FCC Probing Apple, AT&T Rejection of Google Voice

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."

Has Apple ever taken a position on net neutrality?

[lseltzer]

Just askin'

Re:We would like to thank our sponsors

[Anonymous Coward]

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

How is this even a fucking question?

[EdIII]

Apple has an *exclusive* agreement with AT&T. Google Voice competes with AT&T, since lemme check..... YEP ... Google Voice is VOIP right? It reduces billable minutes for AT&T right?

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?".

This does not require any sort of investigation whatsoever. At no time is any wireless carrier going to simply accept competition, and exclusive agreements allow for the elimination of competition. Abuses are guaranteed by the very nature of the Apple/AT&T relationship.

The question is not whether or not the abuse exists, but are we going to disallow exclusive agreements between handset manufacturers or not?

Are there really any iPhone owners out there that honestly expect Apple to not act in their, and their business partners best interests?

Woot

[mrwolf007]

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:How is this even a fucking question?

[that this is not und]

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?

[teknopurge]

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:About Damn Time

[mkiwi]

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:Regulations are stupid

[Devout_IPUite]

However, socialism for old people isn't socialism. As shown by the right's embrace of Medicare (and recently their defense of it from an attack that's not really coming).

Re:The most interesting section

[yabos]

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.

Re:Apple is going join ...?

[E IS mC(Square)]

But you can still be anti-competitive.

As an Apple fan

[earthbound kid]

...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.

Re:How is this even a fucking question?

[nine-times]

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 real problem for AT&T.

in unrelated news, MS Strategist / FCC director

[SgtChaireBourne]

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].

Wal-Mart? Other reasons too.

[Anonymous Coward]

My wife used to be in corporate collections. She hated Wal-Mart, we don't shop their to this day. Wal-Mart would negotiate a contract based on volume. Then they'd write themselves an additional discount on top of that when it came time to pay. Your company had the choice of accepting the additional discount, or Wal-Mart dropping your business. So you either quit selling to your biggest customer, or you sold them at almost cost. Then to make up your loss, you had to raise your price to other vendors. This is a win-win for Wal-Mart, they have a really cheap price none of their competitors can match (because the supplier is pumping up the price to everyone else to pay for Wal-Mart's discount), and they have a lower bottom line with your company.

Lesson? Wal-Mart doesn't just keep prices low by logistics, they also do it by ruthlessly exploiting how big they are with small vendors and companies, which hurts those companies and keeps them from growing, which hurts the economy. You'll never hear a talking head on the news mention that though.