Filed under: Apple Corporate, iPhone, App Store
It's the Feds! FCC quizzes Apple, AT&T and Google about Google Voice apps
Earlier today, the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) sent out letters to Apple, AT&T and Google, readable here [FCC's letter to Apple, to AT&T & to Google] asking each company about its involvement in the Google Voice app rejections. The agency is asking Apple to explain why the Google app was rejected and the third-party apps removed, if any VoIP apps have been approved, and whether there are general rules and regulations covering application approvals (something many developers would also love to know). It's worth noting that none of the Google Voice apps are VoIP (voice over IP) applications in the traditional sense, as they rely on the cellular carrier's voice network to handle calls, so it's not clear if the FCC understands this or if the agency is heading down a blind alley on this particular topic.
To Google, the letter asks if any other Google apps have been accepted in the store (we know there are a few), whether Apple explains the rejection process or the reasoning behind the treatment of Google Latitude, if there are other ways to use Google Voice on the iPhone (again, a somewhat naive question, as the service works fine via touchtone commands and Mobile Safari), and lastly and most intriguingly, what the app approval process is for Android applications (should be a short answer: "C'mon in, the water's fine!").
Finally, the agency is asking AT&T how the carrier was consulted on this decision, if any VoIP applications are running on their network (again, missing the point, since GV ≠ VoIP -- more relevant that there are BlackBerry apps for Google Voice that are happily on AT&T handsets), and whether AT&T can provide a list of rejected applications on the store while detailing the role it plays in approving possible 3G-enabled services like Sling.
The FCC has given the three companies until August 21 to respond to their letters; while the overall scope of the questions betrays quite a bit of agency unfamiliarity with the workings of the Google Voice service and the App Store, any movement toward openness and clear answers is positive. Hopefully, these responses will offer some insight into the story of this whole mess that has given everyone such indigestion over the past week.
[via Engadget, links to FCC via BusinessWeek]
Get a WordPress.com Blog
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
iLikeMyiPhone said 12:41AM on 8-01-2009
FCC should have googled before even sending them out letters IMO...
ATT should be slapped hard and Apple should be slapped harder on 21st August...
We pay boatloads of money every month for this F'ing AppStore censorship... F U Apple and yeah, I was an Apple fan boy... Hello HTC Hero...!
Reply
Blaktornado said 6:02AM on 8-01-2009
I'm sure the FCC are very informed, otherwise they wouldn't be involved. The reason they're asking the companies these things is because they need to hear it from the horse's mouth. While blogs can be reputable, they're also full of nonsense and without proper sourcing (other than "My anonymous source says this" or "The app developer has told us", etc.) it's not appropriate to use them as legal evidence.
Regardless, though, I think the people who have been like "OMG I AM TOTARLLY GIVING UP TEH IPHONEZ NOW" have been just as stupid, attention-seeking and overreacting as everyone else in this whole debacle. A solution was going to arise in the end, and maybe this will be the motivation for it.
Brian said 11:29AM on 8-01-2009
Blaktornado, you are indeed a wise sage.
To many childish suggestions like Joachims that the FCC don't understand what they are doing belies the fact that asking "possibly" guilty people directly if they did it isn't going to solicit a hands up we are guilty response. This isn't Chief Wiggam asking Homer and Marge ..." did you do it..."
Tironius said 4:43PM on 8-01-2009
Don't be stupid.
Seems to me this ridiculous "inquiry" is only allowed to happen because this is a "virtual" store. If this was a real-life store building, of course Apple would be allowed—and expected—to discriminatingly choose which software makes it in, and what isn't allowed. No explanations necessary. Let's launch an investigation as to why Apple retail stores don't sell Windows! Or Linux! They should sell Zunes! It's anticompetitive!
Nonsense. They own it. They can do what they want with their own property. Period.
Tony said 11:34AM on 8-02-2009
@ Tironius: the problem with your comparison is that you cant go to another store, virtual or otherwise, to legally put any app you want onto the device you paid for. If the Apple retail store was the ONLY place you could get software, then I bet they wouldn't be allowed to discriminate. But, becuase you can just head over to best buy to pick up a zune or windows, it's not really a big deal. Having dealt with app store rejections first hand, i'm all for anything that's going to make it easier for the developer and the consumer.
