FCC investigates Apple, AT&T for Google Voice app rejection

1246711

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 213
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sequitur View Post


    I think this article explains the problem. Sorry about its length:



    But now Google is planning on rolling out number portability, so I can move my mobile phone number to Google. None of my friends, family or contacts have to store a new number...



    Or so I thought. Apple and AT&T are now blocking the iPhone version of the Google Voice app. Why? Because they absolutely don't want people doing exactly what I'm doing - moving their phone number to Google and using the carrier as a dumb pipe.





    So when he ports the number to Google his SIM becomes inactive, breaks his contract and severs his link to AT&T, a number can't exist without somewhere to put it, goodbye pipe, dumb or otherwise.





    Quote:

    But I'm not going to upgrade to the iPhone 3GS. Instead, I'm abandoning the iPhone and AT&T. I will grudgingly pay the $175 AT&T termination fee and then I will move on to another device.



    So you put your number on a plan with another provider, port it to Google and end up in the same situation.



    No SIM, no number, no pipe, well not with GSM anyway.
  • Reply 62 of 213
    steviet02steviet02 Posts: 594member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tawilson View Post


    You misunderstand. You can only monopolise a market, not a product! Any phone on a single carrier is an EXCLUSIVE and totally legal in most countries.



    I understand your point because you can buy another phone on another carrier, I would completely agree if all phones were equal. But in this case it's as close to a monopoly as you can get (notice I never called it a monopoly)
  • Reply 63 of 213
    WOOHOO... Go GOOGLE!



    Hope Apple gets in trouble!!!!!
  • Reply 64 of 213
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by John.B View Post


    I can't believe you guys really want the friggin' FCC in charge of approving apps for smartphones.



    Approve phones? Yes. Approve other internal stuff related to the phone and users? NO WAY!
  • Reply 65 of 213
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ouragan View Post


    Maybe the FCC will force Apple to recognize that an iPhone buyer owns his iPhone so that he can install whatever software he pleases on his own property.



    By denying the ownership of iPhones, and selecting what an owner can install on his iPhone, Apple violates both property law and anti-trust provisions, not to mention consumer protection laws and, possibly, FCC regulations.



    I applaud the FCC investigation and hope that it will bring a welcomed change in Apple's arbitrary and unlawful conduct.









    Oh my. I really hope that is never going to happen. Anybody realise FCC is suddenly stepping up checks on Apple? First the Google & Apple relationship. Now all these. Maybe Ballmer took over FCC and we didn't know it or FCC is unhappy that Apple has so much profit and 0 debts.
  • Reply 66 of 213
    dm3dm3 Posts: 168member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by lkrupp View Post


    Yes, I agree. The government should buy Apple, at&t, and Google. How dare such evil corporations even exist? If the United States Government took ownership of these sordid entities then we could all go to bed at night knowing that everything is fair, everybody gets what they want, and everybody gets the same thing. We could all then gather around the virtual campfire (the real thing would be so environmentally damaging) and sing happy songs as we all, both rich and poor, texted each other with our iPhones. Then we would all travel safely home in our GM electric cars.



    Tulkas, you make me want to throw up.



    Right... we should let companies who are "too big to fail" fail. We should allow companies who caused the world economy to be on the brink of collapse continue to rake in billions of dollars embezzling money. Who needs laws anyway. Do away with the SEC. Lets give all our money to the rich power brokers. I'm sure it will trickle down, the same way salaries have been going down for years.

    I'm amazed to hear people just be anti whatever the government does now, when it was perfectly fine to watch the country self destruct last year. Last year and the preceding 8 were totally different and in no way the administrations fault... I'm sure...

    But its no use trying to rationalize with birthers either...
  • Reply 67 of 213
    mac voyermac voyer Posts: 1,294member
    Too many in this thread are living in a utopian fantasy.



