ZDNet Must Read:
HP vs. Dell: Showdown at the Windows 7 upgrade corral
Here's a tale of two PC titans: HP and Dell. One executes well every quarter. The other doesn't. Both see big PC upgrade cycles ahead. Both are looking to ride... Continued »
Category: Net neutrality
November 5th, 2009
House bill calls for ISPs to block some fake financial sites
I came across a pretty interesting read on CNET’s Politics and Law blog about an investor’s protection bill working its way through the House of Representatives.
On the surface, the bill is supposed to be about “reforming the regulatory structure of the U.S. financial services industry.” But Declan McCullagh, who writes the blog, highlights one easy-to-overlook part of the bill. language that essentially forces Internet Service Providers to play traffic cop on their networks.
The bill calls for ISPs to block Internet bad guys who pose as legitimate brokerage firms that are members of the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC), a “government-linked entity that aids investors when funds are missing from their accounts, up to a limit of $500,000 for stocks, bonds, and mutual funds.”
That’s an awfully tall order, asking ISPs to not only differentiate the authentic sites from the fraudulent sites but also to identify which are posing as SIPC members. It’s a good thing that the bill’s author - Rep. Paul Kanjorski of Pennsylvania - is open to altering the language to address concerns. It turns out that the specific part of the bill was part of a similar bill introduced earlier this year by another Congressman.
Hopefully, the issue becomes a non-issue quickly. CNET, however, says the SIPC may have asked for that specific language to be in the bill.- but was unable to confirm because the SIPC president was unavailable. We’ll have to wait and see how it develops.
That aside, I couldn’t help but think, as I read the CNET post, how this was all somewhat hypocritical of Washington. One one hand, the net neutrality proposals coming out of the FCC basically prevent ISPs from playing traffic cop and differentiating from the different types of content moving over its pipelines. Let’s keep it free and open - or so the chant goes.
Then you have this sort of language slipping into a bill on Capitol Hill. On one hand, ISPs aren’t supposed to differentiate one type of content from another. But on the other hand, they would not only have to identify the bad guys but also block the ones who are posing as members of a government-backed group.
Can Washington have it both ways?
October 23rd, 2009
Google's Schmidt: Washington politics "not very interesting"
Google CEO Eric Schmidt, in Washington this week as a member of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, popped into The Washington Post to chat with reporters and editors about a number of topics, including an FCC vote on net neutrality.
Google’s name has come up repeatedly in the debate over net neutrality, largely by AT&T, which believes that Google is just as much a gatekeeper of the Internet, albeit in a different way, as the companies that manage the Internet pipeline.
Schmidt told The Post that he favors net neutrality, but only to a certain point, according a report by The Post’s Mike Musgrove, a former colleague of mine. The bottom line: Schmidt’s interest in net neutrality is in keeping the providers from favoring some sites over others because of the traffic demands they place on the networks. However, there’s a fine line there - and Schmidt says it’s possible for the government “to screw the Internet up, big-time.”
For those who don’t know, I am a native of this region now known as Silicon Valley (no one called it that when I was a kid) but found myself transplanted in Washington for a couple of years when I worked for The Post. It was there - from working in The Post’s newsroom to interviewing folks on Capitol Hill - that I realized how different the two worlds are. Techies and politicians think differently and have different agendas.
With that said, I found the second half of Musgrove’s report especially interesting.
Google, Schmidt said, is strong enough to weather the storms that may arise from Washington policy decisions but new startups may not be. Schmidt let it be known that he’s not a fan of Capitol Hill politics that doesn’t rely on things like metrics, algorithms and, most importantly, facts. Schmidt’s quote from the report:
I spend so much time in Washington now because of the work that I’ve been doing, I deal with all these people who make assertions without fact. (Policy people) will hand me some report that they wrote or they’ll make some assertion, and I’ll say, ‘Well, is that true?’ — and they can’t prove it.
Hmmm. Maybe there’s an app to fix that.
Schmidt also acknowledged that the tech industry hasn’t been very strong on lobbying in Washington - but that’s not really the strength of the tech industry. Out here in Silicon Valley, the focus is on innovation, not politics. I love the kicker quote from Schmidt:
The part of politics in Washington that’s ‘who you know’ and all that kind of stuff, it’s just not very interesting.
Well said.
