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
Yeah, we're pretty much all peeved by Apple suddenly ejecting all traces of Google Voice from the app store, but now it looks to have drawn the ire of the Federal Communications Commission, as well. According to a report from The Wall Street Journal, the agency has sent out three letters, one each to Apple, AT&T, and Google. To the latter company, it asked for a description of the Google Voice app and whether previous Google apps have been approved for the store (it has, but that's another interesting story). To Cupertino, it's asking the phone manufacturer to explain itself over the sudden exorcism and what involvement, if any, AT&T had in this decision. The report doesn't make a direct indication of what the letter to the carrier said, but we can imagine it's similar to what Apple got, plus some doodles at the end of a stick figure letting out an exasperated sigh. In a statement today, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said it "has a mission to foster a competitive wireless marketplace, protect and empower consumers, and promote innovation and investment." Hey Julius, while you're at it, can you see about Skype and Slingbox for us, too? Thanks.
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.
Update 2: AT&T spokesman Brad Mays has sent us a statement denying any involvement in the app store process: "AT&T does not manage or approve applications for the App Store. We have received the letter and will, of course, respond to it," he says. That said, its involvement in Slingbox's rejection certainly does raise some eyebrows here.
hell yeah
Open that can! Yeee Hawww!
Yes!! Make some Applesauce, FCC...
Totally agree. Glad to see the FCC stepping in.
Where was the FCC when the kids needed cut & paste?
Go FCC!
Does the FCC even have any authority to do anything here? Apple is under no legal obligation to allow some App to available on their device if they dont want, no matter how much of a dick move it is.
How you like them apples, Apple!?
@Look_Around_You MS should be able to block you from installing another browser on their OS because it does something similar to features they already include?
Hey Julius, while you're at it, can you see about Skype and Slingbox for us, too? Thanks.
LMAO.. GOLDEN!!!!
maybe this will force apple to describe the clusterfuck known as their approval process.
HUGBEES! HUGBEES!
YES! I'm very happy about this. For once I like what the FCC is doing (assuming they follow through).
just imagine if they go after apple over a single app what they could do to the cable industry for price gouging and metering internet service! yeah, can't wait... yeah. it's so going to happen. anytime now.
@Look_Around_U: The big problem here is that Apple gains nothing from removing these apps. They gain nothing from denying these apps. They have no reason to not allow the apps as it is in their best interest to keep their customers happy. AT&T on the other had has reasons to kill off the apps. They are trying to kill competition and keep expectations low so their shitty network can keep up.
When one company uses their relationship with another company to stifle or kill off competition that is illegal. I think honestly though the FCC is going to go after them on Net Neutrality. If Comcast can't decide what traffic flows on their network (which I completely agree they shouldn't) then why should AT&T? If they want to be a ISP it doesn't matter if the computer is hand-held or a desktop, they have to follow the same rules as everyone else. Killing/crippling apps is there way of managing the traffic.
I second that Hell Yeah. Apple & AT&T need to quit stifling cell phone and communication innovation the same way oil companies stifle alternative fuel sources. Go FCC!
Maybe the FCC could submit an app that superior to and duplicates one or several "ingenious Apple Inventions/Functions" (choking on bull excrement), have it rejected and then throw it right back in Apple's face-palmed faces...
Was only a matter of time
Apple is poised to have an interesting summer.
Apple v. FCC
Apple v. Palm
Apple v. Oranges
Apple vs Oranges LOL :)
Good move. Somebody *had* to do *something* about this. Glad it's the FCC.
Additionally, Google Voice for Canada. Plz and ty.
FCC is bunch of jackasses. Sorry to say that but AT&T should not be allowed to grow into monster like this in the first place. It was big company, then they split it into smaller companies and it worked great (remember SBC Global, Cingular, ....), FCC let them merge again and now AT&T rolled over everybody - home phone, DSL, cell phone. They have such a huge market share that they can do whatever they want and screw with whoever they want.
US is at least 5 years behind European cell phone market, why? ask AT&T and Verizon
I can't. They won't let the call go through.
