According to the CTIA, there are more than 246 million wireless data-capable devices at large in the U.S. today. Of these, 40 million are smart phones or PDAs, and more than 10 million are laptops. Little wonder that wireless data service revenue rose 31 percent to more than $19.4 billion in the first six months of 2009.

Revenue will no doubt continue that trend in the months ahead as wireless devices become more ubiquitous. Wireless carriers, then, would be wise to put some of their windfall toward building out their networks to cope with future demand lest they end up the butt of a joke in a rival’s advertisement.

Consider these remarks from Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski, spoken Wednesday at the CTIA wireless industry convention in San Diego: “We are fast entering a world where mass-market mobile devices consume thousands of megabytes each month. So we must ask: what happens when every mobile user has an iPhone, a Palm Pre, a BlackBerry Tour, or whatever the next device is? What happens when we quadruple the number of subscribers with mobile broadband on their laptops or netbooks? The short answer: We will need a lot more spectrum. The biggest threat to the future of mobile in America is the looming spectrum crisis.”

“Contrary to published reports, Apple has not rejected the Google Voice application, and continues to study it.”

So begins Apple’s response to the Federal Communication Commission’s inquiry into its rejection of the app and of its App Store approval process. Seems Google Voice was withheld from the App Store not because of any ill feeling toward Google or a nefarious request from AT&T, but because it too closely mimics the iPhone OS, including management of calls, voicemail and text messages. From Apple’s statement:

Question 1. Why did Apple reject the Google Voice application for iPhone and remove related third-party applications from its App Store?

The application has not been approved because, as submitted for review, it appears to alter the iPhone’s distinctive user experience by replacing the iPhone’s core mobile telephone functionality and Apple user interface with its own user interface for telephone calls, text messaging and voicemail. Apple spent a lot of time and effort developing this distinct and innovative way to seamlessly deliver core functionality of the iPhone. For example, on an iPhone, the “Phone” icon that is always shown at the bottom of the Home Screen launches Apple’s mobile telephone application, providing access to Favorites, Recents, Contacts, a Keypad, and Visual Voicemail. The Google Voice application replaces Apple’s Visual Voicemail by routing calls through a separate Google Voice telephone number that stores any voicemail, preventing voicemail from being stored on the iPhone, i.e., disabling Apple’s Visual Voicemail. Similarly, SMS text messages are managed through the Google hub—replacing the iPhone’s text messaging feature. In addition, the iPhone user’s entire Contacts database is transferred to Google’s servers, and we have yet to obtain any assurances from Google that this data will only be used in appropriate ways. These factors present several new issues and questions to us that we are still pondering at this time.

Question 2. Did Apple act alone, or in consultation with AT&T, in deciding to reject the Google Voice application and related applications? If the latter, please describe the communications between Apple and AT&T in connection with the decision to reject Google Voice. Are there any contractual conditions or non-contractual understandings with AT&T that affected Apple’s decision in this matter?

Apple is acting alone and has not consulted with AT&T about whether or not to approve the Google Voice application. No contractual conditions or non-contractual understandings with AT&T have been a factor in Apple’s decision-making process in this matter.

In a response of its own, AT&T (T) also said this was the case:

1(a). What role, if any, did AT&T play in Apple’s consideration of the Google Voice and related applications?

AT&T had no role in Apple’s consideration of Google Voice or related applications.

1(b). What role, if any, does AT&T play in consideration of iPhone applications generally?

The Apple App Store is owned, operated and controlled by Apple, not AT&T, and Apple makes the decisions regarding the specific applications that are approved for use on the iPhone or included in the Apple App Store. AT&T does not participate in Apple’s day-to-day consideration of specific applications, nor does Apple typically notify AT&T prior to including applications in the App Store. Apple also does not usually advise AT&T after specific applications have been added to the App Store, which reportedly contains more than 65,000 applications. AT&T has had discussions with Apple regarding only a handful of applications that have been submitted to Apple for review where, as described below, there were concerns that the application might create significant network congestion.

And what is Google’s (GOOG) public reply to the whole affair? Nada. The company had more to say to the government, via a response to FCC queries. But in the copy of the document that’s been released for public consumption, the most interesting stuff has been redacted. To wit: “What explanation was given (if any) for Apple’s rejection of the Google Voice application?…Please describe any communications between Google and AT&T or Apple on this topic and a summary of any meetings or discussion.” (Click on text below to enlarge.)

