Just like every single other carrier in the US.

Don't like it? Don't buy it.

I think they're mad about the text messaging but i would imagine the iphone plan is unlimited text messaging anyway?

really it's just a pissing match

That applies to the computers and anti trust law as far as I understand it, but this whole GV thing is mainly about ATT colluding with apple on what software can run on the phone.

If Apple has been consistent with application denial and did so with no influence from ATT then they may not get in trouble. However, that doesn't seem to be the case here.

You bought a copyrighted product. You contracted for a copyrighted service. Your right to complain ended the moment you handed over that stack of 20s without reading the fine print, or knowing better than to expect a private company to support or tolerate any form of competition.

BTW Halfdeaddavid, you're comparing two dissimilar things. The iPhone, as the name sort of implies, is a phone. Behind the fancy screen and the big harddrive and the fancy firmware, it's a cell-phone. It's no more or less a computer than any cell-phone. It runs on a cell-phone network from a cell-phone company. Any and every mobile device (smaller than a laptop) that you care to name has software limitations built in to the operating system/firmware. But this is beside the point: If Microsoft felt like doing so, it could tomorrow decide that no Mozilla software can be run on its OSs, or, if you prefer, any software from... Symantec, Sun, Adobe, Google, etc. Good luck to them in enforcing such a ban, but I think you get the idea. No where is there a law that an OS must support x, y, and z products, they generally aim to do so because it makes the most financial sense - this is an issue with which Apple is famously involved. The closest you can get to a guarantee to not artificially impose limitations on support for software (or hardware) is to go open-source, but there historically hasn't been much incentive there for broad compatibility for a host of reasons.

The only part that may run over your data plan would be SMS through GV, and I highly doubt a text message is causing any kind of strain on the data network.

Why isn't the FCC going after Monopolized cable markets?

Why isn't the FCC going after Verizon for locking their phones and not allowing ANY apps on it competing or other wise?

you can't answer that and you never will.

@thaShady: Because the lawsuit dates back many many many years ago when Netscape and other browsers were still around, and Apple/Safari were a small potion of what they are today. Additionally, back in the old days, it was near impossible to remove IE if you did not want it.

If it is any comfort, Microsoft is really sticking it to the EU because of a similar IE Pre-installed suit. Windows 7 in the EU will not come with a web browser (unless the EU backs off of its lawsuit)

I totally understand that people who have land lines (not me) are going using POTS. I thought Google Voice was transmitting over voip. So as I said I stand corrected. My mistake.

You can jailbreak your phone and use Google Voice apps!

Don't give them the sale and take your rights elsewhere. If people really cared they would quickly change when the money goes away.

I'm sure Apple has some folks that could come up with a smart enough line of BS to convince the FCC to back down.

What if you walked out of Wal-Mart after buying a laptop they came out into the parking lot and told you "You're using your laptop wrong, OUR RULES say when you buy a laptop from us you're only allowed to use Bing search. You're using Google. Let me remove your ability to access Google to fix that.

"Oh and you're about to buy Microsoft Office. Our partnership with Acme Office Suite Inc. doesn't allow us to allow you to use Microsoft Office. OUR RULES, you see. We'll prevent you from installing that.

"Oh, and I see you're trying to install TurboTax. You can't do that. We won't even tell you WHY! But our RULES say we can do it, so, tough. Oh, and to return your laptop you'd have to pay a $175 cancellation fee."

Does no one respect the right of first sale anymore???

No they're not. You purchase a product with strings attached you bone yourself.

You signed the contract.....

Google Voice Sends VOICE over THE PLAIN OLD TELEPHONE SYSTEM.

So Google Voice is not Voice over IP. It doesn't send Voice over anything but the PLAIN OLD TELEPHONE SYSTEM. Using your same minutes as you would otherwise. Not "for free."

So it's Voice Over POTS, or VOPOTS. Which is what all phones do.

Not everything voice is VOIP. For example, the copper phone line in your house also lets you "make calls with it and you get a phone number." Do you think it's VOIP too?

My phone is MINE. When I bought it, the right to decide what can and cannot run on it transferred to ME. Not the manufacturer and not the carrier.

This is an EXACT repeat of why "the old AT&T" was broken up in the first place. They tried to restrict people from using devices other than AT&T approved phones (rented by AT&T) on AT&T's phone lines. People, on the other hands, wanted to use newfangled answering machines that enhanced the value of their phone and added features. The courts ruled that AT&T's rule was fucked up and you can plug in any phone you want that doesn't actually harm the lines, and use the service you are paying for in any way you wish.

