Why The FCC Wants To Smash Open The iPhone
Right about now, Apple probably wishes it had never rejected Google Voice and related apps from the iPhone. Or maybe it was AT&T who rejected the apps. Nobody really knows. But the FCC launched an investigation last night to find out …
Context & Ripple Effects
The FCC's inquiry into the Google Voice rejection did not come out of nowhere: regulators were already circling the iPhone's distribution model, with a Justice Department review of AT&T's exclusive iPhone deal underway since early July 2009. Now the FCC has formally opened an investigation into why Google Voice never reached the App Store, following its first look at AT&T's role in the app's rejection just a day earlier.
The central puzzle is attribution — Apple, AT&T, or both declined the apps, and nobody outside has confirmed which. That ambiguity matters because it determines whether the regulator is interrogating a carrier's network-control practices or a device maker's gatekeeping, two different targets with very different remedies.
First-order effects
- Apple and AT&T must now answer detailed written questions from the FCC about the rejection decision, forcing both companies to disclose on the record what has so far been handled through private app-review processes.
- Google Voice stays off the iPhone for now, leaving users without native access while the inquiry plays out — and putting Google in the position of beneficiary of a regulatory intervention rather than participant.
Second-order effects
- AT&T's exclusive US arrangement with Apple comes under simultaneous pressure from the DOJ review, raising the prospect that the carrier could face constraints on exclusivity itself, not just app approval.
- Other carriers watching the inquiry must weigh whether opaque app-rejection practices are worth the regulatory exposure if they invite the same scrutiny AT&T now faces.
Third-order effects
- The inquiry treats app-store approval as a matter of public policy rather than private product design, establishing a precedent that handset gatekeeping can be formally questioned by federal regulators.
- If the FCC concludes either company acted against consumer interest, the case becomes a template for how regulators approach closed mobile platforms — a shift from network neutrality debates toward application-layer openness.
The trend: US regulators are widening their focus from carrier network control to the software gatekeepers above it, making app-store approval decisions a legitimate object of federal inquiry.