LAGal said 4:03PM on 8-12-2009
a blog post does not hold up in court. and that is essentially what they need. which means they need it from the source.
GroundFighter said 12:43AM on 8-01-2009
haha, too funny. It is about time someone checked them at the door. The behavior of both AT&T and Apple has become dubious at best.
Reply
balls said 2:36AM on 8-02-2009
You mean to say, more Microsoft Like.
It's fun to see that given enough power, even hipster corporations like Apple will abuse the fuck outta it.
Kevin Harter said 12:50AM on 8-01-2009
Okay, I'm a bit confused as to why the FCC is even involved. Shouldn't it be up to Apple to decide which apps are approved and which are not?
Don't get me wrong, I think that Apple's App Store approval history is abysmal and the whole process is in need of an overhaul. But why does a government agency need to be involved? Has that ever helped anything? Seriously?
Reply
Janak Parekh said 12:59AM on 8-01-2009
It's part of their investigation into carrier handset exclusivity and its effect on consumer choice. If AT&T is involved in hurting consumer choice by locking them into a platform in which they then control what gets used and what doesn't when you're paying for the bandwidth, that could arguably fall under that jurisdiction. The inquiry to AT&T specifically asks if Google Voice is allowed on other devices, like the Blackberry.
I for one am extremely glad that someone is asking who won't be blown off. If Apple told consumers/developers WHY they're rejecting, I'd have much less of a problem with the situation.
Michael Rose said 1:07AM on 8-01-2009
It's not so much whether the FCC needs to be involved in app APPROVALS -- more that if these three companies are working at cross-purposes that cause app REJECTIONS for anticompetitive or anticonsumer reasons.
John.B said 12:51AM on 8-01-2009
Imagine what it'll be like for developers when they start submitting their apps to the FCC for approval!!! W00t! I can't wait for the bloggity eruptions over *that* level of bureaucracy! Government bureaucrats in charge picking apps for smartphones, yeah baby, bring it on!
Reply
Janak Parekh said 1:01AM on 8-01-2009
Read WHAT the FCC is asking before doing the General-Bureaucratic-Rant and sounding utterly uninformed.
Si said 1:53AM on 8-01-2009
The FCC wants to find out if if AT&T is being anti-competitive. That's why they are asking about VoIP. All the problems with Google Voice, Skype, and Sling have caused the FCC to suspect that Apple may not be the real cause of "breaking" these apps by requiring them to be on Wi-Fi only, removed from the App Store or flat out rejected. When there are only 4 big mobile carriers in the US right now, the FCC has a reason to investigate any claim of carriers using their force to limit competition and choice for consumers.
Reply
reallycrazyguy said 1:54AM on 8-01-2009
If the FCC doesn't get involved who will? AT&T and Apple obviously aren't going to voluntarily remove these restrictions, because it's not in their self-interest. Maybe they could get investigated for anti-trust or anti-competitive practices by the AG?
This comes down to the FCC asking these companies how and why are they limited what their customers can do with the products and services they have bought, particularly since these limitations haven't been spelled out in advance for the customer to even be able to make an informed choice.
Reply
Christian de Saint Preux said 3:21AM on 8-01-2009
They will have to spill the "rules" now and set a precedent for future applications.
Before it was arbitrary to what they wanted, now they will have to define the app approval process.
Reply
tosz said 3:35AM on 8-01-2009
The app approval process needs more transparency and it would be wise of Apple to cooperate with FCC. They've getting a lot of PR hits lately.
Reply
Mk8ta said 11:48AM on 8-01-2009
Maybe the Feds smell something rotten. Sometimes it's cool to have a bigger brother.
Reply
tpfilm said 3:57AM on 8-01-2009
Does this mean Verizon will be investigated to handicapping their phones and requiring subscriptions for this or that? Sprint? AllTell? They all limit what you can and can't do. Of course Apple & AT$T aren't as open about it...
Reply
puhsitch said 9:16AM on 8-01-2009
Those guys seem more douchey than outright anticompetitive, but it would be nice to see the FCC go in that direction, wouldn't it...