NetNeutrality
Latest
Google and Verizon sign net neutrality agreement, begin the end of net neutrality? (update: Google, Verizon deny claims)
It's been a bumpy road for net neutrality in the US, and the latest word on the subject, of a partnership between Verizon and Google, could result in American internet freedom taking one step forward and two steps back. Last year, the two companies said together that they were all for net neutrality regardless of the source being a traditional or wireless ISP. Now, according to Bloomberg, they may have changed their tune somewhat, striking a deal that, up front, prevents Verizon from gimping traffic it doesn't like on its DSL and FiOS networks. That sounds good, but according to Politico the deal still allows Verizon to "prioritize certain traffic" -- more or less defeating the whole purpose if true. More troublingly, Verizon is able to do whatever it wants when it comes to managing wireless broadband, through mobile hotspots or, indeed, the plethora of Android handsets it now offers. Mind you, neither company is coming forward to discuss these supposed plans (Google saying it has "nothing to announce at this point") so this could all be much ado about nothing. We certainly hope it is, especially since we're talking about two companies who last year pledged they wanted to "ensure the openness of the web around the world." Update: Phew... we think. Google's Public Policy Twitter account just belted out a denial of these claims, straight-up saying that the New York Times "is wrong." Here's the full tweet, which certainly makes us feel a bit more at ease. For now. "@NYTimes is wrong. We've not had any convos with VZN about paying for carriage of our traffic. We remain committed to an open internet." Update 2: Verizon's now also issued a statement and, like Google, it's denying the claims in the original New York Times report. It's as follows: "The New York Times article regarding conversations between Google and Verizon is mistaken. It fundamentally misunderstands our purpose. As we said in our earlier FCC filing, our goal is an Internet policy framework that ensures openness and accountability, and incorporates specific FCC authority, while maintaining investment and innovation. To suggest this is a business arrangement between our companies is entirely incorrect."
Chile becomes first country to guarantee net neutrality, we start thinking about moving
Net neutrality: you want it, we want it, ISPs pretty much hate it. Chilean politicians? Those guys love the stuff! The Board of the Chamber of Deputies voted almost unanimously to pass Bulletin 4915 which, among other things, forces an ISP to: ...ensure access to all types of content, services or applications available on the network and offer a service that does not distinguish content, applications or services, based on the source of it or their property. There are other provisions as well forcing ISPs to protect user's privacy and the integrity of their systems, but it's the network neutrality bit we're really digging here. However, the cynics among us are wondering how long until ISPs start claiming that bandwidth-hogging sites pose a risk to user's systems. We're sure they just don't want your tubes to get backed up.
Google, Verizon, Comcast, and more band together to form tech (and policy) advisory group
BITAG doesn't exactly roll off the tongue, as far as spoken acronyms go, but the Broadband Internet Technical Advisory Group (also goes by TAG, for short) is looking to make (radio) waves. Facilitated by former FCC Chief Technologist (and University of Colorado at Boulder Adjunct Professor) Dale Hatfield, the group aims to "develop consensus on broadband network management practices and other related technical issues that can affect users' experience," which largely leads to addressing technical issues and making suggestions to policymakers. The group runs the gamut of major players in the broadband industry, including AT&T, Cisco, Comcast, DISH, EchoStar, Google, Intel, Level 3, Microsoft, Time Warner Cable, and Verizon. Naturally, the aforementioned companies already on board are lauding the move, and for its part the NCTA is happy to see a forum for tech and engineering experts to openly discuss issues and policies. Providing the counterargument would be the folks at DSL Reports, who show reserve that this may end up being nothing more than "policy dog and pony show" to avoid stricter government regulations on network neutrality. At this point that remains to be seen, as this organization doesn't seem to have even hit infancy yet. Expect more in the coming weeks as it continues to form and attempts to organize. We submit for your perusal the press release, just after the break.