    1. Apple is not the exclusive provider of the iPhone. AT&T is an partner and investor and has a legitimate claim to the iPhone. Apple is not a network carrier; they are a hardware manufacturer. The Mac is a totally different animal because it requires no network on which to operate. You are free to do with the hardware what you like, no subsidies, no restrictions. The iPhone would never have come to market without a carrier partner paying a substantial portion of the price of every phone. The carrier is the provider of the network and the services that run on it. Just because the hardware ships with the ability to view visual voicemail, surf the web, send MMS, sling TV, download movies, music, and apps, and make popcorn does not mean that the carrier has to allow those services on their network. If AT&T allows a service on one device that it invested in and not another, that is AT&T's choice. That is a business decision, not a violation of federal law. When a company offers a competitive service that can run on an AT&T subsidized phone, AT&T does not have to allow it on their device and service. They cannot do anything to stop the service, just stop it on their device at their discretion. It is available on other carriers and other phones, even phones from AT&T. That breaks no law of which I am aware. In fact, it is the essence of competition since you can vote with your dollars to support another carrier or buy another phone. Force Apple to have all the best services and features, and you lock out all competition from differentiating. What could be more anti-competitive than that?



    2. Google does not make a cell phone and does not have a cellular network. They invest no money in subsidies and have no say as to what services a carrier must provide on a particular phone. At best, they are a software vendor. At best, they can write software for a particular device and hope that those who invest in that device will distribute that software and allow it to run on their service. If Google wants to make sure GV is available to all the people, they need to manufacture a phone, build out a cell network or make it a VOIP phone, become the service provider and all that entails, then compete with the cell phone industry on even footing. As long as their service requires someone else's network, data stream, approval, and devices, Google has no legal leg to stand on.



    3. This last point is simple. The market is working. People are complaining about Apple and AT&T and are voting with their dollars. Alternatives have sprung up and no one has tried to stop them. Everyone is trying to copy the best parts of what Apple did and change the bits they don't like. So far, no one has been particularly successful, but not because Apple or AT&T interfered. The market is working. Most tech journalists and podcasters I listen to on a regular basis spew nothing but vitriol at the iPhone. They are publicly complaining about coverage or app rejection or lack of a pet feature etc. Everyday, Apple is being dragged into court for some nonexistent infraction. Apple is getting a free ride from no one, including Apple fanboys. People are publicly leaving the iPhone and embracing alternatives. The drumbeat for a real iPhone competitor is louder than ever. The market is working. We do not need government intervention to stop legal business practices, even if they are distasteful; we need better competitors. If the market didn't work, there would have never been an iPhone sensation in the first place. The only way they are stifling competition of other phones and services is by being superior. That is change I can believe in.
  • Reply 68 of 213
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mac Voyer View Post


    Why? Is it so wrong for AT&T to reject a competing service on a device that it heavily subsidizes?



    They don't subsidize it...



    They simply spread the payment period. You are still paying for the whole price of the device, but over a period of 2 years.



    Its basically a loan...
  • Reply 69 of 213
    elrothelroth Posts: 1,201member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Rot'nApple View Post


    Sadly, no, Obama can't. He's been too busy "acting stupidly" to do much of anything worthy of bringing about "Change We Can Believe In".



    So get use to that stench, because this new government controlled by the likes of Reid, Pelosi, Frank, Murtha, Kerry, Boxer, etc. and Obama's cronies is making it more repugnant!



    It could never be as repugnant as the Bush 8 years - Bush's friends and cronies plundering the government, getting rich while the housing market burns. Selling off our natural resources, giving tax breaks to multi-millionaires while taking health care away from millions. Not to mention throwing out the constitution and wiretapping all of our phone calls (helped enormously by AT&T). And all because "God showed me the way." Disgusting. Bush dug us a hole so deep it would be really hard for anybody to get us out of it.
  • Reply 70 of 213
    ajitmdajitmd Posts: 365member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by elroth View Post


    It could never be as repugnant as the Bush 8 years - Bush's friends and cronies plundering the government, getting rich while the housing market burns. Selling off our natural resources, giving tax breaks to multi-millionaires while taking health care away from millions. Not to mention throwing out the constitution and wiretapping all of our phone calls (helped enormously by AT&T). And all because "God showed me the way." Disgusting. Bush dug us a hole so deep it would be really hard for anybody to get us out of it.



    I would suggest reading "Rise and Fall of Great Powers" by Paul Kennedy. During the decline, there was plunder of the Roman Treasury, senseless wars with the barbarian tribes - mostly Goths. These wars were wagged by mercenaries. This outsourcing basically taught the barbarians Roman war technology, organization, etc. Other outsourcing they did was slavery. When Alaric laid siege to Rome and then sacked it, there were 5 slaves for every Roman in the city... who turned against their masters. Their equivalent of Obama was the Emperor Vespasian who was a non-Roman. I do not know who their equivalent of Bush was? Any suggestions?
  • Reply 71 of 213
    abster2coreabster2core Posts: 2,501member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mac Voyer View Post


    Too many in this thread are living in a utopian fantasy?



