After yesterday's news that Verizon would be charging a $2 fee for paying bills online and over the phone, the FCC has chimed in.

“On behalf of American consumers, we’re concerned about Verizon’s actions and are looking into the matter,” the statement said.

A lot of subscribers have spoken out against Verizon's decision to institute this new convenience fee. It'll be interesting to see what the FCC ultimately decides to do, and what if any effect that has on other networks like Sprint which don't "surcharge" but do offer "discounts" for their preferred payment options. (Just goes to show how far smart PR and better marketing language can get carriers who aren't Verizon...)

Source: NYT

Coming as no surprise, the CDMA Verizon iPhone 4 has just hit the FCC. (You know Apple wasn't going to let the government announce it, right?)

Model A1349 (as opposed to the GSM version's A1332) has the expected test results for CDMA / EV-DO Rev. A on the 850 and 1900MHz bands along with Bluetooth and WiFi without a whiff of GSM support for global roaming

[Engadget]

That Magic Trackpad/Magic Slate that we expected to be announced back at WWDC finally seems to have gotten the green light from the FCC and received approval. As Engadget points out, Apple generally keeps all of their device filings with the FCC locked down and with this filing being released there is great possibility we may see this new device hit the stores later this week.

This new Magic Trackpad/Magic Slate has long been rumored to be a large, flat surface with iPhone/iPad-like capacitive multitouch input to the Mac. Possibly supporting the full range of gestures that the iPhone and iPad currently support. If you look at page 45 of the FCC test report you will see the device is described as a "Bluetooth Trackpad". Something even more telling about the test report is the fact it was completed back in October of 2009.

Why would Apple be holding this device back on us for almost a year now?

[Engadget]

Could Apple have more technical surprises in store for the iPhone? They've asked the FCC to keep photographs and details secret for 45 days, so who knows? We've already heard about the 512MB of RAM hiding inside, but Apple is still playing it coy:

"Although Apple has begun to market the device publicly, these documents reveal technical and design information that has not been publically disclosed in such marketing and that is protected by Apple as confidential and proprietary secrets."

Speculate away. Come next Thursday, there ought to be tear-downs aplenty to find out.

[Patently Apple]

Gizmodo is reporting that AT&T sent out a letter to employees encouraging them, along with their families, to protest the FCC's net neutrality rules. It was said the letter even encouraged the use of the employees private email instead of their company email. For them to stoop this low makes it pretty obvious they are not hip to the idea of net neutrality. Gizmodo later updated their post with the following:

AT&T says that the letter was sent to "U.S. managers only" and that they "were providing important information to our employees, and it was up to them to respond personally. If they use their company email that is fine, too."

Their reply is pretty laughable as if sending this letter to "U.S. managers only" makes it any better. While I don't have issues here in Chicago with AT&T's service, some of their antics really are mind boggling.

Have thoughts regarding this news? Please share in the comments below!

[Via Gizmodo]

Following up on a rumor earlier today that AT&T would be announcing a new, friendlier policy towards Skype and Google Voice, Skype President Josh Silverman posted on the official Skype blog, saying "Good move, AT&T":

All of us at Skype applaud today's announcement by AT&T (in an FCC filing to be published shortly) that it'll open up its 3G network to Internet calling applications such as Skype. It's the right step for AT&T, Apple, millions of mobile Skype users and the Internet itself.

Silverman reveals that 10% of all iPhone and iPod touch devices have downloaded the Skype app (which makes roughly 5 million installs, if our math is right), and while they give AT&T the requisite kudos, Silverman states that it's the government and industry regulation that should ensure open networks -- in line with the FCC's recent move to establish "net neutrality".

Of course, AT&T announcements and Skype enthusiasm are one thing, let's see how long it takes to get Skype 3G into the App Store.

(And, of course, that still leaves Google Voice)

AT&T, according to the WSJ, has asked the FCC to investigate Google Voice for violating federal call-blocking rules. Basically, Google isn't letting Google Voice users connect to pricy adult chat lines and conference services. (The nerve!)

Slapped around by the FCC a couple of years ago on the same charges, AT&T wants Google to get a taste of that medicine, and likely wants to throw some of the heat they caught over the whole Apple rejection/still-studying Google Voice debacle right back Google's way.

