Poll: Should the FCC be Investigating Apple and AT&T over Google Voice?
Apple rejects the official Google Voice app from the App Store and removed previously approved Google Voice apps from 3rd parties. Sources tell Daring Fireball and Techcrunch it was at AT&T's request. AT&T tells people Apple controls the App Store. Apple, when they first introduced the App Store, said that prohibited apps included anything that adversely affected the cell network, VoIP (except over Wi-Fi), and the nebulous "unforeseen", a catch and cover all. Now the FCC has sent letters to Apple, AT&T, and Google in an attempt to get answers as to who knew what and when -- to get a look inside the black box of the App Store approval (and rejection) process.
Reaction has generally fallen into three camps:
Those who are happy because either they believe there is a role for government to play in ensuring companies like AT&T who license public airwaves and huge corporations like Apple who come to exclusive deals still provide enough freedom, choice, and competition for consumers -- or just because they're so frustrated with the App Store any type of action is inherently appealing.
Those who are unhappy because they dislike government involvement in business and think that if Apple and AT&T (or Google or anyone else) does wrong, the ultimate authority in correcting that behavior lies with consumers who can vote with their feet and their wallets and go somewhere else -- another carrier and phone platform.
Those who don't care, either because they've never even heard of Google Voice and this whole brouhaha and just like the iPhone, apps or no apps.
Where do you fall? Let us know in the pole, and monologue away in the comments.
Editor-in-Chief of iMore, Executive Producer at Mobile Nations, co-host of Iterate and ZEN and TECH, cook, grappler, photon wrangler.
| Tweet |
|
|
← Previously
App Review: PixPop DogsLeave a Reply
Note: Comments must be civil, respectful, and on-topic. If a comment does not add to the conversation, if it contains spam advertising, or inappropriate language or content, it will be removed. Insulting the topic, author, staff, site, network, or other commenters will result in the comment being marked as spam and potential prevent future comments from appearing on the site. Do not post as a business or your comment will likely be confused with spam. Comments containing links may be held for moderation. Relax, enjoy, and share in the discussion.
Between the three camps, I agree with #1. Though, I also understand #2. Consumers can and will avoid the iPhone/AT&T if they really want Google Voice badly enough. But when a company behaves in a monopolistic way by blocking competition and innovation, consumers have little choice but to wait until the government intervenes.
How's FCC
The Apps Store approval process needs an overhaul. The only real factor determining whether an app should be approved or not should be a virus scan. Run a virus scan on the app. If it passes that, it should be approved.
I would like to point out that the FCC started the investigation based on the exclusive handset deals between certain companies, and how that impacts access to those technologies. The google voice aspect just happened to have good timing.
By prohibiting exclusive handset deals between carriers and manufacturers, and encouraging competition, cellular service providers are forced to attract customers based on innovative contracts and customer service. This can only be good for the consumers, and in the end, good for the companies. The current environment, however, offers no economic incentive to change the current practices. While I am not a proponent of massive regulation, I don't think a "nudge" by the FCC would hurt.
I think FCC should be going ATT since they probably had a lot to do with this. ATT's practices are shady and should be exposed to the public. Their business practices will never encourage innovation--especially if it doesn't make money for them. If that means eliminate the competition--so be it. That's ATT's motto.
Feds should stay out of it. Choose with your $$$.
I'm torn. I want to use Google Voice and I want the iPhone to be as open a platform as possible. I'd rather not have government step in and dictate to Apple / AT&T how to do business; that's best left to their customers. But it's clear that us customers aren't going to have that big of a say in this case since Apple/AT&T are the only players.
YES, The Apple Store does need overhauling and YES there are a lot of things that Apple does that most everyone does not agree with. BUT does the government tell any other business what they sell or allow options to sell, so how can the government tell Apple what apps to put on Apple's Apps Store to sell. Should the government tell the grocery store what to sell or the local newspaper stand to sell. It should remain Apple's choice even if I don't like it. If WE don't like it we should buy somewhere else. It is that simple. The government should not have that much control of what a business sells(or offers its customers) it is the business owners choice.
sting7k:
Easier said than done. If I just signed a 2-year contract, my only recourse is to give AT&T MORE of my
$: by the very nature of carriers and exclusivity I have merely a Hobson's choice: take it or leave it. Not. Cool.
