We’ve discussed extensively the controversy that recently erupted when Apple rejected Google Voice applications from the iPhone App Store. With the FCC sniffing around and tech pundits around the blogosphere weighing in on the merits of possible government intervention, it’s important to remember that jailbreaking an iPhone may be illegal under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA). In other words, if you use a hack or workaround that enables you to run banned apps like Google Voice on your iPhone, you could be violating federal law.

The DMCA hasn’t stopped millions of iPhone owners from jailbreaking their phones and installing Cydia, an unofficial alternative to the official iPhone App Store. Cydia, which lets users download banned iPhone apps like Google Voice, has been installed on a whopping one in ten iPhones, according to its developers.

But jailbreaking programs and applications like Cydia are in risky legal territory. Developers who circumvent the iPhone’s copy protection systems are at risk of being sued by Apple, as are users who run jailbreaking software. Apple maintains that jailbreaking software is illegal under federal law, though it has not taken legal action against any unauthorized iPhone developers to date.

To clear up the muddy legal waters surrounding iPhone jailbreaking, Fred von Lohmann of the Electronic Frontier Foundation has asked the U.S. Copyright Office to grant a legal exemption to iPhone jailbreaking on the grounds that users should be able to install apps of their choice on the phone without risking civil or criminal sanctions. In a recent DeepLinks post, von Lohmann argues that the FCC should throw its weight behind EFF’s call for exempting jailbreaking from anti-circumvention rules.

Von Lohmann has a point. Unofficial software that reverse engineers copyrighted software for interoperability purposes shouldn’t be illegal. As former TLFer Tim Lee puts it, “Because reverse engineering is so important in transforming closed standards into open ones, we should be especially worried about laws that stand in the way of that process.”

Jailbreaking should be legal, but that doesn’t mean that Apple should have to make it easy for iPhone owners to jailbreak their phones. Rather, iPhone owners should be able develop and use jailbreaking software free from undue governmental interference. If Apple manages to concoct a bulletproof method of locking down the iPhone, or if AT&T wants to ban jailbreaking in its wireless terms of service, that’s fine. But the burden rests on Apple and AT&T to design adequate technical countermeasures against jailbreaking. At worst, the penalties for jailbreaking should not exceed the contractual terms that users accept when they buy an iPhone.

On the flip side, however, if independent developers devise a method of jailbreaking iPhones that Apple cannot block or detect, that’s Apple’s problem — not government’s. As Ed Felten argues:

The best policy is for government to stay out DRM decisionmaking altogether. Let companies like Apple develop DRM schemes. Let others interoperate with those schemes, if they can figure out how. Ensure competition, and let the market decide which products will succeed, and which DRM schemes are viable.

Granting a DMCA exemption for iPhone jailbreaking is a good start. Fundamentally, though, the real culprit here is the DMCA itself. Congress should reform the DMCA by overhauling its ban on circumvention technologies. Doing so would allow developers to freely distribute iPhone jailbreaking apps without running the risk of getting in legal trouble.

A good example of what DMCA reform ought to look like comes from the Digital Media Consumers’ Rights Act (DMCRA), a bill which was introduced unsuccessfully in Congress in 2003 and again in 2005. The bill would re-establish the legality of breaking copy-protection schemes for legal, non-infringing uses. It would also protect scientific research into copy protection technologies. (The DMCRA also contains some troubling provisions that deal with CD labeling, but that’s a separate matter).

One reason AT&T may not like Google Voice is that it allows you to send and receive text messages for free. This has led many to argue that SMS are free to the carriers and they are overcharging. Congress is considering getting involved. Most recently there’s this from David Pogue in the NY Times:

The whole thing is especially galling since text messages are pure profit for the cell carriers. Text messaging itself was invented when a researcher found “free capacity on the system” in an underused secondary cellphone channel: http://bit.ly/QxtBt. They may cost you and the recipient 20 cents each, but they cost the carriers pretty much zip.