Congress investigating general revamp of telecommunications law
We never had any doubt that Comcast's anti-net-neutrality court victory would prove to be more of a defeat in the long run, and that's exactly how it's shaping up: some 74 Democratic members of Congress have voiced concerns about the FCC's plan to re-classify broadband as a more highly-regulated "telecommunications service" instead of as an "information service" in letter sent to FCC chairman Julius Genachowski today, and a group of Democratic senators and representatives are planning a series of meetings in June with the goal of revamping US telecommunications law in general. According to Senate staffers who spoke to the Washington Post, the idea isn't to pre-empt the FCC's plan, but rather to bring the law into alignment with the modern market instead of trying to fit a round peg into a square hole -- our current telecom law was enacted in 1996 and is based on law written in 1934, so a more modern revamp could bring sweeping changes to the way broadband providers are able to sell and manage their services. We don't know what the specific agenda is yet, but we'd bet the FCC's recent finding that there's no "effective competition" in the wireless industry is sure to play a big part in these discussions, and we wouldn't be surprised to see some serious talk about cable providers and set-top hardware as well. Whatever happens, we'll be keeping a sharp eye on these meetings -- this is the first time we've seen the government take up the issue of modern telecommunications policy with this level of interest and momentum, and we've got a feeling some big things are afoot.
FCC outlines new 'third way' internet regulatory plan, will split access from content
The FCC's plan to rework how it regulates the internet just got a lot more solid today, as the agency officially announced its "third way" approach to classifying broadband services and opened it up for public comment. We've broken the entire thing down for you -- we're not kidding when we say this will affect how the internet works for all of us in the future, so grab a snack and head past the break for the whole story.
FCC to re-regulate internet in order to enforce net neutrality
Just as we predicted, the FCC is getting ready to take major steps to overcome that court decision ruling the agency doesn't currently have the ability to impose net neutrality under the agency's internet regulatory framework: the Wall Street Journal reports that FCC chairman Julius Genachowski has decided to "reregulate" internet service, thereby giving the agency the specific authority it needs to impose and enforce net neutrality. It's not clear exactly how the FCC will do that at this point; the easiest option would be to simply reclassify ISP as "common carriers" just like phone services, but we've heard that Genachowski has been searching for a "third way" in the past few weeks, and the WSJ says the current proposal will only enforce parts of the common carriage regulations to ISPs. We'll see what happens.
The Engadget Show returns this Saturday, April 24th with roboticist Dr. Dennis Hong, Ryan Block, and much more!
Well ladies and gentlemen, it's that time again -- the Engadget Show is back in a big way this Saturday, April 24th at 6pm! This time around, we'll have the world renowned roboticist Dr. Dennis Hong on hand for a stirring discussion on robotics -- as well as the progress on our future robot butlers. What's more, gdgt co-founder and Engadget editor emeritus Ryan Block will be joining the round table and our own investigative reporter Rick Karr will be back with a head-scratching report on the war in the music industry over net neutrality. You can also look forward to some fine, fine music from Neil Voss and mind-numbing visuals from NO CARRIER. We'll be streaming the whole thing direct to you via the internet, but we'll also be doing tons of giveaways at the live show only, so make the trek and join us at The Times Center in person. If you're geographically incapable of joining us in New York City, just hit up the stream and tweet comments directly to the show! If you're wondering about what kind of giveaways we've got in store, one lucky audience member will walk away from the show with this insane ATI Eyefinity rig. Yes. Seriously. Note: The show time has been moved back an hour, so it will be starting at 6PM! See below for more details. The Engadget Show is sponsored by Sprint, and will take place at the Times Center, part of The New York Times Building in the heart of New York City at 41st St. between 7th and 8th Avenues (see map after the break). Tickets are -- as always -- free to anyone who would like to attend, but seating is limited, and tickets will be first come, first served... so get there early! Here's all the info you need: There is no admission fee -- tickets are completely free The event is all ages Ticketing will begin at the Times Center at 3:30PM on Saturday, doors will open for seating at 5:30PM, and the show begins at 6PM You cannot collect tickets for friends or family -- anyone who would like to come must be present to get a ticket Seating capacity in the Times Center is about 340, and once we're full, we're full The venue is located at 41st St. between 7th and 8th Avenues in New York City (map after the break) The show length is around an hour If you're a member of the media who wishes to attend, please contact us at: engadgetshowmedia [at] engadget [dot] com, and we'll try to accommodate you. All other non-media questions can be sent to: engadgetshow [at] engadget [dot] com. Subscribe to the Show: [iTunes] Subscribe to the Show directly in iTunes (M4V). [Zune] Subscribe to the Show directly in the Zune Marketplace (M4V). [RSS M4V] Add the Engadget Show feed (M4V) to your RSS aggregator and have it delivered automatically.