Now that’s a little odd, isn’t it? Why would Google ask the FCC to redact portions of its statement? Says Google: “[Because the redacted] information relates specifically to private business discussions between Apple and Google and, as such, it constitutes commercial data ‘which would customarily be guarded from competitors.’”

That satisfy your curiosity? Doesn’t satisfy mine, either.

(Peter Kafka contributed to this post.)

UPDATE: AT&T may not participate in “Apple’s day-to-day consideration of specific applications,” but its presence is still felt during the approval process. From Apple’s (AAPL) response:

There is a provision in Apple’s agreement with AT&T that obligates Apple not to include functionality in any Apple phone that enables a customer to use AT&T’s cellular network service to originate or terminate a VoIP (voice over Internet Protocol) session without obtaining AT&T’s permission. Apple honors this obligation, in addition to respecting AT&T’s customer terms of service, which, for example, prohibit an AT&T customer from using AT&T’s cellular service to redirect a TV signal to an iPhone. From time to time, AT&T has expressed concerns regarding network efficiency and potential network congestion associated with certain applications, and Apple takes such concerns into consideration.

UPDATE: An interesting nugget from AT&T’s statement:

It is widely recognized by economists and jurists that parties to strategic alliances in competitive markets may enter into contracts to promote and protect their respective business interests and to refrain from taking actions adverse to those interests.12 Consistent with such lawful, economically efficient practices common among parties to strategic alliances, including participants in the mobile wireless marketplace,13 AT&T and Apple agreed that Apple would not take affirmative steps to enable an iPhone to use AT&T’s wireless service (including 2G, 3G and Wi-Fi) to make VoIP calls without first obtaining AT&T’s consent. AT&T and Apple also agreed, however, that if a third party enables an iPhone to make VoIP calls using AT&T’s wireless service, Apple would have no obligation to take action against that third party….AT&T indicated to Apple that it does not object to Apple enabling VoIP applications for the iPhone that use Wi-Fi connectivity (including connectivity at more than 20,000 Wi-Fi hotspots operated by AT&T that may be used by iPhone customers for no additional charge) rather than AT&T’s 2G or 3G wireless data services….we plan to take a fresh look at possibly authorizing VoIP capabilities on the iPhone for use on AT&T’s 3G network.

The flaw was first demonstrated Thursday. “This is serious. The only thing you can do to prevent it is turn off your phone,” security researcher Charlie Miller said of it earlier this week. “Someone could pretty quickly take over every iPhone in the world with this.”

Well, not anymore, as Apple (AAPL) was quick to note. “This morning, less than 24 hours after a demonstration of this exploit, we’ve issued a free software update that eliminates the vulnerability from the iPhone,” said an Apple spokesperson. “Contrary to what’s been reported, no one has been able to take control of the iPhone to gain access to personal information using this exploit.”

Originally, as GrandCentral, the service gave users a single number that, when called, would ring their home phone, work phone or cellphones, or a combination of phones. Re-envisioned by Google, it adds to this call recording, automated voicemail transcripts that can be viewed online, SMS messaging, conference call support and a means of forwarding problem callers to a “this number has been disconnected” message. Beyond these options, Google Voice offers a means of placing calls within the states for free. And international calls aren’t all that more expensive, two cents a minute to France or China.

A compelling set of features and one that will undoubtedly make Google Voice a formidable rival to Skype. Whether the service is disruptive enough to cause trouble for traditional telecoms remains to be seen. Certainly, reliability and call quality are potential issues. That said, there can be little doubt that the telephone companies are looking askance at the service today.

The bottom line is texting is at least four times more expensive than transmitting data from Hubble, and is likely to be substantially more than that.

– University of Leicester space scientist Nigel Bannister

If wireless providers applied the per-byte pricing scheme they use for SMS texting to other data transmitted over their cellular networks, it would cost nearly $6,000 to download a single 4MB song. Yet the price of text messaging has doubled industrywide in the last three years.

Why?

