Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, Steve Jobs, iPhone, App Store
More red meat for the FCC to chew on with AT&T and Apple
Reflecting on my last post -- and how unbelievable the AT&T statement was that they have nothing to do with what gets approved in Apple's App Store -- convinced me I needed to refresh my dimming memory banks.Remember all the flames about whether Skype would come out for the iPhone last year? Then, at the 2008 conference last year, none other than Steve Jobs told the assembled multitudes that he would love to see a VoIP application for the iPhone as long as it used Wi-Fi and not the cellular data network. That, of course, was designed to protect AT&T, and while AT&T might not have insisted, Jobs knew he couldn't allow a full version of Skype or any other similar voice client.
That caused the internet advocacy group Free Press to complain to the FCC, but nothing really happened. Now there is a new president, with a different view of net neutrality than that held by the Bush Administration. There's a new FCC Commissioner as well, Julius Genachowski.
I would expect this whole area of restricting freedom of access to be a big issue in the coming weeks and months. We may not hear what answers Google, AT&T and Apple give to the FCC queries right away, but they'll likely leak out eventually.
We may yet see some changes in some of these restrictive policies and more competition among cell phone providers and carriers. That benefits just about everyone. Perhaps the fight over crippled or banned apps like Skype, Google Voice and the SlingPlayer for iPhone has ignited a debate that could finally change things.
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
soxneon said 3:49PM on 8-03-2009
Well this whole Google Voice thing is all the rage here at TUAW and a few other tech blogs. Personally it's not a big deal to me as the web app works just fine. But the whole debate should be about the approval process itself. Where are the guidelines written out in black and white? It's seems wicked discretionary and political in these cases of rejection by Apple. And the finger pointing... sigh.
Reply
F said 10:37PM on 8-03-2009
When using the web app, does your GV number show up when you make a call, or say my iPhone number?
WS said 4:03PM on 8-03-2009
"and how unbelievable the AT&T statement was that they have nothing to do with what gets approved in Apple's App Store"
They never said that. That's your interpretation. They said they don't manage or approve apps in the App Store. They are right in saying that. Apple ultimately allows or denies apps. Their statement was totally factual.
Obviously they have pull and are in hot water, but that's another story. One you don't have all the facts too. Its journalism like this that is making me visit this place less and less... how about writing something worthwhile and not resting on sensationalism...
PS: And there called emdashes—Use them (alt + shift + -).
Reply
huth.sebastian said 4:17PM on 8-03-2009
Yeah, the -- in the title bugs me. Make it — already…
thisisnotme said 4:51PM on 8-03-2009
And they're called apostrophes—Use them.
Grant said 4:40PM on 8-03-2009
It's called an apostrophe, use them:
its = it's
there = they're
;)
supakoopa said 4:56PM on 8-03-2009
Yeah, this whole article is full of biased information, and I think it really makes Mel just look like he wants to make AT&T the scapegoat for Apples problems.
dak said 5:21PM on 8-03-2009
While AT&T's comment WAS factual, look at the intent.
Your comment was a bit... harsh.
First, AT&T did give a politically correct statement... knowing FULL WELL, that it would be taken, and in the hopes that it would be taken, as they don't have ANYTHING to do with the approval process. They were attempting to not lie, but elude people into the "fact" that they did not have any responsibility over this app being denied. There was a bit of political deception on their part.
Second, i think AT&T SHOULD be involved in the process regarding applications that have the potential to eat up bandwidth and cause the rest of us to suffer increased data plan pricing, because of increased data usage. I, for one, would never use VoIP apps unless i was on a wireless network. I'm more considerate than that, to contribute to clogging up the damned network.
-dak
Mobile Phone Diva said 5:14PM on 8-03-2009
I think the author's statement is valid. Of course they have something to do with approval, they got Apple to release crippled Slingbox and Skype! All because they can't handle traffic on their supposedly "excellent" 3G network.
WS said 6:33PM on 8-03-2009
@dak
It doesn't matter how you take it. They quite simply do NOT manage or approve apps. Say or not, that is irrelevant to the authors claims. The conclusions drawn from the public (including you) are based on assumptions. No one knows if AT&T had any say whatsoever in the rejection of that app. There is no proof of such a claim, hence why they are being investigated.