Court rules FCC doesn't have authority to impose net neutrality
No hard details yet, but opponents of net neutrality just scored a big victory -- the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has sided with Comcast and ruled that the FCC doesn't have the authority under current law to impose regulations on internet service providers. Obviously we're super interested in the wonky minutiae, so we'll be digging for them -- stay tuned. Update: Okay, we're reading the opinion (PDF below) and basically it boils down like this: the FCC ordered Comcast to stop filtering Bittorrent on its network in early 2008, and Comcast filed suit, saying the FCC didn't have the authority to intervene like that. Since there's no specific law giving the FCC the authority to regulate the internet, the FCC told the court it was using its "ancillary powers," which allow the agency to take actions needed to fulfill its role -- and the FCC was interpreting its role as promoting net neutrality based on the policy statements of Congress. The court said that wasn't good enough, obviously -- we'd bet this gets appealed immediately while Congress goes to work on a specific law authorizing the Commission to impose net neutrality. Update 2: Here's the FCC's response to the opinion: The FCC is firmly committed to promoting an open Internet and to policies that will bring the enormous benefits of broadband to all Americans. It will rest these policies -- all of which will be designed to foster innovation and investment while protecting and empowering consumers -- on a solid legal foundation. Today's court decision invalidated the prior Commission's approach to preserving an open Internet. But the Court in no way disagreed with the importance of preserving a free and open Internet; nor did it close the door to other methods for achieving this important end.
FCC net neutrality rules enter drafting process, face McCain challenge
Our old friends at the FCC have started to put words into action, as the net neutrality regulations proposed by Chairman Julius Genachowski have now entered the rule-drafting stage. The provision of most import here is that broadband providers would be forbidden from traffic discrimination or "management," and compelled to provide equal access and services to their users, irrespective of the type or bandwidth uptake of their internet activity. Of course, this is hardly a bumpless road, with Senator John McCain proposing the Internet Freedom Act of 2009, whose sole reason for existing will be to prevent the FCC from putting those rules through. Even if things do go smoothly, though, "reasonable network management" will still be an available recourse for telecoms, where it is necessary to block spam and illegal content, such as child pornography. Which sounds kinda like censorship to us. Look, we have no more interest in child porn than we do a pair of Lady Gaga Heartbeats, but any time we hear of internet providers having either the right or responsibility to block content, we get an uneasy feeling in the pit of our libertarian stomachs. Anyhow, the great big gears of regulation have finally started turning, and we can look forward to more political wrangling as the rules take shape over the coming months.
Google, Verizon team up to throw support behind FCC's net neutrality push
Google and [insert any wireless carrier here] are the last two entities in the world that we'd expect to issue a joint statement on net neutrality, seeing how Google firmly believes the FCC should enforce it regardless of medium while carriers generally want to be exempted -- but Verizon and The Goog have put their differences aside for just one day to put together a thoughtful, lengthy piece on the subject. There aren't any surprises in the piece other than the fact that CEOs Lowell McAdam and Eric Schmidt are personally attributed to the statement, but it echoes what most ISPs have been saying since new FCC chair Julius Genachowski came into play: they generally acknowledge that a free, unhindered internet has led to a better world and that it's in everyone's best interest to make sure that it continues to be that way. They go on to say that "there will be disagreements along the way" -- Google and Verizon don't see eye-to-eye on the finer points, for example -- but that they're all looking forward to a spirited debate with the folks over in Washington. Ultimately, the FCC's ability to effectively police true neutrality on wireless networks ties in deeply with its ability to free up a lot more spectrum -- something the CTIA's been pushing for lately -- and Genachowski recently mentioned that they'd be looking into it, so this could all end up working out without any broken hearts or black eyes.