@Gil Actually the government does tell businesses what to sell. Look at General Motors and Chrysler. I am surprised the govts lapdog the FCC didn't step in sooner.
Steve:
I too have signed a 2 yr contract but IT is OUR fault , we knew going in what Apple/AT&T was all about. There was nothing hidden. BUT we can only hope that Apple will be smart and listen to the customers and change to the customers needs. BUT the government needs to stay OUT!!!!!!
Google Voice, in my opinion, is the least of the issues we iPhone users should be asking for answers about. Why can we only install apps from the iTunes store? Why can't we decide what processes/applications we allow to run in the background? Why can't we have a file manager/finder and directly manipulate the files on the phone? Why can we only sync with iTunes? Even if only syncing with iTunes, why does it not permit "conduits" (like the old Treo) so that anybody can write an application that syncs data to the iPhone?
The right answers to these deeper questions would have precluded the Google Voice imbroglio, which is merely a symptom, not the underlying cause.
Sonar:
As far as GM and Chrysler it is because the government vested in the company. Whether or not we like it it is still a choice so drop them or change. I you can't afford it that doesn't mean you don't have a choice it means you made a mistake and you have to live with it. If you want to get back DON'T BUY APPLE product or AT&T services. You don't use they lose.
I thought for being a pretty liberal minded people, you fools would stand up against the government and take care of issues hands on.
What a sad day. F UC K GOVERNMENTS!!
Generally against government becoming involved. In this case I think it was an anti-competitive move that does negatively affect the consumer. I can only think the free SMS is why it even came about, as GV calls still use AT&T minutes.
There is no reason for the crying over this app. The only reason people can be pissed is over the idea of getting cheaper international calling rates. Outside of that the app is worthless.
Now AT&T can say that GV is not allowed on their network if they want to. It is a product that uses a Carrier's wireless network to provide a service that Rivals the wireless network products and in the case of VzW it will lead to terms of service abuse that will see the app get challenged once old Lowell Mcadam realize what it can do.
The crying over this app is just idiotic..
Also the FCC has no ability to say anything about how Apple runs THEIR App Store. The App Store has every right to prohibit and sell whatever the fuck it likes to. Like it or not the App Store like any Store in general can choose what it wishes to carry and noone can say a damn thing about it.
I'm glad the FCC is getting involved. Apple/AT&T are obviously being anti-competitive with this and it's the FCC's job to make sure this kind of foul play doesn't go unheard. We can't leave everything to business because in the end they're looking out for their bottom line and that sometimes means hurting the consumer.
@Lolipopjones: It's not so much about the app itself as it is the precedent itself, which is that Apple or AT&T can simply remove any app they feel will clash with their own features, which is anti-competitive.
Ben:
I do agree about the anti-competitive side to this But this is Apple's App store for Apple's products. So they can sell what ever they want to. If they think a product might hurt their product why sell it. Should Nike sell Reebok products to offer more choices for their customers, maybe but it will hurt Nike sales so why should they.
I don't know why some people want limited government involvement. The government has been fighting for consumer rights for over 2 decades when it comes to phone services. Now is no different. Yes, people can choose with their money, but a lot of us are already locked into 2 year contracts so we'd need to fight for that ability AND not enough people are willing to cancel over the GV debacle.
I'd like to see an additional anti-trust against Apple for not including additional search engines, such as Bing and Ask or at least the ability to add custom search engines. We fought for that a decade ago with Microsoft, and we got it. Why shouldn't people fight for that with Apple? Apple is the baby of the computing world and they can't ignore their customers for long otherwise they will be the ones taking the hit 20 years down the road when they realize they've lost 3% of their already minimal marketshare due to unfair business practices in the past.
I feel that an investigation needs to be made into ATT by the FCC and the whole setup by the FTC
I too would like to see an additional anti-trust against BK and McDonalds ; Nike and Reebok ; ABC and NBC and CBS ; HBO and Cinemax and many others out there for not selling or offering your competitors products.
What's wrong with you people? Name one thing the government has done right? When the government steps in, it tends to stifle competition with all kinds of regulations.
