Apple's business for the hell of it. This is the FCC getting into it with AT&T... again. Google Voice provides a means to circumvent a lot of needless charges from AT&T. AT&T seeks to block those circumventions by leveraging their relationship with Apple.

  • About Damn Time (Score:2, Insightful)

    by DiSKiLLeR (17651)

    About damn time if you ask me. If this was the Australian Government, Apple and AT&T would have been ripped apart into shreds over this.

    and requested a list of all applications that have been rejected and why.

    I personally would LOVE to see this list. In full. This should be on wikileaks.

    I've personally had enough of the Steve Jobs dictatorship.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by mkiwi (585287)

      AT&T was most likely the cause of the removal of google voice. Apple probably has their hands tied by servicing agreements, so the only way they can get google voice (which would be great for the iphone platform) is through government intervention. I imagine there were some discussions between Apple and Google about how to make this work. Somebody fIling a complaint with the FCC is a good way for Apple to cover its contractual ass and for google to get their software on the iPhone.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by DavidRawling (864446)
      Oh bulldust (yes, I'm an Aussie (too?)). You need only look at the namby-pamby approach our government and the ACCC have had towards Telstra for the past decade or so, first under the Liberals, and then under Labor. The ACCC seem to be too weak to do jack and the Government keeps saying it's up to the ACCC, that their hands are tied. Great flick passing there, and certainly no "ripping to shreds".

  • Let's not forget (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Khan (19367) on Saturday August 01 2009, @08:44AM (#28908295)

    AT&T. Delivering Your World. To The NSA.

    This is a perfect example of why these exclusive contracts with one carrier (regardless of who it is) is a Bad Thing (tm). Innovation and competition are easily squashed. And we, the consumers, continue to get screwed like sheep.

  • It's time for telcos to sell bits, not services (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sdo1 (213835) on Saturday August 01 2009, @08:56AM (#28908359) Journal

    It's time for telcos to stop being telcos and start being wireless data providers. Selling bits instead of services is fundamental to net neutrality. I know that breaks their business models, but too bad. On the iPhone, they already sell apps that use some amount of bandwidth. They shouldn't get to pick and choose the ones that affect their outdated business model. If they just sold bits and bandwidth independent of what kind of data is being carried on them, then this wouldn't be an issue and that's how it SHOULD be.

    I know this isn't going to change overnight, but I fully support the FCC looking into this. It's nice to know that under the new administration they're taking a pro-consumer stance instead of pro-business stance.

    -S

    • It's time for telcos to stop being telcos and start being wireless data providers. Selling bits instead of services is fundamental to net neutrality. I know that breaks their business models, but too bad.

      If we're going to just regard it as "too bad" if something doesn't fit their business model, then that's more or less an admission that this service shouldn't be a part of the private sector anymore. Businesses should be able to pursue their private interests, investors should be able to get returns.

      Not that I think you're necessarily wrong -- if it's not already, it may soon be time for a different way of handling wireless communication infrastructure.

  • As an Apple fan (Score:5, Interesting)

    by earthbound kid (859282) on Saturday August 01 2009, @10:15AM (#28908865) Homepage

    ...and as an iPhone owner, I say:

    Good. I hope that the Feds can scare Apple into opening up the iPhone a little more. I think anyone who owns an iPhone should be on the side of the Feds on this one.

    Here's a suggestion for Apple though, why not a two track system for iPhone apps: You can install whatever you like *as long as it doesn't use the cell-network* or you can install specially reviewed apps through the iTunes store, as is done now. That way if someone just wants to sell a game or a screensaver or whatever, they can just sell it themselves without having to get permission from Apple. On the other hand, things that use the cell-network and could potentially overload it or be used for phreaker attacks or whatever can be reviewed by Apple as is done now. Reducing the volume of things reviewed by Apple should make the process a lot less painful for developers and give users a lot more freedom.

  • After bricking unlocked iPhones, kicking applications off the iPhone store that might even slightly compete with iTunes in the far future and charging developers for the privilege and filing a wave of patents on basic well-known computer science, Apple Inc. today filed a Form 8-K with the Securities and Exchange Commission declaring that it was openly adopting Evil(tm) as a corporate policy [today.com].

