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."

Comments

Has Apple ever taken a position on net neutrality?

[lseltzer]

Just askin'

We would like to thank our sponsors

[lalena]

This investigation has been brought to you by Google.

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?

Re:We would like to thank our sponsors

[davester666]

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...

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?

Re:How is this even a fucking question?

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

[mstra]

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?

[Anonymous Coward]

And it's none of the FCC's business yet anyway. If Apple bought RIM, then yes. Until then the Government needs to piss off.

Re:How is this even a fucking question?

[linhares]

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?

[mstra]

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: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?

[ubernostrum]

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 clearly saying "we know you've already approved VoIP stuff, so we're wondering why those apps were OK and Google's app isn't".

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:How is this even a fucking question?

[erroneus]

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?

[mrsteveman1]

Because the VoIP apps have been neutered to only work on WiFi

Re:How is this even a fucking question?

[Anarchduke]

Its the Governments business because they monitor and regulate the marketplace. Sure, they don't monitor and regulate it as thoroughly as they should, otherwise the whole default credit swap/global financial crisis wouldn't have developed in the first place.

Anti-competitive behavior is one of those things that attracts government attention. You don't have to be a Microsoft to come under their microscope as Google themselves can attest. AT&T and Apple both have a proclivity for shutting out competition, and when it involves the phone system, the FCC is going to be interested.

This is because the FCC deals with everything involving the phone system. It deals with cellphone makers (Apple) and it deals with common carriers (AT&T).

I for one welcome the occasional ass kicking from the FCC as it helps to keep the various companies on their toes.

Re:How is this even a fucking question?

[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:How is this even a fucking question?

[koolfy]

And I want you to hit AT&T as hard as you can !

Re:How is this even a fucking question?

[Dunbal]

there's an approved and free Skype application

      Not for long...

Re:How is this even a fucking question?

[linhares]

how much can you know about yourself if you've never been in a fight?

Re:How is this even a fucking question?

[DiSKiLLeR]

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?

[Anonymous Coward]

OUCH; AT&T hit me in the ear!

Re:How is this even a fucking question?

[EdIII]

Competition due to consumer protection laws is a great thing.

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 coming up tomorrow. Of course it is.

Re:How is this even a fucking question?

[Runaway1956]

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:How is this even a fucking question?

[GooberToo]

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 people to redirect their calls away from the carrier's network. While they may still pay for airtime (not counting T-Mobile here), they can avoid paying those insanely high mobile international rates of $0.25-$5 a minute. Their actions are most definitely anti-competitive.

This does not require any sort of investigation whatsoever.

Actually it does. The services provided by Google Voice are top notch. By removing these applications the are denying the market choice and preventing competition.

Re:How is this even a fucking question?

[FlyingSquidStudios]

AT&T should be more like Wal-Mart? Does that mean I should get calls at 3 a.m. from housewives yelling at the top of their lungs with 18 screaming kids? Because that's pretty much my late-night Wal-Mart experience.

Re:How is this even a fucking question?

[mctk]

Quoting Fight Club as an argument for the existence of more Wal-Mart like companies is like using Office Space as an argument for TPS reports. It's like using Lebowski as an argument for holding a 9-5 job. It's like using Alien as an argument for the frailty of women. It's like using Predator as an argument for the wussiness of United States governors. It's like using American Beauty as an argument for filming plastic bags in the wind. It's like using Ninja Turtles as an argument *against* nuclear experimentation. It's like using Ravenous as an argument for the impact of good soundtracks. It's like using web standards as an argument for using IE6.

I don't think the penguin is AT&T's power animal.

Re:How is this even a fucking question?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

You do know that it only works over wi-fi and not over any cellular data connection (which was a concession made to AT&T so the app could exist at all), right?

Re:How is this even a fucking question?

[bhagwad]

It reduces billable minutes for AT&T right? Wrong. That's Skype or Truphone. Google Voice still uses ATT minutes, dialing Google who takes it from there. So no, there's no threatened revenue loss. Loss of dignity? Maybe :)

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.

Re:How is this even a fucking question?

[erroneus]

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?

[catmistake]

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:How is this even a fucking question?

[catmistake]

AT&T has no favorites plan. It's free cell to cell between 2 at&t subscribers, that's about it.

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:How is this even a fucking question?

[je ne sais quoi]

The Apple and AT&T exclusivity agreement seems to be leveraging the relationship to their mutual advantage

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 surprise me if Apple themselves are the ones who called the FCC because AT&T is forcing them to remove all this stuff off their app store. AT&T has a strangle hold on Apple because if Apple loses its carrier, its totally SOL unless they want to start setting up cell phone towers.

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.

Re:How is this even a fucking question?

[imamac]

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:How is this even a fucking question?

[winwar]

"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:How is this even a fucking question?

[Doctor_Jest]

Tell that to AT&T. I imagine they had something to do with this... if not a majority reason, certainly a hand in the dismissal of Google Voice. I find it hard to believe they wouldn't. I despise AT&T with more venom than a spitting Cobra, so it's easy for me to see their stake in this... and even _if_ it's none of AT&T's business, they are probably squawking about "bandwidth" at the very least, because we've read tons of articles already about capacity problems as the influx of iPhone users on their network is causing a headache for bandwidth as much as customer (lack of) service they are already widely known for.

I am sure Apple isn't completely innocent (I know they aren't), but to let AT&T off the hook on this matter is just letting the bully get away with giving its customers a collective swirly...

Re:How is this even a fucking question?

[ssintercept]

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:How is this even a fucking question?

[mstra]

Good point. The free SMS is probably what they are afraid of. I keep forgetting about that, since Grand Central (the precursor to GV) didn't have SMS, so I'm not used to having it in Google Voice.

Re:How is this even a fucking question?

[smclean]

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:How is this even a fucking question?

[erroneus]

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 and I rather dislike that all internet traffic passes through them putting all customers at their mercy.)