The best thing you could do if you don't like AT&T that much is to stop buying their products/service. If that means you have to make an actual sacrifice and give up your iPhone, then so be it. I don't understand all the bitching, moaning, and groaning people do about a company they so willfully funnel money to every month.
Hell yeah. People who hate the government are brainwashed loons. Do you think the "free market" gives a stinker about net neutrality, consumer protections, fair pricing, innovation? No No No. When was the last time a big corporation was fighting for the consumer?
crickets....
Yeah never.
You think if they get "tax breaks" they are going to lower rates and increase services?
No. They are going to jack rates up even more, lay off workers, etc.
That trickle crap don't work and blaming everything on the govt is just stupid.
@ Poop Smells Good
There was nearly no regulation during the Bush years and the Economy collapsed.
So do you think it is a good idea to not regulate? Stop eating the Limbaugh stink.
Question. I'm about to buy a 3GS. Now before when I had my iphone I did the jailbreak and used it on T-Mobile.can I jailbreak a 3GS and put my Verizon sim card in there?
I would not want the government to say which products I have to sell in my business... So if made a computer I can now force Best Buy to place it on their shelf?
"Now AT&T can say that GV is not allowed on their network if they want to."
Incorrect. First and foremost, the network is not wholly AT&Ts. The wireless spectrum is licensed from the Federal government, and that license agreement comes with several obligations, which AT&T accepted upon signing the lease. Government can (and should) give companies a lot of leeway as to the rules the company sets, but they do require that those rules be applied equally to all comers. This is why the FCC letters specifically inquired as to the differences between GV and other applications that have been allowed. The FCC has no control over AT&T's internal networks, but they are well within their mandate to insist AT&T's rules be applied impartially to all comers wishing to use the federally licensed spectrum.
The FCC could also get involved based on "common carrier" status, but whether that applies to network providers is far from settled, so they did not mention common carrier or network neutrality, especially when the licensing issue gives them sufficient grounds to investigate.
"Also the FCC has no ability to say anything about how Apple runs THEIR App Store. "
Agreed -- the FCC has no jurisdiction here.
The FTC, on the other hand, could get involved, most likely by claiming that Apple is violating the "essential facilities" doctrine (similar restraint of trade, but more serious). "Essential facilities" is a high standard to meet (though easier in the EU), so it is doubtful that the government could win such a case. Apple needs to avoid that endgame, however, because such an investigation would be costly, bad pr, and shine light on the very parts of the App Store that Apple has to date kept secret.
@Steve, no one is saying ditch it now. Just stop buying from the App Store. When your contract is up don't get another iPhone. Or you could get another phone now and buy from the Android Market or BB App World; both of which have official GV apps and AT&T sells BB's.
Keep the fed away, no one NEEDS or is ENTITLED to an iPhone. If you don't like the things Apple and AT&T do for a particular model there are Blackberry and Android based phones you can go with on or off the carrier.
Wash Post has an article that is pretty informative: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/01/AR2009080101074.html
The short synopsys:
The FCC is mandated to provide open networks.
They forced open the internet, allowing you to attach any device and use any protocol that does not harm other users.
They are now doing the same with wireless internet. The carriers are going to become Dumb Pipes. It will be YOUR wireless internet, not theirs.
http://www.publicknowledge.org/pdf/pisc-skype-comments-20070430.pdf
I largely agree with Fassy, that Apple can decide what sells in their store. But once Apple starts taking orders from At&T, they become EITHER co-conspirators OR victims.
Apple now gets to decide which they want to be.
(And I still think Apple may have quietly launched this inquest with a few off the record phone calls to their friends in DC. Probably in conjunction with a certain board member.) No proof, just sayin...
Some of you are saying oh why do we have to sync with iTunes why can we not write files on the phone blah blah blah. It is an Apple phone, of course they are going to want to sync it with iTunes ( incase you were unaware they made that too ). I have absolutely no reason to jailbreak and I have everything I need on the 3GS. Too many people are looking at the iPhone as a super computer. But its not. It is a phone. It will always be a phone.
Also anyone want to explain me what Google Voice does for me exactly? Why would I even have a reason to use it?
@Earless,
As usual, you have it exactly backward.
That is NOT the issue here.
The issue is, if you are Dell, can you force Best Buy to remove Acer from their shelves and only carry Dell.
Now substitute Att for Dell, Apple for Best Buy, and Google Voice for Acer.
