Why the FCC Wants to Smash Open the iPhone 43 comments
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
Right about now, Apple probably wishes it had never rejected Google Voice and related apps from the iPhone. Or maybe it was AT&T who rejected the apps. Nobody really knows. But the FCC launched an investigation last night to find out, sending letters to all three companies (Apple, AT&T, and Google) asking them to explain exactly what happened.
On its face, it might seem odd to some people that the FCC is investigating the rejection of a single iPhone app. After all, iPhone apps are rejected every day. But the Google Voice rejection caused an unusual amount of uproar, and there is nothing like a high-profile case to make an example out of in pursuit of pushing a bigger policy agenda. The FCC investigation is not just about the arbitrary rejection of a single app. It is the FCC’s way of putting a stake in the ground for making the wireless networks controlled by cell phone carriers as open as the Internet.
Today there are two different sets of rules for applications and devices on the Internet. On the wired Internet, we can connect any type of PC or other computing device and use any applications we want on those devices. On the wireless Internet controlled by cellular carriers like AT&T, we can only use the phones they allow on their networks and can only use the applications they approve. This was fine when the wireless networks were used mostly just for voice calls. But now that they are increasingly becoming our mobile connections to the Internet and mobile phones are becoming full-fledged mobile computers, an argument has been growing that the same rules of open access that rule the wired Internet should apply to the wireless Internet.
While Apple and AT&T cannot be too happy about the FCC investigation, Google must secretly be pleased as punch. It was only two years ago, prior to the 700MHz wireless spectrum auctions, that it was pleading with the FCC to adopt principles guaranteeing open access for applications, devices, services, and other networks. Now two years later, in a different context and under a different administration, the FCC is pushing for the same principles.
In its letters requesting more information from all three companies, the FCC cites “pending FCC proceedings regarding wireless open access (RM-11361) and handset exclusivity (RM-11497). That first proceeding on open access dates back to 2007 when Skype requested that cell phone carriers open up their networks to all applications (see Skype’s petition here). Like Google Voice, Skype helps consumers bypass the carriers. The carriers don’t like that because it erodes their core business and turns them into dumb pipes.
But dumb pipes are what we need. They are good for consumers and good for competition because they allow any application and any device, within reason, to flower on the wireless Internet. So if you look at the questions the FCC is asking, it wants to know why the Google Voice app was rejected and whether AT&T (the carrier) had anything to do with that rejection:
2. Did Apple act alone, or in consultation with AT&T, in deciding to reject the Google Voice application and related applications? . . .
3. Does AT&T have any role in the approval of iPhone applications generally (or in certain cases)? If so, under what circumstances, and what role does it play?
The FCC also wants Apple to explain the arbitrariness of its app approval process:
4. Please explain any differences between the Google Voice iPhone application and any Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) applications that Apple has approved for the iPhone. Are any of the approved VoIP applications allowed to operate on AT&T’s 3G network?
5. What other applications have been rejected for use on the iPhone and for what reasons? Is there a list of prohibited applications or of categories of applications that is provided to potential vendors/developers? If so, is this posted on the iTunes website or otherwise disclosed to consumers?
6. What are the standards for considering and approving iPhone applications? What is the approval process for such applications (timing, reasons for rejection, appeal process, etc.)? What is the percentage of applications that are rejected? What are the major reasons for rejecting an application?
Good questions. Hopefully, the FCC will share Apple’s answers with the rest of the us. It is all a bit absurd, though. Why does it take a formal request from a government agency to get Apple (and AT&T) to explain what the rules are to get on the wireless Internet? More importantly, why are these companies allowed to be the gatekeepers to the wireless Internet? The iPhone needs to be smashed open, and the FCC is swinging the hammer.
Update: AT&T responded to this post with the following statements:
AT&T does not manage or approve applications for the App Store. We have received the letter and will, of course, respond to it.
Customers can use any compatible GSM phone on our network, not just the ones we’ve approved and sell. And they also can use apps we don’t approve. We don’t approve iPhone applications.
So there you have it. You can use any mobile app you like on AT&T—unless it is an iPhone app (that’s been rejected by Apple). Does Apple ever reject apps at the request of AT&T though? Maybe they’ll give the FCC a straight answer.
(Flickr photo credit:Stephen Heywood).
Related Articles
|
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Authors with the largestSee all
increase in followers
in the last 7 days
Fastest Climbers » -
Top Commenters
Top commenters,See all
as ranked by their peers
Top Commenters » -
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most active
Instabloggers.-
1
David Fry
-
2
TraderMark
-
3
Don Dion
-
4
Cliff Wachtel
-
5
Mike Havrilla
Top Instabloggers » -
1
-
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
This article has 43 comments:
How does such a blog get posted into an area of Financial News?
The App would have been handy because it would allow us to easily login to the GV system to set Do Not Disturb, forward to another number (our mobile phone!), and read voicemail (in text format).
The only gripe that I can see from AT&T is the GV will dial the receiving party for you and then call your phone. With published rates to foreign countries much lower than AT&T, this could hurt them --- but then there are other services that enable this today just not quite as easily. Though, the app exists on Blackberry and Android phones...
Maybe there are other issues that I'm ignorant to?
I am getting tired of the socialist mentality overtaking business decisions in the country. AT&T has invested good money into getting as many paying customers to use the iPhone under various payment options. If people don't like the plans, they don't need to use an iPhone.
As an AAPL shareholder, the government should stay out of the business of dictating Apple's or AT&T's business practice. Or if GOOG wants access to the iPhone, they should have to pay for that access. GOOG seems to want everyone to give everything away for free simply because it does so.
Dean
On Aug 01 10:43 PM Michael J. Golde wrote:
> I completely disagree with this article. Apple invented and owns
> the iPhone and has the right and duty to maintain the integrity of
> its product as it sees fit. I am sure Apple rejects apps all the
> time it consider inappropriate because of content, competition with
> the basic functions of the iPhone itself, etc. It also receives significant
> financial incentives to enter into exclusivity arrangements with
> carriers like AT&T. Why shouldn't AAPL have the right to decide
> if it can make more money by being tied to a carrier or not? That's
> what they are supposed to do for the benefit of its shareholders,
> not for the public at large.
>
> I am getting tired of the socialist mentality overtaking business
> decisions in the country. AT&T has invested good money into getting
> as many paying customers to use the iPhone under various payment
> options. If people don't like the plans, they don't need to use an
> iPhone.
>
> As an AAPL shareholder, the government should stay out of the business
> of dictating Apple's or AT&T's business practice. Or if GOOG
> wants access to the iPhone, they should have to pay for that access.
> GOOG seems to want everyone to give everything away for free simply
> because it does so.
On Aug 02 02:56 AM isellapple wrote:
> If the FCC can get Apple to disclose their reasons for rejecting
> Apps that would benefit all the developers. That information Apple
> keeps in close circles because not even companies like Google, with
> their CEO on Apple's board, can figure out if they will get rejected.
On Aug 02 03:53 AM gropethink wrote:
> yeah. and i think that it's only fair that our government sequester
> bob dillan and force him to let us all in on how exactly he writes
> his songs--and we have every right to have his every move recorded
> 24/7 just so he doesn't get away with being inspired by something
> we were not privy to. coca cola needs to post their formulas just
> above the local weather report everyday in all newspapers. the pittsburgh
> steelers need to let us know in real time exactly what play they're
> running, and if they call an audible, that needs to be relayed real
> time too. it's only fair.
The EM Spectrum is part of the commons, like the air we breath and water we drink. The corporations that have the 'privilege' of exploiting it for profit have a responsibility to the public whom it receives that privilege.
RE:
"
yeah. and i think that it's only fair that our government sequester bob dillan and force him to let us all in on how exactly he writes his songs--and we have every right to have his every move recorded 24/7 just so he doesn't get away with being inspired by something we were not privy to. coca cola needs to post their formulas just above the local weather report everyday in all newspapers. the pittsburgh steelers need to let us know in real time exactly what play they're running, and if they call an audible, that needs to be relayed real time too. it's only fair.
On Aug 02 02:56 AM isellapple wrote:
> If the FCC can get Apple to disclose their reasons for rejecting
> Apps that would benefit all the developers. That information Apple
> keeps in close circles because not even companies like Google, with
> their CEO on Apple's board, can figure out if they will get rejected.
#5 prohibited applications or of categories of applications
This holds value for future applications and developers. But why stop a useful call management app such as Google Voice, which users should be able to access through Safari anyway from being an app. They are just making the process of accessing the app for difficult for users.
