March 10, 2008 8:43 AM PDT

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.

advertisement
 
Discover unlimited music for the price of one CD a month
Recent posts from Surveillance State
For Hezbollah, it's fiber warfare
U.K. turns CCTV, terrorism laws on pooping dogs
IRS Web site opens door to phishers
Keep your data safe at the border
Can TSA be trusted not to data discriminate?
Add a Comment (Log in or register) 30 comments (Page 1 of 3)
by Logical_Extremes March 10, 2008 8:34 AM PDT
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.
Reply to this comment
by Logical_Extremes March 10, 2008 9:14 AM PDT
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.
Reply to this comment
by lmasanti March 10, 2008 10:45 AM PDT
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".
Reply to this comment
by aewyes March 10, 2008 10:54 AM PDT
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.
Reply to this comment
by WJCIII March 10, 2008 10:58 AM PDT
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.
Reply to this comment
by sleeknub March 10, 2008 11:08 AM PDT
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.
Reply to this comment
by alegr March 10, 2008 11:10 AM PDT
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.
Reply to this comment
by csoghoian March 10, 2008 11:14 AM PDT
@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.
Reply to this comment
by irondog1970 March 10, 2008 11:15 AM PDT
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.
Reply to this comment
by HaloZero March 10, 2008 11:40 AM PDT
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.
Reply to this comment
1 | 2 | 3 | Next 10 Comments >>
Powered by Jive Software
advertisement
  • About Surveillance State

  • Christopher Soghoian, a graduate student in the school of Informatics at Indiana University, delves into the areas of security, privacy and e-crime. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network. His homepage is www.dubfire.net/chris and his research group is available at www.stop-phishing.com. Disclosure.

Add this feed to your online news reader
Google
Yahoo
MSN
advertisement
On CHOW: Does drinking ice water burn calories?
Visit other CNET Networks sites: