FCC queries AT&T, Apple on Google Voice iPhone app rejection
By Ross Miller 
posted Jul 31st 2009 7:32PM
posted Jul 31st 2009 7:32PM
Update: TechCrunch has published the three letters sent out, all very interesting reads. The FCC asks Apple specifically if any approved VoIP apps are allowed to be used over AT&T's 3G network, and more generally what are the "standards for considering and approving iPhone applications" and more details into the approval process. It also asks for the contact information of all developers of rejected Google Voice apps, presumably for further investigation. In the Google letter, it seems to be asking if Voice will be able to be utilized in any capacity over the web, without inclusion in the iTunes store. Unsurprisingly, a number of questions to Apple and AT&T concern the carrier's involvement in which apps or types of apps get rejected. All companies have until August 21st to respond and can request confidentiality on all or portions of their response.
I don't see why or how the FCC should be involved in this. But it probably has something to do with a suite and his snotty kid not being able to use GV with his iphone. Or maybe the CFF chairman wants to use it?
If AT&T is forcing Apple to remove competing apps from it's store, that's uncompetitive and illegal. That's why the FCC is looking into it. It's especially bad when AT&T co-branded apps with the same (or almost the same, meaning not as full featured) features are allowed in the store. That's also uncompetitive.
I'm very happy the FCC is doing this. The way Apple approves/disapproves apps is ridiculous - especially if AT&T is getting a say in the matter.
competition is good... maybe VoiP will be the standard finally... get rid of charging per minute since the telecommunications has long since used expensive circuit switching methods to connect calls, to the more efficient packet switched method.... and maybe while they are at it... they should see that charging for text messaging is price gouging and collusion... you use more bandwidth and data going to any webpage (which is free with the required unlimited data plan), but sending a 160 character text costs you an arm and a leg.
Sounds like Steve needs to invite Obama over for a beer...
"standards for considering and approving iPhone applications"
Well I think it is as they described on the classic podcast today. The app store approval process situation has become untenable and is now getting some federal heat. Really the app store has basically been one big PR disaster for Apple and I'm amazed they've allowed it to go on like this.
Well this was inevitable, Apple and AT&T were asking for it. But, I would like this to continue for a while so that enough unrest develops among the user base. It is a great news for the industry. Read more http://truvoipbuzz.com/2009/07/thank-you-apple-for-blocking-google-voice-app-opinion/
I was pretty bummed to see Google Voice being rejected and GV Voice being pulled but honestly, AT&T and Apple own their products and should be able to do what they want to with them. If you don't like it, then go with someone else. I know I am looking real hard at going back to Sprint. I am liking the Pre a lot and now Andriod phones are hitting Sprint, and Sprint being a lot cheaper I may switch back.
This isn't This is not uncompetitive and the buttom like is Apple makes a product, they have a right to approve or reject apps as they wish. Same with AT&T. They own it. They should be allowed to run their business how they see fit. There are other choices out there besides AT&T and Apple.
And my wife and I switched from Sprint to AT&T just for the iPhone. But now I am thinking real hard of getting the Pre. I love a lot of things about it. But I went with the iPhone because I ried a bike (Gixxer), and I have a mount to hold the iPhone up front so I can control music and GPS all in one device instead of before when I had a phone, iPod and a GPS. Just makes it easier to have all in one device but I don't know if it's worth it now that I am doing more and more with a PDA phone. More so now then I use to and these apps I want are being blocked while they are blessed on Android and the Pre. I just hope the Pre gets more apps. Just a few more and I am sold.
was actually nice that they did it.. I never realized what you could do with a jailbroken iphone -- the app store from Cyndia is great! Sure it's not as nice looking (there's an app for that); but it has more features, cooler features, and tweaks that don't just add apps to the phone, but also cool features -- like 5 buttons at the bottom dock.. and a custom background (no, not lock screen wallpaper -- though they have mods for that too)
Overall, .>
Brian, no disrespect intended, just facts - you have a lot to learn about Federal law and policy. You shouldn't say things like "this isn't anti-competitive" or "they have a right" unless you can back it up with case law. In my opinion this IS anti-competitive, and there is very little difference between what Apple and at&t are doing and what Microsoft is constantly paying millions of dollars out to the EU and other regulatory bodies for. You may not like it, but that's the law, and you're free to campaign to change it...
Honestly, serves Apple right for their "unlocked iphones lead to terrorism and drug dealing and probably causes global warming and kills cute little kittens (seriously, it said that... read between the lines... lol) bs. Hellooooo.... You reject a legitimate app that is of use and doesn't totally "duplicate functionality" (i.e. aren't there are features in GV that the iphone doesn't match?)
Also, were any of the features of the the GV app usable with the ipod touch? (i wouldn't know since i got a G2 from costco to see if i could deal with a virtual keyboard, and while a neat plaything... this is just the reason why i returned it, (this was before there was a jailbreak for it) okay i was also pissed that every single time i looked at it, the back got scratched) ... but anyway... if the GV features WERE usable on the ipod touch, what duplication of functionality was infringed upon, since, if i recall the touch doesn't come with any dialing software at all? (although i'm sure the FCC could care less about the touch in this situation)
I'd rant further, but suffice to say, i don't think it's too much to ask to be able to run the available software the platform of my choosing. Hmmm... although I've heard Office for Mac pretty much sucked (i'm a winpc/linux kinda guy) I wonder how far they would have gotten if they'd tried this crap on the desktop?
my two cents... (but worth much less these days)
sorry... shouldn't drink and rant. Meant to put in the first paragraph that Apple wants to make it (more) of a crime to jailbreak... yet it's this kind of crap that makes people feel they must/need/should jailbreak. Just reminds be of somewhere in NJ trying (or succeeding, didn't follow the story all the way through) to use the Patriot Act to have a "bum" permanently removed from a train station.
Dunno, should probably drink more and rant less. lol.
Might as well throw T-Mobile into the works. They won't let you use GV on a Flex Pay account and they insist on making you sign a 2 year commitment to have the "Forward Calls" option. I've been told that there is absolutely no way that I can add the service and pay for it.
After and hour and a half on the phone with them on Tuesday, and after trying to bill me for my time on the phone with customer service as "a voice mail retrieval," all they would give me is a PO Box in NM to write to... I'm pissed right now. I think this easily qualifies for FCC investigation if the iPhone app is being investigated.
@Ryan Beesley
Ummm you mean to tell me that my FlexPay account with TMO is unable to use Google Voice? How do you figure?
I have a GV number as an incoming line for business, and allow the TMO # to be for friends/family. I rather enjoy the separation of business/personal.
Google Voice is NOT meant to have calls forwarded to it: it IS however meant to take the place of the Primary number you give out. I use it semi-properly, whereas I don't give the GV # to everyone, only to business related people.
So yes, screw the ability to have TMO forward your calls on non-answer...This is NOT required, and in fact NOT the way GV was meant to work!
Please read: http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/voice/thread?tid=7c63838aae334fe3&hl=en "Top 10 reasons NOT to forward your phone to Google Voice"
sysengr - Law and politics is my life. And I do know what I am saying. Microsoft never had a monopoly. This would be a whole other can of worms. There is a difference between what the law actually is and what a judge can rule. Look at the US Federal Government does so many things that are against the constitution but it doesn't matter, no one is going to stop them. My wife and I were even talking about this today and about how there is so much the feds do today that is against the law.
But that's neither here or there. The bottom line that if you don’t like the iPhone or an iPod, then go buy another phone or music player. If you don’t like AT&T, then go to Verizon, T-Mobile, Sprint or some of the other regional carriers. Heck, I don’t like the fact where I live I have Comcast for cable and I am using them for my Internet and I don’t like the fact that they have a cap. Well FiOS is being installed very shortly and I will be leaving Comcast.
My point is that if you don’t like the iPhone/iPod and that Apple has their store, iTunes/App store, then go get a different product. Why do you have the right to tell them how to run their product?
Now with that, I don’t believe Apple has any right to tell you that you can’t jailbreak your phone. It is your item; you can do what you want with it. You should be able to install a different OS with you want. Once you own it, it’s yours. You should be able to do what you want. And the only way it could be considered a monopoly is if there was a law saying you can’t jailbreak it.
With that said I do love the iPhone but I want them to open up to providing more of what I want. And shortly, I won’t be using the iPhone or AT&T if they don’t change. Once the Pre gets more apps of what I want or if there comes an Android that has everything I want then I am done with the iPhone and AT&T. Which goes the same with the iPhone on me staying.