@Mattweimer:
http://www.google.com/googlevoice/about.html
Google explains it better than any of us could.
Disturbing how many people these days are begging for more government involvement in EVERYTHING. It won't be better...it will be worse. More government will stifle competition instead of foster it. What are we teaching the next generation - "Don't worry about working hard, because the government will even things out anyway"? I'm not a fan of Apple or AT&T but I am a fan of capitalism where companies who take a risk and innovate are awarded with success.
+1 for Tom. Shocking the direction we're going!! Android would have never been invented, Web OS would have never been invented, WinMo would be getting a revamp if there wasn't competition. Anyone saying that Apple is preventing competition is ridiculous! More control by the FCC will slow competition.
"# Lolipopjones Says: August 1st, 2009 at 10:27 am
Also the FCC has no ability to say anything about how Apple runs THEIR App Store. The App Store has every right to prohibit and sell whatever the **** it likes to. Like it or not the App Store like any Store in general can choose what it wishes to carry and noone can say a damn thing about it."
Sorry but yes they can have a say if the practice is ANTI COMPETITIVE.
I can't believe some of you are opposing this after private banking and trading organisation contributed massively to the current economic crisis!
I wish the goverment would have done something then but am glad their taking an interest in this. (not that it equates, but none the less it is the same principle!)
I agree with Gil, Dmys and others. I'm also surprised that so many people have voted for Government intervention. I suppose they want it all for free too.
It's not really the point of not accepting the Google branded app of Google Voice. But the fact that...after that was approved, they removed all FORMERLY approved apps just because it was related to Google Voice.
A lot of people are saying this has to do with AT&T...but I just dont see a good enough reason that AT&T would do this? But whoever is behind it...they deserve full measure discipline. This is ridiculous. I never thought one tiny app would cause this much trouble. Thats just amazing, truly.
@icebike
I disagree: this is about should a company have a right to not sell a product... Best Buy has the right to sell Dell and not Acer... The app store gas the right to sell Porn or not or to see Google Voice or not... Companies drop carrying lines everyday, this is no different...
Mattweimer, maybe it doesn't have to sync from iTunes but why can't we drag and drop?
Apple is keeping this thing so locked down we can use it as a flashdrive..even you can't tell me that Apple isn't being overbearing in that sense.
@Earless:
You still don't get it.
Apple did not choose to drop google voice. ATT threatened them into submission.
You seem to think its Apple that is under attack by the FCC.
It is not. It is ATT that the FCC is going after.
Should one supplier have the right to come into your store and threaten you to drop a competing suppliers product line? That is called illegal restraint of trade in this country.
I simply can't understand why you are arguing that ATT has the right to force Apple to drop certain Apps from the store, and then trying to pawn that off as free trade.
@ IDavey:
Oh come on!!
I buy the cheapest local only cell plan and use GV to make all my long distance calls.
I get a plan with no international calling and use GV to replace all the high-priced country to country calling.
I get no text message package, and use GV to send sms.
ATT sees GV as a direct competitor. Its a revenue rat-hole for them.
I can't believe you have trouble seeing this connection.
Also, wasn't there a huge lawsuit against Microsoft in the 90's because when you bought a new windows machine it came preloaded with all of their own software, and contributed mainly to their domination of the browser market? Also why now you have a shitload of crapware when you buy a new computer?
Here's why this move by AT&T (if it was really them behind it) is anti-competitive (and why people who are against govt intervention should still support an investigation)..this happens and I decide I no longer want to give my money to AT&T, but I still support apple and want to keep my iPhone...where do I go? There is no other carrier that will support my phone's 3G modem so I'm forced into this situation because apple signed an exclusivity deal.
Lastly, I'm siding with the devs. It's utter bullshit that Apple can and will pull an app THAT WAS ALREADY APPROVED. if I was a dev I'd be taking a hard look at WebOS right now. If/when the Pre offers native functionality I'd hope apple would get its act together by then because this opaque approval process is creating tension (think Podcaster, Eucalyptus, and any other app that was rejected for ridiculous reasons).
@icebike
if it's a revenue rathole for them then why is it permitted on other AT&T handsets?
@jbrandonf:
That is one of the questions the FCC wants answered.
