NEWS: Apple Says No To Google Voice

Skype is ok because it's been neutered to only operate over WiFi, not AT&T's (or any MO's) data network.

I presume GV was rejected because it provides an alternate dialer over cellular, and can bypass AT&T's international LD service automatically.

On the AT&T side, Google Voice could cut into AT&T's revenue from other products. On the Apple side, there's the idea that one of their major competitors is trying to distribute a product that Apple can't offer, on an Apple platform.

It's not a terrible big deal for Google Voice users. The web interface is still available, and it actually gives the user more of an opportunity to not use up AT&T peak minutes than the iPhone GV app. One of the nice things about GV is the ability to connect two phone numbers together for free (one of them has to be one registered to you, i.e. home or work) so you don't use up your mobile minutes on long calls during peak times. The iPhone GV app apparently didn't have this capability, you'd have had to go to the web app anyway.

The government regulates use of the public's air waves. It also regulates interstate trade. That and monopolistic behaviors.

All three apply in regard to Apple's abusive behavior.

Actually none do. They regulate airwaves, but aside from some technical issues that iPhone adheres to, they usually haven't (for instance) mandated what TV show is shown on which network or generally interfered with the business relationships of airwave users. You aren't really going to suggest that this is a monopoly? Unless you are going to define the market as a single entity, yeah they got the iPhone monopoly. However, the market would most likely be smartphones and it is hard to suggest a monopoly exists with Palm, RIM, etc. involved.

Sorta. Skype works over 3G using a jailbroken iPhone and the VoIPOver3G app. This has been around since Oct 2008:

I get the feeling of being back in the 1980's when Apple decided to implode by angering users, developers, and add-on board manufacturers with their attitude. Back then, the open, though inferior, platform won. It seems like it's about to be deja vu all over again. All of those iPhone apps could easily be ported to Anroid, the Blackberry, or the Pre. Maybe Verizon made the right decision by passing on the iPhone.

John Navas wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

Who give a sh*t if the GoogleVoice apps were removed ?!

What ever happened to the free market where ultimately the consumer choices determine what product/services live where, and for how long.

The FCC has no friggin' business dealing with this *business issue*. It does not affect 'the airwaves'. It's not unlicensed use of bandwidth.........there's nothing technical for the FCC to investigate.

Some interesting reading on that era:

Nope. The ban will probably just produce a small increase in jailbroken iPhones among those that just can't live without Google Voice. Any market pressure will probably depend on the popularity of Google Voice and the availability of alternative devices. I also don't think users will abandon their iPhone simply because of the non-availability of Google Voice. From the financial and convenience standpoint, it's cheaper and easier to continue using the iPhone and just pay AT&T their long distance charges.

However, if history really does repeat itself, AT&T can predictabily be expected to do something stupid during the congressional investigation, and Apple can be counted on acting with characteristic defensive arrogance. Such things also depend on what's going on behind the scenes. For example, the congressional investigation of Microsoft's monopoly status was only to remind MS to contribute to political campaigns. My guess(tm) is that this investigation is similarly motivated. Just follow the money.

That would be oh-so-nice. However, the prime directive of any bureaucracy is to first expand its area of control. I call to your attention the cable TV business, which is micromanaged by the FCC, including a "reasonable" rate, franchise fees, "proper" content control, etc. They're now working on "ala carte" packaging.

That's what happens when an industry doesn't buy enough politicians to keep them off its back. My guess(tm) is that they're expecting some concessions or contributions from AT&T in trade for going away. From Apple, just the contributions will suffice.

Yep. Waving the air is what the FCC does best, especially in press releases and investigations.

Ummm.... the FCC regulates the quantity (and quality) of TV commercials for kids programming:

The FCC micromanages the rates, some content, and franchise structure for CATV:

Spectrum auctions are a HUGE expense for the participants, which most certainly constitutes a business expense. The main interest is of course the revenue generated, but there's also quite a bit of involvement in business relationships (i.e. Cingular+AT&T, Sprint+Nextel, etc). The FCC most certainly does get involved in business relationships.

Reminder... It's not against the law to own and operate a monopoly. What's illegal is using that monopoly status to trash the competition. Somehow, Google Voice doesn't currently seem like much in the way of competition.

I'm not going to try and define a monopoly around the iPhone, especially considering the number of work alikes, look alikes, clones, Windoze Mobile, Blackberry, etc. The consumer does have a choice, which is all that's important.

But they don't come through and say CBS has to run Law and Order:Criminal Intent. They also don't come through and say Comcast HAS to take the Big Ten Channel (although there were some in Congress suggesting that. Could be an interesting constitutional question, though under both free speech and takings clauses, but I digress). They also micromanage the rates of cell phones. In other words, the FCC doesn't (yet anyway) start saying specifically what you have to carry, which this is , to my view anyway.

\\

Can there be a monopoly when there is also competition?

That would be an Oligopoly.

That sounds right, thanks.

True. But the FCC does demand some percentage of channels and programs be used PEG (public educational government) access.

I dunno about cell phone rates, but the FCC certainly had gave the cellular companies a clue about business practices with the "guidelines" for ETF (early termination fees) about a year ago.

To the best of my knowledge, nothing ever happened in the way of rules. Faced with the "guidelines", the cell companies are revised their predatory ETF pricing policies.

Anyway, my point is that the FCC does meddle in the business practices and operations of the various industries they're suppose to be regulating. The FCC doesn't run these companies, but it sure pushes them around.

Certainly, if the competition is tiny, and there is one dominant company in the industry. For example, the Justice Dept clearly declared Microsoft to be a monopoly. Unfortunately, there was no subsequent protection of the smaller companies in the operating system business. For the products the MS sells, you do have a choice (Linux, Novell, Unix, Plan 9, OS/X, etc.). However, each of these companies and distributions are far smaller than Microsoft's. As long as MS doesn't take advantage of its monopoly and use it to drive competitors out of the market, it's not illegal to operate a monopoly.

On Mon, 3 Aug 2009 23:47:26 +0000 (UTC), Father Guido Sarducci wrote in :

What the FCC did is promulgate regulations that made it possible for Apple to invent the iPhone, for Google Voice to work, and for AT&T cellular service to work, and what the FCC continues to do is make sure everyone plays by the rules, an essential role of government.

On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 16:28:09 -0500, Sharma wrote in :

Given the vigorous competition in mobile, there can be no oligopoly.

On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 22:31:46 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote in :

The legal issue isn't monopoly, but (1) market power and (2) the abuse of that market power, and no matter how you feel about Microsoft (LOL), non-Microsoft operating systems are doing very well indeed, particularly Linux and OS X, with no real case for government intervention.

Innovation and competition are powerful forces that can usually redress abuse of market power without government intervention if we simply have the patience to let them. Like it or not, short-term pain for long-term gain is an essential market mechanism.