NetNeutrality
Latest
FCC: We didn't impose stricter net neutrality regulations on wireless because Android is open
Rest assured that we're working on a full analysis of the FCC's major net neutrality decision today, but the Commission hasn't actually released the full text of the order yet, and we just came across something in the press release we wanted to break out: one of the specific reasons the FCC gives for regulating wireless broadband more lightly than wireline is the release of Android. Seriously -- the release says that only "measured steps" to regulating wireless are necessary because "open operating systems like Android" have been released, and that it wants to see how Verizon and other 700MHz spectrum winners handle the hotly-contested openness requirement when building out 4G. Here's the full quote: Further, we recognize that there have been meaningful recent moves toward openness, including the introduction of open operating systems like Android. In addition, we anticipate soon seeing the effects on the market of the openness conditions we imposed on mobile providers that operate on upper 700 MHz C-Block spectrum, which includes Verizon Wireless, one of the largest mobile wireless carriers in the U.S. In light of these considerations, we conclude it is appropriate to take measured steps at this time to protect the openness of the Internet when accessed through mobile broadband. Now, we obviously love Android, and there's no doubt that Google's OS has been part of some wonderfully furious competition in the mobile space recently. But we're not sure any of that has anything to do with net neutrality -- it doesn't matter how open your OS is when you're stuck with a filtered and throttled connection, and it's a pretty huge stretch to think Android's openness (however you want to define it) has anything to do with network access itself. And let's not forget that the primary proponent of the 700MHz open-access rules was Google, which promptly flip-flopped on the issue when it became Verizon's policy BFF after the Droid launch -- if we were slightly more paranoid, we'd be pretty sure there's a link between the FCC's Android mention and the combined furious lobbying of Google and Verizon. Nice try, boys -- but how about you make with the actual rules now?
FCC passes limited net neutrality rules, almost no one happy about them
Well, no surprises here -- the FCC just passed a set of limited net neutrality rules by a 3-2 vote. The three Democratic Commissioners, including FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, voted yes, while the two Republican Commissioners both strongly dissented -- to quote Commissioner Meredith Baker, "I really, really, really dissent." The rules haven't been made public yet, but the general understanding is that wired broadband will be more heavily regulated than wireless -- a crucial point as carriers begin investigating pay-per-service charges. That means even net neutrality advocates are unhappy with today's decision -- Democratic Commissioner Michael Copps straight-up said, "Today's action could -- and should -- have gone further." What's more, we're hearing that Verizon is already considering a challenge -- which is odd since the rules appear to track closely with that joint Verizon / Google proposal from the summer. We're still waiting on the full text of the rules and will post a complete breakdown once we get them, but for now hit the source link and check out Genachowski's remarks on the regulations. P.S. - Need a net neutrality refresher? Check out this awesome (and educational) animation and interview with Columbia law professor Tim Wu!
Wireless carriers openly considering charging per service (update: audio)
That slide above is no joke -- it comes from a marketing webinar put on by two companies that count Verizon, AT&T and Vodafone as clients, and it describes a system that identifies customer internet activity and charges a different rate for using Facebook than watching YouTube, while allowing access to Vodafone services for free. Yes, that's basically the nightmare scenario for net neutrality advocates. The two companies behind the slide are Allot Communications and Openet, which sell subscriber-management tools to carriers around the world -- tools that Allot's director of marketing says can scan even encrypted packets to determine what service customers are using and charge accordingly. We're not making this up -- here's the direct quote from the webinar: [We use] a number of different methods to accurately identify the application -- methods like heuristic analysis, behavioral and historical analysis, deep packet inspection, and a number of other techniques. What's key is that we have the best application identification available on the market, which means that even applications that are encrypted or use other methods to evade detection will be correctly identified and classified... We essentially feed this real-time information about traffic and application usage into the policy and charging system. Each subscriber has a particular service plan that they sign up for, and they're as generic or as personalized as the operator wants. Yeah, that's not how anyone actually wants the internet to work -- except carriers, who've been saying increasingly insane things about charging even smartphone manufacturers for customer data usage lately. What's more, it's rumored that the FCC will cave to Verizon and AT&T and exempt wireless internet service from major parts of net neutrality regulation it's expected to pass next week, so this nonsense could very well hit the US sooner rather than later. We'll be keeping a close eye on things -- we'll let you know. Meanwhile, listen to the webinar yourself immediately below.