I have to wonder why they didn't do that? I guess visual voicemail would be a natural exception in that it would require the carrier to cooperate in such functionality, but really, I think carriers should treat voicemail as a secondary hosting function anyway... one that can be redirected to other service providers and therefore providers of additional optional technologies (such as visual voicemail).

But it is an interesting spin you put on the story -- that Apple is a victim in this case. I seriously doubt they are. Apple could easily have created GSM and CDMA versions of the iPhone and just made them available everywhere and then did all the hocus pocus needed for many advance server functions on their own iron. But for Apple to enter into an exclusivity agreement, they much have benefited tremendously from AT&T and while all the details of the arrangement between Apple and AT&T, it is my understanding that Apple actually gets a cut of the profits from airtime and data usage from AT&T. So yes, it would be to their advantage to restrict people from using Google Voice to circumvent international long distance calls and the like.

Actually, one thing that is rather interesting to me is the Streisand effect. I never paid any attention to using Google Voice in the first place and never knew it could be used for international calling. Now that I know about it, I think I will have to investigate further since I have some relatives in another country. Thanks Apple and AT&T for bringing that to my attention.

Re:How is this even a fucking question?

[Anonymous Coward]

Trust me, we dont want Verizon Wireless getting their hands on this iPhone over here in the States. Verizon Wireless blows chunks.

Re:How is this even a fucking question?

[bhtooefr]

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?

[Cyberllama]

There are already apps that have push notifications/free SMS. They aren't being removed.

Re:How is this even a fucking question?

[Cyberllama]

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.

Re:How is this even a fucking question?

[plaxion]

Google Voice is not VOIP, at least not on the front end like Skype is (which in contrast is still available in the App Store). When you use GV on AT&T, the calls still go over the cell towers as a normal not as a data stream like Skype would. So it still eats your minutes.

Re:How is this even a fucking question?

[Mitsoid]

Funny you said "let me check" and got it wrong on a few points::

1) AT&T does not have a 'circle' or my favs option, you can not get 'minute charge free' calls bypassing AT&T minute charges... Except for international--which in this case is almost exactly like using... Suprisingly... A CALLING CARD... Clearly not 'against company policy'.. You call you gvoice number from your phone (like you would the calling card 1800 number) and enteryour PIN, you can then place outbound calls over google's network, even if they are international.

2) no voip or data plan is used for phonecalls on at&t's side
3) you must use a new phone number Assigned or picked through google

I can't see any feature of google voice that isn't similar to other alternatives, it looks on the outside to be "we don't want this big name here"

in relation to the app store--- almost every feature of google voice is once again duplicated in apps on the store... Which are simply discribed as:
1) call connection apps (urbanspoon, 411 services, etc.)
2) texing apps (don't know the names but there is more the 9 apps for that)

and there are voip apps...

To me it looks like the FCC is asking:
"why can no-names do the same thing and remain approved in the store, but a 'google branded' app doing the same thing gets AT&T to pressure apple to remove it (apple had already approved independent apps designed for google voice, they got pulled when AT&T and apple denied google voice services in the app store)

sorry for typo's, wrote this on my iPhone in AT&T... and I haveto say I jailbroke my iPhone to get gv mobile and it is life changig and great to have... Not to mention the app store keeps out a LOT of COMPETITIVE and INNOVATIVE applications or modificaions that make mobile life easier... I have used an iphone for the last yeAr and jail broke my iPhone to get gv mobile... My phone has been "better" for it eer since, even just using AT&T service!

Re:How is this even a fucking question?

[nine-times]

What's really crazy is that AT&T is making a lot of revenue from SMS. Don't get me wrong, SMS can be handy, but it's hardly resource intensive.

Re:How is this even a fucking question?

[agnosticnixie]

They can't run it until the network changes to gsm, genius

Re:How is this even a fucking question?

[Anonymous Coward]

If apple bought RIM

RIM-Jobs for everyone!

Re:How is this even a fucking question?

[nacturation]

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.

So do you have a non-exclusive arrangement with your wife?

Re:How is this even a fucking question?

[Runaway1956]

So, you compare family to business arrangements. I see. "I now pronounce you Microsuck and Microsuckee! You may suck the Micro!"

Spectators say, "It's a monopoly made in hell."

Odd, my wife has never eaten another wife in an acquisition, nor have I ever taken another husband to court to have him liquidated. Have we been missing something? Maybe we can spice our lives up a little bit, huh?

Re:How is this even a fucking question?

[metaforest]

"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."

I don't know how this got modded insightful, since it overlooks the obvious fact that iPhones have a WiFi transceiver.
  This allows high bandwidth connectivity that AT&T doesn't get to bill for. A few mobile providers have WiFi PoP networks, AFAIK AT&T doesn't. Since most WiFi PoP networks are directly or indirectly billed through the RBOCs, or cable providers, I can see why AT&T would twist Apple's arm on supporting VOIP apps, and related solutions.

Re:How is this even a fucking question?

[metaforest]

Google Voice IS a VOIP service...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Voice

It's in the first damn sentence.

Re:How is this even a fucking question?

[mstra]

As has been explained - Google Voice may use VOIP technology on its backend, but users do not interact with it via VOIP - it's all "regular" POTS or cell network, so, again, it may use VOIP internally, but it's not VOIP from the end-user, so yes, you still use just as many AT&T minutes.

Re:How is this even a fucking question?

[nacturation]

I'm being facetious to make a point. You said that all exclusivity agreements are evil, without qualification. I find your viewpoint absurd, much as my example of your marriage was.

Does McDonald's only agreeing to sell Coca-Cola beverages make them a monopoly? Does Taco Bell only agreeing to sell Pepsi beverages make them a monopoly? Does one dentist agreeing to exclusively use Oral-B products make them a monopoly? Does Nike only selling Nike products in the Nike store make them a monopolist? Should the government step in and force them to sell Reebok and Adidas products in their stores too? If you were an artist and you only sold your artwork to Christians, does that make you a monopolist and the government should step in and deal with you as such?

