iPhone FCC probe Ping!
If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me.
Posted on 08/08/2009 7:48:34 PM PDT by Swordmaker
The Federal Communication Commission's latest overreach may be a sign of things to come
How awesome is the iPhone? As a proud owner—I camped out overnight to get 2008's 3G model—I'll vouch for its addictive niftyness, and admit that I often find myself wondering how I ever got through a day without one. Between the intuitive touchscreen interface and the endlessly delightful App Store, in which one can buy everything from games to GPS solutions to dictionaries to softcore porn, the iPhone's made my life richer, more entertaining, and more hassle free.
Others might dissent, but it would be difficult deny that since Apple's entry into the mobile phone market in 2006 the world of wireless networks and gadgetry has become more innovative, more competitive, and way, way more cool.
Naturally, the Federal Communications Commission is worried.
Why? Because the FCC thinks Apple might not be running its business fairly. Last week, Apple officially rejected the Google Voice Application, a widely praised, multi-use calling application that, according to Wired magazine, "lets users route all of their phone calls through a Google number, giving them cheap overseas calls, text translation of voicemail, per contact call routing rules, phone recording and free text messaging, among other features."
Apple, as proprietor of the App Store, made the formal rejection, but it's unknown if the decision was a result of pressure from iPhone carrier AT&T. Given AT&T's interest in protecting the calling side of its business model, as well as the fact that AT&T previously told the Wall Street Journal it feels "no obligation to facilitate or subsidize our competitors' businesses," such pressure is certainly plausible.
Now the FCC wants the whole story. Last week, it sent an abrupt letter to all three companies—Google, Apple, and AT&T—demanding answers. Why the rejection? Was AT&T involved? Is this normal? What are Apple's usual policies for rejecting an app?
A better question, however, might be why the FCC is sticking its nose into this business at all. As Jerry Brito of the Mercatus Center and Adam Thierer of the Progress and Freedom Foundation recently pointed out, it's not clear that the agency has any authority to do so. Not that that's stopped it before: As Thierer notes, the FCC has a long history of overreach. This may simply be a way of flexing its regularity muscle as its defines—and perhaps expands—its territory under the Obama administration.
In particular, this might be a signal that the FCC plans to pursue a more aggressive stance on wireless regulation—or that it may be picking up some ideas that should have long been relegated to the dustbin.
In 2007, Columbia University law professor and tech-theorist Tim Wu, who famously coined the phrase "network neutrality" to describe his vision of an open, equal network, wrote a paper arguing for "increased public scrutiny" of wireless phone networks, implicitly making the case for network neutrality in the wireless phone market. Wu worried over the prospect of a world in which not every wireless device would connect to every wireless network. And with phones as supremely nifty as the iPhone, wasn't that a tragedy?
What Wu missed, of course, was that closed networks would promote competition. Given the iPhone's instant popularity, it seemed likely that Verizon, T-Mobile, and Sprint would all work overtime to create similarly cool, popular devices. And they have. These days, consumers looking for phones with touch screens, or music and video capabilities, or GPS, or a variety of downloadable apps have numerous options on multiple networks. Rather than kill innovation by limiting the iPhone's uses, closed networks have spurred technological developments, with the participants racing to outdo each other.
Wu's paper caused a stir in the tech-policy community, but fell on deaf ears in the Bush administration's FCC. With the change to the more net-neutrality-friendly Obama administration, however, Wu's ideas may gain some currency.
That's too bad: The iPhone, the App Store, and the various eager competitors behind numerous other slick, hand-held wonders have done just fine without the meddling of Washington bureaucrats. When it comes to making the wireless world more awesome, my money's on Apple over the FCC every time.
Peter Suderman is an associate editor at Reason magazine.
If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me.
i am writng this post with my jailbroken iphone - runs the Google app no problemo...
Could turn into a “common carrier” issue: if AT&T is supposed to carry ANY phone conversation without regard to content, and “content” now includes data from user-chosen applications, does AT&T have any right to decide which applications may use their network? and does that right extrapolate to their partner who makes the hardware and tightly regulates the application market?
I’m thinking a creative lawyer should be able to smack down App Store restrictions: the only suppressed apps should be ones that demonstrably & technically harm the network. So long as Apple & AT&T have such a tight relationship (as to allow the latter to dictate app acceptance parameters to the former), ipso facto AT&T has no right to tell Apple to refuse apps (say, Google Voice), and so long as Apple rides the “common carrier” bandwagon they have no business limiting apps discernible only by nuanced content (vs. abusive network behavior).
It's not a matter of the app not being able to run, it will. It's a legal matter over what Apple's contract with AT&T says they have to do with telecommunications apps.
I'm inclined to agree with your assessment.
As I understand it, Apple has approximately 3% of the overall cellular phone handset market... but they have about 29% of the US Smart Phone Market and about 10% of the Worldwide Smart Phone Market.
In the overall Cellular phone market, worldwide, the iPhone is still in the "Others" wedgie.
The iPhone being shackled to AT&T is the main reason I don’t have one.
I was with AT&T a few years ago and got fed up with the spotty coverage in the areas I lived and traveled.
I have never read a good explanation of Apple’s partnership with AT&T. I find it hard to understand Apple’s limiting their market share in this way.
Get a life!!
Could turn into a “common carrier” issue: if AT&T is supposed to carry ANY phone conversation without regard to content, and “content” now includes data from user-chosen applications, does AT&T have any right to decide which applications may use their network? and does that right extrapolate to their partner who makes the hardware and tightly regulates the application market?This could be fought, too, on AT&T's side by requiring regression compatibility testing (and charging developers for same) for 'foreign' apps.
And, I don't blame them. It is after all AT&T's * network infrastructure, backhaul facilities and switching systems.
*Or leased
The iPhone is useless for texting. The virtual keyboard is impossible to use, so error prone. Perhaps a chick with small fingers can master it.
I have never read a good explanation of Apple’s partnership with AT&T. I find it hard to understand Apple’s limiting their market share in this way.And I wouldn't think that: a) the technology, e.g. any special requirements for remote updating of the iPhone's core operating firmware (STRTA OTA programming)
b) the need by Apple to spend resources to 'interface' with more than one carrier would have anything to do with it ...
/sarc
I read recently that iPhones are responsible for over 70 percent of the bandwith consumed on the cellular network.
It took me about 3 days to get used to the keyboard, but since then, no problems. I do not have dainty fingers, much to my chagrin.
My only issue with my phone is that it is much slower since the big update last month. =(
As an Associate Editor of Reason Magazine, I suspect he has one.
I have found that the iPhone is an excellent tool to USE in my life. You should try one.
Last year, my iPhone saved me $2500 by finding an alternative source at a far lower price for a necessary product that I had little time to research or opportunity to shop for when it was absolutely necessary to buy it.
In the year since that happened, it has saved me money at least once a week, although not on that level. That is priceless utility well worth the cost of the iPhone and AT&T service.
The explanation is quite simple. Apple required specific equipment additions and changes in software be made to the cellular network to support the iPhone's features, such as visual voice mail. Apple approached Verizon about making such changes and was told by Verizon to take a hike... handset makers Verizon claimed should know their place. In addition, Verizon insisted on being able to sell the iPhone's features only ala-carte... so much money for visual voice mail, so much for each email, tiered pricing on data usage, you want You-Tube connectivity? It will cost you extra. Internet access? More money. With those demands, Apple went elsewhere.
AT&T agreed to do it and to sell the iPhone features as a package deal. AT&T invested over a billion dollars in upgrading their network for the iPhone features.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.