European carriers want content companies and smartphone makers to pay network usage fees
How do you start a net neutrality debate without ever saying "net neutrality?" If you're a European wireless carrier like France Telecom, Telecom Italia, Telefonica, or Vodafone, you do it by just getting straight to the point: you say companies like Google, Apple, and Facebook need to start paying for continued network access because their devices and services use too much bandwidth. Yep, that's a straight-up network neutrality issue, but the carriers are framing it like it's an accounting problem -- and they're not being shy about wanting more cash to even out the books as they invest in next-gen networks. "It's necessary to put in place a system of payments by service providers as a function of their use," says France Telecom CEO Stephane Richard, while Telefonica CEO Cesar Alierta says that Google and Yahoo's free use of his network is a "tragedy" that "can't continue." (No, we're not making this up.) In addition to shaking down service providers and device makers, European carriers are also following AT&T and Verizon to tiered data plans -- France Telecom is will move from unlimited pricing to something "more sophisticated," and the other networks expected to follow. What's most interesting to us is that the carriers are appearing to conflate bandwidth-heavy services like Facebook and YouTube with devices that customers use to access those services -- does it really make any sense to charge Apple or Google a fee for making good phones that encourage more network use, on top of charging users for tiered data? That's an unexpected -- and unfortunate -- twist on the standard net neutrality debate, and we're not so sure we want to see where it's going. Read the whole article at the source link, it's a good one.
FCC addressing net neutrality on December 21st (updated)
Well, well, look at what's been added to a tentative agenda when the FCC meets on December 21st: net neutrality. Here's how the item reads: Open Internet Order: An Order adopting basic rules of the road to preserve the open Internet as a platform for innovation, investment, competition, and free expression. These rules would protect consumers' and innovators' right to know basic information about broadband service, right to send and receive lawful Internet traffic, and right to a level playing field, while providing broadband Internet access providers with the flexibility to reasonably manage their networks. Presumably, a draft order is now circulating amongst attendees, the details of which are of the utmost concern for both consumers and wired / wireless providers alike. According to the AP, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski will outline his net neutrality proposal in a speech on Wednesday, with plans to bring the new rules to a full vote before the end of the year and ahead of the newly elected Republicans taking their seats in the House. Update: The AP received an advanced copy of Genachowski's speech. Here are the highlights of the FCC proposal: Wired broadband providers will be required to let subscribers access all legal content, applications, and services with the flexibility to manage network congestion and spam as long as they publicly disclose their network management approach. Broadband providers would also be allowed to experiment with dedicated networks to route traffic from specialized services like smart grids and home security systems as long as they "don't hurt the public internet." Wireless providers would also be required to disclose network management practices and be prohibited from blocking access to web sites or competing applications like cellphone VoIP services. However, they'd be given more flexibility to manage traffic due to relative bandwidth constraints. In other words, wireless networks will still be special under the FCC proposal, just not as special as the plan pitched by Google / Verizon (which only required transparency) over the summer. The proposal would leave the FCC's regulatory framework for broadband unchanged as a lightly regulated "information service," not as a "common carrier" as Genachowski had wanted. Another victory for Comcast. Update 2: The New York Times says that the proposal will allow broadband companies to implement usage-based pricing, charging customers higher rates for heavy data usage.