Re:How is this even a fucking question?

[functionoverform]

the real trick is.. getting people to work for pennies a day to produce thier products.. like walmart..oh wait.. all thier phones already are.

Re:How is this even a fucking question?

[gibson042]

Anyone with reservations about Apple or AT&T is free to avoid their products and services (as I do), and encourage others to act likewise.

The same cannot be said of the FCC. You worry about a private deal between Apple and AT&T regarding who can purchase and use Apple products. I worry about people claiming monopoly control over manipulation of electromagnetic radiation (not to mention the content embedded within it and now, apparently, details of contracts involving licensed businesses). Which is more dangerous?

Be careful of bringing in snakes to deal with your lizard problem.

Re:How is this even a fucking question?

[ncc74656]

Google Voice may use VOIP technology on its backend, but users do not interact with it via VOIP - it's all "regular" POTS or cell network, so, again, it may use VOIP internally, but it's not VOIP from the end-user

It can be...combine it with something like Gizmo (for which Google Voice has specific configuration options) and you end up with a VoIP link from your phone to Google, a free inbound number (vs. $35/year from Gizmo), and free calls within the US (vs. 1.9 cents/min for outbound calls from Gizmo). The only downside is that you need to place calls from your computer instead of from your phone's keypad, but since I have at least a couple of computers fired up all the time, that's not a problem for me.

Re:How is this even a fucking question?

[mstra]

Yes, but the official Google Voice app* (or even the 3rd party ones that were kicked out) do NOT use VOIP for their connection. Which was the whole point.

* - I'm extrapolating on the "official" iPhone app, since it doesn't exist, but that's how the BlackBerry app works

Re:How is this even a fucking question?

[blueskies]

As it stands, Blackberry is doing the evil thing where all Blackberries of all carriers pass through their servers

When i was a suffering Sys Admin, i hated them with a passion, because I had to allow spoofed email from their servers. When the CEO would send email from his bb to other employees it would come from BB's SMTP server as a person in our domain. I accepted spoofed email from only a very small IP address range, but it still pissed me off.

Why can't you send email directly from our own email server?

And no, i wasn't willing to pay outrageous costs for the stupid BB Enterprise server. There is no reason why BB's can send directly to the mail server of their choice.

BB would need to add 50% more advantages to the things i need over a competing mobile device for me to ever consider using them.

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:Woot

[Anonymous Coward]

Wouldn't it be a free market if Apple could just do that? If monopolies would act uncontrollably?
Usually I hear US-Americans screaming that the free market is so awesome, but it doesn't work if it completely without rules (beside the obvious offer/demand).

Re:Woot

[mrwolf007]

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:Woot

[Devout_IPUite]

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:Woot

[mrwolf007]

Monopolies are one of the many failure points. True. They markets have to adhere to common rules.
Regulation for sales of firearms, alcohol for minors etc. There have to be bounderies for a free market. But imposed by the society as large not by the companies.
Promoting free market speech may seem a bit wierd for an open source developer. After all im a so called communist. I code for free (hmm, usually). And well, i also use free software for contract work i do. Well, i give and take. And still end up with a competetive advantage over those who dont. Weird. Maybe less money lost in management.

Re:Woot

[Dare nMc]

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 open market, suppliers will enter driving high cost producers out of the market. The issues with monopolies come in when they violate the rules that are also present in free markets, since it is very difficult to enforce the free market rules, it is seen as easier to just regulate the effects, and not the cause. Which just becomes a cat and mouse game, which you then cant just go back to a free market without first fixing the underlying corruption. So while I agree we are stuck in a situation where de-regulation can't work.

Re:Woot

[Devout_IPUite]

In the US I perceive the words "free market" to be synonymous with "unregulated". These ladies agree. http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_H01fscfAxoA/SmtuBwqvFZI/AAAAAAAAAS0/Pfh7VIFtl08/s1600-h/Boca+Raton+Free+Market+Healthcare+Rally+035.JPG

Wikipedia also agrees. "A free market is a term that economists use to describe a market which is free from economic intervention and regulation by government, other than protection of property rights (i.e. no regulation, no subsidization, no single monetary system, and no governmental monopolies)."

Re:Woot

[Dare nMc]

free from economic intervention and regulation by government

thats correct, and if you read wikipedia, their are many rules required to be followed for a free market. It doesn't even require a government to enforce all those rules (but I still don't see how that would violate having a free market, since by definition a free market doesn't have these issues, therefore how they get enforced doesn't matter) , something as simple as good communications for people is enforcement (reviews, etc.) Regardless it doesn't matter if it is voluntary, customer enforced, or government enforced I would stick to the wikipedia quote for free markets "By definition, buyers and sellers do not coerce each other" If that is the case, then problems caused by most monopolies should not be at issue to free market ideology (if they are following the rules).

The responses to this inquiry should be fun.

[one2wonder]

I would LOVE to read Google's response to the request. But seriously - Apple has been playing a bit too much GOD with app rejection and I think investigations should go on about anti competitive practices.

Re:The responses to this inquiry should be fun.

[Anonymous Coward]

This may be the reason they're investigating. They basically nix any app that would compete with a version of their software calling it a "dupe" when said "dupe" may be something better or takes the ideas they've had a step further and actually adds some use to an app. This is one reason that I hate large companies. They seem to think they need to keep their position in the world by stopping the little guy from even starting up. They only need to worry about other big businesses. Small business will normally stay small or medium, it is rare that a small company becomes some large corporation over night or even stays around long enough to get any where near the ballpark of the Microsoft's and Apple's of the world.