The short answer (IMHO) is: Because they CAN'T PREVENT it.
You can download GV directly to your phone without going to your carrier for SOME models: http://www.google.com/mobile/products/voice.html#p=default
Those models allow users to download from third parties and install directly. Apple doesn't, and iPhone is ATT's bread and butter, so they bend Apples thumbs till they cry uncle.
@icebike
how do you know AT&T threatened Apple into dropping the app...Just because the AP newswire CNN or "sources say" it does not mean it's true. Without being CEO or high up in those companies you or myself will never 100% without a doubt know the truth on what transpired.
How do you know AT&T demanded they drop the App. Maybe you are right, maybe in Sept there will be a huge verizon announcment and AT&T is being spiteful. My point is as consumers we don't know. I own a bar, Budweiser and Millerlite distributors are always trying to get me to drop a competitors product and sell theirs and in the end it is my choice which products I am going to sell. For a while I banned all Budweiser products. There are certain types of liquor I refuse to sell, that is my option. As what Apple wants to sell is their option. AT&T demands something it is still Apples right to continue or stop.
In the end, Apple choose not to sell a particular product and they have a right to... If the iPhone was the only smart phone out on the market with a App store then maybe they might be a monopoly but it is not and they are not... I see nothing wrong with denying a App or pulling a App from the App Store ( or taking it off the shelve and not selling it anymore.
For those carrying on about exclusive deals. Let's say tomorrow the FCC say that in one month Apple must allow all carriers to have the iPhone. How does that help? It won't run on Verizon, Sprint, and you won't get 3G nor national coverage on T-Mobile. The problem is the US cell phone industry, NOT Apple or even AT&T! You all jump up and down supporting Verizon, who are effectively using a US specific standard - and are not compatible with established 15+ year old standards.
AT&T is scared they are going to loose customers and they should be! Google dominates the web we all use it's powerful godlike search engine. There is so much google owns it's rediculous and it's got it's claws in the web from many different directions. This move by Apple is too help it's partner AT&T I don't blame them for doing so.
AT&T : remove GV guys cmon!!!!! Apple : ok Google : hmmm we'll see about that!!!!! FCC : surprise we are crashing the party!!!!!! Yay
well the EU should do something like what they did with Internet Explorer and Microsoft. Of course there would be opera mini and mobile firefox on the app store but gestapo - apple does not allow it and only allows their crappy cant block ads, with useless popup blocker and SUPERSLOW browser - we are still using it is because they have monopoly in everything.
And yes mobile safari is mobile crap because when i tether it takes me 1 second to load any page. why do i need 30 seconds or so to do the same with safari? is 400mhz slow when it plays 3d games just fine and 50mb free ram not enough to load a freaking page!!!!!!
I hope some major companies start supporting jailbroken iphones publicly. A 'jailbreak your iphone today' link on google's homepage would be good enough for all iphone users to get appsync and close the crappstore
I SHOULD HAVE DOWNLOADED GV MOBILE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The funniest part of this is the anti-government people (Caballera, Gil, Dmys, Sting7k, Tom) are all using the FCC-deregulated internet to cry about the FCC. That's the usual M.O. of anti-government crowd--to know nothing about history and be completely ignorant of how many of the freedoms we enjoy today are due to government stepping in and protecting the rights of the citizens. Freedom to choose your phone carrier? Thank the FCC. Choose your ISP? FCC again. Not be forced to buy packages to get just one service? FCC. Ability to reach the whole internet and not just the part your ISP owns? FCC. And now the FCC is fighting for you again and you try to tear them down. Ingrates.
@earless
You miss the point. Your bar can choose to sell Miller. Your bar can choose to sell Budweiser. Your bar can choose to sell both, or neither, and the government has to stay out of it. Apple, as the bar owner in your analogy, also enjoys those same freedoms.
Continuing your analogy, Miller or Budweiser are both free to ask, beg, plead, cajole...anything short of threaten to get your bar to stop selling the other's beer, because each brewery makes their own beer, using their own ingredients.
AT&T does not have that same freedom, because a key ingredient in their "beer" -- the wireless spectrum itself, is not theirs, but rather something they license from the FCC under specific terms and obligations, including an agreement to abide by all FCC rules and regulations. One of those regulations involves treating customers/users of that spectrum impartially. IF AT&T had a hand in the rejection of GV, but did not object to other applications offering similar functionality, then AT&T pretty clearly would not be treating users of that spectrum impartially, and the FCC could come down upon them harshly.
