When an AT&T representative suggested to one of Jobs’ deputies that the Apple CEO wear a suit to meet with AT&T’s board of directors, he was told, “We’re Apple. We don’t wear suits. We don’t even own suits.”

It’s easy to think that the grass is always greener away from AT&T, but keep in mind that these are cellular carriers: massive oligopolists that don’t give a s*** about us. Their phones are ARPU vending machines, first and foremost, not communication tools. Cellular carriers are only a small step above cable and phone companies in the contempt and disregard they show for their customers.

This sums up my thoughts on wireless phone companies.  I don’t think I could have said it any better.

(h/t Daring Fireball)

AT&T alleges that Google Voice blocks customers from calling certain numbers, thereby violating FCC regulations. AT&T likens the call-blocking to the call for net neutrality, and says that if phone companies need to all play by the same rules, then so do internet companies such as Google. Google Voice is a call-forwarding system that lets users give out one central phone number and have it ring other phone lines when called. It allows users to maintain some degree of privacy, as well as consolidate services. Google does block Voice customers from calling adult chat lines and some conference call systems due to the high fees levied by those services.

Why: Consumers who use Android, the Google-developed operating system for wireless devices, can’t use Skype, a leading Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) service. A pioneer in free Internet calling, Skype allows you to talk as long as you want without draining cellphone minutes.

Android users get Skype Lite, a watered-down version of the original that routes calls over traditional phone networks — not the Internet. As a result, long-distance calls are still cheap or free, but cellphone minutes are gobbled up every time a Skype Lite call is made…

…Google’s explanation would seem to suggest that T-Mobile requested the block on Skype, but the carrier says that’s not the case. “T-Mobile has not asked Google to block that service,” says spokesman Joe Farren, referring to original Skype [sic]. – USA Today

In both of these cases, it is clear that neither the carriers nor OS providers want to take the blame.  Maybe the FCC can break this problem open and make progress, but as stated before, “consider me skeptical.”

UPDATE: Apple says it acted alone in rejecting the app.  Something still smells fishy here, but if this is the case, bad Apple!

In letters sent late Friday to the three companies, the FCC asked why Apple rejected the Google Voice application for the iPhone and removed related “third-party applications” from its store.

The letter also seeks information on how AT&T was consulted in the decision, if at all.

According to the article, this is part of a broader investigation of the telecom industry that is looking at AT&T and Verizon specifically for potential anti-competitive behavior.

Hopefully some real answers and positive change will come out of this, but consider me skeptical.

…Some allege that Apple is doing this at AT&T’s behest.

That is just flat-out wrong: If it were true, then Google Voice would be banned on BlackBerry devices that use AT&T as well. As of this morning, everything is working fine on my AT&T-connected Bold (except for the usual dropped calls, of course). And are people forgetting that you need AT&T’s voice network to send and receive Google Voice calls?

The problem with this is that you can get the GV app for the BlackBerry directly from Google.  There is no app-store-like gatekeeper in the case of the BlackBerry when it comes to this app.  I’m not sure how AT&T could ban this app on a BlackBerry.  Perhaps there is a simple answer to this that I am unaware of, but on the surface, I don’t think there is a way.  The same argument could be made when the Sling Player debacle is brought up for comparison.

This statement also attempts to minimize AT&T’s concern based on the fact you still must use AT&T lines to dial.  This is true, but it doesn’t account for those precious SMS messages for which AT&T likes to charge way too much.  If Google can offer unlimited text messages for free, most people would drop that $20 per month plan they have with Ma Bell.

I also would not underestimate the power that GV takes away from the carrier as a reason for AT&T to disapprove.  GV gives the end user much more control over their telephone number than the typical mobile service does.  With GV, I can choose which phones ring when someone calls.  I can mark annoying callers as spam.  I can change mobile numbers any time I want, and once I update GV, it is completely transparent to those calling on my GV number.  It really takes number portability to the next level in my mind.

It also takes the visual voicemail concept a step further by not only giving access to voicemail in an e-mail-like view, but also adding voicemail transcription as well.  Perhaps this didn’t sit to well with Apple who might see this as Google one-upping them on their own home field.  This along with the fact that Google is one of Apple’s up and coming rivals in the modern wireless handset wars could have lead to Apple’s disapproval.  This fact was not lost on John Gruber of Daring Fireball:

And, to play devil’s advocate for a moment, I’m not sure the decision is entirely unreasonable. Don’t think about it in terms of Apple’s relationship with its carrier partners, but instead think about it in terms of Apple’s competition with Google. Google Voice is a mobile phone service provided by the maker of one of the biggest competitors to the iPhone OS. What if Google Voice were instead Microsoft Voice? And what if Windows Mobile were as modern and competitive as Android? Would you be as surprised then that Apple is discouraging iPhone owners from using the service? Just saying.

According to Gruber’s sources, it was AT&T in the end that killed this app likely for many of the reasons stated above, but I’m not inclined to let Apple off the hook so easily.  In the end it is the Apple iPhone and App Store, so at least some of the blame has to come back to them.  GV has the opportunity to be a game changer, and the iPhone had the potential to showcase it well, but for now, it’s just another case of a disappointing App Store rejection and a stifling of innovation on state of the art technology.

…the notion of Apple Inc.’s iPhone ever coming to the Verizon Wireless network, saying it is more likely that Apple would be willing to work with the carrier under the fourth-generation, or 4G, network, which follows the same technology standard as AT&T Inc.’s 4G plans. – WSJ via Mac Rumors

The timeline is interesting with Verizon’s 4G network launching in 2010 and AT&T’s exclusivity agreement rumored to run out that year.  With AT&T said to be trying to extend its pact with Apple, it’s easy to assume that Apple might shopping around for new partners.

On a personal note, this timeline is very interesting as Verizon is set to take over Alltel’s Oklahoma network in 2010, and my AT&T contract ends mid-year 2010.

…an open-Internet advocacy group is asking the FCC to see if AT&T and Apple are violating federal rules by restricting Skype to just Wi-Fi.  — MacRumors