But I guess the Apple process is fairly tough its not as if they have let thru applications such as "baby shaker"
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3.../
It acts like a monopoly or rather aspires to be one.
That as I understand it, is illegal.
Tell me why do they need your SS# to buy and hook up an iphone?
Concessionaires like AT&T have an obligation to the public. Good that the FCC is doing their job. We need our regulators to be more vigilant against greed.
Looking at it another way, the voice network will inevitably be subsumed into the internet, but that would cripple carrier revenues today. Apple and others have to continue working with the carriers for a few years more, because of the way politicians have set up mobile communications licensing.
I moved to Montana from Washington in May 2009 and AT & T notified me on July 2, 2009 that they will be cancelling my service as I am in violation of my contract with them. I use my iPhone for business and travel to other parts of the country but apparently Montana is one of the states AT & T which they cannot service iPhone data economically. It was explained to me by your representatives that the cost for access to other carriers exceeds what I pay on the AT & T flat rate data program.
AT & T cell service in Terry, Montana is about the same as Verizon Wireless. Dropped calls, not receiving calls and voice mail messages not received are the rigor with my iPhone. I had great service in Seattle, Washington where I purchased the phone in September 2008.
An email to each of you resulted in a call back from a representative in the Office of the President of AT & T and Apple. But all I received was sympathy and lots of apologies with no solution. The first customer service representative I contacted offered to switch my account to Verizon for me and suggested buying a Blackberry phone. I have just done so without her help and am waving AT & T goodbye.
The following article from Bloomberg tells the story on how exclusive arrangements like the one between AT & T and Apple is good for you but not good for the consumers is being investigated by the FCC.
“IPhone Probe to Focus on Markets Without Service, FCC Head Says
By Todd Shields
July 31 (Bloomberg) — U.S. regulators probing wireless- phone contracts will focus on markets where Apple Inc.’s iPhone and Palm Inc.’s Pre aren’t available to consumers, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission said.
“There are markets in the country where if you wanted an iPhone, if you wanted a Pre, you just couldn’t get it — from anyone,” Julius Genachowski said in an interview yesterday. “So one question is, is that consistent with broad consumer interests?”
The agency also will consider if innovation is promoted or hindered by exclusive arrangements such as those that limit the iPhone to customers of AT&T Inc. and the Pre to Sprint Nextel Corp. subscribers, Genachowski said.
Genachowski, 46, declined to say what the next steps will be in the investigation, which the agency announced last month after four U.S. senators asked it to examine the exclusive deals. An AT&T executive told a June 17 hearing the deals spur innovation and help lower prices. Verizon Wireless said this month that new deals with handset makers will last no longer than six months, down from one to two years for most contracts.
“Promoting competition is absolutely a main function of the FCC,” said Genachowski.
He took office June 29 as the Obama administration’s choice to head the independent agency that sets rules for telephone, cable and broadcast companies.
Fostering high-speed Internet connections, or broadband, is a priority for the FCC, Genachowski said.
“There’s absolutely a sense of urgency in Congress, the White House, here at the agency, that we need to make sure that the United States communications infrastructure is appropriate for the 21st century,” he said.
Preparing Broadband Plan
Genachowski declined to say whether the agency would seek to write new rules to ensure that Web companies treat content providers equally as it readies a national broadband plan that is due to Congress by February.
The FCC last year censured Comcast Corp. after concluding the largest U.S. cable company had interfered with subscribers’ Web traffic. A lawsuit by Comcast seeking to overturn the decision awaits oral arguments in the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington.
“We expect to prevail,” Genachowski said.
“There shouldn’t be any doubt that the FCC will enforce non-discrimination,” he said. “The Internet needs to remain open.”
Genachowski said he has devoted time to meeting with FCC staff.
“My visits around the agency have convinced me that the agency needs to be retooled and revitalized, and that that’s not a controversial proposition inside the FCC,” Genachowski said.
‘Shortchanged’ Consumers
At Genachowski’s June 16 nomination hearing, West Virginia Senator Jay Rockefeller, the Democrat who heads the Commerce Committee that oversees the FCC, said the agency has “shortchanged” consumers. Rockefeller told Genachowski to “fix” the agency.
Genachowski said yesterday that he didn’t want to comment “on where the agency has been.”
In December, congressional Democrats said his predecessor, Kevin Martin, a Republican, abused his powers and created a “climate of fear” at the agency. Martin followed the same procedures by Democratic and Republican chairman alike, an FCC spokesman said at the time.