I paid for my phone, and I pay for my phone service. (and dearly for both, I might add.) It is my right to run whatever applications I want on my phone.

Apple's role as gatekeeper was initially touted as an advantage--Apple would just keep out the malware and broken, incompatible apps, guaranteeing that you wouldn't accidentally crash your phone like a Windows XP computer full of viruses. (Which WOULD happen otherwise.) What Apple didn't say from the beginning was that they would be blocking from the store any app they wanted to, for any reason they wanted to, and with no explanation. That's fucked up.

@Esquire99:

"Further, I know plenty about my rights. I have a RIGHT to purchase a non-iPhone if I don't like Apple/ATT's policies."

REALLY?! Me thinks you are extrapolating the concept of "equal treatment, perhaps non-discrimination" a bit far and then misapplying it. Or do you honestly believe that is a right?

"This is ridiculous." You say about the FCC inquiry/discovery. It's nice to see you just stating your opinions for others to consider because your analysis and comment on consumer law and corporate behavior makes you look like a shill, and worse, a bit of a dullard.

@kraftmayo: We could vote with our wallets, however despite some of the limitations on the phone, and Apple's heavy hand when it comes to applications, it is still one of the best, if not the best smart phones on the market, and it prompted other phone manufacturers to try to innovate and deliver a competitive product. So you do have a choice, Buy a Moto Razr, Buy a Window's mobile device, buy a Palm Treo (because if apple didn't push, the Pre would not be on the market), or buy a Blackberry if you don't want to buy an iPhone. I'll take the heavy hand of Apple and live with a nearly perfect phone.

NOTE: I am an iPhone owner, and my iPhone and the iPod it replaced are the only Apple products I have ever owned, so I am not an Apple "Fanboy"

Oh, and ATT navigator is a big pile of suck.

Further, I know plenty about my rights. I have a RIGHT to purchase a non-iPhone if I don't like Apple/ATT's policies.

Next, Apple/ATT doesn't have a monopoly. They make one cell phone product, which happens to be a very popular one. But they don't have a cell phone monopoly.

There are tons of people who still want an iPhone and don't have a Google Voice account or even care about that type of app.

Why shouldn't they be able to refuse apps if they want without having to justify the refusal to anyone? They have the control, they use it.

NO ONE IS MAKING PEOPLE BUY AN IPHONE. You choose to buy it, you play by the rules of the carrier or maker. THE END.

Keep the damn Fed out of every stupid situation some of you want to cry about.

I don't think Steve has nearly enough money to make this go away now that it's public.

Anyway, this news is great to me from someone who owns a iPhone and who uses Google Voice. But regardless its great that the FCC is starting to take a stand for consumers against monopolizing companies.

Once we weed out the hyperbole of all the non-lawyers, libertarians and Godwin's freaks, there are at least two real legal questions that the FCC has all the required power to explore:

1) To what degree do the carrier and the handset manufacturer/application provider collude with regard to the usage of the hardware and network? There are reasonable reasons to coordinate their activity (e.g., that app breaks our network), and there are potentially unreasonable reasons to coordinate (e.g., that app breaks my revenue model). The carrier licenses that wireless providers operate under do not give them carte blanche to do anything they want.

2) When companies act, they generally raise red flags when their actions are not seen as consistent. In this case, the availability of similar features on other handset/network combinations raises a fair question as to why one class is OK to use the features and one class is not allowed.

In the end, what is going to bite Apple and AT&T in the ass isn't the iPhone, its the blackberry. If the features of the GV app truly caused anything other than financial harm, then the correct course of action would have been to cry foul on the Blackberry app. When AT&T let the BB app stand (because they don't have a choke point to stop it), they exposed themselves to questions of neutrality. When Apple agreed to kill the app, they exposed themselves to questions of inappropriate collusion.

I'm app for companies doing everything they can to maximize profits -- well everything except breaking the rules... Now we get to see if anyone broke the rules...

/cynicism

Weird analogy. GM nor Apple approach the concept of 'monopoly'. Don't like GM rules? Great, buy a Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Hyundai, Ford, Chrysler...

Don't like Apple IPhone rules? BUY A DIFFERENT PHONE. Don't complain about the well-known, well-publicized, not-at-all-a-secret rules that were in effect when you bought the phone.

"If I purchase a product I should be able to use it at any other service provider." Really? If you purchase a product with restrictions on its use, you should be able to use the product within the restrictions you agreed to. After all, YOU AGREED TO THEM.

How about you vote against Apple/AT&T with your wallet, like we did it in the old days when consumers made choices, rather than using the strong arm of government to pitch a fit?