    "Fuck it," said Steve Jobs to an audience of soul-mortgaged thralls, "we're evil. But our stuff is sooo good. You'll keep taking our abuse. You love it, you worm. Because our stuff is great. It's shiny and it's pretty and it's cool and it works. It's not like you'll go back to a Windows Mobile phone. Ha! Ha!"

    Steve Ballmer of Microsoft was incensed at the news. "Our evil is better than anyone's evil! No-one sweats the details of evil like Microsoft! Where's your antitrust trial, you polo-necked bozo? We've worked hard on our evil! Our Zune's as evil as an iPod any day! I won't let my kids use a lesser evil! We're going to do an ad about that! I'll be in it! With Jerry Seinfeld! Beat that! Asshole."

    "Of course, we're still not evil, we said so," said Sergey Brin of Google. "You can trust us on this. Every bit of data about you, your life and the house you live in is strictly a secret between you and our marketing department. But, hypothetically, if we were evil, it's not like you're going to use Windows Live Search. I mean, 'Bing.' Ha! Ha! I'm sorry, that's my 'spreading good cheer' laugh. Really."

    • Re:How is this even a fucking question? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 01 2009, @07:43AM (#28907991)

      they have an exclusive contract for cellular services. Data is Data is Data, whether it's voip from google, or someone else, or an app, or whatever it's none of AT&T's business. The data is going over their network and they are getting money. If they are charging too much for calls and not enough for data then they need to re-think their pricing.

      • memo to AT&T:

        AT&T, you are a dumb pipe. Nothing but a dumb pipe. You are not a unique snowflake. Never think you can give anyone an "enhanced experience". Stop believing in closed systems and that locking up the very customers that feed you can be a strategic move. You're the all-singing, all-dancing crap of the world.

        You have been pathetically going on this self-improvement road, yet self-improvement isn't the answer.... self-destruction is the answer. "It's only after you've lost everything," you will find out soon, "that you're free to do anything."

        Here is what you should do: A) fire all the "enhanced experience", the "exclusivity" bozos and hire Wall-Mart executives across the board; B) become the biggest, cheapest, everywhere-est, dumbest pipe around. Be cheap, be everywhere, be dumb, be a price whore. Wall Mart is a monster because they know they are not unique snowflakes.

        Wall Mart isn't going anywhere. They should set the example to your company. You're not some high-flying boutique; that only exists in your deluded thinking.

        • Re:How is this even a fucking question? (Score:4, Interesting)

          by that this is not und (1026860) on Saturday August 01 2009, @07:56AM (#28908047)

          Another word for 'dumb pipe' is Common Carrier. A role they need to start taking more seriously.

        • Re:How is this even a fucking question? (Score:5, Interesting)

          by teknopurge (199509) on Saturday August 01 2009, @08:15AM (#28908127) Homepage
          Wal-Mart is who they are not because they are cheap, but because they were able to refine their logistics. All of their distribution is in-house, which is how they were able to move volume, and subsequently able to squeeze vendors on pricing. It's important to note that the vendor squeezing came later, and it was the innovation in the supply chain that made Wal-Mart what it is today. It's cause->effect, not the other way around.

          Want ATT to be like Wal-Mart? They need to innovate their internals first before they become a dumb pipe.

    • Re:How is this even a fucking question? (Score:5, Informative)

      by mstra (38238) * <matt.strattonNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Saturday August 01 2009, @07:49AM (#28908019) Homepage Journal
      Except...that Google Voice is NOT VOIP - if I use the Google Voice app on my BlackBerry to make an outgoing call...it still dials up via the radio to a "Google Voice Access Number". It's still going over the AT&T network. The way people are using GV for "free calls" is by putting their GV access number in their "five" or "circle" or whatever your carrier calls that list of numbers you can call for free. Also, they lose on international calls (since you call domestic to go outbound, but then it is international).

      • Re:How is this even a fucking question? (Score:5, Informative)

        by mstra (38238) * <matt.strattonNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Saturday August 01 2009, @07:54AM (#28908037) Homepage Journal
        Actually, my statement was not 100% correct - GV does use VOIP...but on the back-end. The connection between the customer's handset and GV is over POTS or cellular radio, not IP or data. So while technically there is some VOIP going on, it's not the kind of VOIP that bypasses using AT&T customers' minutes, which is all AT&T cares about.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by nine-times (778537)

          Does anyone know if Google's app on the iPhone supported SMS messages? I know the web interface has the ability to send SMS messages (I think for free).