Brian, I don't know what you do for a living such that you life is law AND politics, but I think your understand of US antitrust law needs some re-examination. You're right in that Microsoft had no monopoly, but part of antitrust is to prevent unfair business practices too. Microsoft first got into hot water because of the integration of internet explorer and windows explorer, essentially being able to browse from any open window. On top of that, they made it free for everyone. This was an unfair advantage to browsers like Netscape Navigator/Communicator which was not only a third party browser, but it licensed its browser to institutions and businesses for a fee. So potential buyers of Netscape products were faced with (do I buy a browser, or use the free one integrated into the OS?). This made it difficult for Netscape (where are they now?) to maintain their revenue stream and gave Microsoft an "unfair advantage". That's how they ended up in court the first time in the US.
It's not as simple as if you don't like our product or service, then go somewhere else... especially when there are 2-year contracts involved. But more importantly is the standards by which applications are judged. If GV is rejected because it's crappy, that's ok; obscene, that's ok; intrusive/damaging/criminal, that's ok. But if GV is rejected as an add-on application only on the ground that it competes with "our own" add-on apps AND there are other approved apps with similar functionality but less brand cache it amounts to micro-scale protectionism, it's anti-competitive, and it's a big problem
sysengr - Also to add. I do understand what you are saying. And what I am saying is that Apple is just providing a product. They don’t even have to allow other apps to be on their store and shouldn’t be forced to. It’s the product they are providing. I think it’s stupid of them not to allow other apps and other apps like Google Voice, it’s only going to hurt them. Same with AT&T. but in the end, it’s their product and this is what they offer.
By no means am I an expert in the law (at all), but I'm pretty sure you're overlooking the uncompetitive aspect of this. I'm almost positive it's downright illegal for companies to have business practices where one company (Google in this case) is blocked, while other products by the company selling the product (AT&T) is allowed.
That's uncompetitive.
Sic semper tyrannis!
As much as many will not admit to this, it's actually quite hypocritical to believe in both the foundations in which this country was built upon (you know- the Constitution and all) and what the FCC is possibly doing here.
Is the FCC not trying to defend the rights of Google to compete with the products/services of AT&T? Apple has essentially blocked Google from competing with AT&T, which is removing the competition from the App Store. I'm pretty sure the "free market" the US has is meant to have as much competition as possible.
Competition = lower prices/better services (very true here). Lower prices = better for consumers.
@ MRCUR
Google's right to compete means that they may pursue every opportunity available to them within their means/property, such as applying to other carriers and phones that will accept them or creating their own. Google's right to compete does not pose a claim on anyone else's property, in this case Apple's App Store.
Competition is good, lower prices are good yes, but we as consumers are not entitled to either of these things if it poses a claim on anyone else's property, we are only free to pursue them and other things, but not guaranteed these things.
The FCC (and the government in general) should not be focused on the interest of the consumer any more than the interest of the business. Businesses have interests as well that should not be overuled by the government just because it or it's consumers disagree. Just as the consumers have the right to shop where they want, Apple has the right to decide what to put into its store.
And that right (just like our rights) trumps any notion of entitlement or preference held by us or the government.
The fact that many people and the government don't acknowledge this is a sad fact that they should be ashamed of and pressured to change, not Apple.
@ MRCUR
Saying that Google has a right to a place in Apple's App Store is the equivalent of saying that Apple has the right to our business. Neither has the right. Our rights apply only within using our own property, they do not extend the the property of others.
Or, put even more simply:
My rights end where yours begin (whether I like it or not)
There has to be some sort of fairness wether it's a private business or public. The same thing applies for private business like car insurance, if there is an issue where private large businesses are ignoring you (the consumer) or treating your case unfairly there is a federal office you can report the involved companies to. They (the private business) do not have to respond to the federal office's inquiries but they would because it is within their best interest to because it really looks bad on their record. This information gets posted to the public as treating customers unfairly and they (the private business) will lose more business that way.
I, for one, am with the FCC on this. If there are other apps in the iTunes store that have the same features as the Google Voice App, then this shouldn't be an issue.
My personal opinion is AT&T put the pressure on Apple to reject the GV app because Google is a monster company. Other small companies like Textfree Unlimited and other VoiP apps can make a profit with free SMS texts and not deter from AT&T's market share and profit. And I say this because I spoke with a AT&T rep the other day and he agreed on how ridiculous the rejection of the app was but in the end, AT&T will be at a loss, not Apple, but since they have an exclusivity partnership, AT&T rises together and falls together.
I really hope they approve the GV Voice app. That way AT&T would really think of other ways to be competitive rather than sitting pretty on a coveted item like iPhone with horrible services (i.e. dropped calls!!!)