I'm sure this will be interesting for those who've had decent apps rejected for no reason but on Apple's whim. Granted it is in their app store, but I don't see where someone can just send an app over to ATT and have it show up in the ATT only store. Basically creating an ATT/Apple monopoly on apps on the iPhone. Especially apps created by *ahem* a worthy competitor like Google. The way I see it is that ATT does get a say what goes on the Iphone to some degree because they have their own app store for all customers. Whether this store is available on the Iphone I don't know (I don't have one). But that could be seen as a way for ATT to decide what is allowed on an Iphone in sort of indirect way from the Iphone store. Then you have Apple's store which they alone decide what gets put on it. Now, whether collusion goes on between the two of them is what the FCC may be trying to find out.

I know one thing though, ATT could rub two dimes together to care about VOIP on their network. Winmo has had VOIP apps far longer than the Iphone has been out. So cool it with the VOIP complaining. The only time VOIP helps a customer is if they're using WIFI in the area they are in and not the ATT network otherwise its a stupid waste of space on a CELL phone. Perhaps maybe it helps with international calls I don't and don't see how since someone somewhere pays for those calls because VOIP goes to POTS at some point, unless the other user is on VOIP sitting at a computer. Perhaps its possible to use VOIP internationally if both parties are on WIFI that way its only using data and since you're on WIFI it's "Free" depending on where that WIFI signal is coming from. Just food for thought. Still this doesn't affect ATT since its not over their network, you're just using the the phone you "purchased" from them.

See this is one reason I stick to my winmo phone for now...until something else better comes along. No, I don't see android as that since android's store is becoming much like Apple's. At least with winmo I have the choice of all free softwares :)

Re:The responses to this inquiry should be fun.

[bhtooefr]

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.

Apple is going join ...?

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

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

Re:Apple is going join ...?

[Dunbal]

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:Apple is going join ...?

[dingen]

You can't be a monopolist with only 10% market share.

Re:Apple is going join ...?

[beuges]

Apple is a monopoly when it comes to application availability for the iPhone.

Re:Apple is going join ...?

[Sponge Bath]

"...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:Apple is going join ...?

[E IS mC(Square)]

But you can still be anti-competitive.

Re:Apple is going join ...?

[MBGMorden]

But in the online music sales arena they have a 70% market share http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITunes_Store#Market_share_and_milestones

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:Apple is going join ...?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. That was totally unnecessary. Do you feel Internet Cool because you made a lame, overhashed bailout joke?

Re:Apple is going join ...?

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple has a 70 percent market share of online music sales for one reason. People love their ipods and they love itunes. There are dozens if not hundreds of different mp3 players for sale. There are many many places to buy music from Amazon to the local record store. Yet, Apple dominates. Simply because, for most people's purposes, they are flat out better.

Google is another example. We've been hearing lots of saber rattling lately about them being investigated by the DoJ. That doesn't even make sense. If you don't like Google, take 10 seconds and type something else in your URL bar. If you have documents with Google Docs, just export them and keep moving. Google has a huge share of search because they are just flat out better. People use their services because generally, they fill a need and are quite good. That's not at all what an abusive monopoly is.

Contrast this with the behaviors of AT&T pre-breakup. You are probably too young to remember but, I assure you, it was bad.

Which brings me to the 8000 ton Gorilla in the room. How can we even begin to look at any company even remotely connected to technology when Microsoft controls over 90 percent of desktops worldwide. Locking users in is their core business model. They perverted web standards for years and years and we are just now begin to see the light at the end of that tunnel. Want to buy a netbook that exceeds the cookie cutter atom, 1 GB RAM 160GB HDD? Forget about it. Thanks to Microsoft you are shit out of luck. The list goes on and on and only gets more obscene so I'll spare you but, really, people need to get their priorities in the right place.

I applaud the EU for at least trying to stand up to Microsoft. Keep fighting the good fight as there are a lot of people on this side of the Atlantic that are counting on you to do what we failed at.

Re:Apple is going join ...?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's about time.

Apple has been abusing their dominant market position (I won't call it a monopoly, because there are other options...) to the detriment of the public for many years. Hopefully this will prompt them to stop trying to force unfair restrictions down our throats.

Re:Apple is going join ...?

[Achromatic1978]

Want to buy a netbook that exceeds the cookie cutter atom, 1 GB RAM 160GB HDD? Forget about it. Thanks to Microsoft you are shit out of luck.

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...

Re:Apple is going join ...?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sadly, the requirements were made known due to a leaked internal document so I can't link directly to the source, however, here's one place you can do some reading up on it.

It's a reasonable conclusion that manipulating hardware specs fit the criterion of abusive monopoly behavior.

Re:Apple is going join ...?

[Dunbal]

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:Apple is going join ...?

[dingen]

So what? Nintendo is a monopoly when it comes to game availability for the Wii. There's no problem with creating your own ecosystem as long as other ecosystems are competing.

Re:Apple is going join ...?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but being anti-competitive is not illegal. As stated above, Nintendo, Microsoft, and Sony have the same control over game availability for the Wii, Xbox, and PS3, respectively, and nobody's talking about anti-trust action against any of them for that.

Re:Apple is going join ...?

[E IS mC(Square)]

Yes. But it's little different in this case. Show me an example where Nintendo/MS/Sony have rejected something which is:
1. Available on other platforms
2. Banned/disapproved on the grounds of "duplication of functionality"

Apple's decision reeks of nothing but anti-competitive behavior, no matter how it's spun.

i hope Apple & AT&T get busted

[FudRucker]

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:i hope Apple & AT&T get busted

[Anonymous Coward]

Good point, Mr. Lenin. Let's send them to re-education camps too.

Re:i hope Apple & AT&T get busted

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously, any restriction of the free market leads to communism, and is therefore evil.

Re:i hope Apple & AT&T get busted

[Anonymous Coward]

Good point they do need education as their OS suX

Re:i hope Apple & AT&T get busted

[Dunbal]

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 "free" markets, heheheh.

Re:i hope Apple & AT&T get busted

[Ed Bugg]

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:i hope Apple & AT&T get busted

[webheaded]

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 care?