The price of a text message does sound ridiculous when you consider it on a per bit basis. The problem with thinking about it that way, though, is that it neglects the fact that AT&T had to build a network, and it has to maintain that network, before a text message can be “free.” AT&T charges customers so it can recoup its investment. It does so through voice and data service fees, but also through other fees, including for text messages. However it charges customers, it ultimately has to bring in enough to cover its costs or it goes out of business.

Now, if we passed a law today that said carriers could not charge for SMS because, after all, it’s free, we would see a an increase in the fees it charges for voice, data, and other services. The mix of prices for services we have right now is one the market will bear and consumers want, and there’s no reason to think that we could command a better one.

Better yet, if you want a “free” text messaging option, consider Boost Mobile, which offers just that. Of course, they have different voice prices and an older and slower network. In the end, they have to cover their costs, too.

Despite my frequent disagreements with his policy conclusions, Farhad Manjooo of Slate is one of the most gifted tech policy pundits around today and everything he writes is worth reading (and I whole-heartedly agreed with his recent article on the high-tech and antitrust).  Alas, I find myself again disagreeing with him again today.

In his latest column, “The Great iPhone Lockdown: Should the FCC force Apple to sell Google’s apps?” Manjoo responds to a recent essay by TLF contributor Ryan Radia (“Newsflash to FCC: The iPhone is a Closed Platform, and Consumers Love It“). In that essay, Ryan generally argued that: (a) a lot of people own and love the iPhone despite some silly restrictions on certain apps; and (b) if they don’t like that, there are plenty of other options from which they can choose. Consequently, regulation seems unwarranted and likely highly misguided in light of the potential unitended consequences in might yield.  It’s an argument I very much agree with, of course.  Anyway, Manjoo responds:

Radia’s argument isn’t crazy. Just the other day, I argued that the government shouldn’t go after Google for antitrust violations because the tech industry is fluid; companies that are on top today can fall tomorrow. So what if Apple rejects apps capriciously? If its actions are so terrible, consumers will eventually abandon it.

But then Manjoo counters that argument and goes completely off-the-rails with several assertions that I find quite perplexing:

Yet [Radia’s] analysis misses a key point: The iPhone runs on public networks and therefore falls under government jurisdiction. At the very least, the regulators have a duty to ensure fair competition on wireless networks—and by arbitrarily blocking rivals from its device, the iPhone’s software platform simply isn’t fair. We would never accept its rules in other contexts: Imagine if Apple were building cars instead of phones and one day decided that everyone who’d bought an iCar would be banned from listening to any music not purchased from iTunes. Or say that Apple banned all Mac users from downloading Firefox because the browser duplicated the functionality of Safari. Such restrictions sound ridiculous; they wouldn’t pass the barest scrutiny of regulators or consumers. So why should we allow Apple to do the same thing with the iPhone?

Well, let’s begin with a few things he gets wrong here.  First, ” The iPhone runs on public networks and therefore falls under government jurisdiction.”  Uh, no. Last time I checked, AT&T was not running a “public network” owned by the government.  It’s true that AT&T is subjected to some FCC and state rules governing the provision of service, but it isn’t a “public network” like our highway system or inter-coastal waterways.  Thus, AT&T has the right to set terms of service (along with partners like Apple) to achieve both profitability and continue to invest in innovative new networks and services.

Manjoo then asserts that: ” At the very least, the regulators have a duty to ensure fair competition on wireless networks—and by arbitrarily blocking rivals from its device, the iPhone’s software platform simply isn’t fair.” It’s true that there are consumer protection laws on the books, but it’s unclear to me how the FCC has any jurisdictional authority to be regulating Apple or the iPhone.  There simply is none as I noted here in my essay, “Where is FCC Authority to Regulate in Apple-Google Spat?”

Manjoo’s next argument that “We would never accept its rules in other contexts,” uses some very rather strange examples. He asks us to consider what we (or the government, I suppose) might do “if Apple were building cars instead of phones and one day decided that everyone who’d bought an iCar would be banned from listening to any music not purchased from iTunes. Or say that Apple banned all Mac users from downloading Firefox because the browser duplicated the functionality of Safari.”

