Slashdot Mirror


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."

9 of 204 comments (clear)

  1. Has Apple ever taken a position on net neutrality? by lseltzer · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Just askin'

  2. Re:How is this even a fucking question? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

  3. Re:How is this even a fucking question? by mstra · · Score: 5, Informative

    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).

    --
    Photography, technology, and my dog Scout - http://mattstratton.com
  4. Re:How is this even a fucking question? by linhares · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.

  5. Re:How is this even a fucking question? by teknopurge · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  6. Re:The most interesting section by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

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

  7. Re:How is the FCC even involved? by erroneus · · Score: 5, Informative

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

  8. It's time for telcos to sell bits, not services by sdo1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

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

    -S

    --
    --- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
  9. Re:Regulations are stupid by EQ · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo! http://goo.gl/J9bkO