FCC looking into Comcast / Netflix blocking threat, Level 3 responds as analysts chime in
News that Comcast had threatened to block internet backbone Level 3, which is one of the companies delivering Watch Instantly streams, sent shockwaves through the industry yesterday. Net neutrality advocates geared up for battle, Comcast insisted it was only enforcing the same arrangements other networks abide by while Roger Ebert and the rest of us fretted over Netflix access. Today, Level 3 issued a response to Comcast, claiming it is "distracting from the fundamental issue" which is free use of all content on the internet for its customers. Meanwhile, Multichannel News points out industry analysts say Level 3's claims of traffic discrimination "appear unfounded" while VideoNuze editor Will Richmond supposes Level 3 may have "bid too aggressively for the Netflix business and is now trying to recover." Most damaging to Level 3's argument are its own words from a dispute where it sought financial compensation from Cogent for using too much of its network's bandwidth: "For example, Cogent was sending far more traffic to the Level 3 network than Level 3 was sending to Cogent's network. It is important to keep in mind that traffic received by Level 3 in a peering relationship must be moved across Level 3's network at considerable expense. Simply put, this means that, without paying, Cogent was using far more of Level 3's network, far more of the time, than the reverse. Following our review, we decided that it was unfair for us to be subsidizing Cogent's business." Beyond analyst opinions and posturing the question of whether or not Comcast has the power to set pricing for access to its network, creating the toll road Level 3 is accusing it of being, is still at issue. That will certainly come into play at the FCC, where chairman Julius Genachowski mentioned at today's meeting that the agency is looking into Level 3's claims at the same time it continues to review the joining of Comcast and NBC. As far as your Netflix streams? Safe for now, though the company isn't commenting, Level 3 isn't the only provider it relies on for access and how any deal it might reach with Comcast could affect the service is still unclear. Update: Comcast has issued its own salvo of PR, including a video meant to breakdown exactly what internet peering is and what it wants to charge Level 3 for, 10 of its own facts about what it is, and is not doing, and a copy of the letter it's sent to the FCC about the issue. You can them all out in full after the break.
Comcast, Level 3 Communications square off over video streaming, network neutrality principles
According to networking company Level 3 Communications, Comcast just couldn't wait for its NBC deal to go through before getting all jerky with the access to online video, telling Level 3 on November 19th that it would need to pay a fee to deliver video to Comcast customers. Level 3 delivers videos from many companies over its networks, but the timing is particularly notable since on November 11th it signed up bandwidth-chewing Netflix as a major customer. While this sounds like exactly the kind of anti-net neutrality nonsense that makes us want to crank some OK Go, Comcast has responded saying it's doing no such thing, and it's actually Level 3 seeking a competitive advantage by suddenly sending far more information onto Comcast's network than it accepts. The cable company goes on to claim this situation is no different than its existing deals with Level 3's competitors, and that as long as traffic remains in balance it is willing to allow access settlement free, but if they want to push their growth (read: Netflix) onto Comcast's pipes, they'll have to pay up. We'll wait and see if this is all just a simple negotiating ploy or a true strike in the battle over net neutrality, but you may still want to get a refresher course on exactly what net neutrality is all about from our friend Tim Wu just in case.
Verizon proposes wholesale rewrite of US telecom law
Here's something you don't see every day: Verizon just put out a press release titled "Congress Needs to Update the Nation's Antiquated and Anti-Competitive Telecom Rules." Yeah, no tip-toeing around here -- Verizon public policy VP Tom Tauke straight-up says that the government should completely rewrite the Telecommunications Act, and give a single federal agency "clear jurisdiction" to enforce the law on a case-by-case basis. That's a direct shot at the FCC, which lost the Comcast BitTorrent case when the court ruled it didn't have the power to enforce net neutrality, and then provoked the ire of both industry and Congress alike when it tried to reclassify internet communications in a way that gave it the power it needed. That's also way beyond the joint Google / Verizon net neutrality proposal from August -- Verizon's gone from suggesting that the FCC make some policy tweaks to demanding that Congress start over with the law that governs the FCC itself, which is something like the difference between a screwdriver and a sledgehammer. Now, Congress actually started to consider a revamp of telecom law in May after the FCC's net neutrality plan backfired, and while we haven't heard much about it, we're certain Verizon's emphatic support (and lobbying dollars) are sure to inject some momentum into the process. Truth be told, we'd actually welcome a wholesale rewrite of the current Telecom Act, which was last seriously revised in 1996 and in large part dates back to 1934. But why listen to us when we've got a pithy quote from Verizon? "The grinding you hear are the gears churning as policymakers try to fit fast-changing technologies and competitive markets into regulatory boxes built for analog technologies and monopoly markets." Yeah, this one's going to get good. Full PR after the break. P.S.- Still unclear on what net neutrality is and why it's important? Check out our Engadget Show interview with Columbia professor Tim Wu and get up to speed.