CRTC sets net neutrality rules for Canada, allows throttling as 'last resort'
The FCC may be yet to act on Chairman Genachowski's proposed net neutrality rules, but the agency's Canadian counterpart, the CRTC, has made a fairly significant ruling of its own on the matter today, and it seems like it may have manged to disappoint folks on both sides of the debate in the process. The short of it is that the CRTC will allow internet service providers to practice "traffic shaping" (a.k.a. bandwidth throttling), but only as a "last resort," and only after it has issued a warning that the throttling will take place (30 days in advance for regular users, and 60 days for wholesale customers). What's more, the CRTC is also recommending that ISPs "give preference to Internet traffic management practices based on economic measures" before cutting into customers downloads -- in other words, charge more for extra bandwidth, or offer discounts during non-peak hours. Read - CRTC ruling Read - The Globe and Mail, "CRTC sets Web 'throttling' rules"
AT&T now allowing iPhone VoIP calls over 3G
AT&T's restrictive network policies might have been behind some of the more notable iPhone app rejections in the past, but at least one major class of applications just got the green light, as Ma Bell just opened up iPhone VoIP calls over 3G. We can only assume this is the result of the FCC's renewed push for net neutrality and AT&T's argument that it's doesn't need new regulations to remain open, but -- what does this mean for you? Well, Skype on the road, for starters, but we're guessing a flood of interesting new VoIP apps will hit just as soon as devs can get their apps updated and submitted. We'll see how pushing all this more data affects AT&T's network going forward -- we're totally starting a SlingPlayer petition drive if things don't totally blow up.
Engadget Podcast 164 - 09.27.2009
It's been a crazy week in news, and after a couple cross-country flights the podcast crew is together and ready to break it all down. Join Josh, Paul and Nilay as they take on Microsoft's Courier tablet concept and rumored Pink smartphones, dish on the HTC Leo and Windows Mobile, debate the finer points of net neutrality, and talk over the highlights from the Intel Developer Forum and the Tokyo Game Show. Yeah, there's a ton here -- grab a snack and tune in! Hosts: Joshua Topolsky, Nilay Patel, Paul Miller Producer: Trent Wolbe Song: Today Hear the podcast 00:02:34 - Microsoft's dual-screen Courier booklet emerges, isn't near production00:06:18 - Codex and InkSeine -- the roots of Microsoft's Courier?00:33:30 - Microsoft's Pink phones revealed?00:43:00 - HTC Leo looking confirmed for O2 UK debut, will be free on the right plan00:46:20 - Steve Ballmer talks 'three screens and a cloud' and more with TechCrunch00:50:00 - Ballmer: Windows Mobile 7 should have been out, like, yesterday00:55:58 - FCC chairman formally proposes net neutrality rules00:58:45 - AT&T, Verizon poised to fight FCC's net neutrality stance on the wireless front01:10:00 - AT&T's 3G MicroCell tested and reviewed by Charlottean: yes, it works01:13:56 - Intel announces Moblin 2.1 for phones01:18:07 - Dell announces Moblin Mini 10v at IDF (updated with pricing)01:17:25 - Video: Moblin 2.1 for MIDs and phones, sort of in action01:21:15 - USB 3.0 has a SuperSpeed coming-out party at IDF01:22:44 - Video: Intel's Light Peak running an HD display while transferring files... on a hackintosh01:28:40 - 13 PS3 motion control games confirmed for next year, motion-enhanced Biohazard 5 coming Spring 201001:30:03 - Nintendo finally confirms new $199 Wii price Subscribe to the podcast [iTunes] Subscribe to the Podcast directly in iTunes (enhanced AAC). [RSS MP3] Add the Engadget Podcast feed (in MP3) to your RSS aggregator and have the show delivered automatically. [RSS AAC] Add the Engadget Podcast feed (in enhanced AAC) to your RSS aggregator. [Zune] Subscribe to the Podcast directly in the Zune Marketplace Download the podcast LISTEN (MP3) LISTEN (AAC) LISTEN (OGG) Contact the podcast 1-888-ENGADGET or podcast (at) engadget (dot) com. Twitter: @joshuatopolsky @futurepaul @reckless @engadget
AT&T, Google trade barbs over Google Voice while FCC listens in