To jump the gun and assume a conspiracy is poor journalism... period. Harsh? Not has harsh as condemning the not-guilty. I hate corporate machines as much as the next guy, but there is a thing called due-process. let's wait till some evidence comes in before we burn some horrible telecommunication effigies.
Moreover, no carrier should have a say in what gets approved at the App Store. Bandwidth or not. You are on a plan with a certain amount of bandwidth allotted to you. If you eat it up, you pay. Simple. AT&T has no business dictated what software winds up on a phone.
Because you play nice in AT&T's sandbox means that you hinder progress. If everyone "clogged" up their network, they would be forced to improve it. If people pushed companies to provide better services, they would. You aren't helping anyone but a major telecom company provide the minimal service for the largest dollar. If everyone uses it, it gets cheaper, not the other way around.
Le Big Mac said 4:35PM on 8-03-2009
Of course, the endgame is either that AT&T charges is supplemental fee for using VOIP apps on its data or gives up altogether and charges a much higher price for data in the first place. Not sure either of those is superior to the current situation.
Reply
CHRiS said 4:38PM on 8-03-2009
Their prices are already out the root. I'm frigg'n paying for 5gigs of data, and all they want me to do is use it for 5 gigs of text emails, nothing else. I already am forced on a minute AND data plan, what would it hurt them if I used Skype or Google Voice on top of the already sky high prices and limitations? Pure greed.
doug said 5:04PM on 8-03-2009
Rather than saying something like "remember when Jobs said this?" you probably should have done a little searching to find some more direct quotes of his comments about Skype. Also, why link to the skype download page?
Reply
eMax said 5:25PM on 8-03-2009
A google voice app and skype VOIP are nothing alike.
I doubt AT&T's bandwidth could tolerate high volumes of VOIP calls and I am sure that is the primary reason for the lack of cellular support on the VOIP apps, not because it would take away from using AT&Ts mins.
Reply
Ben said 6:04PM on 8-03-2009
Right.... so it wasn't AT&T that made apple pull NetShare app?
FCC is interfering at the perfect time.
Reply
Florida Wild Turkey said 7:02PM on 8-03-2009
Most of you people need to grow up - band-width costs money - it is neither unlimited or free.
Skype and Slingbox are band-width hogs - as would be google voice - tethering will eat up tons of capacity and MMS will have a smaller - but significant impact...
You can have what you want - but you are crazy if you think either...
1) what you currently pay covers the cost of any of these or
2) that you will pay the same amount once these features are added...
Reply
Jim said 1:16PM on 8-04-2009
Except AT&T only loses SMS to GV it's not VOIP, it still uses AT&T minutes. SMS is pure profit to AT&T. GV will show everyone what the telecom industry is capable of, featurewise. Custom voicemail greetings for individual callers? Auto redirecting of calls to different numbers depending on the caller? Why haven't we been given this before. No one was willing to step out, develop it for the masses and offer it for free. It scares telecoms because they will become a pipeline for content, the deciding power is taken out of their hands and they will have to compete again.
mathias said 3:53AM on 8-04-2009
Yes, bandwidth costs money. I pay a certain amount each month for 10gb of Turbo 3G bandwidth. What I do with these 10gb is my business not the operators. I can use it for surfing, apps, streaming, voip or tethering.
If that is a problem they shouldn't sell me 10gb of bandwidth.
What I hate the most is that AT&T limits the apps that get approved in the U.S. so I can't use them in Sweden where there is no such limits.
Apple should really stop listening to AT&T and approve every app that doesn't has viruses or stuff in it now! I don't like that Apple or an operator can dictate what I do with the things I already pay for.
DAVE said 6:48PM on 8-03-2009
I think people sometimes want everything: Google voice, Skype, etc.. The same people then complain about slow networks. These networks can only handle so much at a time. Hopefully AT&T, Verizon and so on are working to build bigger and better systems that can handle the " new" way in which mobile phones are being used.
I also appreciate the fact that Apple regulates the iphone ecosystem so we have a smooth experience, although finding some consistency in their process will benefit everyone.
Reply
kanebake said 10:26AM on 8-04-2009
All the arguments defendinding AT&T on the basis of bandwidth usage are pointless.
I stream 5 gigs of music a month through my iphone every month. I don't go over my allotted data usage which i pay for. If they can't keep up providing this data to more users they should reflect that in their marketing and pricing. Rather than giving you the sky and than building an artificial roof over it.
Reply