If Apple (our bar owner) acted completely on their own, the FCC will have no problem. But if AT&T pressured our bar owner while using the government's barley and hops (I love stretching analogies too far), the FCC has cause to jump in. Even if our bar theoretically has the final say on what to sell, the simple act of pressuring our bar owner is the FCC violation. If you read the letters to Apple, AT&T, and Google, that is precisely what the FCC is trying to determine.
But AT&T should also have the right to limit usage or types of usage on the bandwidth... for example capping internet usage, or apps which they do not want run on their network...
I do not think either of us are wrong... I think this is a matter of perspective and along with that comes different points of views... With alot of governmental issues there isn't always a right and wrong (Wade vs roe) it is a difference of opinion and each party just thinks the other is wrong when in fact it is just a different point of view... Does that make sense?
@EUEUEUEUEUEU
I have three (3) browsers on my non-jail broken phone.
Safari Bolt Perfect Browser.
The last two I got out of the App store. The last one is actually kind of nice.
@Earless:
Limit usage (meter it) to what you paid for. Yes.
Limit types of usage: No.
The FCC's mandate from Congress is to PREVENT the carriers from imposing limits on what you can do with your bandwidth. You may want to listen to streaming music, surf the web, send some email, view some porn, check some ball game scores, or buy something on Ebay.
Its NONE OF ATT's BUSINESS. You bought the bandwidth. Its yours to do with as you please. As long as you don't hurt anyone else you are supposed to be free to use it.
Are you, as a bar owner, able to tell customers which side of their mouth they use to should sip their beer? Can you tell them which hand to hold the class with? Can you tell them not to smell the aroma, not to blow on the foam?
When the beer and money change hands, its the customers beer, and your money. He can do any legal thing with his beer, and you can do any legal thing with your money.
Most of us here want to do any legal thing with our bandwidth. OUR Bandwidth. The bandwidth we BOUGHT and paid for.
That is what Congress has told the FCC its mission is. Make the wireless network just like the wired network, free for all uses and all devices that do not harm the network or other users.
If you want to be under ATT's thumb that's your problem, but don't come here and tell us its the way it should be.
Its not ATTs bandwidth once I plunk down my $30/month. Its mine.
If apple rejected Google Voice because AT&T didn't want competition, I wouldbe fine if they would just say that. It is what it is, so live with it. But they don't say that. They use the BS "duplicate funtionality" which it's not. Aldo, why such inconsistency between similar cases?
If there is secret colloisuon to stiffle cometition, then the FCC is doin't what it's there to do.
All they have done is ask questions. Regardless of the answers this does not mean the feds will take actions. So yes, the questions are very approriate. What is done with the infomation is the debatable part.
Days of US government non-interference are over. Your public debt is already so big, the snowball effect it is creating is impossible to stop. They should and they will watch more closely now, for what you are paying and if the prices are adequate, preventing monopolies and such.
@icebike
I agree wholeheartedly about MY bandwidth but that's exactly what they're doing with Skype! We can stream Slingbox either. What's worse is that both of those available on other phone can use the network to use those apps.
We need competition in two forms on this platform. First we need an alternative carrier so no one carrier can dictate how I'll use my phone without risking people leaving to the other carrier.
Next, we need an alternative to the AppStore because Apple is going too far with this approval crap. (Not jailbreak because if you get your phone switched out you lose all the apps you paid for, there is no easy way to back them up. Correct me if I'm wrong.) but sideloading would be a good alternative. It would rip the overbearing control from Apple and truly open up the platform.
When I first heard the idea of Apple regulating apps I didn't mind at all but Apple's behavior lately has not given me confidence that a tightly controlled distribution systems can work over the long term. The rejection of Latitude is the best example of that. How exactly is that going to confuse customers with the built in Maps? Were making a conscious effort to install it for Krist's sake.
"But AT&T should also have the right to limit usage or types of usage on the bandwidth… for example capping internet usage, or apps which they do not want run on their network…"
Would you feel the same if Comcast (or whatever ISP you have) said you couldn't go to Hulu or Youtube because it might strain their network?