To frame this another way, look at the services provided. Something is regarded as anticompetitive when the services provided are both necessary and when business practices are designed to control and/or limit other businesses from entering the market by leveraging and coercing consumers to only use the services provided by the original company.
Sony has a vertical market from making movies, to owning the music studios to write the music, to owning the movie theaters, to owning the BlueRay standard and IP for next generation video formats. Sony exploited their dominate position in the entertainment industry to unfairly squeeze HD-DVD out of the industry. Because entertainment is not a required service, it is difficult to demonstrate that this is a monopoly, because people always have the ability to go elsewhere for their recreation.
Microsoft was not a monopoly is every sense, but they provided the OS that the majority of PCs were using. This gave them leverage over competing products and services such as web browsers and media players. At the same time, Apple was doing a similar thing with Mac OSX, but the market share did not create a monopolistic situation. The fact that computers are very necessary for doing business helps establish this as a monopoly.
A cell phone company that makes every effort to sign you into a 2 year contract, that has exclusive rights for distributing the device in the United States, and has already gained an admittedly impressive market share for how long they have been available compared to other smart phone providers, begins to look like a monopoly when they strictly regulate EVERY aspect of the device and market. The crux of the argument for me hinges on necessity. I don't know if you could argue that owning an iPhone is required just yet, but by limiting application distribution and adding music to the device through iTunes, Apple is beginning to model their phone after the same monopoly that Microsoft created for itself. If you have bought your applications and music through iTunes, and now have no way to bring those services to another device and/or phone company, you are compelled to keep using the same service. This is of course what Apple wants, but it is also what makes their current business model anti-competitive.
I have long held that Apple is doing anticompetitive things, since they started releasing QuickTime and more recently iTunes. The phone companies have also done a similar disservice to customers with their contract agreements. Because services that you get for your phone can no longer be taken from one carrier to another, this is only going to become a bigger issue and something that if it doesn't warrant investigation now, is surely heading that way with the practices of both parties.
FCC - Please look in to the rejection of the Sling player of cell services. The Wifi-only version is BS with all of the other streaming media players that are accepted.
I'm sorry Robert, but you're a complete idiot who lacks even the slightest understanding of the constitution or the purpose of government. Just positing the idea that it's not in the interest of the FCC to act in the consumer's interest, or that businesses have "rights" that should be protected at the harm or behest of consumers, demonstrates your horrific misunderstanding of United States law and even basic human ethics.
I'm so disgusted I don't even want to respond to your blatant ignorance with specifics examples. Just... knock your head on a wall and start reading.
I bet most of the people here that are backing Apple and AT&T for blocking the Google Voice apps, are Apple workers, being brain washed by their stupid company. I honestly think AT&T had some say in most of not all of the apps that use data.
SlingPlayer being blocked from using the 3G data network, that is pure AT&T.
Yet, the MLB app can stream live games and videos, on 3G? Hmmm.
What is so stupid about this, is that Google Voice is NOT a VOIP app.
You cannot place VOIP calls with Google Voice.
I repeat: You cannot place VOIP calls with Google Voice.
Not in the browser, not with the dialer.
In the browser, when you click "Place Call" in Google Voice, you have to choose WHICH NUMBER OF YOURS you want it to CALL YOU on, then it completes the call for you after you've answered your phone!
The purpose of the Dialer app is so it will automatically call your Google Voice Number, automatically press the option for making a call from your Google Voice number, and then type in the options that dial the number you've asked for. This makes it easier for you to give caller ID information to show that you're dialing from your Google Voice number!
It still uses the regular phone line, NOT VOIP. It still uses your minutes. Google does NOT offer a VOIP solution.
What this is is AT&T automatically disposing of any program WITHOUT EVEN TESTING THE APPLICATION. They don't even know what it does! It is absolutely stupid!
on AT&T
*004*1xxxxxxxxxx*11*5#
dialing the above code will only ring your phone for 5 seconds before forwarding to the designated number.
The valid entries for time are 5,10,15,20,25 or 30 seconds.
So if you want your phone to ring for 30 seconds before forwarding, you would dial:
*004*1xxxxxxxxxx*11*30#
(where xxxxxxxxxx is your google voice number)
Number of rings on mobile can be controlled - I used '0' seconds before forwarding, using '0' seconds would ring twice on my phone(which is wierd because '0' should mean don't ring at all).
2 rings - Mobile
3 rings - GV
2 rings - Mobile
A total of 7 rings before going to the GV Voicemail.