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:i hope Apple & AT&T get busted

[meta-monkey]

go to the mall and toss a rock, you'll hit at least 3 cell phone providers

I think we've discovered the solution to all these problems. Quick, everybody to the mall! And don't forget your rocks!

Mmm

[cardsinhand]

Hope this takes a bite out of Apple's market share.

Re:Mmm

[that this is not und]

I hope it INCREASES Apple's market share. After they're forced to de-bundle, people can buy their fine Apple hardware at WalMart or wherever, and take it to their carrier to have a service connected to it.

The whole 'Macintosh model of customer lock-in over and over again' bit got old years and years ago. Apple needs to not be such a one-trick pony.

Re:Mmm

[Anonymous Coward]

One trick pony? Multi-platform software vendor, hardware manufacturer, OS vendor, cell phone manufacturer, audio player manufacturer... That's one impressive trick!

The most interesting section

[sanosuke001]

"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

[Anonymous Coward]

#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: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.

have you read your "fucking" constitution?

[SuperBanana]

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.

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

Also, you don't seem to understand the difference between a VOIP client like Skype or Gizmo, and Google Voice- which is basically very fancy voicemail. The only thing the iPhone client does is make calling OUTBOUND with your Google Voice number easier. The call still goes through AT&T, they still get to bill you for your minutes, etc. Not really a competitor.

If it's so likely they were anticompetitive, and the justice and regulatory systems work, they'll be found guilty and punished. Given that they already have a better handle on the situation than you do, I'm glad we only have 27 amendments. Look at the questions being asked- TRUE competitors have NOT been yanked.

Re:have you read your "fucking" constitution?

[Dunbal]

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".

Re:have you read your "fucking" constitution?

[dr.newton]

It is true that AT&T get to bill for local minutes with a Google Voice call, but it does bear noting that subscribers using Google Voice do avoid a carrier's long distance charges by using the service.

AT&T will still make some money from Google Voice users on the iPhone, but perhaps not as much, so it is in their best interest to have the app removed from the App Store. Of course, the FCC exists in part to prevent behaviour like this, where progress is prevented because the new model is less profitable to some incumbent corporation, but AT&T may feel that FCC fines are the cost of doing business.

If they did ask Apple to pull the plug on GV, and the action were not reversed by FCC mandate, the potential financial gain may greatly outweigh any fine the FCC could slap on them.

Re:have you read your "fucking" constitution?

[mstra]

The only long distance fees that are avoided are international. Who the hell pays "long distance" on their iPhone?

Re:have you read your "fucking" constitution?

[Cyberllama]

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:have you read your "fucking" constitution?

[dr.newton]

It is still possible to use GV as a phone card on an iPhone, since that requires no app.

The functionality that is being prevented is transparently using your GV account instead of just dialing the destination number.

Phone cards are enough of a pain in the ass that most people won't use them unless the savings are substantial. However, if you write an app that takes away the pain, many more people are likely to use it. If I were AT&T, that's what I'd be worried about, rather than the fraction of users that are willing to dial two numbers to make one call.

There is NOT an app for that!

[linhares]

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 telecom for joe & jane doe.

How is the FCC even involved?

[kc5deb]

Since when has the FCC become the government's "private company czar"?

Re:How is the FCC even involved?

[tclgeek]

since its inception, for private companies that create devices used for interstate and international communication?

Re:How is the FCC even involved?

[erroneus]

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:How is the FCC even involved?

[kc5deb]

Understood. But how does the meat of this story involve the FCC?

Re:How is the FCC even involved?

[MassacrE]

Because both AT&T and Google are carriers, and it is suspected that AT&T is the one requiring Google Voice access be blocked.

Re:How is the FCC even involved?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is EXACTLY why the FCC was ever commissioned. Please go back to high school and retake American Government 101. The problem is this is the first I've heard of the FCC doing its job in a long time. Which is probably why you don't realize that this is what they are "supposed" to do. The FCC itself is a Government/Corporate hybrid, of which congress have commissioned several. The proper terminology eludes me momentarily, but should be available on Wikipedia.

Re:How is the FCC even involved?

[kc5deb]

My point is, this is a free market. If AT&T and Apple want to screw their customers, what business is it of the government to be involved? Let the businesses screw their customers.

Re:How is the FCC even involved?

[Achromatic1978]

You mean AT&T, a business that leases a portion of the spectrum of our airwaves? Sure. Let's let them do whatever the hell they want.

Re:How is the FCC even involved?

[Skuld-Chan]

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:How is the FCC even involved?

[bhtooefr]

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, you'd have a solid wall of copper on telephone poles. Oddly, it'd be a more free market if it were more regulated - companies should have equal access to the copper, rather than one company owning the copper and keeping it to themselves.

Re:How is the FCC even involved?

[kc5deb]

It IS a free market (should be MORE so), for the fact that if one company comes in and completely saturates an area with an 1800MHz band coverage, there is nothing that gives another company the right to whine to the government because they can't play in the 1800MHz range. They can develop technology to use other frequencies, spend the money themselves on towers and equipment, and provide the same kind of service on different frequencies. If a company puts up a tower to specifically block another company's frequencies, there is a legal issue there that then falls under fair practice. Wired communications is also a free market as well. There is nothing that prevents someone from using their own money to construct another wired infrastructure on their own set of poles. Now, if a company deliberately cuts another phone company's phone lines to prevent them from working, again, there's a legal issue there that again falls under fair practice. Back to the point. AT&T's iPhone was developed by Apple, and AT&T entered into an agreement with them to carry their phone on the wireless network they created with their own money. There's no legitimate reason why government should force them to allow apps on their phones and on AT&T's network that the two companies feel would be a detriment to their profit. If google wants their app to be on a cellular network, no one is preventing google from creating their own wireless network with their own phone running their own apps. Now, one app from google isn't going to be the downfall of the iPhone and AT&T. It would behoove both the companies to work with google and make compromises, but, as a free market, government shouldn't FORCE one company to allow another company to profit off their own infrastructure. I heard so many times while working for competitors of AT&T about how bad AT&T is at restricting competition. I never saw it. All I saw was smaller companies whining when their own network wasn't as reliable as AT&T's because they refused to put the money and engineering into it that AT&T did. AT&T was a great scapegoat because they had the profit and the network before others did.