...and I'm not sure if there's sarcasm in your last comment. If not, I feel pretty sorry for you -- stealing and reselling copyrighted movies has nothing to do with "freedom of speech."

@gaywolverine: I don't think you truly understand how valid analogies work...

There's a huge difference between monopoly (which this is absolutely not...there are thousands of other phones on numerous other networks) and an exclusive.

@Vader582: and what exactly does an app on an FCC approved phone being declined have anything at all to do with them? It doesn't.

AT&T and Apple are both within their rights here as far as communications go. There's no law stating what Apple or AT&T has to allow or not allow on their phones.

@Trai_Dep: I wonder if they monitor what people DL and watch on phones it would be incredibly easy for them to do...

@LoadStar: you live in a fantsy world. Why would they let a competing app on a phone that only they sell to be used ONLY on AT&T?

So when i go into FedEx they should take my UPS package as well right?

It'd be about like the FCC demanding to know why FOX canceled FireFly or Sarah Connor. That'd be more interesting.

@psm321: doh! Stupid button...

Anyway what I was going to type...

It's like a third-party developer that has an exclusivity clause with a consol that doesn't allow another third party mod to the game.

if we want to get super into it.

Basically there's nothing illegal here it's just big government trying to tell businesses how to run themselves and the apple "fanboi's" foaming at the mouth over something so stupid and moot. Don't like it don't buy it.

You want ultimate government involvement move to Europe.

@psm321:

@Trai_Dep: OMG yes! how abuot it took them more than a year to approve Siri and XM only to basically kill them off.

I'm sure Clear Channel had no influence over that.

Somehow, I don't think even Apple can answer that one.

@TheUncleBob: Most of the questions are concerning AT&T which goes along with the FCCs concern that cell phone companies are being anti competitive with exclusive (and monopolistic) arrangements with cell phones.

This is a first step, but it is easily possible to answer these questions without telling anything about the process. All Apple and AT&T have to do is say that AT&T was not consulted, and AT&T does not need to answer any other questions. Apple only needs to answer the first question with the answer they have given all along "It duplicates a feature already built into the phone" with a bit of an explanation.

I am surprised that the FCC did not state that they should use a #2 pencil, they should keep their eyes on their own work and answer all questions independently.

@AgitatedDot: Why should they be fined?

@XianZomby: Except that Apple isn't the government. As a non-government entity, they don't have to observe the same free speech policies that the government has to.

I'm willing to bet that politicians absolutely LOVE google's help with contributions.

[checkout.google.com]

Oh, I'm not saying I don't occasionally enjoy a delve into the seemy underbelly of the net on my mobile browser, I'm just saying that its amazing the kind of stuff that does get approved vs. what doesn't.

@OolonColluphid:

/me grabs some popcorn and pulls up a chair to watch the show.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think Apple or AT&T have any requirement to answer the FCC's questions regarding this matter as it doesn't even fall under their purview.

I believe the old saying goes, if a lawbreaking product is never sold, does it violate anything?

you're buying a service. that uses a particular device.

It would be like requiring a game developerto license their games to all consols and never allow exclusives.

I mean this is a free market last I checked. And if AT&T isn't in a air wave violation what exactly does a stupid iphone ap that effects maybe less than 1% of the population have anything to do with the FCC?

I like to eat apples.

why should AT&T help speed the process along?

Its unfortunate that only 2 out of every 100 people know that they don't have to bend over for Verizon, Apple, at&t, etc, and can install new ROMs and seem edit, and re-enable functionality that they paid for.

I'm also quite concerned with the FCC's blatant overreach of power here. Who do they think they are, the Federal Reserve?

@zacox: My last 3 verizon phones, I circumvented the "you only get ringtones from us" feature. Ah the wonders of the internet. I love the fact my BB asks me if I want to use every sound as a ringtone.

I think what draws my ire, and that of most, is not how much they charge (at&t, verizon, et al), but how they charge it.

First, you have voice minutes. Choose wisely, because if we don't pick a plan with enough minutes, they will sock us. But, if we choose a plan with too many minutes, they don't let us return them, either. (In the interest of fairness, at&t does offer rollover.)

Second, we have all the add-ons and extras. Send texts? Add on a package or else they're .20 apiece ($1300 per MB!). Data? Add on a package or else it's gonna cost us anywhere from $1.99 to $199 per MB.

Third, they don't even have the stones to tell us to our faces that they are really charging us more than we thought. Federal Universal Service Charge is a euphemism for another word: profit. It's not a tax. It's corporate recovery (read: money grab) of fees they are charged by the government. But, instead of saying that our plan costs 111.33, they say it costs 99.99 with a 11.34% fee.

Fourth, when we decide that we don't like the service anymore or aren't getting the value we thought we were, we still have up to two years suckling their teat until they let us go.

No other type of business makes us decide up front how much we plan to consume without letting us take home the leftovers. And, no other type of business penalizes us for not buying enough up front! And, no other business charges us for not buying their crap if we believe their crap no value.

And, that's only half the reason why people hate the carriers.

The other half is that once we buy the equipment and pay the fees, we endure endless disappointment in the things that are disabled, hobbled and frowned-upon. Using your own ring tone should be a simple task, except that it's disabled by a carrier that wants the revenue from the tone sale (again, Verizon, I'm looking squarely at you!).

I could go on ad nauseum. And, I really want to! But you get the point.

I have no love loss for an industry so bent on extracting every single dollar from its clientele. And they wonder why there is so much churn.

what magical function does the FCC think it has over an Iphone app?

I don't think it was "fair" what Apple did but that's their business decision.

There is no violation here, way too much government in my business.

How about they focus on why text messages have increased instead of decreased?

Or fix our damn health care system?

Or regulate or Federal Reserve system.

Apple shouldn't have to justify their denials to anyone, they are entitled to such control.

However collusion with AT&T is another matter entirely. But don't worry, I'm sure Steve Jobs and Co. will pay off the right people and make this all go away.

@supercereal: You should have mentioned "censorship" too. They're censoring Google -- in the same way my freedom of speech is abridged when I'm told I can't duplicate and sell bootleg movies I download off the Internet.

Answer- anything truly useful, anything that's not as profitable as they'd like, and anything that allows you to use your iPhone in any way that THEY don't like.

I feel if one buys a product it should now be theirs to do with as they wish as long as it does not mean tearing it apart to make the same item and sell it as their own invention.

Corporations need to realize WE are the ones keeping them in business not their stock holders. WE deserve rights also.

With every iPhone story I read on here, I love my HTC Touch Pro all the more. I can use my Google Voice account with it, and I don't even NEED an app to do it.

Windows Mobile = Freedom.
Iphone = Communism.

queue vince mcmahon:
"in this corner, we have dot-com busters, microsoft/yahoo. & in this corner we have the dynamic duo, at&t/apple. & finally, in this corner we have the angel that can do no wrong, google. cage match rules - only one leaves here alive. the winner marries my hot-as-hell daughter."

I don't really think that is what is being said. I don't have the iPhone (I have the G1), but if I DID I know I would be buying it with the condition that Apple/At&t has to approve every app. That being said, I think it is reasonable to only expect them to block malicious/non-working apps, not apps that can interfere with their profits.

"What other applications have been rejected for use on the iPhone and for what reasons?"

That's going to be a loooong answer there...

I guess my main point was that far too many people think it's unfair that Apple has partnered exclusively with AT&T, thereby "forcing" them to use that network. A specific network is attached to the device, and if that is unsuitable, then one has the option to go elsewhere.

$20 says google makes more political contribs than apple & at&t combined. anybody care to find the numbers?

I'm guessing this new-and-improved FCC will have lots to say about neutrality. I see a future where nobody gets to choose what kinda data you transfer other than you. Certainly not at&t.

If this means that at&t cant close off ports to Skype, Sling or any number of other services that use the Internet to which they are supposedly offering access, then at&t will just have to figure out another way to fleece its customers.

Better yet (and this goes for Verizon too) stop fleecing everyone! If they just adopted an all-you-can-eat like Boost, that didn't cost $600 a month for a family of 5, they would realize so much more revenue. But I digress.....

(Of course, let's not get started on the applications that have been approved that never should have been, and the applications that were declined for ridiculous or even non-existent reasons, without any real way of appealing those decisions...)

With that said, I'm going to go complain about how I can't play any Nintendo games on my PS3. Exclusivity is so unfair!!111

But seriously, I don't get why people get so pissy about the iPhone and AT&T. Don't like AT&T? Then don't freaking get the iPhone. Problem solved, whiny douchebags.

You either 1) know very little about your own rights as a consumer, or 2) are just anti-apple all the way around and like posting useless comments. This has nothing to do with users thinking they have a right to an iphone, and everything to do with them knowing they have a right to consumer protections in the highly regulated telecommunications sector.

Apple and AT&T are just abusing iPhone users with this BS. Blackberry users on AT&T can use the official GV app, but AT&T can't control what they do. They're just taking advantage of the Apple walled garden because they're scared of consumers having more choices.