iPhone rules pose Net neutrality, antitrust concerns

Apple's recent announcement of the iPhone application software development kit is drawing criticism from Net neutrality activists. While the company has previously angered many for its practice of bricking unlocked phones, it is now being accused of anticompetitive behavior.

Could Apple take Comcast's place as the poster child for the Save The Internet movement? Furthermore, by blocking competing Web browser Firefox, could Apple draw Microsoft-like antitrust lawsuits?

Control

Thursday, Apple released its eagerly awaited iPhone software development kit. Putting an end to hopes of user choice, Apple has declared that the only way for users to install applications will be through its App Store via the iPhone or iTunes. If the company doesn't like an application, it will be removed from the store, with no other way for a user to install it.

In a Q and A session with reporters, CEO Steve Jobs was asked if voice applications such as Skype will be permitted. Jobs replied by saying that VoIP (voice over Internet Protocol) will be allowed when the iPhone is using a WiFi connection, but forbidden over AT&T's cellular data network. How this will be enforced remains unclear. At the very least, Apple can blacklist from iTunes any application that doesn't play nice over AT&T's network.

In addition to the anti-VoIP rules, Apple seems to have also set its sights on the Firefox Web browser. Deep in the legal agreement for developers, Apple states:

"No interpreted code may be downloaded and used in an Application except for code that is interpreted and run by Apple's Published APIs and builtin interpreter(s)...An Application may not itself install or launch other executable code by any means, including without limitation through the use of a plug-in architecture, calling other frameworks, other APIs or otherwise."

As a member of the Firefox development team has already noted, this is a big deal.

Both the Firefox and Opera Web browsers, which compete with Apple's pre-installed Safari browser, are forbidden as they support hundreds of user-created add-ons. Furthermore, the Web browsers support Javascript, which is a key component of most Web 2.0 content. Javascript is an interpreted programming language, and thus forbidden as per Apple's terms of service.

Also banned from the iPhone: programming languages Ruby, Python, Perl, and Java. Quake, the video game engine ported to practically every platform (including Google's Android), as well as Microsoft's Word, Excel, and .NET are also persona non grata.

Sun announced last week that it is readying a version of Java for the iPhone. Once the restrictive iPhone license was pointed out, Eric Klein, the vice president of Java marketing at Sun, backpedaled somewhat on his own personal blog, writing that "I'll leave those (legal) questions to another forum, but we really do want to deliver a JVM if at all possible." This alone should make for an interesting fight, as Sun is no stranger to filing antitrust complaints.

Net neutrality complaints

Apple's blocking of Skype and other voice applications raises the same Net neutrality issues as Comcast's blocking of BitTorrent. Critics have argued that Comcast does this because the P2P video apps compete with the cable giant's own video programming.

Apple is now engaging in a similar practice, blocking any VoIP application that competes with the voice services offered by AT&T--the company with which Apple signed an exclusive five-year contract.

The company will be unable to borrow Comcast's line, and claim that the restriction is "reasonable network management." After all, watching a couple YouTube videos eats up far more data than a VoIP call.

This is not the first time that a company has attempted to block VoIP traffic to protect its own business model. Madison River Communications, a North Carolina ISP was fined and forced to change its behavior by the FCC when it started blocking VoIP providers like Vonage in 2005.

Paging Congressman Markey

Apple's sexy iPhone has attracted the attention of those in power before. Congressman Ed Markey (D-Mass.) held up an iPhone during a congressional hearing last year, before he sharply criticized the practice of locking such devices to a specific carrier's network.

Just a couple weeks ago, Markey introduced the Wireless Consumer Protection and Community Broadband Empowerment Act of 2008, which would require wireless carriers to sell unlocked phones without contracts for reasonable prices. In introducing the bill, Markey clearly had the iPhone in mind.

Markey's other well-publicized cause is Net neutrality. The congressman spoke at the Comcast/BitTorrent FCC hearing just a couple weeks ago. He has previously held hearings on the subject, and introduced legislation in February to stop ISP data favoritism.

With Apple's recent adoption of Comcast-style filtering, Markey can combine two of his passions: wireless phones rules and Net neutrality regulation.

Antitrust

Microsoft's bundling of Internet Explorer back in the late '90s led to major antitrust lawsuits brought by Department of Justice and 20 different states. While consumers were free to install Netscape and other competing browsers, it was the preferential treatment of its own browser that lead to legal problems for Microsoft.

Apple is now engaged in an even more egregious practice. It bundles the Safari browser with its iPhone, it makes it impossible for consumers to remove the browser, and the company now forbids competing companies from making their browsers available to the millions of iPhone users. Firefox has over 40 percent market share in some European countries, but it forbidden from making a version for the iPhone platform.

If Apple doesn't rapidly backtrack on its anti-Firefox and VoIP rules, I predict that it will soon be looking at investigations from multiple government agencies, both here in the U.S. and EU. The FCC and Congress will most likely look into the Net neutrality complaints, while the European antitrust regulators will probably take a keen interest in the Firefox issues. This would, of course, not be the first time that the Europeans have investigated Apple's iTunes store for dirty tricks.

Disclosure: I worked for Apple as a summer intern in 2005. While I love Markey's positions on Net Neutrality, he did publicly call for my arrest back in 2006. He changed his mind two days later.

[Logical_Extremes]

Antitrust doesn't apply since Apple is not in a monopoly position here. And Apple does have a right, if not an obligation, to make sure that its device and its use of its networks is as secure as possible. Sure, there are business motivations too, but consumers and developers have many options if they don't like the restrictions . Apple is known for providing an easy-to-use and integrated environment, one of the reasons many people like Apple products. To accomplish this, more control is necessary. For those whose primary concern is open and free, try an Android phone.

[Logical_Extremes]

Apple may evolve the restrictions to be more open for business reasons, but I really doubt there are any legal issues. The phone is an application on the network. Legally requiring Apple to allow any software to run on the iPhone is like telling Nintendo that it has to support Firefox, Java, Ruby, etc. on the Wii. If I build a device (and I'm not a monopoly), I'm free to offer only the features I think my customers need most.

[lmasanti]

quote:
"Apple is now engaging in a similar practice, blocking any VOIP application that competes with the voice services offered by AT&T -- the company with which Apple signed an exclusive 5 year contract."

As far as I understant, they are only to "block it over EDGE". They are not blocking it because it "competes with the voice services offered by AT&T".

[aewyes]

Comparing Apple to the Comcast situation doesn't make sense. Comcast owns the pipes. Apple just makes a device that uses the pipes. This is a slanted article.

[WJCIII]

Idiotic article. First, as has been pointed out, Apple is hardly a monopoly. There is no antitrust issue. Second, this has nothing to do with "net neutrality." Apple will allow VoIP through WiFi - i.e., the Net. It won't allow on AT&T's edge network, i.e., AT&T's proprietary cell phone network.

[sleeknub]

I highly doubt Skype would even work over EDGE because of its speed (or lack thereof). Limiting Skype to wi-fi makes business and technical sense.

[alegr]

I could be understood that allowing vetted-only applications on iPhone will prevent installation of trojans and other kinds of malware, maskerading as "screen savers" or "smiley collection", etc. But I can imagine what stink Apple apologists would raise if any Windows Mobile-based phone vendor would do that.

[csoghoian]

@WJCII:

"Apple will allow VoIP through WiFi - i.e., the Net. It won't allow on AT&T's edge network, i.e., AT&T's proprietary cell phone network."

How is AT&T's EDGE network not the Internet? iPhones have an ip address, and can send packets across the Internet.

If AT&T's EDGE network is a "proprietary cell phone network" where it is free to engage in anti network neutrality filtering, then Comcast also owns a proprietary cable network in which it is free to slow down BitTorrent.

This is -not- about speed, or slowing down the network. This is about disabling services that compete with AT&T's primary source of revenue - voice.

[irondog1970]

There is no monopoly, so there isn't an issue. Apple isn't leveraging its dominance over the cell phone market since Apple & AT&T are only 2 players. If you don't like what Apple and AT&T are doing, you are free to choose Sprint, Verizon, T-Mobile, Alltel, and many other cell phone services.

As for the iPhone being a locked phone, true. However, Apple shouldn't be forced to provide CDMA phones. You can't switch from say Verizon to AT&T expect to use the same phone. They are completely different technologies.

If you want an iPhone, then you've got to agree with the price. I did, and I'm not complaining about its software, license restrictions, or the use of iTunes.

I think people just like to complain.

[HaloZero]

My god, people over the internet are idiots!

Antitrust legislation is not to prevent monopolies, it is to prevent anti-competitive behavior. In this case, Apple is competing in anti-competitive behavior, thus it can face anti-trust legislation at any time. Of course, governments might not go after it because it doesn't have that big a share, yet. But it will, Iphones are selling rapidly and thus will be very very big deal soon.

[wowza3]

bad idea to put your cell number on that resume

[aka_tripleB]

I for one have no problems with Apple only offering the iPhone on "one" carrier or blocking VoiP over cellular data networks. And if anyone has a problem with the carrier, they should be complaining to Apple, not congress, because it's not being anti-competetive. All carriers were giving the chance to have the iPhone on its network, but it was AT&T that won that fight.

AT&T was nice enough to offer unlimited data at $60, which also includes 450 minutes of talk time. Now if you're allowed to use VoiP on the data plan, most people would abuse it. Face it, most people would kill for unlimited talk time for $60, but you'd also get unlimited internet and e-mail. There is no way anyone would be able to compete with that.

[jjbraunius]

I honestly don't think that Apple can hold the fort for a long time on these issues as competition is likely to come in fast. One thing that irks me the most is that only ATT's service is the sole provider for the phone. I see this as a problem for Apple as competition quickly scrambles to offer a similar phone and a competing network.

[M C]

Wow, this blog post is a mess. I don't know where to begin - it takes a number of premises, gets them wrong, and then launches from there.

Not even worth my time to rebut - I hope CNet has a senior editorial staff that goes over these things, at least in retrospect, and educates the writers so they can do better next time.