    Hi Mac Voyer,



    Great comments.



    Thank you



    P.S. Could you break posting into shorter paragraphs? Your points are well thought out, but your styling makes it difficult to read easily.
  • Reply 72 of 213
    davegeedavegee Posts: 2,765member
    Wow....



    Not sure how to feel about this one. Apple being looked at over its behavior managing this App store...



    Happy:



    - Cause I happen to be a big fan of GV and thik it will become enormous in the months/years to come



    Sad:



    - Cause the idea of the FCC stepping in to examine a companies behavior is NEVER a good thing



    I was afraid this would (eventually) happen... I hoped that it wouldn't but Apple really let me down. The app store is a fantastic idea and Apples implementation is clearly a good one (for the most part). Unfortunately the old adage "Absolute power, corrupts absolutely" is alive and well in the halls of Apple. This is not a exactly a shock knowing Steve's reputation.



    The problem is, due to a really STUPID and BONEHEADED (imho) decision on Apples part they have the FCC crawling up their assets with a microscope in one hand and a pitchfork in the other! This could turn out very badly for Apple and something I would have never wished for them, but they brought this down on themselves and now they have have to live with it.



    Apple had a really good thing going and then they played 'God All Powerful' one too many times. How sad... Lets hope they learn something from this... (yea I know... be we can still hope)



    D
  • Reply 73 of 213
    abster2coreabster2core Posts: 2,501member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by addicted44 View Post


    They don't subsidize it...



    They simply spread the payment period. You are still paying for the whole price of the device, but over a period of 2 years.



    Its basically a loan...



    No it isn't.



    If it were, you would have had to pay off the balance of the 2-year contract in order to get the new iteration. Just like you would have to do if you wanted to upgrade you car before you paid it off.
  • Reply 74 of 213
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Rot'nApple View Post


    Sadly, no, Obama can't. He's been too busy "acting stupidly" to do much of anything worthy of bringing about "Change We Can Believe In".



    So get use to that stench, because this new government controlled by the likes of Reid, Pelosi, Frank, Murtha, Kerry, Boxer, etc. and Obama's cronies is making it more repugnant!



    In my humble opinion, the Obama administration is doing the best it can with what it's been giving. Perhaps the hole Republicans and Democrats have built together is too deep to dig out of. Perhaps whether we pass a huge stimulus package or did nothing at all we would be screwed either way. We seem to think in terms of either the Democrats are right or the Republicans are, maybe their both wrong. Democracy leads to compromise, sometimes leading to an ineffective solution.



    Anyways, holding onto one stupid thing Obama said is a petty why to debate his policies.



    In regards to this FCC thing, great! AT&T has been double dipping way too much. Here's what I mean: In the good old days we would need to pay AT&T for messaging, internet, long distance calls, and local calls. Because of innovation by google we only need 2 services to achieve those same forms of communication: internet and local calls, yet AT&T doesn't want to lose 2 pillars of income. Hence, it uses anticompetitive strategies to screw us. And I do feel screwed as an At&T customer. I'd say at least 50% of us do. Now there is something wrong with that.
  • Reply 75 of 213
    tenobelltenobell Posts: 7,014member
    That's what a subsidy is. That is the reason why you have to wait a certain number of months before you can get a new subsidized phone.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by addicted44 View Post


    They don't subsidize it...



    They simply spread the payment period. You are still paying for the whole price of the device, but over a period of 2 years.



    Its basically a loan...



  • Reply 76 of 213
    tenobelltenobell Posts: 7,014member
    You do end up paying the subsidy back before the carrier will offer you another subsidized phone. They are not going to eat the cost of the subsidy.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post


    No it isn't.



    If it were, you would have had to pay off the balance of the 2-year contract in order to get the new iteration. Just like you would have to do if you wanted to upgrade you car before you paid it off.



  • Reply 77 of 213
    abster2coreabster2core Posts: 2,501member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tlowe999 View Post


    In regards to this FCC thing, great! AT&T has been double dipping way too much. Here's what I mean: In the good old days we would need to pay AT&T for messaging, internet, long distance calls, and local calls. Because of innovation by google we only need 2 services to achieve those same forms of communication: internet and local calls, yet AT&T doesn't want to lose 2 pillars of income. Hence, it uses anticompetitive strategies to screw us. And I do feel screwed as an At&T customer. I'd say at least 50% of us do. Now there is something wrong with that.



