I find it interesting that the FCC has waded into the Google Voice / iPhone kerfuffle. This is the US regulatory body that enjoys taking up populist causes, such as its defense of our mores harmed by nine sixteenths of a second of exposure to parts of Michael Jackson’s sister that distracted the February 1, 2004 broadcast Super Bowl XXXVIII.

In case you haven’t heard, the FCC wants to know why Apple’s iPhone does not support Google Voice, the reincarnation of Grand Central. Many commentators south of the border suggest that Apple’s US carrier partner, AT&T, is the cause of the application block, but this would be improbable, since the Google app is being marketed for Blackberry support, including AT&T’s Blackberry devices. Politicians are already up in arms over exclusive deals for cell phones. Somebody has to do something!

Fortune’s Philip Elmer-DeWitt writes about the FCC investigation, with links to the letters sent to Google, Apple and AT&T.

Alec Saunders has a great post on why the AT&T conspiracy theory doesn’t add up.

He writes:

Perhaps Apple themselves are quietly developing features that are competitive to Google Voice?

The questions posed by the FCC may probe beyond the statutory authority to compel answers from companies that aren’t regulated by the Commission.

How will Apple and Google respond? Will they even bother to respond?

The companies compete as evidenced by the resignation of Google CEO Eric Schmidt from Apple’s board. They are both big and don’t need government protection. Is government going to start dictating business models?

Are we equally troubled by exclusive soft drink deals with certain restaurants? Exclusive coffee suppliers at some hotels? Exclusive credit cards at the Olympics?

While we are busy legislating open access, are we going to require RIM to enable Blackberry Messenger on iPhones?

What raises the level of passion over such business arrangements in the wireless industry?

The final comments on internet traffic management practices have been submitted and it will take some time to go through all of them. One of the pieces got me thinking.

The discussion during the oral hearings with Professor Odlyzko of University of Minnesota found its way into the TELUS submission:

TELUS found it significant that Professor Odlyzko, speaking on behalf of the Campaign for Democratic Media, testified that peer-to-peer applications are “throttled” and the network “capacity controlled” in that portion of the University of Minnesota’s campus network that serves the student dormitories

I began to wonder about Canada’s universities. Not just their internet traffic management practices, but I also wondered whether we have any idea how many connections are being provided by these internet service providers.

When my kids were in student dorms, their universities charged a non-trivial fee for internet access service. This would appear to define them as internet service providers, but they don’t seem to be captured in CRTC lists since they don’t fit any of the categories – resellers, resellers of retail high speed internet, carriers, etc.

As a result, we may have tens of thousands of residential student subscribers to university-provided internet services that do not appear in counts of broadband adoption in Canada. With CANARIE as an unregistered carrier providing the backbone, it isn’t clear that we are fully capturing the connectivity picture in subscriber studies. Are the universities themselves counted as a business location? [On the other hand, I find it interesting that many school boards are registered carriers.]

A story in Wireless Week talks about the view of some folks that wireless carriers could become more like Amazon, selling all shapes and sizes of digital products.

Carriers now support downloads, streaming video, SMS, mobile payments and more. This expanding mobile ecosystem has prompted carriers’ billing service providers to get ready for a future where their carrier clients transform from basic technology service providers into digital retailers.

Will the carriers actually put these products onto your phone bill or will they simply facilitate retailers connecting to conventional banking and credit cards?

When the phone bill comes at the end of the month, will consumers remember that the charges include the movies, music and other products that they clicked on, or will they focus on the big number next to the words “Pay This Amount”?

Rogers has announced a significant upgrade to the speeds on its mobile wireless network with the evolution to HSPA+ technology. Beginning in the greater Toronto area, Rogers mobile customers will have access to download speeds of up to 21 Mbps, beating many wired internet access services.

Rogers is the first wireless provider in North America and only the sixth carrier in the world to launch HSPA+ at peak speeds of 21 Mbps, putting Canada on top of the world in technology and innovation and once again, bringing leading-edge technologies to Canadian consumers first.

Rogers will offer next generation Rocket sticks that can take advantage of the new speeds.

In the past week, Rogers Wireless has made a number of announcements that should continue to maintain its leadership – wholesale services to Videotron, Manitoba joint venture and with this announcement, an ability to roll out a serious mobile-based broadband service across the country that can compete with wireline services.

Less than 2 years ago, Rogers became the first carrier in North America to launch 7.2 Mbps service, advancing on its April, 2007 launch of Vision services, also a North American first.

There is more to competition than just pricing. With these investments in innovation, Rogers is signalling that its approach will be to continue offering world beating services to Canadians.

Relevant to yesterday’s posting, Rogers’ advanced 21 Mbps HSPA+ network is powered by Canadian innovation, developed by Ericsson in Montreal.

The Canadian nationalists are coming out of hiding, expressing concern about the loss of our national icon, Nortel, to those evil foreigners from Ericsson. Our governments had earlier turned their backs on Nortel as we invested in other Canadian firms like, ummmm, General Motors.

Now that the first Nortel asset auction has been completed, we are hearing that the Ontario government wants Ottawa to intervene to ensure that Canada’s national interest isn’t harmed.

These Ericsson folks aren’t the typical raiders. They aren’t Americans – they’re too busy bailing out … well, just about everything.

These are Swedes, Europeans no less.

People who play hockey and curling almost as well as we do. They eat herring three times a day. Herring isn’t really fish; it is what fish eats. Are we really going to let a treasure like Nortel fall into the hands of people who eat bait?

Before we allow Ontario’s Finance Minister to bash these folks too much, we should remember that Ericsson Canada is already one of the largest R&D; organizations in Canada, having invested more than $2B in Canada over the last 10 years. Of course, Ontario may consider that to be foreign investment, since Ericsson has such a large Montreal-based research centre. The Montreal labs have been around for 20 years, and represent one of the most important locations for Ericsson’s wireless network development, with more than 1500 people, Montreal is its largest R&D; centre outside Sweden.

Ericsson’s Montreal presence is important enough for Canada that it is featured on a government website that speaks about why companies should invest in Montreal as the:

Site of an ICT cluster built on the success of leading companies including Bell Canada, Electronic Arts, Ericsson Canada, CGI Group, IBM and Ubisoft International

Ericsson has been in Canada for more than 50 years and it has established deep relationships in this country. Ericsson executives participate in leadership roles in Canada’s R&D; and technology community, including our university engineering programs and CANARIE. Ericsson Canada’s CTO works with me on an advisory board for a University of Toronto’s Engineering graduate program.

Ericsson has another R&D; centre in Vancouver with more than 200 people; its Toronto headquarters employs 150 people.

I’ll be watching to see how we stick-handle our way around welcoming Ericsson investment in jobs in Montreal but discourage them keeping jobs in Ottawa. Our government’s response will have implications for the willingness of foreign companies to continue investing in Canadian jobs.

You could say I’ll be waiting with baited breath.

Update [July 28, 9:30 am]
Mark Evans writes about The Politics of Nortel’s Future this morning.