Google's blog responds thusly:

AT&T is trying to make this about Google's support for an open Internet, but the comparison just doesn't fly. The FCC's open Internet principles apply only to the behavior of broadband carriers -- not the creators of Web-based software applications. Even though the FCC does not have jurisdiction over how software applications function, AT&T apparently wants to use the regulatory process to undermine Web-based competition and innovation.

Ah, new technology and the laws that trail far back behind it. Google may be technically right in that they're something new and different than what the law was originally designed to govern. Clearly the spirit of openness -- which Google pays enormous lip-service to when it suits them -- is what's important, though. Isn't it Google?

[Via Gizmodo]

The Wall Street Journal is reporting that the FCC is set to announce what amounts to "net neutrality" today, something that will make users and technology companies like Google, Amazon, and Apple's iTunes ecstatic, while roshambo'ing Big Telco right where it hurts.

Basically, net neutrality means data carriers like cable and DLS providers and wireless/mobile telephone companies can't restrict what travels over their lines or airwaves. Data is data. Disallow SlingPlayer or Skype? Sorry, not allowed.

It's not all good news for consumers, however, as carriers like the iPhone's AT&T are already buckling under the existing data load, and allowing bandwidth gulping apps like SlingPlayer could bring down more towers, faster. It could also cause Big Telco to respond by raising their rates.

Also, the proposal would only prevent networks from blocking legitimate websites and services, not those deemed illegitimate (i.e. torrent sites).

Of course, an FCC proposal is a long way from a new network order, and AT&T and other ISPs, as well as those who oppose government regulation on principle, will likely continue to oppose it.

Hit the poll above and let us know what you think.

[Via Macworld]

Rhapsody [free - iTunes Link] is now available in the iTunes App Store. It was less than a month ago that we told you about the submission of RealNetwork's Rhapsody iPhone app, well Apple may have been scared straight by the FCC because it's been approved and is now available as a free download.

Now don't don't forget there is a $15/month subscription fee you must dish out if you want all of that music streaming goodness over AT&T's data network or Wi-Fi. Sorry folks, no off-line access like Spotify here.

In a strange twist of fate, PreCentral.net tells us Palm has rejected their first App Catalog app, NaNPlayer, a (superior according to PC) replacement for the built-in Pre music player. Why did they do this? The developer used an undocumented API and that violates the SDK agreement. Sound familiar, iPhone users? Will Palm now get the same grief Apple does?

Sound off in the comments!

While the wait for TomTom's iPhone software to hit the App Store has come and gone, most of you are still eagerly awaiting the arrival of TomTom's iPhone car kit, first shown off at WWDC back in June. Engadget Mobile is now reporting that your wait may be coming to an end as TomTom's car kit has received its FCC approval. Included in that link, for your viewing pleasure, is the kit's manual, some images, and a few test reports.

Since it's announcement TomTom has kept pretty quite about the kits full capabilities. Well, a quick look in the user manual gets us all of the official details.

Your TomTom car kit for iPhone is designed to provide you with the best possible navigation experience. A built-in GPS receiver enhances your iPhone's GPS signal, ensuring the most reliable navigation, wherever you are. Using the car kit, you get loud and clear voice instructions, can make hands- free calls, as well as charge your iPhone while you drive. The car kit is a safe and secure dock with the award-winning fold-and-go EasyPort� mount.

Are those the features you've been waiting for?

[Via Engadget Mobile]

Apple "rejected" Google Voice for iPhone from the iTunes App Store, the FCC asked Apple, AT&T, and Google to answer some questions about that rejection. Now those questions have been answered-ish, and boy did it result in a flurry of posts here on TiPb and more importantly -- an impressive and penetrating degree of analysis from our commenters.

Have trouble keeping track? Or just want to know what you happily avoided? No worries, we have you covered:

• Apple Responds to FCC Questions (Google and AT&T as Well)
• Apple: 8500 Apps to Review a Week by 40 Odd Reviews
• AT&T To Reconsider VoIP Applications Over 3G? Yeahbuwhat Apple VoIP apps?
• Do Other Countries Lose Out on Apps Because of AT&T Policies?
• Apple iPhone is a Restaurant, Not a Super Market, and They Should Say So on the Sign
• Apple Afraid Google is Taking Over the iPhone?
• Apple Kicking Themselves They Didn’t Buy GrandCentral (Google Voice) First?

As part of the responses to the FCC's inquiry into the rejection of Google Voice from the iPhone App Store, AT&T stated the following:

As noted above, AT&T regularly reviews its policies regarding features and capabilities available through the devices we offer in order to provide an attractive range of options for our customers. Consistent with this approach, we plan to take a fresh look at possibly authorizing VoIP capabilities on the iPhone for use on AT&T's 3G network.

This was couched in some legal arguments stating economists and jurists allow deals where one party's core business is protected against adverse actions taken by another party -- in this case AT&T is saying VoIP would hurt their revenue from voice plans, so it's okay for Apple to protect AT&T from that hurt.

However, AT&T also says that while Apple agreed not to produce a VoIP app for the iPhone without AT&T's consent, they had no obligation to "take action against" a third party app.

So, presumably Apple is not allowed to make a VoIP app unless AT&T says okay, but Apple's just being kind to AT&T by not allowing Skype (for example) to use the 3G network?

And if AT&T is changing their mind and thinking of allowing a VoIP app, and the only VoIP app they say they're allowed to allow is one by Apple...

Conspiracy theorists, where does that leave us?

Apple has responded to the FCC's questions, issued following the controversial rejection of Google's Google Voice application (though, in their response, it looks like Apple is claiming they haven't rejected Google Voice, but are merely reviewing it (updated: under the dubious "duplicates functionality" rationale, due to independent and different dialing and voice mail interfaces and) to see if it violates Apple's contract with AT&T not to allow VoIP over AT&T's data network.)

We are pleased to respond to the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau’s inquiry dated July 31, 2009, requesting information regarding Apple’s App Store and its application approval process. In order to give the Bureau some context for our responses, we begin with some background information about the iPhone and the App Store.

The entire document is available via Apple.com.

Google and AT&T responded as well, though not on their own websites yet. Engadget is hosting their letters. AT&T claims they were never contacted about Google Voice, however if their contract with Apple forbids it, like Skype and other VoIP apps, Apple wouldn't have to contact them, so again -- huge round of jeers for AT&T's non-denial denials.

[Thanks to Doug for the tip)

UPDATE: As pointed out in comments, Android honcho Andy Rubin responds on the Google blog:

Here are the facts, clear and simple: While the first generation of our Android software did not support full-featured VoIP applications due to technology limitations, we have worked through those limitations in subsequent versions of Android, and developers are now able to build and upload VoIP services.

Rubin claims USA Today was made aware of this, but also says "individual operators can request that certain applications be filtered if they violate their terms of service", which basically means AT&T's no SlingPlayer, or conceivably any networks no-VoIP policy, would still affect Android, so -- okay. Let's get to it Skype and we'll see what T-Mo really thinks.

However, Rubin does dream, like all of us (likely even Apple, in public, if asked) of the day when "dumb pipes" are a reality.

ORIGINAL: Google Android cripples Skype by keeping it off the data network at the request of carriers? Shocked, shocked are we!

Rewind. The FCC has asked Apple, AT&T, and Google to answer some important questions about the iPhone App Store approval process, what role AT&T plays in rejecting apps, and specifically what happened to cause Google Voice to get rejected and 3rd party Google Voice apps removed. So what's new now? Well, apparently Google isn't only being questioned as a "victim". Turns out, they have some explaining to do in their own right. Says Apple Insider:

Skype told USA Today that Android does not support a full-featured version of Skype. And Google admitted it blocks VOIP connections at the request of "individual operators," without naming T-Mobile, the only U.S. carrier for Android at the moment. However, a T-Mobile representative denied that the company has requested Google to block Skype. Like Apple, Google must describe its process for reviewing and approving applications for the FCC. Those filings are expected Friday.

What makes this amusing to TiPb is that some individuals have vocally "switched" from the iPhone to Android due to Google being more "open". While a few have regretted that and switched back -- or just loudly lamented their new usability conditions -- this goes to show what TiPb (and all of Smartphone Experts) have been saying for a long time -- it's the carriers that need to become dumb pipes, supplying data and getting their noses completely out of how users use that data.

We'd encourage the well-intentioned but (in our humble opinion) ultimately misguided iPhone boycotters to use whatever device provides the best fit for their needs, and to direct their time, energy, and social power at the carriers instead. Then, at the very least, we'll see what Apple, Google, and others are truly responsible for on their own...

(And lest you think your device has real Skype, or SlingPlayer, or whatever, carrier terms of service apply to everyone and just because you're under the radar now, doesn't mean they won't shoot you down next).

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:

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

Techcrunch got a hold of a letter sent by the FCC to Apple seeking more information on the rejection of Google's Google Voice app, and removal of third party Google Voice apps already in the iTunes App Store.