Genachowski attended Harvard Law School with President Barack Obama and helped shape his technology agenda. He was an adviser to IAC/InterActiveCorp Chief Executive Officer Barry Diller, and earlier served as an attorney at the FCC and a Supreme Court clerk.”
Last Thursday while I was in Billings dropping off my daughter at the airport I checked with the Best Buy store in Billings on iPhone availability in Montana. After the clerk told me that their store was not allowed to carry the iPhone he proudly told me that he has a family member in town who had obtained one by using his cousin’s Denver home address to get one and sign up with AT & T. So it’s legal to own and wear a gun on your hip in Montana but AT & T forbids you to use the iPhone there!
Hello Blackberry Storm, goodbye Apple iPhone.
Should Apple be forced to put Google and all applications on their Mac Books to because some blogger thinks this is good for competition?
On Aug 01 05:22 PM notsosmart wrote:
> everybody wants everything for free.maybe the gov will pay you to
> turn in your old clunker cell phone.
Further, since then, both Major League Baseball (Chicago alone had more demands on AT&T's network from one game than all the bandwidth requirements SlingBox ever had nationally) .. MLB and now the forthcoming 'Sunday Ticket' access on DirecTV's app for the NFL, vastly exceed the bandwidth utilization SlingBox would.
So, irrespective of whether DirecTV, Apple or AT&T ever intend to 'compete' with distant access (ie: no cost other than the app) for live or recorded (DVR) television; there is little doubt but that this was an arbitrary determination discriminating against SlingBox access (Sling now owned by the Dish Network, which obviously is DirecTV's competitor).
I am not a lawyer but a stock market analyst (who predicted the 'epic debacle' right here on SA over 2 years ago).. so the point is that AT&T's own network permits SlingBox to operate via any Blackberry able to use their app; so this is clearly disingenuous when related to access on an iPhone. All Apple and AT&T have to do is open up 3G (which works according to hackers but I would never suggest that nor do so) as AT&T has on the Blackberry. In terms of the FCC inquiry; the answer is already in based upon the SlingBox crippling; which renders a note of caution to AT&T before they wrongly contend (as their preliminary statement implies) that they do not engage in app denial. Obviously SlingBox proves that indeed they do. Otherwise, AT&T's network has improved greatly in some areas (including Southern California near our Thousand Oaks office); but that is besides the point of open app access.
cheers..
gene inger
ingerletter.com
Pretty lazy work on the FCCs part if you ask me...
On Aug 01 10:43 PM Michael J. Golde wrote:
> I completely disagree with this article. Apple invented and owns
> the iPhone and has the right and duty to maintain the integrity of
> its product as it sees fit. I am sure Apple rejects apps all the
> time it consider inappropriate because of content, competition with
> the basic functions of the iPhone itself, etc. It also receives significant
> financial incentives to enter into exclusivity arrangements with
> carriers like AT&T. Why shouldn't AAPL have the right to decide
> if it can make more money by being tied to a carrier or not? That's
> what they are supposed to do for the benefit of its shareholders,
> not for the public at large.
>
> I am getting tired of the socialist mentality overtaking business
> decisions in the country. AT&T has invested good money into getting
> as many paying customers to use the iPhone under various payment
> options. If people don't like the plans, they don't need to use an
> iPhone.
>
> As an AAPL shareholder, the government should stay out of the business
> of dictating Apple's or AT&T's business practice. Or if GOOG
> wants access to the iPhone, they should have to pay for that access.
> GOOG seems to want everyone to give everything away for free simply
> because it does so.
You are correct that businesses that hold licenses to use our wireless spectrum have the right to make rules that govern use of the services that they provide to end-users, however, they must do so within the bounds of the rules that the FCC establishes to protect our resource. While the providers do "have the right to enter into any lawful business arrangement that will help them provide a return to their investors," they do not have the right to enter into unlawful business arrangements. This is the issue at hand, namely, are the practices of the wireless providers in violation of the rules and law governing the use of OUR resource as established by the FCC? Specifically, are their practices stifling innovation and breaching antitrust law or in some other way not carrying out the interests of the public as owners of the wireless spectrum?
"Should Apple be forced to put Google and all applications on their Mac Books to because some blogger thinks this is good for competition?"