@JimboJones
I'd like to very much know what do u mean.
@JimboJones
Well, they might be behind Europe... but I'm still wondering if there are other countries bar USA with visual voicemail (as I thought that was one of the main new feats when iPhone was first launched. Guess it depends too much on all the carriers in the different countries...)
I agree with @JimboJones. Although I am glad that FCC is investigating this matter, it is FCC that allowed anti competitive mobile market in the first place. Prior to Cingular-AT&T Wireless merger, there was intense price competition in the US mobile market, with each carrier unveiling new and better pricing plan every holiday season. That stopped after the merger, along with doubling the cost to send text messages and other ridiculous practices.
@Kurzweilfeak
Visual Voicemail worked from the start when T-Mobile launched the iPhone in Germany on 2007. France, too. And hey, MMS worked in Germany when they launched the 3gs. Not that I used it :-)
I agree that they allowed this, but this is under a new director.
WOWWWW...
this isn't just good for apple people, but pretty much anybody in the future/down the road that might fall victim to giant companies like ATT who can honestly give two shits about their customer
Ouch .. there is going to be lots of finger pointing on this one
Didn't see that one coming.
Apple iPhone. the cellular version of MS Windows
btw I have an iPhone and love it.
No. that would be Windows Mobile.
Yeah, way off the mark....
last time i check Microsoft lets you install any software you want.
because Microsoft doesn't care if you destroy your phone with destructive programs, you will just have to repurchase a new device with MS on it
...wtf type of programs are you downloading?
If the program looks like it has herpes, don't touch it.
Umn... no program can break your phone's hardware. Just do a hard reset and you're good to go.
Software CAN prevent you from using your hardware, making it useless. For example all of the people that have permanently bricked their cellphones/psp's, etc. to the point were a hard reset it not an option
Apple doesn't allow applications that compete with apple functions.
For example Symbian does screen applications for combatibility but if its compatible it gets released. Theres no fucton restrictions.
I wonder how long apple can do this.
@ Brendon - that would be a firmware update, bit different to simply installing an application which has no way of accessing the firmware at that level...
Best news I heard all day, thank you. I am a big proponent of new technologies in communication (and a heavy VoIP user too, since I live in the US but my family is in Greece), so things like that are of importance to me. Seeing Google Voice thrown out of the AppStore was a major shock for me the other day. Whoever was behind this banning of the app, must pay one way or another.
What is wrong with you people... YOU ARE USING A PHONE!!!!
Why would AT&T want you to use a substitute for voice over its own network?
remember you pay to use 1 number on at&t's service not for 2 numbers!
p.s. I dont even know what to think of your icon
wow dude, that was pretty harsh.. im sure it costs alot more to call from the us to greece then to use voip.. to take away our options is not the way to go, and the iphone is a phone, but so much more then that..
>Why would AT&T want you to use a substitute for voice over its own network?
Because I wouldn't use its network. I would use WiFi and VoIP via GoogleVoice.
And besides, it's not AT&T job to tell me who to call (e.g. if I call directly to Greece, or by calling a local number which redirects me to Greece). That would be a "call neutrality" problem (a'la net neutrality) and I am sure it would hold up in court.
>p.s. I dont even know what to think of your icon
So your own, all-black icon that shows nothingness is a better one?
@murmermer: I think it all has to come down to what JimboJones reiterated. AT&T was the sole phone company for years, then the FCC decided it go too big and too anti-competitive. They broke them down, everybody could compete fairly, and now we have AT&T and Verizon ruling the phone industry (land and cell).
Yes, you are agreeing to pay for a specific service from AT&T. But you should also have the option to use a service that's available on other phones on the same network. I think Big Blue is scared of GV cutting into their text and long distance revenues via the do-it-all iPhone.
@D. Toliver "I think Big Blue is scared of GV cutting into their text and long distance revenues via the do-it-all iPhone."
This ought to show AT&T... just send e-mail from your smart phone or Direct Message people on Twitter.