Re:How is the FCC even involved?

[plaxion]

Here's an interesting blog post that spells out much of the things that AT&T has on offer which Google Voice does better and for free.

Regulations are stupid

[copponex]

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

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:Regulations are stupid

[EQ]

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:Regulations are stupid

[RazorSharp]

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:Regulations are stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Ron Paul 2012!

Re:Regulations are stupid

[QuoteMstr]

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:Regulations are stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, we believe in doing what you say you'll do, so when Republicans get elected based on smaller government and disbanding the Department of Education and similar causes, and instead they do deficit spending and No Child Left Behind, then I think we have a right to accuse them of not being truly conservative.

Re:Regulations are stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

you know... I feel the same way about the left...

Re:Regulations are stupid

[Toonol]

You misunderstand the 'No True Scotsman' error. It would be applicable if his argument was 'Real Republicans' wouldn't act that way. That's not what he said; he said they weren't true conservatives. Since Republican and Conservative are different (but overlapping) sets, with different definitions, what he said is perfectly valid.

There are conservative libertarians, for instance, and there are republicans who aren't conservative. This is true, which makes your criticism an error.

Re:Regulations are stupid

[Devout_IPUite]

Ron Paul is just an anti-tax social conservative. That's not libertarian.

Re:Regulations are stupid

[Devout_IPUite]

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:Regulations are stupid

[Devout_IPUite]

Do you watch Fox News?

Re:Regulations are stupid

[spud.dups]

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 Medicare' as you've stated.

But regardless, what does this thread have to do with the topic?

Re:Regulations are stupid

[DJRumpy]

Agreed. At some point, the republican party lost it's 'small government' brand and switched it's base to far right conservatives, so they are in essence, one in the same. They realized how easy it is to mobilize that right, especially with fear tactics and a wee bit of stretching the truth. Make them afraid and they will come. This is the root of all their identity issues. It's a total love-hate relationship. Here they have a fanatical loyal base that is hard to give up for the vastness that are moderates, but now they have ejected all of the 'moderate' republicans, and the only ones left that will have them are the conservatives. A rock and a hard place.

When the percent of folks who identify as Republican drops to the same percent who are far right in ideology, you know you've pretty much burned every bridge you own.

Re:Regulations are stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

He can't win, don't jizz yourself.

Re:Regulations are stupid

[BikeHelmet]

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:Regulations are stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Regulations are stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

"could give a crap less about"! Nope, not in French or Spanish. Was that English?

they are after money and power for its own sake, and couldn't give a crap about rights, responsibilities, etc.

There, fixed it for ya.

Repeat 100 times: couldn't care less, couldn't care less, couldn't care less, couldn't care less, couldn't care less, couldn't care less, couldn't care less, couldn't care less, couldn't care less, couldn't care less, couldn't care less, couldn't care less, couldn't care less, couldn't care less, couldn't care less, couldn't care less, couldn't care less, couldn't care less, couldn't care less, couldn't care less, couldn't care less

See, when you use the right words, they fit! Amazing!

Re:Regulations are stupid

[copponex]

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.

Re:Regulations are stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Great post.

Re:Regulations are stupid

[Baki]

So you suggest that "right" can also (should also) mean small-government and little government spending? I don't see that, looking at history. Many of the (extreme) right regimes such as the fascists had very big state apparatus. Right are not exactly the same as anarchists.

Only anarchists believe in small goverment, i.e. no interference of the state and no rule of law.

Re:Regulations are stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

The most successful fascists in history were Socialists. National Socialists.

About Damn Time

[DiSKiLLeR]

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: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:About Damn Time

[DiSKiLLeR]

I really hope this is the case but I'm
not holding my breath.

Re:About Damn Time

[DavidRawling]

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".

Re:About Damn Time

[Anonymous Coward]

If this was the Australian Government,

they would have collected your guns.

Re:About Damn Time

[Achromatic1978]

And yet, miraculously, their homicide rate per capita would still be THREE TIMES less than the USA...

Re:About Damn Time

[Anonymous Coward]

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

I've got my share of apple products and I have to agree with you. They're treading down a path that leads to a bad reputation. I wouldn't buy an iPhone because of all this shenanigans. It's sad how ugly corporations can be if they aren't kept in check.

Re:About Damn Time

[illumin8]

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.

Or, it could be that Steve Jobs got really fucking pissed when Google announced Chrome OS for Netbooks, which would directly compete against any future Apple tablet designed to capture the low-end network attached computing market.

Steve Jobs has been known to have a bad temper when things don't go his way. He has also been known to punish severely employees and partners that leak information. I don't think it's too hard to connect the dots between the Chrome OS announcement, Google Voice app denial, and now Eric Schmidt being asked to leave the Apple board.

Let me google that for you

[linhares]

Apparently not... here's a good read on that: http://www.capitolvalley.net/2008/02/drm-net-neutrality-and-apples.html

Let's not forget

[Khan]

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:Let's not forget

[aztektum]

"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:Let's not forget

[Anonymous Coward]

AT&T is in scotland also?

Re:Let's not forget

[ps60k]

should be: AT&T. Your world. Delivered. To the NSA.

Re:Let's not forget

[Eil]

And we, the consumers, continue to get screwed like sheep.

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 reversing the purchase, sell your reading habits, or even change the contents of your books after the sale.
- Anyone who buys a DRM-encumbered device, system, or software and then complains about it. It's like going to the dealership, buying a red car, and then going around whining about how much you hate the color.