Tim Berners-Lee entreats us to keep the net neutral, standards open, and speech free
We've always thought pretty highly of this Tim Berners-Lee fella, and now we've got a whole essay penned by him to show you why that is. In a six-page treatise on the current state of the web, Tim discusses why universality of access is so important to our freedom of speech and other democratic liberties, why open standards will always prevail over closed ecosystems (with a special critique of Apple's iTunes and concordant appification of the web), and also why it's necessary to distinguish between the web and the internet. Oh, and he also manages to squeeze in one of the most succinct explanations of net neutrality and its growing importance in our massively interconnected world. Hit the source for the full shot of enlightenment. [Image courtesy of Paul Clarke]
Net neutrality expert calls Apple the number one threat to Internet freedom
According to Tim Wu, author of The Master Switch: The Rise and Fall of Information Empires and the man responsible for the term "net neutrality," Apple is the number one danger to Internet freedom. In a one on one interview with the New York Times, Columbia law professor Wu claims that what worries him most about Apple is that "Steve Jobs has the charisma, vision and instincts of every great information emperor. The man who helped create the personal computer 40 years ago is probably the leading candidate to help exterminate it. His vision has an undeniable appeal, but he wants too much control." While net neutrality has been a hot topic as of late, and I can understand having some healthy skepticism about monopolistic behavior by corporations, I have a bit of an issue when someone claims that the power of a CEO is similar to that of a great nation. That's a pretty large conclusion he jumps directly to, especially when he says that "the man who starts as the great reformer often ends his career by becoming increasingly paranoid and abusive" to back up the claim. It seems a bit superfluous at best. After all, in 1994 Time magazine wondered if Bill Gates was getting too powerful, but I never saw him transform into an evil, paranoid CEO. What do you guys think about Professor Wu's claims? [via Computerworld]
FCC, Justice Department look to prevent Comcast from hogging NBC's online video all for itself
Ready or not, Comcast and NBC will walk down the aisle in matrimony -- but it'll not be without a few conditions. According to The Wall Street Journal, both the FCC and the Justice Department are expected to impose conditions on how NBC online video is distributed online, to ensure the cable operator (with online video distribution channels of its own) doesn't withhold or threaten to withhold NBC Universal content from rivals -- both Netflix and Apple are specifically cited by WSJ. The FCC is additionally considering restrictions on Comcast slowing down / blocking "legal traffic" from its internet network, maintaining a pro-net neutrality stance. Chairman Julius Genachowski is currently meeting with staffers twice a week on the deal, with the timetable of circulating proposed conditions by mid-December -- narrowly avoiding sweeps week, unless 30 Rock has an idea or two up its Kabletown-owned sleeve.