October 22nd, 2009
FCC unanimously approves next steps toward Net Neutrality
The Federal Communications Commission voted unanimously today to move forward on a process - expected to take 120 days - that could lead to Net Neutrality regulations. The vote came after the two dissenters on the commission - Republicans Robert McDowell and Meredith Attwell Baker - went on the record to say they disagreed with some of the arguments in chairman Julius Genachowski’s proposal. According to the Washington Post’s PostTech blog, McDowell said:
Today we do disagree on substance. I do not agree with the majority’s view that the Internet is showing breaks and cracks and that the government … needs to fix it. Nonetheless it is important to remember that the commission is starting a process, not ending one.
McDowell also said that the FCC should also be considering whether new rules should apply to a larger spectrum of companies, including Web companies and mobile carriers, and not just traditional access providers such AT&T and Comcast.
AT&T, which has been lobbying against Net Neutrality, has argued that any new rules should apply to content delivery networks - Web companies that deliver information to users and, therefore, act as gatekeepers of the Web in a way that’s different from the access providers but definitely in line with what the FCC is looking into.
The Net Neutrality matter now heads into a period for public comments and other fact-gathering. That process will continue into early next year.
Also see: FCC’s official release (PDF), FCC’s Net Neutrality Presentation
Related coverage:
- FCC’s Net neutrality push: Is wireless access different?
- AT&T cries foul to FCC, uses Google Voice to spark Net Neutrality debate
- Smart Planet: Net neutrality: When does transparency collide with competitive edge?
October 20th, 2009
AT&T encourages employees to speak out against net neutrality
AT&T’s top policy exec - aka lobbyist - has turned to AT&T employees for a last-chance campaign to flood the FCC with anti-net neutrality messages. In a memo that’s starting to circulate around the Internet, Senior Executive VP Jim Cicconi tells encourages the employees, their friends and family to “join the voices telling the FCC not to regulate the Internet.”
He suggests that employees use their personal e-mail accounts - so as to not be identified as AT&T employees, one might presume - to join the discussions on the FCC’s site, which is taking public comments on proposed network neutrality rules that will be subject of the commission’s meeting on Thursday. Cicconi writes:
Those who seek to impose extreme regulations on the network are flooding the site to influence the FCC. It’s now time for you to voice your opinion!
The memo reeks of desperation on the part of AT&T, which has put itself in the spotlight as the anti-net neutrality poster child. Most recently, the company has said that if the FCC insists on net neutrality rules that Web companies such as Google also deserve some scrutiny because, as content delivery networks, they serve as gatekeepers to the Web alongside broadband service providers.
In his letter, Cicconi goes on to list possible talking points - including a “if it ain’t broke, then don’t try to fix it” argument - that employees might consider when expressing their opinions, or rather the opinions of the company. (Here’s a thought, JIm: Why not just ask the employees for their personal e-mail addresses and then have your staff pull a couple all-nighters so they can rotate these talking points and make sure that the FCC sees the number of reasons why “regular people” are against net neutrality.)
The memo is posted in its entirety on the Actuarial Outpost blog. The Washington Post confirmed its authenticity with AT&T.
October 19th, 2009
Web powerhouses to FCC: We support open Internet
The Internet’s big guns have signed their names to a letter of support for a continued open Internet, sending it to the FCC this morning, just days before the agency is slated to vote on network neutrality rules.
The letter is actually from the Open Internet Coalition, a membership group devoted to keeping the Internet “fast, open and accessible” by Americans. But the letter itself has the support of - and signatures of - 27 top technology company executives, including Google CEO Eric Schmidt, Twitter co-founder Evan Williams, Skype CEO Josh Silverman and Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos.
In the letter, the coalition writes:
For most of the Internet’s history, FCC rules have ensured that consumers have been able to choose the content and services they want over their Internet connections. Entrepreneurs, technologists, and venture capitalists have previously been able to develop new online products and services with the guarantee of neutral, nondiscriminatory access by users, which has fueled an unprecedented era of economic growth and creativity. Existing businesses have been able to leverage the power of the Internet to develop innovative product lines, reach new consumers, and create new ways of doing business.
The debate over net neutrality has long been a complex one, including a recent back-and-forth between AT&T and Google. The position of the broadband service providers, including AT&T, is that open and free rules should apply to everyone, not just the providers. They say that a company like Google - as a content delivery network - is just as much an Internet gatekeeper as AT&T, which manages a pipeline.