@rf9
FCC has (IMHO) no jurisdiction over the App Store. The FTC could possibly decide Apple is acting anti-competitively with an essential facility, but, much as we depend on it here, the App Store market is probably too small potatoes for that level of investigation, which would be long and difficult to prove. It would also be a new, separate investigation from the FCC.
That is the most interesting part of this three-way investigation -- AT&T needs Apple to say they did it all on their own, but Apple needs to avoid saying anything on the public record that could perk up the FTC's ears.
@icebike
"When the beer and money change hands, its the customers beer, and your money. He can do any legal thing with his beer, and you can do any legal thing with your money"
if he pours half the beer on my floor, I will take the other half away from him and kick him out... Then hit on his hot girlfriend...
@earless/icebike
I cannot resist beating a good analogy into the ground.
"if he pours half the beer on my floor, I will take the other half away from him and kick him out… Then hit on his hot girlfriend…"
Here, you are not kicking him out for misuse of the beer, but disrupting your operations. You can show business hardship, because now you have to pay somebody to mop your floor. The beer pouring is not the reason, just the mechanism. The FCC would not treat that as a potential violation, either.
If AT&T's Wireless Bar can show that blowing foam negatively impacts their customers or their wireless operations, the FCC will generally look the other way. It is not enough if foam blowing impacts AT&T's Juice Bar franchise down the street; it has to be the business unit running the license.
AT&T has to treat all its customers the same way. If they throw out the guy in the Google Voice and Slingbox T-Shirts, but let the guys in the Uverse and Frig shirts blow foam, the FCC will take a second look at their license. For that matter, if AT&T throws a guy out not because of the beer pouring, but BECAUSE of his hot girlfriend, they will run into trouble there, too.
Once you license the public airwaves, your bar cannot post that "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" sign anymore.
Everyone here saying "you can't tell someone what to sell in their own store". Although I completly agree with this statement I feel you're missing the point. To build on the shoe analogy stated earlier... What apple is doing now is not so much like A Nike saying "We won't be forced to carry adidas". But more like Nike telling the adidas store that they can't sell adidas shoes (or any other shoes for that matter).
I know someone is going pipe up and say that it is apples hardware so they have the right to police what apps get installed. This line of thinking is rubbish. Apple already allows 3rd party apps not supplied by them to be run on their hardware (reads Macbooks etc). If I as a consumer what to cripple my Mac by installing crippling software that is entirely my porogative. Albiet apple has every right to say we won't support your issues because you installed crap software. My question is why should the iPhone be any different. This BS from apple saying some apps would drain the battery too fast or make the iPhone lag, is unacceptable, and is not a dicission that should be left to apple. I don't doubt in the least the validity of apples claims in this regard, but again it is not (should not) be their decision.
End of rant
So is it illegal for the NFL to only show live feeds on the Sprint network?
@earless
Nope -- no more than it would be for your bar to pay off Anheuser-Busch enough so that only your bar could sell Budweiser. If you have that much money, go for it
Your examples miss the crucial point -- beer and the NFL are creations of private industry, which (for the most part, in the US) the government must leave alone, while the airwaves are a publicly regulated resource. As such, the FCC has a mandate to ensure those resources are used in the public interest, and can investigate an penalize firms that violate its regulations.
What's wrong earless puppy, Rush Limbaugh beat the sh-t out of you?
You people are a bunch of idiots.
I love all the "Go government' and "Yay FCC is awesome" type comments.
Be careful what you ask for morons. Boy I can't wait till that day comes... don't come to people like me who have stocked up food and water asking to have some. I WON'T give you any.
Well iPhone owners... we had a good run... but just like anything else when something is to good to be true.. the government gets involved and makes things "fair" for everyone else.
Sit back and enjoy the show
I agree Milk, it's all a slight stepping stone till 10 years from now you look back and realize how bad we have become restricted...
Ok guys let's not be dumb. Why would AT&T allow a customer to use their network to make calls and send text messages for free? That's what Google voice does. AT&T wouldn't allow that and neither would any other company (except T-mobile but they aren't in business to make money). I mean would Chevy allow you to take a Camero off their lot and use it as your daily driver without paying for it? NO! It's the same thing. A company will not let you use their equipment for free. Oh and i'm not talking about using your Iphone that you've already paid for. I'm talking about using their towers, switching stations, networks, etc. Stuff that a customer doesn't own just by purchasing a phone.