T-Mobile FCC memo cites Android app that caused network chaos
Remember, back in 2007 -- you know, Year One BTAS (Before The App Store) -- when Steve Jobs gave Apple's rationale for keeping the iPhone a closed platform versus allowing native app development? "Cingular doesn't want to see their West Coast network go down because some application messed up," he famously said, and was mocked by us and others for his seeming excess of caution. Now it seems the rogue app is on the other foot -- or, more to the point, on the other OS and carrier. Mike Dano at FierceWireless takes note of a January FCC filing (PDF) from T-Mobile planning & performance engineering director Grant Castle, where Castle makes part of T-Mobile's case on net neutrality rules and the need for traffic shaping and optimization for wireless data. The entire memo is a good read -- surprising enough, considering the audience and topic -- but the real zinger is the revelation about an unnamed instant messaging application that rolled out onto T-Mobile's Android handset base. This mystery app apparently worked fine and dandy when tested on WiFi by the developer, but once in the wild it began to cause network issues; signaling demand went up, particularly on already-busy nodes in urban settings, and in one test the app was shown to increase device network utilization by 12x. The problems were exacerbated as the app grew in popularity, and eventually the traffic issues began to degrade service overall. In this case, T-Mobile was able to reach out to the developer and request fixes to the app to resolve the network pain and suffering (which must have been a fascinating phone call). Still, this example of one poorly-adjusted application having widespread impact on a carrier network does indeed validate the original precautions in place for the web-apps-only iOS 1.x world, and today's gated garden/kill switch environment for iOS apps in the wild. Interestingly, even though T-Mobile's support for unlocked iPhones in the US is officially unofficial, it's not entirely without challenges. FW also pointed out that back in April the carrier reported to the FCC that jailbroken phones on the T-Mobile network caused signaling issues akin to a DDOS attack. One could easily imagine a popular jailbreak application going off the network rails, with no way to restrain or recall it -- depending on the percentage of JB phones in the wild, it could get hectic. [via Engadget]
T-Mobile director scares the FCC with a chilling tale: 'The IM App that Killed Our Network'
It's almost Halloween, kiddies. Do you have your spooky stories ready for telling around the campfire? If you need a little help, take inspiration from this doozy told by Grant Castle, a Director at T-Mobile USA. It was submitted to the FCC way back in January and as a sort of written protest against "risky and unnecessary" net neutrality rules. He tells the tale of an undisclosed IM app that caused the network of an undisclosed city to go offline due to its too-frequent polling to check for updates. T-Mo engineers had to reach out to that app's developer and get him to change its code, saving the company's towers from the program's thousands of users. There's no telling which of the company's many outages were caused by the app that wouldn't die (shriek), but we'd sure hate to think that any members of the FCC are losing sleep over this saga of corporate woe.
Engadget explains net neutrality -- and our full interview with Professor Tim Wu!
Still trying to get up to speed on the whole net neutrality situation? Check out the intro above for a recap of the basics -- it ran during the last Engadget Show as part of our interview with Columbia law professor and noted net neutrality advocate Tim Wu. Then, head after the break for both cuts of the interview -- the edited piece that aired with the show and the uncut half-hour version. If you've got the time we highly recommend the full-flavor edition -- it's seriously interesting stuff, and Tim's not afraid to speak his mind on one of the most important tech issues of our time. Update: And here's a downloadable copy, for those who were asking.
OK Go's impassioned plea for net neutrality, quirky videos
It looks like Damian Kulash has given some serious thought to the issue of net neutrality, going so far as to voice his concerns in the Washington Post this weekend. The OK Go man began with a brief overview of the Google / Verizon "net neutrality" scheme, but this is the part that really caught our interest: The Internet is the purest marketplace for ideas that the world has ever seen, and the amazing power of such a level playing field has revolutionized everything. Google knows this better than anyone. It started in a garage and became an industry leader by having great ideas, not mountains of cash. And it's wonderful: The Internet works! It rewards innovators such as Google, and it relegates protectionist, defensive, idea-squashing fogies such as record companies to the dustbin of history. Now that the Internet has been around long enough to have developed its own giants, though, we need to make sure they don't ruin what's great about the technology that made them. We need to make sure they don't crush the idea industry the way the music giants crushed the music industry... And this is why net neutrality is important: it preserves the virtues of the technology (and protects them from a market that would erode those virtues for short-term gain). Really, the whole thing's worth a quick read. Hit up the source link to check it out for yourself.