    I think you hit on a great concept. But why not delete local calls as well? After all, they could be done over the 'internet' as well.



    But to make it work, i.e, for AT&T or any other carrier to go along with it, Google should pay them out of their profits they get from their ad revenues. After all, 'it costs Google nothing' for you to use the service!
  • Reply 78 of 213
    davegeedavegee Posts: 2,765member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mac Voyer View Post


    Too many in this thread are living in a utopian fantasy.



    Quote:

    Apple is not the exclusive provider of the iPhone.



    Ummm yes Apple is, The iPhone is conceived, designed and built by Apple (yea okay the subcontract out the actually construction but you know what I mean). If you mean retail seller of the iPhone then yes you are correct.. Apple has contracts with a number of cell companies to allow them to sell the iPhone for their network.



    Quote:

    AT&T is an partner and investor and has a legitimate claim to the iPhone.



    A legitimate claim to the iPhone?!?! I don't think so. No more so than my local Stop-n-Shop has a 'legitimate claim' to Paramount Pictures movie writing/directing/editing just because they happen to sell some of their movies near the checkout isles. As far as AT&T being an investor in AAPL.. According to all public filings AT&T does NOT have measurable stake in AAPL (and never has).



    Quote:

    Apple is not a network carrier; they are a hardware manufacturer. The Mac is a totally different animal because it requires no network on which to operate. You are free to do with the hardware what you like, no subsidies, no restrictions.



    Agree



    Quote:

    The iPhone would never have come to market without a carrier partner paying a substantial portion of the price of every phone.



    Lets not try and pain a picture where Apple somehow invented the entire concept of getting kickbacks for signing up new customers and/or getting existing customers who's contract is near completion to remain with the company. This concept has been around even longer than cell phones... Its called a sales commission and every cell phone manufacturer has been getting them for YEARS before Apple entered the arena.



    Quote:

    If AT&T allows a service on one device that it invested in and not another, that is AT&T's choice.



    Well this is really the heart of this whole mess....



    Should a company that sells a product in this case internet access be allowed to restrict how you use it (not including illegal activities)?



    Should the electric company have the power to be able to restrict its users from using electricity to play loud music after 10pm?



    Should a water company have the power to restrict its users from freezing the water to make ice?



    Should a cable TV company have the ability to block any negative news reports about itself or any other company it happens to own?



    In the end... I don't think ANY company should have that kind of power... I buy internet services I expect to be able to use it how I see fit.... Can I be throttled or metered yes.. if it says so in the contract... They can't tell me I must use Internet Explorer as my only web browser and I can't use ANY IM software at all.



    AT&T and Apple are walking a very dangerous line right now. With the FCC taking notice they had better shape up or they run the risk of loosing a lot more power than they ever imagined.



    Dave
  • Reply 79 of 213
    abster2coreabster2core Posts: 2,501member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post


    You do end up paying the subsidy back before the carrier will offer you another subsidized phone. They are not going to eat the cost of the subsidy.



    Not all of it based on the following information: http://www.att.com/Common/merger/fil...ading_FAQs.pdf
  • Reply 80 of 213
    abster2coreabster2core Posts: 2,501member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DaveGee View Post


    Well this is really the heart of this whole mess....



    Should a company that sells a product in this case internet access be allowed to restrict how you use it (not including illegal activities)?



    Should the electric company have the power to be able to restrict its users from using electricity to play loud music after 10pm?



    Should a water company have the power to restrict its users from freezing the water to make ice?



    Should a cable TV company have the ability to block any negative news reports about itself or any other company it happens to own?



    In the end... I don't think ANY company should have that kind of power... I buy internet services I expect to be able to use it how I see fit.... Can I be throttled or metered yes.. if it says so in the contract... They can't tell me I must use Internet Explorer as my only web browser and I can't use ANY IM software at all.



    AT&T and Apple are walking a very dangerous line right now. With the FCC taking notice they had better shape up or they run the risk of loosing a lot more power than they ever imagined.



    Dave



    So I gather that if you drive on the New York Thruway, for example, which you pay to do so, that you should be able to drive as fast as you want, on whatever type of vehicle you want, when you want, as long as you want, whatever you want, etc.?



    In other words, you can disregard the rules of the road because you also paid for the vehicle?
Sign In or Register to comment.