FCC Probing Apple, AT&T Rejection of Google Voice 204
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."
Re:How is this even a fucking question? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:How is this even a fucking question? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
The most interesting section (Score:5, Insightful)
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:How is this even a fucking question? (Score:5, Insightful)
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:2, Insightful)
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.
About Damn Time (Score:2, Insightful)
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:Woot (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:How is this even a fucking question? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Let's not forget (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:have you read your "fucking" constitution? (Score:3, Insightful)
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 need a judge and jury to tell you that the car that just passed you is speeding when you were doing 70mph. You don't need a judge and jury to tell you that the guy who jumped off the bridge, all by himself, right in front of you committed suicide.
Sure, there has to be an investigation, blah blah blah, a trial, etc, for everything to be done "properly". However if you're the sort of person who refrains from having an opinion on anything unless a court allows you to, well I feel sorry for you. And if you've been unaware of the cell phone "racket" that exists in the US with the lame and pathetic excuse "but that's the only way we can recover the costs of our subsidized phones because they cost $10 million bucks (this part is called sarcasm) each to make", then I suggest you become a bit better informed. I can buy a decent cell phone in the third world for anywhere from $50 to $500, without "lock in".
It's time for telcos to sell bits, not services (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re:have you read your "fucking" constitution? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How is this even a fucking question? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:i hope Apple & AT&T get busted (Score:3, Insightful)
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 depends on customers and/or potential customers making choices. The choice in question isn't what applications you can run on a particular phone, it's what phone service provides you with the features you want.
Re:Regulations are stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:About Damn Time (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:i hope Apple & AT&T get busted (Score:3, Insightful)
The free market does not regulate itself when you've got the big boys playing. In theory, it apparently should work, but in practice it doesn't nor could it. Companies will leverage every advantage they can to make money for their shareholders and they aren't going to stop doing things until the government MAKES them stop doing it. I mean really, why would they?
Re:Regulations are stupid (Score:2, Insightful)
You're in error: don't confuse "the Republican party" with libertarians, who don't have an influential American political party and never will.
If it's "too bad", then it's not business (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Regulations are stupid (Score:0, Insightful)
You know, you might be on to something here. Up in Canada we have far fewer police, and our crime rate is about half per capita.
Correlation is not causation.