You don't *have* to use SMS.
http://www.videosift.com/video/Colbert-regarding-the-new-ATT
I can't take someone I don't find attractive seriously. Next.
I can't take someone I don't find intelligent seriously. Next.
Yay, now we can all have unlimited calling using the $39.99 voice plan instead of paying $99.99. *rolleyes* Yeah, I don't see this happening, and it was stupid to think it would ever happen.
exactly. I just posted about this too... before I saw yours
It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
It's kind of an antitrust issue. iPod Touch users should certainly be allowed to use the app, so why doesn't Apple segment the App Store for certain apps by device?
Further, with the way that telecom is currently supposed to be structured, you cannot charge customers for an 'unlimited' data plan and then put limits on what apps they run on said lines unless that app is promoting copyright violations ala bittorrent. They made their bed and now they have to sleep in it. If AT&T and others try to bump up their pricing, I'm sure they'll see a drop in subscriptions. They certainly can't change the terms on current subscribers. I don't know that you can get the data plan without their voice service so what are they complaining about? To me, they're fleecing you anyway.
FCC Investigations? There's an app for that.
Not if AT&T has an issue with it.
There was, it just got pulled from the App store.
-Taylor
Then the FCC is gonna investigate it...
i wonder whats more cynical that they only investigate this cos its Apple, cos its Google or cos its AT&T this kind of things happen with other wireless devices and operators and the FCC never said anything about it, i wonder if the powers that be are on the google side of the fence. Watch out MS someone got some pretty nifty political power..
As a very happy 3 yr iPhone user, I was very happy to hear this... And I bet Apple is just as happy. I think they are desperate to get out of their AT&T contract.
Yeah, what company doesn't like to be investigated by the FCC?
I love it when iFanboys try to paint Apple as the victim of AT&T. Apple designed and built the device and app store specifically so that they would be the gatekeeper to decide who gets to publish what app and what it should be allowed to do, not AT&T.
I would be pretty sure the Federal *Communications* Commission is more interested in looking at AT&T's role in app approval.
Cool McPow, that makes perfect sense except it doesn't. Everyone knows at&t killed slingplayer, Apple had no reason to cripple it.
The iPhone came out a little more than 2 years ago...
@McPOW
Sir, you clearly do not understand the issues. Do you think that Apple was doing cartwheels when AT&T informed them that they would not be supporting MMS and Tethering at the launch of iPhone OS 3.0? I have no idea what the real truth is behind the removal of Google Voice but I am absolutely certain that Apple are frustrated by AT&T's inability to keep up and that this is the primary reason why the end of the contract is something to look forwards to.
Hah! You forget that Apple gets a cut of iPhone service plans. They definitely have a stake in preventing Google Voice from being available for the iPhone. I'd be surprised if AT&T put any direct pressure (and I use the word, direct) for Apple to refuse the app. There's no need.
And the reason the iPhone didn't have MMS, was because they were pushing their Mobile Me push e-mail service. And they held out as long as they could. I'm sure, being Apple, they thought they could make MMS go away by refusing to make it available on the iPhone and making it so inconvenient to retrieve an MMS message. But they forgot about the hundreds of millions of phones that aren't iPhones that have it.
Way off topic here, but doesn't anyone see Google engaging in anti-competitive practices? Maybe not on this one, but in general?
I mean they provide a ton of apps (which I love) for free which another company would have to charge for to make revenue. But Google doesn't have to charge anything for it, because it can garner most of its revenue from its search services. So, for instance it can give away docs and translator for free, and basically dry up the demand for other companies to enter this space.
It sort of worries me, that google is getting pretty darn powerful, but then again, the end consumer is benefits since well after all it is free. But, I don't complain much, since I like things free... :)
I'm gonna contact someone about that. Let me Google that--
There's generally nothing illegal about providing a free service or product. Some laws about pricing can kick in when there's a potential monopoly situation, but it's going to be a hard sell that Google is trying to drive companies out of business by pricing a competing product impossibly low when
a) Software is not a limited resource.
b) Many of those competitors are themselves free.
c) Google's products are based on open standards.
d) They are SHARING FOR FREE some of their major creations.
e) All of the above add up to no inherent barrier to entry to Google's markets.
f) There's no sign that Google is creating artificial barriers to entry like Microsoft did with its OEM contracts.