AT&T likes Google & Verizon's wired-only net neutrality stance, Time Warner Cable doesn't
Network neutrality is the battle to keep companies from filtering your access to whatever you want on those great, united internets. But, as we explored in depth last week, Google and Verizon think they should only have to play nice when it comes to wired broadband -- that wireless should be exempt from neutrality-related FCC regulation. The FCC wasn't too pleased with that sentiment, but we found someone who is: AT&T VP Joan Marsh, who posted a lengthy statement entitled: "Wireless is Different." In it she continues the theme of explaining how meeting demand on a wireless network is much more difficult than on wired, even going so far as to place some of the blame on local communities: We are constantly striving to increase the efficiency of our spectrum resources, but the amount of available spectrum in any given market is finite. And while we regularly split cell sectors and add additional cell towers, there are very real limits placed on cell site construction by zoning and local approval boards. This is surely a real problem, but what we haven't heard yet is just how letting companies like Verizon and AT&T create premium tiers for wireless content will do anything other than allow them to make more money while still complaining about the same 'ol problems. Meanwhile, a company that has virtually no skin in the wireless game, Time Warner Cable, isn't so keen on this stance regarding traditional, wired broadband. CEO Glenn Britt says his company would never throttle content in a way that would violate net neutrality, but still doesn't want more rules put in place that would prevent them from doing so. Funny how everyone likes net neutrality until it threatens to cramp their style, isn't it?
Engadget Podcast 208 - 08.13.2010
It's the Engadget Podcast....to go! Would you like a little Joanna Stern with that? Easy on the Ziegler, buddy - and 86 the Paul, please. All that plus a special toy for kids ten and under that manage to listen all the way to the end. Update: If you've been unable to download the podcast in iTunes or Zune, it's because we had a naming issue -- it's since been fixed and should download properly once the cache breaks. Sorry for the inconvenience! Hosts: Joshua Topolsky, Nilay Patel Guests: Joanna Stern, Chris Ziegler Producer: Trent Wolbe Music: California Gurls 00:01:30 - The Engadget Show - 011: Peter Molyneux, Fable III, Milo, BlackBerry Torch, Windows Phone 7 00:01:40 - BlackBerry Torch review 00:12:48 - Exclusive: Sony Ericsson to introduce Android 3.0 gaming platform and PSP Go-like smartphone 00:18:38 - Microsoft to open mobile games studio, develop and incubate Windows Phone 7 titles 00:24:42 - Exclusive: Upcoming Apple TV loses 1080p playback, gains apps... and will be renamed iTV 00:36:10 - iPod touch coming in a 'few weeks' with dual cameras and Retina Display, suggests John Gruber 00:39:49 - CDMA iPhone in engineering tests, may arrive in January, says John Gruber 00:43:05 - Plastic Logic kills QUE, 'shifts focus' to second-generation ProReader 00:43:56 - Notion Ink Adam delayed, this time investors are to blame (updated!) 01:47:00 - Notion Ink Adam priced at $498, lives up to promise of being below $499 00:50:20 - Dell Streak on sale August 13 for $300 on AT&T contract, $550 without 00:51:14 - Off-contract Dell Streak is still SIM-locked to AT&T, wrongs still being done in the world 00:52:40 - Exclusive: Dell Thunder prototype rumbles into the wild (video) 00:57:05 - Motorola Droid 2 (and R2-D2 edition!) finally official: Android 2.2, Swype, $200 on contract 00:57:50 - Droid 2 R2-D2 edition spied in the wild, ready to repair your X-wing 00:58:30 - Motorola's Droid 2 in the wild, looking as blue as ever 01:04:18 - Motorola's Jha says MOTOBLUR brand will fade from view 01:05:22 - Epic 4G coming August 31st for $249.99 on contract (updated) 01:06:14 - HP CEO Mark Hurd resigns over sexual harassment investigation (updated with liveblog!) 01:07:35 - Former HP CEO Mark Hurd rewarded with a $40m severance after being forced to resign over fraudulent expense reports 01:09:42 - HP tells employees webOS tablet coming Q1 2011 01:11:20 - Pre designer Peter Skillman latest to leave Palm, entire senior staff now in exodus 01:14:56 - Google and Verizon announcing something policy-related at 1:30PM ET -- we're liveblogging right here 01:16:00 - Google and Verizon publish joint policy proposal for 'an open internet' 01:17:00 - Google and Verizon's net neutrality proposal explained Hear the podcast 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 @reckless @engadget @zpower @joannastern
Google and Verizon's net neutrality proposal explained