No, but they should not be allowed to block them being used on OUR MacBooks.
On Aug 02 10:57 AM jeezocripes wrote:
> The problem with Bloggers is they express their opinions and spend
> little time understanding the facts. It appears that a few issues
> with this article. First, the wireless Internet isn't free, Access
> to it and around it is not owned by the government. It is owned
> by a few large carriers which have invested billions to own it and
> have it. They have the right like any other business to make rules
> on and provide for a return like any other business. Apple makes
> the best phone in the industry and they have the right to enter into
> any lawful business arrangement that will help them provide a return
> to their investors. If the FCC deems that their is wrongdoing then
> I am afraid they will have to adjust their policy so that the internet
> access points and internet are owned and controlled by the government
> and the current administration so they can make it free for everyone
> by using taxpayer money to invest in your "Wireless Internet".
> Remember it is competition and the free market that got us to point
> to discuss this. Without the current environment their would be
> no I-phone. Thank you Apple and AT&T for their innovation.
>
>
> Should Apple be forced to put Google and all applications on their
> Mac Books to because some blogger thinks this is good for competition?
The question is how much extra load these type of apps put on their data network.
If I had Skype on a Netbook on a cellular network is that allowed?
There is a difference between rejecting applications and rejecting packets.
Having worked in telcom labs, I can say that there is a physical limit to the capacity in the air for communications links, and we're really close to it.
The 'picocell' devices (mini cell towers) could potentially mitigate the problem, and hence the concerns from AT&T, and I think that's the long-term solution. In the meantime, you can't expect the laws of the universe to change.
On Aug 02 04:18 PM manya05 wrote:
> Hopefully the FCC, or somebody, will finally see the light and ban
> these exclusive deals and force Apple to sell unlocked iPhones so
> people can use it with any carrier as is done in some countries (e.g.,
> France). They are still locked to France (SOBs), but at least the
> French can pick from 3+ carriers.
On Aug 03 11:54 PM computer consultant wrote:
> I wish iphone was available on other networks besides att.
On Aug 02 08:56 AM Commies are people too wrote:
> You sarcastic remark misses the point.
>
> The EM Spectrum is part of the commons, like the air we breath and
> water we drink. The corporations that have the 'privilege' of exploiting
> it for profit have a responsibility to the public whom it receives
> that privilege.
>
>
> RE:
> "
> yeah. and i think that it's only fair that our government sequester
> bob dillan and force him to let us all in on how exactly he writes
> his songs--and we have every right to have his every move recorded
> 24/7 just so he doesn't get away with being inspired by something
> we were not privy to. coca cola needs to post their formulas just
> above the local weather report everyday in all newspapers. the pittsburgh
> steelers need to let us know in real time exactly what play they're
> running, and if they call an audible, that needs to be relayed real
> time too. it's only fair.
======================...
this is the most intelligent statement made on this post:
Hopefully the FCC, or somebody, will finally see the light and ban
> these exclusive deals and force Apple to sell unlocked iPhones so
> people can use it with any carrier as is done in some countries (e.g.,
> France). They are still locked to France (SOBs), but at least the
> French can pick from 3+ carriers.
On Aug 01 06:51 PM Don Bowey wrote:
>
>
> How does such a blog get posted into an area of Financial News?
On Aug 01 10:43 PM Michael J. Golde wrote:
> I completely disagree with this article. Apple invented and owns
> the iPhone and has the right and duty to maintain the integrity of
> its product as it sees fit. I am sure Apple rejects apps all the
> time it consider inappropriate because of content, competition with
> the basic functions of the iPhone itself, etc. It also receives significant
> financial incentives to enter into exclusivity arrangements with
> carriers like AT&T. Why shouldn't AAPL have the right to decide
> if it can make more money by being tied to a carrier or not? That's
> what they are supposed to do for the benefit of its shareholders,
> not for the public at large.
>
> I am getting tired of the socialist mentality overtaking business
> decisions in the country. AT&T has invested good money into getting
> as many paying customers to use the iPhone under various payment
> options. If people don't like the plans, they don't need to use an
> iPhone.
>
> As an AAPL shareholder, the government should stay out of the business
> of dictating Apple's or AT&T's business practice. Or if GOOG
> wants access to the iPhone, they should have to pay for that access.
> GOOG seems to want everyone to give everything away for free simply
> because it does so.