[Walt French]

<cite>Firefox ...[is] forbidden from making a version for the iPhone platform. </cite>

No, that's absolutely false. They are forbidden from using a programming practice that they prefer.

I rather doubt that Apple would be able to, or want to, prohibit a developer from packaging a run-time engine with the (interpreted) application. What they want to forbid is code that does not go thru their developer quality-responsibility check.

There are several sound reasons -- performance, security and configuration management come to mind -- why Apple would want to forbid code that uses a non-Apple interpreter technology.

Anybody who doesn't find Apple reasonable is welcome to develop for the current #1 smartphone (or, for unfathomable reasons, for the #3, #4, etc.).

But really, without anything resembling an educated rebuttal to the obvious reasons why Apple would set these rules? It's too stupid. Makes its advocates look naïve at best, irresponsible and trouble-making at worst.

[michaelcurrey]

Yeah... let firefox make an iphone specific version of the browser that eliminates plugins, javascript ect.

They can do that, they just want to complain.

[frantaylor]

Previous poster is correct. It is not allowed to embed an interpreter of any sort of computer language into an iPhone application. I have read the license agreement carefully. You cannot have a JavaScript interpreter in your iPhone application, which pretty much rules out web browsers.

In addition, the iPhone SDK contract directly contradicts the GPL when it states that applications written using the SDK cannot be redistributed without written permission from Apple. That means you cannot port GPL software to the iPhone, because you cannot redistribute GPL software with any additional restrictions attached.

[Clues]

I see Microsoft and the usual FUD outlets have been wound up real tight for this Apple announcement. You can always tell how nervous Microsoft is by the ridiculous arguments (talking points) delivered to the 'troops". If you believe one single argument here your either a mindless Microsoft shill or a moron.

[Thomas, David]

Fear Uncertainty Doubt

A new device, a new SDK, a secure distribution method. Anyone can write an application, for the iPhone. Before the announcement, of the SDK, you could only jail-break an iPhone. The reason, security concerns and maintaining the ability to control it.

Now Apple produces an SDK to allow development, and the criticism immediately shifts. Not the fact that you could not do this at all before (not including jail-breaking, etc).

This is nothing more than a FUD campaign

[jypeterson]

Wow. I am amazed at the idiocy in the arguments made by the author. What a slippery slope argument!

You can't install Firefox on iPhone --> Apple is monopolist --> Apple = Microsoft

Huh???

1) The iPhone is proprietary hardware and software: created and owned by Apple
2) It is closed for security and legal agreements with AT&T
3) Apple has always been upfront about jailbroken iPhones and the updates (you could break your iPhone and we aren't responsible = no warranty coverage)
4) iPhone market share is less than 1% of the total worldwide mobile market, therefore how can it be a monopoly?
5) It is a growing technology platform and has been out for less than a year. Just the announcement of an SDK is 180° from last year as you could only write web programs only previously. Just because you cannot install Java, Opera, et al now does not mean that it will be prohibited in the future. I say be patient and wait. If you don't want an iPhone, don't buy it. Plain and simple. Just let me enjoy my iphone.

This article is just the rant of someone needing to write an article for their editor, just to make it look like they are doing something.

[Seaspray0]

Comcast is not "a monopoly" as an internet service provider, yet they are in trouble for throttling P2P traffic. It seems you don't have to be a monopoly to fall under anti-trust legislation. Is Apple a monopoly? That depends on what you're looking at. Ipods make up well over 50% of the music player market. That does qualify as a monopoly under the government rules. Being a monopoly isn't against the law. Abusing your position as a monopoly is against the rules. Will apple get into legal trouble? They are certainly headed in that direction with their current practices. There is a new bully in town and that bully is apple.

[brian9990]

Comcast is a monopoly. How many cable providers can you choose from in your town? One and only one in most places. That is a monopoly. And that is why they have been regulated for years.

Go home and fondle your blackberry.

[triznut]

The point here is if you want a proprietary piece of crap that only limits itself then buy an iphone. There are plenty of other phones (an many more to come) that the iphone can't touch. Let the TRENDY wannabe have their little locked iphone... Yeah because we all know that AT&T is such a "wonderful" honest service provider....lol. For the record, neither Comcast nor At&t out right owns the cables or the RF their networks function on. It's all leased from the US government... But yeah let the trendies have their locked up iphone (we can't trust them). And these trendy wannabes crack me up when they bring MS into a non-MS discussion. Get over it!

[oteast]

Based on who did not roll over and fork their user's data over to the government in violation of the FISA law I'd stick with Quest Communications as a carrier if I could - they actually resisted wiretapping; unfortunately they aren't a service provider here in our current location. I think there's a ready market for VOIP and digital cellar services that transparently perform open-PGP key encryption per session right from the handset out. Of course the only vendors hose hardware I'd trust are those that embrace open source-open architecture like the OpenMoko, E-Ten G500, or FIC Neo1973 among others. I've really been surprised at the high quality of open source hardware and software, it often lacks the polish of closed/proprietary solutions, but it seems much more robust and extensible.