After a week of rumors hinting at Google and Verizon brokering some sort of net neutrality "deal," the two companies made some waves this afternoon with a hastily-arranged press call during which CEOs Eric Schmidt and Ivan Seidenberg emphatically denied any sort of formal business arrangement and instead put forth what they called a "joint policy proposal" -- seven principles they say will preserve the open internet while allowing network operators the flexibility and freedom to manage their networks. What's interesting is that the announcement comes just few days after the FCC declared its closed-door net-neutrality meetings with ISPs and other interested parties to be dead -- it's odd for Google and Verizon to claim their new proposal is just an extension of their joint statement in general support of net neutrality from last October when it's very clearly an articulation of a specific plan that was undoubtedly proposed and rejected during those failed meetings. Now, we don't know for sure what happened, but we've got a theory: the proposal reads to us like Verizon's basically agreeing to trade neutrality on its wired networks for the right to control its wireless network any way it wants -- apart from requiring wireless carriers and ISPs to be "transparent" about network management, none of the neutrality principles that govern wired networks will apply to wireless networks. That's a big deal -- it's pretty obvious that wireless broadband will be the defining access technology for the next generation of devices and services. But you know us, and we don't do hysterics when we can do reasoned analysis instead -- so grab a copy of the official Verizon / Google Legislative Framework Proposal right here and let's break it down step by step, shall we?
Google and Verizon publish joint policy proposal for 'an open internet'
UPDATE: We've done a full breakdown of the proposal right here -- go check it out! Back in October of last year, Google and Verizon came together in order to provide an intense amount of corporate support for the FCC's then-fledgling net neutrality push. Today, said push has turned into quite the monster, with a recent court ruling asserting that the FCC doesn't actually have the authority to impose net neutrality. Since then, a cadre of telecommunications firms have banded together in one form or another to attempt a compromise (and slyly get what each of them really want), and today the Big G and Big Red have taken the stage together in order to publicize a well-thought out policy proposal for "an open internet." Both firms seem to agree that web users "should choose what content, applications, or devices they use," and they both want "enforceable prohibition against discriminatory practices" -- and yeah, that definitely includes prioritization and blocking of internet traffic, including paid prioritization. In an odd twist, what seems to be happening here is that both Google and Verizon are actually in favor of more government oversight on the internet, but they want that oversight to be beneficial to consumers. In other words, more regulations from the feds to enforce fewer regulations imposed on you from your ISP. Get all that? Where things really get interesting is when they touch on the wireless angle; essentially, they're admitting that the very proposals they are putting forth for wireline shouldn't apply to wireless just yet (aside from the whole "transparency" thing). It seems that the prevailing logic is that there's simply not enough spectrum for this idyllic "play fair" scenario to truly work, so fewer restrictions would be necessary for the wireless internet space to blossom as the wireless side already has. Moreover, we get the impression that these guys feel the wireless space as a whole is simply too competitive right now to withstand any red tape. The proposal also mentions that, if passed into law, the FCC would have the ability to fine "bad actors" (read: misbehaving ISPs) up to $2 million for breaking any of these "open internet" stipulations, and naturally, both outfits are highly in favor of the National Broadband Plan taking hold, moving forward and getting broadband to places that are currently using a strange mixture of used canisters and rope to check their inbox.
Google and Verizon announcing something policy-related at 1:30PM ET -- we're liveblogging right here
It was super short notice, but Google CEO Eric Schmidt and Verizon Communications CEO Ivan Seidenberg are holding a joint press call at 1:30PM EST to announce what we can only surmise is something related to those recent rumors of a net-neutrality-related "deal" -- we'll be liveblogging as fast as we can, so keep it locked right here.