Nobody is saying that customers "own" the towers. Customers "own" the bandwidth they pay for. To continue with the silly analogies:
"I mean would Chevy allow you to take a Camero off their lot and use it as your daily driver without paying for it?"
We have already paid "Chevy" -- most of us around $100 per month. If my contract with Chevy says I can only take a Cobalt off the lot, then I only take a Cobalt. If my contract says I can take a car off the lot, they cannot turn around and say "well...except Camaros" because they do not like the terms of the contract they themselves drew up and presented to me.
The very problem is "Someone needs to watch out for consumer interests." - yeah, that's the FTC's job not the FCC. I don't like what Apple or AT&T are allegedly doing here, but in a free market, the government has no place becoming involved in this kind of spat. Let the market sort it out, if enough people dislike the carrier and the device manufacturer over this issue, and voice that dislike using their wallets, things will change. If not, I guess it wasn't THAT important, was it?
@Anonymous The FCC is not stepping in to watch out for consumer interests. The FCC is stepping in to ensure that wireless providers abide by the responsibilities they agreed to when they licensed their portion of the spectrum. Nothing more, nothing less.
If Apple acted entirely on their own, the FCC will butt out (or, at least, they should).
If AT&T, as a communications provider licensed by the government, had a hand in this, the FCC has every authority to step in. That has been core to their purpose since Congress established them 75 years ago.
@ Fassy
With your analogy you are still wrong. AT&T's contract states that you will pay your bill, have an iphone plan for 2 years, if you go over your minutes and/or txt that you will pay XX amount. Apple's contract states that they can restrict any software on their products that they like. It doesn't matter how much you pay AT&T because it is Apple's product and they can do with it what they like (short of spying on you,etc). Even if AT&T influenced Apple (they probably did) Apple was still the company that prohibited the software on their own product.
As long as companies such as Apple, AT&T and Google, who are licensed by the FCC remain within their Federal guidelines, it's merely a financial decision. And since the FCC has no jurisdiction in a company's financial decisions (again, As long as companies remain within their Federal guidelines), I believe that the FCC has no right to intervene. Only the Obama Health plan (if passed; which would be horrendous) would give the government the right to interfere with individuals (yours and mine) personal bank accounts. So, "NO", if all is as licensed, the FCC should NOT get involved where they don't belong. Leave that to Obama Osama.
@Tex If you do not like the analogies, take them up with the people who make them, not me. You also seem to be confusing me with others who think the FCC can and should jump in where they want; I have never said that, nor do I believe that.
The bigger issue is that you (and everybody, on both sides) are conflating multiple contracts here into one issue. There are at least three:
Apple's contract with the each of us, the end user. Agreed; IMHO the FCC has no jurisdiction here.
AT&T's contract with the user. The FCC has business here, but only under certain well-defined and VERY narrow provisions.
I think most everybody agrees on the above.
There is a third contract here, though -- AT&T's contract with the FCC. These are the terms under which AT&T won the auction for a portion of the airwaves.
A spectrum auction (and FCC license) specifies that, in return for Federally granted protected monopoly use of specific portions of the spectrum, the licensor agrees to abide by all FCC rules and regulations. If AT&T had a hand in Apple's decision, they may be violating those regulations, and as such by AT&T's own agreement they owe the FCC an explanation.
Thomas Jefferson stated before the continental congress "the legitimate powers of government extend to only such things as are injurious to others"
if we follow this principle most of what the government is doing now is illegitimate or illegal as far as the constitution is concerned.
The FCC's only legitimate purpose would be to direct traffic like a policeman directing traffic only to the extent that it would prevent people from overtaking lower power stations like lines on a road each station gets its own lane, there are technically infinite lanes from 1,000KHZ to 1 Trillion HZ but the extremely low frequency's can actually cause harm to people which would be the other purpose.
voice over cable internet is not a regulate able purpose because it does not interfere with other traffic.
our rights only extend to the equal rights of others, the state and the federal government have no rights only privileges delineated to them by us the people. thompson vs. smith, norton vs shelby co.