Has Apple's rejection of the Google Voice application in its Apple App Store triggered the beginnings of a government investigation that promises more regulation where market forces should endure?

A simple reading of the Federal Communications Commission's three letters to the Apple, AT&T and Google over this affair is enough evidence of official concern over anti-competitive practices.

The letters, reproduced in this publication, seek clarity over Apple's iPhone application selection process, AT&T's role in Google Voice's rejection and Google's criteria for accepting or rejecting applications for its own Android marketplace.

If only all these players were more transparent in their application selection and rejection practice, this FCC interest wouldn't be warranted in the first place. In a way, it is hard to fault the FCC for its curiosity.

Take Apple, for example. Its penchant for secrecy isn't unusual for a company whose intellectual property and knowledge of design has generated products that are consumer-friendly to the extreme.

But there is a fine line between secrecy and opacity. Apple simply doesn't make public its parameters for application acceptance or rejection. That lack of transparency was bound to be questioned sooner or later.

For AT&T -- which offers the iPhone exclusively nationwide -- to be ensnared in this affair is unfortunate. Who knows how the FCC will react if it finds out that the Google Voice application was rejected at AT&T's behest.

In AT&T's defense, to allow a Google Voice application that undercuts its own voice service -- which still accounts for the major source of its wireless unit's revenue -- would be business suicide. Every company has a right to protect its self-interest as long as that goal does not distort market choices.

Besides, a weak AT&T will not serve consumer interests -- not when the wireless service market is down to four dominant players nationwide.

As for Google, it is an irony.

The search engine giant is as feared by ad agencies and advertisers as it is admired by consumers. But the company does have the tendency to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds. It cries foul when it's not the dominant player and holds up the market-forces model when it's almost the only game in town.

Apple, AT&T and Google have until Aug. 21 to answer the FCC's questions. The responses will help the FCC with its ongoing examination of wireless open access and handset exclusivity.

The FCC should make public the responses from Apple, AT&T and Google. This will serve the interests of marketers, application developers and consumers, and shed light on the third-party application selection and rejection process.

The mobile industry is already under pressure from consumer advocates, state attorneys general and the Federal Trade Commission over privacy issues, advertising claims, behavioral targeting and location-based advertising. Add to that populist pressure from mainstream media over carrier pricing of data plans, especially text messages.

It is the duty of key mobile players such as Apple, AT&T and Google to not only be transparent in their practices but also consistent in their application. A pity it will take government, and not the market, to enforce that realization.