AT&T filed a scathing letter with the FCC earlier today complaining that Google's exhibiting a blatant double standard with Google Voice by blocking customers' access to numbers hosted by carriers that charge higher interconnect fees -- something that's specifically forbidden for traditional telephone carriers under so-called common carrier laws. The argument essentially revolves around the fact that Google's move helps it compete unfairly against AT&T and others by arbitrarily blocking calls to numbers that'd cost it too much to connect, which AT&T says puts Google in an "intellectual contradiction" given its "noisome trumpeting" (ouch!) of support for net neutrality. It is pretty interesting that Google wants a free, open internet with the left hand while it's blocking certain telephone calls with the other, but Mountain View wasted no time in responding to the communication, posting an quick blog piece where it says there are "many significant differences" that should exempt it from common carrier legislation (some sound reasonable, though the argument that "Google Voice is currently invitation-only, serving a limited number of users" makes us think they're digging pretty deep to come up with reasons they shouldn't have to pony up the cash to get these calls connected). If there's a bright side to the bickering, it's that both AT&T and Google can agree on one thing: rural carriers' continued ability to charge high connection fees hurts everyone -- it's a "badly flawed" system, in Google's words, and it'd be great if the FCC would do something about it. Whether this whole spat ultimately influenced the outcome of the Google Voice iPhone app debacle is unclear, but it's obvious that AT&T's been stewing about this for a while -- so let it all out, guys, mommy FCC's here for you, and one way or another we suspect GV's going to have to end up going legit if it wants to grow its user base by any significant measure. Check out the gallery for AT&T's letter and follow the read link for Google's shorter, slightly less aggressive response.
AT&T, Verizon poised to fight FCC's net neutrality stance on the wireless front
Verizon and AT&T, the States' number one and number two wireless carriers by subscriber count respectively, share a common bond in that they both have deep ties to the Bell System of old and have ended up running huge wireline broadband and legacy telephone businesses. That means they're liable to end up sharing a lot of common interests like candlelit dinners, walks on the beach, and a general agreement with the FCC's Julius Genachowski on new net neutrality legislation -- for wired broadband, anyhow. Both companies' wireless divisions are expressing concern that the proposed rules would apply to ISPs regardless of medium, and the argument is that while landlines (and the accompanying bandwidth) are a theoretically limitless resource, wireless bandwidth is ultimately limited by available spectrum no matter how advanced the underlying technology may be -- and if the carriers don't have authority to clamp down on certain types of heavy use, everyone loses. Though every bone in our body is telling us to vehemently disagree with the argument, they're right on the point that wireless capacity doesn't flow from an everlasting font of spectrum, and it's got to be managed. Thing is, "managed" doesn't necessarily mean "restrict." Here are the options we see at a quick glance: Lobby the FCC to aggressively search for and free up additional spectrum that can be safely re-purposed. The CTIA's already pursuing this angle, so it'll be interesting to see what becomes of it. Before raising hell, AT&T and Verizon should both consider completing their moves to LTE and coming within a stone's throw of tapping out their current spectrum allocations. Both carriers own swaths of 700MHz bandwidth that they haven't yet capitalized on, and AT&T is actively freeing up 1900MHz by moving a number of markets to 850 for 3G. As with everything else in a free economy, the market should decide wireless data pricing. It's a limited resource and it's in demand -- as long as the appropriate regulatory bodies are keeping a close eye on anti-competitive practices (which it seems they're looking to do a better job of), simply charge a fair market rate for usage rather than discriminating by application. We've got a long way to go from the virtually identical pricing structures and limited options that national carriers offer today. See, guys? Lots of options here without waging a fight that goes against the popular (and largely correct) side of a hot-button topic.