Well, I think it’s quite clear what we would do: WE WOULD STOP USING APPLE PRODUCTS!  Or at least we could if we didn’t like the terms of the deals they offered.  So, even if it is true that many of us would find such restrictions “ridiculous,” as Manjoo suggests, it certainly does not follow that ” they wouldn’t pass the barest scrutiny of regulators...”  Rubbish. I’m not even sure which agency it is that Manjoo think would be in the business of regulating “iCars” or, for that matter, Firefox and Safari web browsers. (A “Federal Computer Commission?”)

Regardless, it’s a bad idea.  These are activities that are better settled by consumer responses and market backlashes. If you want more innovation and competition in response to bone-headed moves by Apple (or anyone else for that matter), the solution is most definitely NOT the sort of common carriage regulatory regime that Manjoo seems to be suggesting.  That will just lock us into plain vanilla technologies, networks, and services.  Real tech innovation happens when people and competitors get pissed and get off their duffs to do something about it, not when government attempts to micro-manage results by tinkering with yesterday’s platforms.

Again, I want to make it very clear that I am not saying there is no such thing as “market failure” or “code failure.” To the contrary, as I argued in my recent exchange with Lawrence Lessig, I see mini-market failures happening all the time in the technology world.  But:

here’s the amazing thing: I usually wake up the next day, fire up my RSS reader again, and find a world almost literally transformed overnight. I see the power of public pressure, press scrutiny, social norms, and innovation by competitors combining to correct the “bad code” or “code failures” of the previous day. OK, so sometimes it takes longer that a day, a week, or a month. And occasionally legal sanctions must enter the picture if the companies or coders did something particularly egregious. But, more often than not, markets evolve and bad code eventually gives way to better code; short-term “market failures” give rise to a world of innovative alternatives.

Thus, I went on to argue that:

“code failures” are ultimately better addressed by voluntary, spontaneous, bottom-up, marketplace responses than by coerced, top-down, governmental solutions. Moreover, the decisive advantage of the market-driven approach to correcting code failure comes down to the rapidity and nimbleness of those response(s). Of course, this assumes we can agree on a definition of “bad code” and “code failures.” What concerns me about the way Prof. Lessig approaches these issues in Code and in his subsequent work is that he is far too quick to declare the debate over by labeling short-term code hiccups as sky-is-falling market failures. The end result of such myopic techno-pessimism is the inevitable call for governments to intervene and “do something” to correct supposed code failures. The cyber-libertarian instead counsels patience. Let’s give those other forces — alternative platforms, new innovators, social norms, public pressure, etc. — a chance to work some magic. Evolution happens, if you let it.

But, again, such evolution and innovation will most decidedly not happen if you people are always running around crying “market failure!” and calling in the code cops at every juncture, as Manjoo seems to be doing in the Apple-Google spat.  The problem with that think, as I noted in my debate with Lessig, is that it:

creates perverse marketplace incentives by discouraging efforts to innovate or “route around” bad code or code failure. We don’t want the whole world sitting around waiting for government to regulate the mousetrap to improve it or even give everyone better access to it; we should want the world to be innovating to create better mousetraps!

No one is going to build a better mousetrap to compete with Apple if regulators make it too easy for Apple to become the one preferred platform for all mobile apps developers. If Google is pissed about Apple screwing them over on their Google Voice app, that is a great thing: It will give them all the better reason to plow even more resources into Android and other platforms to compete against Apple!  And that’s exactly the sort of serious competition and innovation we should all be rooting for.

How is it that smart people like Manjoo fail to grasp this crucial point?

Just when you thought the FCC’s investigation of the wireless industry couldn’t get any stranger, TechCrunch reports that the Commission has sent letters to AT&T, Apple, and Google inquiring about Apple’s recent decision to reject the Google Voice app from the iPhone App Store (as Berin discussed yesterday).

It’s been over two years since the original iPhone was launched, but it seems the FCC still doesn’t get it: the iPhone is very clearly a closed platform — a prototypical walled garden — and Apple has the final say on what applications users can install. When you buy an iPhone, you’re not simply buying a piece of hardware, but actually a package deal that includes software, hardware, and a wireless contract. Is this anti-consumer? 26 million consumers don’t think so. The iPhone 3GS, the latest version of the phone, is selling so fast that Apple’s CFO says they can’t make enough to meet demand!