Re:Let's not forget

[Anonymous Coward]

You shouldn't screw sheep. Unless they are taking a drink from a stream and then they will back into it implying they actually WANT it.

Re:Let's not forget

[functionoverform]

maybe this is unlocked phones have a huge market share in other countries. the US has a tiny fraction of users that buy unlocked phones, and see where it gets us? if we wanna be good capitalist folk, we need shorter terms, and unlocked phones.. and shit.. i sell AT&T all day lol.. but i bought my E71 unlocked. the problem is, we're a credit loving nation. nobody wants to pay 350$+ for a cell phone, they wanna pay 99$ or less, and the long contracts make that subsidized pricing possible.

Re:Let's not forget

[Hurricane78]

But they want it! Hard and nasty! All the way up to the brain! The exclusive triple-fist of media, republicans and democrats (If you click this link, it really is your own fault! ^^), all from the same ghastly animal. Yeah! Gimme more!

dumb pipe

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Well, they have the dumb part down.

It's time for telcos to sell bits, not services

[sdo1]

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:This is funny

[Anonymous Coward]

Watching all the Linux and MSFT fanboys taking out their snuff boxes then proceeding straight to 19th century backhanded bitchslaps with gloves.

Spank Apple's silly fanny!

Even funnier (in a scary kind of way): People making the assumption that only 'Linux and MSFT fanboys' could have any reason to criticize anything Apple does.

OOOoooooo, FTC sent Apple a letter oooOOOOOO !!

[Anonymous Coward]

Steven Jobs is trembling in his boots. No really, Steven Jobs is trembling in his boots.

AT&T does not care about Google Voice.

[Mister Xiado]

This is 100% Apple. AT&T's official line with Google Voice since at least last year has been "we don't care what you do with data as long as you aren't using more than 5GB in a month". If Google Voice isn't working, customer support is not obligated to help you beyond ensuring your voice, data, and SMS services are functional.

There is NO policy at AT&T that opposes the use of VOIP services.

Re:AT&T does not care about Google Voice.

[porkThreeWays]

But there is one that opposes other people letting you text for free

Re:AT&T does not care about Google Voice.

[Mister Xiado]

It's called "text messaging is for people too stupid to email". You can get a BlackBerry, data only, use VOIP software, and pay a lower monthly bill than anybody else, but again, people just want to piss and moan about how their cell provider is ripping them off, because they're too stupid to read their contract or do some investigation on what they NEED.

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:As an Apple fan

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, you could go with Android, support open source, and have this now.

Re:As an Apple fan

[Anonymous Coward]

You are not a true apple fan. I hate you.

Apple officially adopts Evil(tm)

[David Gerard]

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.

"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

[CritterNYC]

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.

Re:It's All About Text Messaging Fees

[sonicmerlin]

Actually even if you don't pay for a data plan and just pay the *huge* markups on spontaneous data usage (Verizon charges a few dollars for 2 MB of usage), SMS uses such a tiny amount of data that it doesn't even matter. If you just use SMS on GV without a data plan you'll end up only paying a few dollars a month for it.

$699 iPhones! Yippy!

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Oh, and monthly plan costs should go down since they won't be financing all the devices.

So while an iPhone will carry the real cost + Apple's profit, you'll be able to use it on any GSM carrier. Apple will get out of their exclusive AT&T deal and AT&T will see millions of previously-captive-subscribers leave for the cell companies they like.

All of this seems like a good thing to me.

Re:$699 iPhones! Yippy!

[Homburg]

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 compatible with a much less restrictive marketplace than the US one.

Re:$699 iPhones! Yippy!

[bill_mcgonigle]

So while an iPhone will carry the real cost + Apple's profit, you'll be able to use it on any GSM carrier

To be fair, Apple has an exclusive because they wanted to re-define significant portions of the carrier/manufacturer model. They wanted to define new network services (visual voicemail signaling), get ongoing subscriber revenue, etc., which isn't how it always worked before. They tried that with Verizon and Verizon told them to go screw. AT&T took the bait, in exchange for an exclusive.

That's not how things were done pre-iPhone. I doubt I'll ever own one, but they may have done me a favor by driving a wedge into the carrier armor here in the US.

Some bean counter can figure out if this was a good deal or not for AT&T, but it looks like it probably was.

Good

[Azureflare]

As many posters have already stated, this is a good thing for iPhone owners if the FCC follows through.

I'm more interested in seeing the reasons for all the Application rejections though. In all honesty, Apple made a huge mistake by making the reasoning for app rejection secret. App rejection should be made public. The whole process should be available, perhaps in a format similar to mozilla's bug tracker.

What reason is there to keep Application acceptance/rejection secret? Honestly I really can't think of a good reason.

a solution!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

there's this company, called Nokia. They make unbranded products like the n95, e71, n97 and many many more. you can put whatever you want on them. Nokia doesn't care what you with there products, and ATT can't tell you not to because they don't control it. granted I still support the FCC in this but there are better products out there.

SMS?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why hasn't anyone mentioned the SMS capabilities of Google Voice? The fact that SMS is integrated so incredibly well into the GV app along with all the other features and single phone number the GV app provides, would all threaten to decimate AT&T's huge SMS profits. This is most likely the main reason why AT&T forced Apple to reject the GV app.

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.

Re:in unrelated news, MS Strategist / FCC director

[Ilgaz]

For that kind of high level, friendship etc. doesn't exist.

The biggest pain in the ass for MS after Netscape was Real Networks and effects of it are still around. Who is the founder of Real? Rob Glaser, a former MS exec close to BillG enough to carry his personal briefcase.

That person you mention can move to Apple media division as soon as next year and you shouldn't be surprised. They move from company to company, to govt. agency to govt. agency.

asdf

[Anonymous Coward]

The appropriate caption here is, "In Anti, We Trust"

Thanks

More Power To Them

[Nom du Keyboard]

More power to the FCC to rein in Apple's arrogance. This whole "duplication of functionality" ploy is bogus. It basically boils down to two things:

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 this area.

Look into why Slingbox is only wifi

[Anonymous Coward]

WIFI is not secure and a lot of smart people who dont want their identity stolen will never use it.

Read in david schwimmer voice

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhm hi, Apple? Uhmm what's been going on? Like you just rejected apps. And uhm. Yeah. Uhm. Bye!

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.

If it's "too bad", then it's not business

[weston]

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.

Irony of Apple's one size fits all mentality

[ceallaigh]

Because Apple has only one version of software for all markets, regardless of carrier, they may appear to be independent. Yet, this sword cuts both ways. If a big enough customer, e.g., AT&T, says jump, Apple is left with no choice but to make the whole world jump. Apple is responding to one market's requirements by changing software for everyone regardless of the relevance to other parts of the world. Sean

Apple is as evil as Microsoft.

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

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.

I'm ok with that, if you restore "common carrier"

[vaporland]

I'm ok with that, if you restore "common carrier" status to the former telcos, now "datacos".

common carrier: In a telecommunications context, a telecommunications company that holds itself out to the public for hire to provide communications transmission services.

In the United States, such companies are usually subject to regulation by Federal and state regulatory commissions.

It was the Bell System concept of "universal service" under common carrier status that provided efficient, cheap, regulated phone service to everyone. From Wikipedia:

Universal service in telecommunications was eventually established as U.S. national policy by the Communications Act of 1934, whose preamble declared its purpose as "to make available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States, a rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges".

The chief purpose of this law was to combine the Federal Radio Commission with the ICC's wire communications powers, including regulation of AT&T, into a new Federal Communications Commission with greater powers over both radio and wire communications.

It's time to apply the same concept to our new data-transmitting overlords - and I believe that you're going to get net neutrality at no extra charge - literally!

This is what we thinkers have been warning of...

[DrStoooopid]

...this is why it's important to support and insist on net neutrality, or you'll see exactly what is happening with Apple removing Google Voice from the approved application list.

Argument for disbanding police lowering crime.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

Everyone knows that self regulation leads to utopia, much as disbanding our police departments would lead to a lower crime rate.

1) It has been shown that an armed citizenry reduces the crime rate while a generally disarmed citizenry increases it.

2) The citizenry is generally disarmed by laws prohibiting the general carrying of weapons. (What good does it do to OWN a weapon if you don't have it WITH you and in operable condition when a criminal attacks?)

3) Where such laws do not prevent carrying weapons, and a perceived threat of crime exists, a significant number of citizens chose to arm and train themselves. (This is where the stats on the relationship between citizen gun-carrying rates and crime rates come from.)

4) Such laws are enforced by police departments.

5) Therefore: Should police departments be generally disbanded, reasonable people might expect gun carrying by non-criminals to increase and crime rates to drop as a result.

Note that a significant fraction of the population believes that the Second Amendment bans (purported) laws against carrying weapons for self-protection (and that they are thus "not laws") - but don't carry because of the practical risk from police enforcement of these alleged "non-laws". Thus, in the absense of police enforcement, their self-image as law-abiding citizens would not deter them from carrying weapons for self-protection as they chose to continue obeying those laws they considered valid.

Finally: Alliances between criminals and corrupt police departments lead to massive increases in crime: Corrupt police don't enforce against their partners, the citizens are largely unable to enforce laws themselves because this has been preempted by the corrupted criminal justice system, so the crooks have a field-day operating unopposed. While perhaps the bulk of the police and other criminal justice professionals are honest, it doesn't take many to allow a gang free rein. Most major US cities have a number of incidents of massive police corruption in their history, while the "code of silence" makes it plausible that a far larger number of other crook/police alliances go unreported. The disbanding of a corrupt police department and its replacement by citizen self-protection can be expected to put the skids under such crime waves.

What about blaming developer?

[Ilgaz]

If Google Voice application was released on Symbian, Windows Mobile with equivalent functionality, FCC (and Dev) could ask this: "How is it possible for application to exist on Symbian and Windows Mobile?"

As Developer(s) were so cool to touch a operating system installed to 100 million devices (just Symbian), Apple finds it easy to reject it.

Sorry but I really blame developer and whoever purchases a device bound to this kind of surreal policy. It is easier to blame Apple, call it evil etc. As a Symbian OS handset owner who is getting amazed at Symbian OS getting ignored by developers who thinks it is not cool, oh... live with it. You had it coming...

Another thing: Is it ethical to say the Apple high level guy "personally" allowed it to app store? What about poor shareware developer who doesn't meet with such gods in real life as he doesn't work with Google? What if it is the reason? What if Apple asked "Who the hell are you to name our high level executive to some blogs?" by not approving it?

As owner of 5 Macs

[Ilgaz]

I don't buy iPhone because of App store policies and the ridiculous claims of J2ME crashing phone network, hiding the real reason of not having flash etc.

I struggle sometimes but I keep using Symbian and J2ME combination.

Whatever you or FCC think doesn't matter to Apple, you already bought the device. My single protest doesn't matter too since there are 1000x more people who chooses to buy that 1984 device and continues to whine about it.

Google Voice is our heroic freedom fighter?

[Ilgaz]

You sound like Apple rejects GNU licensed PGPFone 1.0 for iPhone. They are rejecting another information giant's (some already calls monopoly) application/service which really made some people super paranoid about their intentions for future.

Lets all hate Apple but please don't let me start about Google.

Haha. i like this bit :

[unity100]

wants the company to explain how Google Voice differs from any other VoIP software that has been approved

this is quite a strong bit here.

I find it very interesting that...

[rgviza]

... Google Voice, Latitude etc were pulled from the store (or not even put on the store because Google is tired of Apple/ATT's crap) yet you can still get Skype and Speex. /sigh