A good question. And one that’s finally being asked by Congress. On Tuesday, Sen. Herb Kohl (D., Wis.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Antitrust Subcommittee, sent letters to Verizon Wireless (VZ), Sprint-Nextel (S), AT&T (T), and T-Mobile (DT) asking them to justify their outrageous text messaging prices. “What is particularly alarming about this industrywide rate increase is that it does not appear to be justified by rising costs in delivering text messages,” Kohl wrote. “Text-messaging files are very small, as the size of text messages are generally limited to 160 characters per message, and therefore cost carriers very little to transmit.”

Kohl noted as well that the companies appear to have changed text-messaging rates at nearly the same time, with identical prices. A troubling coincidence, given that together they serve more than 90 percent of U.S. cellphone users. Said Kohl, “This conduct is hardly consistent with the vigorous price competition we hope to see in a competitive marketplace.”

Makes for great profit margins though …

And so yesterday the Federal Communications Commission announced plans to develop an emergency-alert system that would broadcast SMS messages to cellphones and other mobile devices wherever a crisis occurs. The Commercial Mobile Alert System, as it’s been dubbed, will deliver three different types of text alerts to mobile phone subscribers: presidential alerts concerning terrorist attacks and whatnot; imminent threat alerts warning of natural disasters; and Amber Alert child abduction warnings.

Sounds like a nice comprehensive program. Too bad you won’t see it for another two years, at least. Unless you happen to live in a region like Contra Costa County in Northern California, where a tech-savvy local government is already hard at work on its own geographically targeted emergency alert system.

In late September Google purchased mobile social-networking start-up Zingku. Now it’s gone and bought Jaiku, a Finnish company that offers an “activity stream and presence-sharing service” similar to the more widely known Twitter. Two months. Two mobile social-networking start-ups. Google never explained its plans for Zingku. What’s it going to do with Jaiku? Who knows …

“We plan to use the ideas and technology behind Jaiku to make compelling and useful products,” product manager Tony Hsieh wrote in a post to Google’s corporate blog this afternoon. “Although we don’t have definite plans to announce at this time, we’re excited about helping drive the next round of developments in Web and mobile technology.”

Ah. Helping to drive them the way you drove Dodgeball? To that happy place where social-networking apps go to die? Kidding, of course.

Anyway … Why did Google choose Jaiku over Twitter, a similar company with far greater brand recognition? “The answer seems pretty obvious to me,” says Tim O’ Reilly. “Jaiku isn’t a ‘lifestreaming’ company per se. They are a mobile company in the business of creating smarter presence applications. Far from being a runner-up behind Twitter, they are a leader in a category most people haven’t fully grasped yet. Google is clearly thinking a lot about mobile, and so they do grasp it.”

Of course, there’s another answer to that question as well. Twitter founder Evan Williams, whose previous company, Blogger, was acquired by Google in February 2003, may not have wanted to see another of his creations doomed to irrelevance by the search giant.

Which is not to say Twitter won’t be acquired. As RedMonk analyst James Governor points out, the company is probably looking pretty good to Yahoo right now. “Google and Yahoo are in dueling acquisition mode, and Yahoo is almost certain to respond,” said Governor. “Especially since Twitter has begun to use a footer on SMS messages it sends out–which could of course be used as a microbillboard.”

This morning Yahoo officially relaunched Yahoo Mail, ending a two-year public test of the Web-based email service that began in September 2005. Its overhaul completed, Yahoo Mail is no longer just a Webmail client, it’s a “social communication” tool. “Our goal is to make (Yahoo) Mail a more social experience,” John Kremer, vice president of Yahoo Mail, told Reuters. “We really look at ourselves as sitting on top of the largest dormant social network out there.”

To that end, Yahoo Mail now boasts SMS (short message service) support, offering its users the ability to send text messages to cellphones. It’s the first free Web-based email service to offer that feature, and it’s almost certainly starting a trend by doing so. Notes Paul Ruppert, founder of mobile-market consultancy Global Point View, SMS usage is exploding: “The future of mobile messaging with over 3 trillion text messages annually would logically seem well secured,” he wrote in a post to Mobile Messaging 2.0. “A well of demand currently from 2.1 billlion users globally is not going to dry up over night. Plus, all the trends are upward. There is revenue and SMS usage growth in even the most mature country markets such as the U.K. Message-dense nations with high percentages of young populations, mostly in Asia, continue to come online to mobile. Even in markets like the U.S., which lagged in embracing the ease and power of texting and seemingly preferred email and instant messaging, text messaging has become an intimate aspect of daily lives, especially for those 15 to 25.”