Of course, the iPhone model isn’t for everyone. I, for one, don’t own one because I’m an obsessive tinkerer and prefer a phone that’s as open as possible. But not everyone shares my preferences. As mentioned above, over 26 million iPhones have been sold since June 2007, so openness clearly isn’t make-or-break for a lot of consumers. Who knows, maybe some people actually trust Apple and like the comfort of knowing that every app they can get comes with a seal of approval from Cupertino.

The FCC’s letter to Apple demands an explanation for why Google Voice was rejected. If Apple’s explanation doesn’t satisfy the FCC’s criteria — which, by the way, are entirely unclear — then what? Will the FCC force Apple to accept Google Voice? Say what you will about Apple’s app store track record, but the prospect of federal regulators having the final word on which applications smartphone owners can install hardly seems pro-consumer. The FCC can’t even figure out how to run its own website!

In some ways, the iPhone has perhaps been too successful for its own good. It’s so popular that many consumers seem to no longer view it as just another product but instead as an item to which they are entitled. Thus, bureaucrats and Congresscritters in search of political points are making a big fuss over the fact that the iPhone isn’t everything to everyone. Why can’t it be wide open? Why isn’t in available on every carrier nationwide? Why is it so expensive to purchase without a service contract?

The answers to these questions lie in the rational self-interested decisions made by Apple and AT&T. The iPhone exists not just to make consumers happy (which it’s been exceedingly successful at doing), but also to make money for Apple and AT&T. And what’s wrong with that? Both firms arguably took a big risk on the iPhone, with Apple putting big bucks on the line to develop it and AT&T accepting an unprecedented arrangement with Apple to hand over a sizable chunk of wireless revenues.

Rewarding penalizing Apple and AT&T’s iPhone gamble with stricter regulations may make some iPhone owners happy in the short run, but it will also make phone developers wary about taking iPhone-esque gambles in the future. Why invest hundreds of millions to hopefully concoct the next big device if the price of success is political predation? (See Barbara Esbin and Berin Szoka’s paper, Should the FCC Kill The Goose That Laid The Golden iPhone, for more on this).

As we often say on TLF, if you don’t care for the iPhone’s App Store, get another phone! There are dozens of smartphones out there that compete with the iPhone. The Palm Pre, LG Versa, Samsung Omnia, and HTC G1 are just a few notable examples.

Want a phone that’s wide-open? Try the G1 — its Android OS is open source and even comes in an unlocked flavor that’s designed for developers. If you love Google Voice, then try a Blackberry — unlike the iPhone, Google Voice works great on Blackberries.

The FCC should stop wasting its time on futile attempts to make already-competitive markets even more so.  Instead, the Commission should be focusing on how to free up the airwaves, most of which remain out of reach of innovators because of outdated rules.

The iPhone-obsessed blogosphere is atwitter about the Apple”s exclusion of the Google voice application from the iPhone app store. On Friday, the FCC sent letters of inquiry to the two companies as well as AT&T.

Whatever one thinks about whether Apple and AT&T should be able to operate their own networks as they see fit, this cat-fight should at least demonstrate the pointlessness of the investigation opened by the FTC in May as to whether Apple and Google are violating the antitrust laws by having two members of their boards of directors in common: Google CEO Eric Schmidt and former Genentech CEO Art Levinson. If the two companies were, in fact, trying to collude in an anti-competitive manner, they don’t seem to be doing a very good job of it!

Meanwhile, if you don’t like how Apple runs its app store, don’t get an iPhone! If you already have one, you could follow the lead of TechCrunch’s Michael Arrington and simply cancel your existing iPhone contract to get a more “open” phone—such as one powered by Google’s Android operating system.

Me, I’m just waiting for Google Voice to offer number portability so I can start using the service without having to change the number I’ve had for the last five years—and plan to take to my ashen grave (somewhere beyond low Earth orbit).