FCC chairman formally proposes net neutrality rules
We knew it was going to happen, but we're still stoked to report that FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski formally proposed a set of net neutrality rules this morning, calling them "the fair rules of the road for companies that control access to the internet." There are two big new rules, which say broadband providers of any kind can't discriminate against content or applications, and must be transparent about their network management policies -- a big change for wireless carriers like Verizon and AT&T, who would have to open their networks to scrutiny, and a direct response to Comcast's secretive packet-filtering techniques. What's more, Genachowski also proposed that four existing agency policies be granted formal rule status, meaning network operators would be required to allow users to access the content, apps, and services of their choice, and they would also be required to allow any "non-harmful" devices to connect to their networks. We knew all that open-access hullabaloo was leading up to something good. All told, these are some big policy changes, and while we're excited that the FCC is this gung-ho about net neutrality -- seriously, Genachowski comes off as the best kind of fanboy in his followup HuffPo editorial, it's kind of awesome -- we're still only cautiously optimistic, since the rulemaking process has only just begun and there are some potentially huge loopholes for network management and prevention of copyright infringement. But those are details to be worked out -- for now, the real news is that net neutrality is on its way to becoming the law of the land, and that's enough to warm even our darkened robot hearts. Check a video of Jules after the break. Read - Genachowski's speech proposing net neutrality rules Read - Genachowski's Huffington Post followup editorial Read - The FCC's new openinternet.gov website Read - WSJ piece with industry reactions
FCC to propose new net neutrality rules disallowing data discrimination
Based on what we're hearing, a slate of soon-to-be-proposed FCC rules may stop the likes of Comcast from discriminating against P2P applications on their networks, and AT&T sure will have a tougher time justifying why it won't let the iPhone's version of SlingPlayer run on 3G while giving WinMo and BlackBerry users all the bandwidth they can handle. Julius Genachowski, the new chairman of the entity, is slated to discuss the new rules on Monday, though he isn't expected to dig too deep into the minutiae. Essentially, the guidelines will "prevent wireless companies from blocking internet applications and prevent them from discriminating (or acting as gatekeepers) [against] web content and services." We know what you're thinking: "Huzzah!" And in general, that's probably the right reaction to have as a consumer, but one has to wonder how network quality for all will be affected if everyone is cut loose to, well, cut loose. Oh, and if this forces telecoms to deploy more cell sites to handle the influx in traffic, you can rest assured that the bill will be passed on to you. Ain't nuthin' free, kids.[Thanks to everyone who sent this in]
Cox follows Comcast down the data discrimination road
It's a sad day for Cox internet subscribers, 'cause if the FCC or some other almighty agency doesn't step in soon, your traffic could be slowed. The carrier has just announced a rather significant update to its data management policies, as it lays out plans to test a system next month that will "give priority to Internet traffic it judges to be time-sensitive, like web pages, streaming video and online games." We're also told that "file downloads, software updates and other non-time sensitive data may be slowed if there is congestion on the local network." Thankfully, "streaming video" was listed in the category that'll supposedly get first dibs on available bandwidth, but one always has to wonder what kind of juju is going on behind closed doors when a plan such as this is announced. If all goes well in the Kansas / Arkansas test markets, the system could be rolled out to all Cox internet customers (business users notwithstanding) by the year's end. Lovely.[Via HotHardware]
Comcast cool with FCC ruling, will just slow all of your traffic now
First off, you've got to be kidding us. Okay, now that we've got that out, get a load of this. After the FCC told Comcast earlier this month that its data discrimination tactics weren't kosher, the provider has decided to react by simply slowing all internet traffic on its heaviest users. More specifically, Mitch Bowling, Comcast's senior vice president and general manager of online services, stated in a recent interview that the top internet speeds for "targeted customers will be reduced for periods lasting 10 minutes to 20 minutes, keeping service to other users flowing." Right now, this may not affect you one iota, but what's to happen when your kid spends his summer sucking down content on the VUDU / Hulu / etc.? We can think of quite a few reasons to legitimately use a huge chunk of bandwidth, and having Big Provider keep watch and determine when enough is enough frightens us just a wee bit.[Via CrunchGear, image courtesy of Kansas]
FCC rules against Comcast, now what?
The FCC finally acted on Comcast's "data management", finding against the company because it had arbitrarily decided which applications subscribers would have access to. Of course, the judgement did not include a fine, and while it enforced a policy for open access to the internet, it doesn't seem to do much for possible bandwidth caps. Comcast does have stop its blocking practice by the end of the year, and provide details to the commission on what exactly it's done so far, and to customers on whatever it plans to do in the future. With online video distribution growing more ubiquitous and even Comcast working with BitTorrent-style technologies like GridNetworks on how to deliver HD over the internet, we're sure we haven't heard the last of this.Read - Commission Orders Comcast to End Discriminatory Network Management Practices (Warning: PDF link)Read - Comcast Statement on FCC Internet Regulation DecisionRead - Verizon Statement on FCC's Comcast Decision
