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."
Has Apple ever taken a position on net neutrality? (Score:5, Interesting)
Just askin'
Let me google that for you (Score:5, Informative)
We would like to thank our sponsors (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
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)
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: (Score:2, Interesting)
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:Regulations are stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:2)
Ron Paul is just an anti-tax social conservative. That's not libertarian.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, the No True Scotsman defense. Conservatives has failed miserably in government, so post hoc, you simply state that the people who failed weren't true conservatives.
Re: (Score:2)
There are conservative libertarians, for instance, and there are republicans who aren't conservative. This is true, which makes your criticism an error.
Re: (Score:2)
In a two party system one part is the more 'conservative' and one is the more 'liberal', one is the 'right' the other is the 'left'. Republicans are the right in the US today. I agree that both Republicans and Democrats can do a pretty shoddy job, but the ideologies are certainly 'left' or 'right'.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you watch Fox News?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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
Re: (Score:2)
much as disbanding our police departments would lead to a lower crime rate.
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.
Go back to the future, you time travelling scum!
Re: (Score:2)
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.
That's because you can't buy assault weapons at gun shows and there is a much more subdued attitude towards the war on drugs. Additionally, you have socialized medicine, which prevents the leading cause of all bankruptcies, which is loss of income due to health issues.
in unrelated news, MS Strategist / FCC director (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
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)
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)
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: (Score:2)
Monopolies are one of the various failure point of free markets. Free (as in no regulation at all) does nothing to stop monopolies, even though they break the system. Personally, I'm very pro-regulation, I don't think the free markets are the solution to everything (lots of things, not everything). I like the products Apple makes, but I can't wait to see them get their asses punked for anti-competitive practices (hopefully more to come).
Re: (Score:2)
just so we agree on terms a free market is not a market without laws, that would not be welcome. But one where laws still prevent coercion and ensure fair dealing etc, just without government management of prices, supplies, and resources.
Most monopolies are actually a optimal open market solution, and are generally kept in check even in a free market. Natural monopolies are markets where fewer suppliers are more efficient, and if they get out of control (take to much profit, or become too high cost) in a o
Apple is going join ...? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
"...print another few hundred billion and give them a bailout"
How about a cash for clunkers program that gives PC owners a trade in allowance when they upgrade to Macs.
A few hundred billion should cover a few Mac Pros.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow. That was totally unnecessary. Do you feel Internet Cool because you made a lame, overhashed bailout joke?
Your anonymous comment adds nothing to the discussion - not even humor. How does that make you feel?
I am not "Internet Cool". I am who I am, I say what I say, and if you don't like it - I DON'T CARE. Enjoy your day.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple is a monopoly when it comes to application availability for the iPhone.
Re:Apple is going join ...? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
But in the online music sales arena they have a 70% market share http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITunes_Store#Market_share_and_milestones [wikipedia.org]
That could possibly be considered a monopoly, and if they use that monopoly to push into other markets (the iTunes store and integration is a huge part of the popularity of the iPhone), and then act anticompetitively, then they can indeed be held responsible.
Re: (Score:2)
Please, AC, do tell us all about how Microsoft is responsible somehow for what seems to be the ubiquitous configuration option for Netbooks! I'm dying to hear...
i hope Apple & AT&T get busted (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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)
Mmm (Score:2, Funny)
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:The most interesting section (Score:5, Funny)
#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)
How is the FCC even involved? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:How is the FCC even involved? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
The commission regulates telephone companies (wire and cellular) and competition between those companies - so its well within their right to ask these kinds of questions and get answers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because wireless communications is not a free market, and shouldn't be.
If we had free market wireless, the company that had the most powerful transmitters would be the only carrier in that area, and all competition would be crowded out, until someone decided to buy a more powerful transmitter.
So, wireless communications is (in theory) heavily restricted, to make sure that companies are behaving, and don't stomp on each other or on customers.
Wired communications is also not a free market, because if it were,
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
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:2)
I really hope this is the case but I'm
not holding my breath.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
"And we, the consumers, continue to get screwed like sheep."
This is /., we should be happy any of us get some however we can.
Re: (Score:2)
People I feel no sympathy towards:
- Those who bought an iPhone knowing full well that Apple and AT&T have absolute and full control over the software running on it, including (but not limited to) which programs you can install and even going so far as to have a "kill switch" to terminate applications that they don't like.
- Those who bought a Kindle and didn't stop to think that Amazon can do whatever they want with your book purchases, including
Re: (Score:2)
If they are required to stop exclusive carrier deals, then subsidies will go away and we'll all get to pay for our phones, not be locked to a carrier and probably end 1+ year contracts.
I don't think that's true. In the UK, it's very unusual for a phone to be exclusive to a particular carrier, and phones are frequently sold unlocked. However, they're still subsidized - you get a free phone if you sign a contract with a carrier. The carriers still benefit from this kind of deal, because even if the phone is unlocked, and you _could_ use it on another carrier, why would you if you're already paying monthly fees to the carrier you've signed a contract with? The subsidized-phone model is compa
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
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.
As an Apple fan (Score:5, Interesting)
...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.
Apple officially adopts Evil(tm) (Score:5, Funny)
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."
It's All About Text Messaging Fees (Score:2)
The simple answer is that it's an anti-competitive move (semi-monopolistic) in regards to text messaging fees. AT&T makes a killing on text-messaging fees, charging 20 cents for 1120 bytes or less of data. Google Voice lets you make an end-run around that and send text messages from your Google Voice number using your phone's data plan (which, if you have unlimited data = free text messaging). AT&T wants to preserve that huge revenue stream, so they had Apple lock Google Voice out of it.
More Power To Them (Score:2)
1: We want to continue to immensely overcharge for the voice channel as long as we possibly can.
2: We don't want anybody else to show up our shoddy programming with better apps so we'll just stifle competition in any area that we already compete.
That's why I'll have an Android phone before I'd ever consider an iPhone. Google is only half as bad as Apple in t
Apple is as evil as Microsoft. (Score:2)
Apple is as evil as Microsoft and its about time people noticed.
Opera and Firefox are not allowed to compete with safari on the iphone and microsoft is forced to split IE from the OS.
Its about time that the game is played FAIR.
Microsoft has unfairly been the target for too long while Apple has continually been allowed to do the same nonsense.
itunes and quicktime for windows sucks.
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.
Re:How is this even a fucking question? (Score:4, Interesting)
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)
Want ATT to be like Wal-Mart? They need to innovate their internals first before they become a dumb pipe.
Re: (Score:2)
Wal-Mart is who they are not because they are cheap, but because they were able to refine their logistics.
well, they're cheap too: union-free with dirt wages to boot
Re: (Score:2)
"well, they're cheap too: union-free with dirt wages to boot"
Just like any other big box store. However, they do pay well for certain positions that are really important in their system.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:How is this even a fucking question? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:How is this even a fucking question? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are already apps that have push notifications/free SMS. They aren't being removed.
Re: (Score:2)
Even if at&t did have a favorites plan, GV calls back from a local voip switch, spoofing their callerID as a number of your choosing. If spoofing a callerID fools at&t, then they have deeper issues (spoofing callerID leads to massive revenue loss).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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:4, Informative)
Because the VoIP apps have been neutered to only work on WiFi
Re: (Score:2)
there's an approved and free Skype application
Not for long [slashdot.org]...
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: (Score:2)
Excuse me, but how is Apple benefiting from artificially limiting the uses and applications of the device they build? Profit-wise, Apple wants to sell more devices, and more useful apps will help them sell more devices. The only thing Apple is getting out of this relationship is a 3G network that is willing to implement their device specific features like visual voice mail. It wouldn't even sur
Re: (Score:2)
Now that I think of it, this might be the reason that Apple removes all the Apps with profanity on them, because they're operating under a different set of regulations (i.e. the ones the FCC covers) with a mobile transmitter than with a normal computing device.
The FCC regulating the content of a subscription service? Sounds unlikely.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple could have easily done what Blackberry did -- that is to set up servers to host various services and functions. As it stands, Blackberry is doing the evil thing where all Blackberries of all carriers pass through their servers... it's a rather annoying thing when something happens to their network (and it has happened before... more than once) and all blackberries lose connectivity. (I have found it interesting that the slashdot crowd hasn't picked up on this evil... I am a blackberry user myself an
Re: (Score:2)
Those FCC profanity regulations refer to broadcast content. That is, content transmitted with the intent of the general public receiving it. Cellular traffic is not broadcast - it's only meant for a cell tower or for a specific phone to receive it.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Never said it wasn't. I am just shocked there is even an investigation. It's common knowledge, IMO.
What we need to decide in the U.S, is not whether Apple did some in the interests of AT&T's bottom line due to exclusivity agreements and strategic interests, but if "we" the "people" are okay with it. I never actually weighed in with what I think about regulation, free markets, etc.
It's like an investigation into whether or not the Sun is com
Re: (Score:2)
It is all "heresay" until a proper investigation documents the facts officially. The government can't even assert that the sky is blue without an investigation into the fact.
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: (Score:2)
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?
Google Voice is not a VoIP solution nor does it reduce billable minutes. It does allow people to reduce their phone rates for International calls; down to a couple of cents per minute. On T-Mobile, you can reduce your billable minutes with Google Voice. Reduced phone tariffs is what this is really about. It allows peo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Apple has an *exclusive* agreement with AT&T. Google Voice competes with AT&T...exclusive agreements allow for the elimination of competition. Abuses are guaranteed by the very nature of the Apple/AT&T relationship....whether or not the abuse exists...are we going to disallow exclusive agreements between...manufacturers or not?
Are there really any...[people]...out there that honestly expect Apple to not act in their, and their business partners best interests?
i guess ATT and Apple now have an exclusive deal with slashdot for mod points.
Flamebait...really?
another interesting and insightful comment that brings real questions to the discussion modded down...for what?
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Google voice is not VOIP. All calls made through google voice still use your AT&T minutes. There is no call data going over the 3g network -- at all.
Almost without exception, in the rush to give Apple the benefit of the doubt where they do not deserve it, people have been assuming that google voice = VOIP. That is an incorrect assumption.
Don't confuse Google Voice with Google Talk.
There is NOT an app for that! (Score:2)
Re: (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.
Re: (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 nee
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but for long distance GV is nothing but an electronic phone card. Remember phone cards? They still sell them for international calls. You Dial a 1-800 number, put in your pin, an they connect you to your final destination from there.
Does AT&T forbid phone cards?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
VOIP on the cell network is billed as data, not voice minutes, though.
But, all VOIP discussion is moot, other than cheaper international service, because Google Voice doesn't use VOIP for the last mile, it uses POTS.