Unless Google actually manages to drive all competitors out of the market (good luck when some of those competitors aren't even companies), there's not much reason to worry.
James makes very valid points. Google makes it's money off of their amazingly smart way of advertising. In the late 90s/early 2000s other websites were plastering 13482 banners on a page and everyone always hated them. They were the smart ones to innovate and start the modern form of directed advertising online where they could smartly and subtly advertise and make a boatload of money on it.
The reason I explain that is simply that Google's business plan is very unique and successful for them because by being so open and providing things for free intending to lose money (but making it up by earning a trust with the consumer). Now, were Google to suddenly start stonewalling things and trying to have Google Maps actively try to destroy Mapquest then there's an issue, but just innovating and creating a better product when people have a complete choice? That's completely legal. In Google's case, their innovation is both their main asset since it forms so much trust with their consumer base, but it is also the reason they won't run into the problems Apple and Microsoft face with proprietary systems. Google literally can't start locking things down or they will both lose their consumer trust and face antitrust problems. Google is smart enough to try to keep pushing all markets it is in and keep them from stalling out. For example, Android is their way of making sure a half-decade stop in software R&D like Windows Mobile and PalmOS did won't happen again. Google Maps keeps upping the ante over Mapquest which largely remained the same once it got going. Google Voice puts pressure on the cell phone companies to swap to a more efficient VOIP setup (one antenna for voice, one for data, and there being so many different types of voice networks... talk about inefficient and a waste of money and resources) ensures that they're in the game when cell phone networks eventually must start to give the users options and the current scams of SMS pricing, etc. are in the open.
So, in short, Google's "Don't be evil" motto really does stick. They try to just continually innovate, but do it as openly as they can (i.e. their search algorithm will remain a trade secret in the same way the formulas for coca cola and pepsi are since they're the bread and butter of the profite) and currently they're just making sure the bar keeps being raised and that people have options. Without options, people can't choose Google. Without options, Google can't attract people. It's win-win for Google and the consumers.
Woot! GO FCC!
Rooted my G1 yesterday and got 3G in my area today. Loving my G1 and Google Voice so much more right now. Hang in there for your invites they are steadily rolling out.
This will never happen, but Apple would do very well to establish some form of due process regarding the AppStore.
Something nice open and transparent, and ideally appealable.
I am thinking something along the lines of the MPAA ratings system or the Patent Office.
The biggest problem with the AppStore system is that it is arbitrary and capricious.
As a businessman I would never trust my ability to bring a product to a system so unpredictable. Maybe I'd do something like that for a hobby and co-release to Cydia.
Of course such a system is antithetical to Apple and more precisely Steve Jobs, psycho tyrant that he seems to be.
The app store application process seems to depend on who you get looking at your app. Some are more lenient than others, and that should never happen.
This is just great news. I at least got the Slingplayer thing, as it would have further hurt ATT's already abysmal network. But I really don't see how GV at all hurts ATT. Its just complete bullshit, and I'm glad the FCC is getting involved here. Hopefully this will be made nice and public, and if ATT did indeed make Apple do this, I hope its revealed, and further hurts ATT's already shit image in the public's view.
I'm a happy iPhone/unhappy ATT user, for full disclosure.
The slingbox one really ticks me off; But, then again, I just swap my sim card over to my nokia n95 and then I have my choice between my slingbox or my hava Monsoon, so AT&T can just....
Witch one is better? I am stuck in that decision on witch one to buy...what do you recommend, HAVA or Slingbox?
I use the hava way more than the slingbox since they did some software updates, the slingbox is a pain much of the time. So get a hava. Great product.
Oh my, this is great news. I hope they follow through. Removing and blocking these apps have been ridiculous.
Apple sux sometimes.
Sometimes?