          I think there are other iPhone apps that provide some kind of free SMS messaging, but I think the other free SMS programs require that the messages be sent to/from a different number or email address or something, and not to your normal voice number. It seems like Google Voice, which ties free SMS together with a separate phone number, could present a rea

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by imamac (1083405)
            Yes. Additionally, GV mobile was on it's way to allow push notifications of SMS messages. This would enable my wife and I to drop our $30/mo SMS package. AT&T would lose a lot of revenue from this.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by ubernostrum (219442)

      So if AT&T is pissed at VOIP (wow, no Telecom has *evaaaaah* been pissed at VOIP), would they... could they.... just possibly..... dial up their *exclusive* partner and subtly indicate, "Hey... would you mind suppressing our competition?".

      You do know that there's an approved and free Skype application available, right?

      And if you'd take five minutes to actually read the article you'd see that the FCC is pretty clearly aware of that, and that several of their questions are implicitly but still quite cl

    • Re:How is this even a fucking question? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by erroneus (253617) on Saturday August 01 2009, @08:16AM (#28908131) Homepage

      They are mounting a GIANT push for this [the exclusivity agreements being nixed and other things] and are collecting large and obvious examples of their anticompetitive and possibly even antitrust behavior to justify their actions not only in the federal courts, but in the court of public opinion. They are making this bigger and higher profile. Everyone who ever wanted a particular handset that wasn't artificially limited by [order of] the carrier and didn't want to change carriers will be rooting for such legislative changes and that has got to be a majority of the consumer base of mobile phone users and that, in turn, is an enormous constituency.

      From the very beginning of the announcements of government seeking to limit wireless carriers, they should have started their egg-shell tap dance. But they are too big and arrogant and believe they will be able to block any legislation through their usual influence-peddling means and methods.

      It won't be long before the questions are raised in the courts systems.

      What iPhone users out there should expect is fair and lawful behavior. Abusing the consumer, and using their platform to control other markets are the basics of how we define "antitrust." The Apple and AT&T exclusivity agreement seems to be leveraging the relationship to their mutual advantage

      But another way to look at is is "Th' gubmint is just another Apple-hater!"

    • Re:How is this even a fucking question? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by DiSKiLLeR (17651) on Saturday August 01 2009, @08:40AM (#28908265) Homepage Journal

      The point is, these "exclusive" agreements are anti-competitive, detrimental to consumers and should be illegal. (And they are in other countries that have consumer protection laws.)

      In Australia all 5 telco companies offer the iPhone. Oh and you can even buy legit unlocked ones direct from the apple - brick and mortar or online.

      Competition due to consumer protection laws is a great thing.

    • Re:How is this even a fucking question? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Runaway1956 (1322357) on Saturday August 01 2009, @09:00AM (#28908397) Homepage Journal

      Exclusivity agreements are evil. Simple as that. They were wrong when Microsoft was insisting on them, they are wrong for telecoms, they are wrong period, anytime, anywhere. The moment that any corporation can insist on an exclusive agreement, they are ALREADY a monopoly, and the government should deal with them as such.

      • Well (i)phones are FCC approved. And I imagine that software should be a part of that. If SW isn't, it certainly should. Imagine if one were to build a phone for the sole purpose of keeping track of your movements, through the use of wifi, bluetooth, 3g and all those antennas. If the FCC can't stand seeing some chick's tits for a split second, it should be in their business to make sure that these devices not only comply in terms of hardware, but also in the *spirit* of the regulatory agency: to improve t

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        If apple bought RIM, the FTC would investigate. If there are apparent abuses by companies awarded spectrum licenses (such as AT&T), then the FCC investigates.

        They are different regulatory bodies with different investigatory obligations to the citizenry.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Dunbal (464142)

        Ah, right, the 28th Amendment, which says "innocent until proven guilty, unless EdIII From Slashdot thinks it's likely".

        Yes, so remember if you actually witness someone shooting someone else, that person is still "innocent" until proven guilty.

        You know that sometimes courts and trials are mere formalities. You don't need a judge and jury to tell you that Micheal Jackson was a very strange person with very serious mental health problems, for example. You don't nee

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by mstra (38238) *
          The only long distance fees that are avoided are international. Who the hell pays "long distance" on their iPhone?
Search
One person's error is another person's data.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2010 Geeknet, Inc.