Specifically, the Federal Communications Commission wants to know why Apple rejected the apps, and which apps exactly were rejected, whether Apple alone made the decision or whether AT&T played any part, what role -- if any -- AT&T plays in the App Store approval process, what makes Google Voice any different than VoIP apps Apple has already approved, what other apps have been rejected and why, whether or not there's a list of verboten apps and how that list is made available to developers and consumers, and other timing and statistical information concerning the approval process and rejections.

Basically, it reads as a wish list of every question every frustrated developer, consumer, and -- yes -- even blogger has ever wanted Apple to simply, plainly, and consistently answer. There is, however, a proviso for Apple to request confidentiality, which given Apple's penchant for secrecy, likely means we may never see those answers.

Similar letters were sent to Google and AT&T.

Opinions always vary about when and how much government should intrude into business. Some will think never, some will hope always, and we like to think there's a balance in between. App Store rejections currently annoy developers and the more tech-savvy consumers who read blogs and technology columns. Unfortunately, until it breaks the confidence of the average consumer and suffers immediate, painful consequence, Apple likely thinks most users aren't even aware of the issue and it can take its time and follow it's own agenda.

If nothing else, the FCC has just thrown a monkey wrench into that strategy.

[Thanks to everyone who sent this in!]

Open internet access group, Free Press, is petitioning the US Federal Communications Commission on the issue of Apple, at AT&T's mandate, restricting Skype and other App Store VoIP applications from running over the 3G network.

Currently, apps like the million downloaded Skype can only run on WiFi, which limits their usefulness as on-the-go communication tools (not everywhere has available WiFi connections, and they don't switch gracefully as you move from point to point).

While I personally long for the days when telcos and ISP's become like power utilities -- dumb pipes pumping unrestricted bits that we can do what we want with, no matter where we are within their territory -- WSJ presents the "counter argument":

Wireless providers, such as Clearwire Corp., have successfully argued they should be able to prevent customers from using some bandwidth-hogging Internet services, like file-sharing, because their wireless networks have capacity issues.

Sure, networks need to protect their cash flow enough that they can maintain their current infrastructure, develop and deploy future generations of technology, and earn a fair profit doing both. But surely that can be balanced by opening up traffic on those networks to any legitimate use, within purchased limits, at fair prices for consumers?

Or don't we think SlingPlayer should be allowed to stream, or Skype should be allowed to run over 3G?

[via Apple Insider]

Information Week has posted an article discussing how the spectrum action is going. You remember, the wireless 700MHz spectrum action that is freed up from analog TV? Anyway, Verizon has won the largest segment of the bandwidth spending $9.6 billion to do so. Guess who's number 2? You guessed it kids, AT&T. AT&T spent $6.6 billion for their share. What does this mean? Well for starters the FCC says that the bandwidth being auctioned off must be kept open and usable on any network; no more of this lock-down on a carrier mumbo-jumbo. Then there is Google coming with Android later this year...

So what impact does this have on the iPhone? Will Apple sell an iPhone on a segment of the open bandwidth? Could the 3G iPhone run only on AT&T's 3G network and the EDGE iPhones run on the "open" spectrum?

I've learned why the iPod Touch was snuck through without any leaks to the FCC. The trick of the trade is to certify only the wi-fi chip module that went into the iPod touch. Once that module was certified by the FCC, Apple could put it into whatever device it pleases, as long as that wi-fi module is the only transmitter present. If Apple wanted to add another radio transmitter (such as a Bluetooth chip for stereo Bluetooth / A2DP), they would have to recertify the new device.

Also of note, if Apple is planning a new 3G phone like the rumors say, they will have to recertify the iPhone 3G with the FCC. It's worth noting that when Apple started testing their iPhone International, nothing new popped up at the FCC.

I was astonished to read what their article stated, that it would only be a dual-band phone, as Apple would have to manufacture a separate phone for sale in Europe, Asia, Africa, or Australia later. So, I moseyed over to the FCC's website, and sure enough, it has all of the European bands listed (900 and 1800). Those bands aren't used in the US, so the FCC didn't test them. PC World must have missed the clearly stated "quad band" in the first page of the FCC approval letter. Oops!

At any rate, I'm glad to see that it's approved. That means the hardware is finalized, software is likely done or nearly fully done as well. Now we just have to wait for the chance to buy the thing!