Yea, why?
google runs crying to the fcc like a bunch of wimps. f em and their crappy services!
why is it that its always the losers in society that needs to suck off goverments bloated teet?
When the men in white coats come for you, go quietly. They're just trying to help you.
Wow...you're on a tech blog why? You dont seem well informed at all.
Except for the fact that the FCC did this on their own, i.e., without Google asking.
Do you live in a cave?
Google products? Crap?
Oh, you must be from that other planet... You know, the one outside the internet.
If he's so concerned about 'empowering the consumer' then why let AT&T stick it to it's iPhone customers with their SMS pricing (when we already pay for unlimited data) and lack of MMS? Sounds like someone over at Google must've called in a favor to Ol' Julius. That's why he's so concerned.
I read a blog or an article where a guy compared text message rates to other things we pay for and it showed how we're being ripped off. If anyone knows what I'm talking about please post the link. I've been searching for it forever.
Sorry, didn't realize this soapbox was so high. I'll step down now
were you referring tho these articles?
http://uneasysilence.com/archive/2008/01/12901/
http://www.oreillynet.com/sysadmin/blog/2008/01/what_is_the_cost_of_sms.html
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2008/12/text-messages-c/ - this one?
http://www.crunchgear.com/2008/07/01/atts-text-messages-cost-1310-per-megabyte/ - or this one?
SMS doesn't use data to send and receive, it uses "unused" cell capability.
I think this is a stepping stone to go after AT&T after Verizon applauded exclusivity. it's gonna be quite a bit bigger than this....This is the first step in eliminating exclusive providers of....Standardization, etc, etc, etc....watch out Europe...the America's are 'finna catch up bigtime.
I don't get it, why is everyone saying Europe is ahead of America in phone service?
Explanation, please.
A better solution would be to completely separate the device makers from the service providers. But pigs will fly before that happens.
The FCC is going to go after apple's CLOSED ecosystem but they're going to stand by and watch the cable industry rape customers by allowing the cable industry to buy sports teams and venues that are given massive tax breaks (i.e Madison Square Garden) and then allowing them to deny HD feeds to other competing companies (rather than compete on price, of course)?
I think the FCC needs to get their head out of their A$$ and start helping consumers instead of this nonsense.
I don't think the FCC has jack all to do with what apps Apple chooses to approve.
The "Federal *Communications* Commission" would most likely be looking at whether AT&T had exerted "influence" in this decision that they should not have.
B-B-But.. The fancocks said no one would care and "Apple can do what they want on their store.... It is theirs afterall"
Good stuff. Apple need to learn!
Fancocks, its alomst as is you want to blow any credibility you have from the get go.
Apple can pretty much do anything they want with the appstore EXCEPT now they are treading on the FCC's territory of what is and isn't allowed to happen over the airwaves. This is more of an investigation into AT&Ts role in this than Apple's, and since all evidence points to this being motivated from the carrier side of course the FCC can step in. If this were, say, Chrome for the iPhone, the FCC wouldn't care one bit AND wouldn't have jurisdiction either.
Next time you go off all smug and apple-hater, you may want to get a grasp of the situation first.
Right, but it's Apple's fault for crippling under the pressure of AT&T.
Apple has all the right in the world to say, "No, it's our app store and this is a valid application, therefore, it's staying".
I do believe I nice, "To hell with you, AT&T", would have sufficed as well.
What pisses me off more is that Eric Schmidt, the CEO of Google, is on Apple's board - the same guy that told the Android Dev Team to hold off on multitouch and global search in Android just so the iPhone could more easily gain a foothold in the industry before the Android invasion - and yet, they've done nothing to rectify the situation. This is an app the can only *improve* on Apple's device. This app could make the device more appealing to millions of users.
All in all, I've never been a fan of Apple and their, (albeit highly stereotypical), stuck-up customers, but this just goes too far. To block a trusted industry giant like Google is only going to garner you negative attention. The iPhone is a great device. My girlfriend has it as well as her entire family. However, the major turnoff for me was that single fruity engravement on the back.
I'll stick with my open portal and my green robot. :)
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?