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.
You really don't know what you are talking about, FreeShop. Obviously, you've never used an iPhone's keyboard for any length of time.
My hands are large... 10" span... they are easily twice the size of Mrs. Swordmaker's hands. I have posted numerous error free replies and posts on FreeRepublic using my iPhone' virtual keyboard in both landscape (my preference) and portrait mode.
I find I miss the predictive typing when using a standard keyboard. I can out type almost any other phone user with the iPhone's virtual keyboard. There is a learning curve, but it is very short. Mostly it is learning that the key is not struck until you remove your finger from the screen, not when you touch it.
kinda knew that already...;-)
Heck I missed out on the soft porn. Learn something new everyday. LOL.
Is yours a 2G? I found that there was some slowness in changing Safari tabs. My guess would be about twice as long to switch from one tab to the next. I was not happy about that but I could live with it. Other things, such as loading apps, were about the same speed.
Now I have upgraded to the iPhone 3Gs and everything is fast.
I was just about to re-install everything on my 2G when it suddenly decided that it had an accessory attached that wasn't made for iPhone... and kept telling me about it incessently... despite there being no accessories attached. So, I decided to bite the bullet and buy the 3Gs. If I were you, I'd try resetting the iPhone back to out-of-the-box condition and then restore your data.
I never ceased to be amazed by the stuff I read on this site. I have an iPhone that I use nearly every day for texting - something I NEVER did with any device I had on the Verizon network. I do not have little fingers. The keyboard takes a bit of getting used to - generally the first step is to try to get people to stop trying to push the key through the screen... It took me about four or five days to really master the keyboard. Now, I'll never go back...
Do not want an Iphone or AT&T ..but what AT&T and Apple do is their business..
Look up Sprint “SERO”(Howardforums or Sprintusers) im in the so cal area
SERO is dead according to this:
http://www.fatwallet.com/forums/expired-deals/680568
The gubmint overreaching, again. With the LibTards, it’s never really about making things ‘right’. It’s ALWAYS about CONTROL.
It’s time to take back the country.
This is more what the FCC needs to be looking at - what exactly is Google doing with all that info, digital recordings of phone calls/messages, and calling patterns? You can bet that somewhere buried in their user agreement and privacy policy that they have the right to use that data pretty much any way they see fit to make a profit. Google erases nothing. That is part of their openly stated purpose. Every bit and byte that goes through their servers becomes their property and they use it in a mighty way to make tons of $$$. How else could they provide so many "cheap" or the more obvious "free" services?
Google worries me.
iPhone? I finally bought one back in the spring. I love it, but was living just fine without it - and only bought when the deal was right for me. No-one is force to buy an iPhone. And I honestly don't believe that anyone "needs" an iPhone. It is a luxury item.
Knock it off!
I have the 3G 16 GB. I don’t have many apps on my phone, so I’m not quite sure what the issue is. The start up takes longer and as well as the issue that you mentioned with Safari. I was hoping to avoid the big reset, but I think you’re right; it just needs to be done.
It is kind of sad the number of FReepers who are wrongly in favor of “Net Neutrality” on the basis that network operators “might” exercise more control over the traffic on their networks using context specific filtering.
Personally I wouldn’t worry about private ISP censorship of political dissidents until the politicians try to use legislation to block “offensive” content that everybody agrees is offensive, like child porn. Give the government preemptive powers to install contextual censorship capabilities on private networks and before long we’ll have legislators itching to expand those powers. Private network operators understand that delving into the gray area of contextual filtering without end user permission is bad for business. Government, naturally, understands no such thing, as government has never successfully operated a business without cheating (by outlawing the competition).
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.