But the Washington Post has reported that the FCC is more interested in violations of telecommunications laws than with potential net neutrality violations and that FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski is pushing for net neutrality rules that would focus more on broadband providers and less on web companies such as Google.
September 25th, 2009
AT&T cries foul to FCC, uses Google Voice to spark Net Neutrality debate
There’s a Net Neutrality battle going on and AT&T has put a double-edged sword at the feet of the FCC - and Google’s name is written all over it.
AT&T sent a letter to the FCC today, asking the regulatory agency to look into the practices of Google Voice, specifically its refusal to connect calls to certain numbers - such as adult chat lines - because they charge excessive fees. According to AT&T’s reasoning, Google is acting like a telecommunications company because it’s connecting calls. And as a telecommunications company, it’s subject to laws that prohibit a carrier from blocking access to numbers. (AT&T statement. PDF of letter from Washington Post, Techmeme)
In a rebuttal blog post, Google actually agreed with AT&T on its points about carriers that charge excessive fees. In it, , writes:
We agree with AT&T that the current carrier compensation system is badly flawed, and that the single best answer is for the FCC to take the necessary steps to fix it.
But Google is not a telecommunications company and therefore isn’t subject to those regulations. In fact, Google Voice doesn’t even work unless it’s linked to a landline or wireless phone. As a stand-alone service, it is incapable of placing and receiving phone calls. It’s a Web service.
September 22nd, 2009
Federal CTO Aneesh Chopra on Net neutrality; innovation, DMCA
Introducing a new series where CNET editors interview tech newsmakers. First up, Federal CTO Aneesh Chopra talks DMCA, Net neutrality, innovation, and more.
September 21st, 2009
FCC lays out Net neutrality framework: Transparency of network management eyed
Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski on Monday outlined a Net Neutrality framework to prevent Internet providers from discriminating against content and applications while requiring them to be transparent about their network management practices.
Those two items—non-discrimination and transparency—are new requirements Genachowski added to the FCC’s four open Internet principles (Techmeme, FCC statement, Genachowski speech, OpenInternet.gov).
Add it up and there’s a six-item Net neutrality framework the FCC is pushing. Genachowski said he will seek to codify these six principles through a notice at the FCC’s October meeting. The FCC will ask for input and feedback and then proceed. One key item: How to determine whether network management practices are reasonable and what information broadband providers should disclose about their practices.
The Net neutrality principles now include:
September 18th, 2009
WSJ: Expect Net Neutrality rules at FCC speech next week
New government rules that support Network Neutrality, specifically rules that prevent Internet service providers from selectively blocking sites from their networks, are expected to be unveiled in Washington on Monday, according to a report in the Wall Street Journal.
During a speech on Monday, FCC chairman Julius Genachowski is expected to unveil a new rule that would require all Internet provides - including wireless carriers - to use “reasonable” network-management practices in dealing with Internet traffic, unnamed sources told the WSJ.
The carriers have argued against such rules, noting that not all sites are created equal and that some, with their heavy data usage, are creating network traffic jams. But open-Internet advocates say that Net Neutrality rules are years past due. In a statement, Gigi B. Sohn, president of Washington-based Public Knowledge, said:
The Internet was created and grew up under strict non-discrimination rules. Those same ideas are as valuable today as they were 10 years ago. Having rules in place will bring a degree of certainty that will help both carriers and consumers alike. Carriers will know what is allowed and what is not; consumers will be relieved to know they will be able to have access to any content and service on a non-discriminatory basis. We are confident that Net Neutrality rules will not hamper investment, as some critics have charged. Rather, as in the past, they will encourage investment in the kinds of innovation and technology that will help move our economy forward.
The new rule would go before the full commission for a vote next month. The WSJ notes that the three democratic members of the five-person commission support Net Neutrality.
June 11th, 2009
U.S. CTO: Infrastructure growth needs private sector investment
The technology backbone of the United States needs a major overhaul and government alone can’t do it, the nation’s first chief technology officer said today. It’s going to take a cooperative effort, including a massive influx of “hundreds of billions” of private capital dollars, for the U.S. to catch up to its global peers.
CTO Aneesh Chopra delivered a keynote address this morning at the Consumer Electronics Association’s Digital Downtown event in New York City. The U.S., he said, is “dead last” on the global stage when it comes to the tech infrastructure and yet bandwidth usage in the U.S. is expected to increase five-fold by 2013.
“We’ve stood still while the rest of the world has caught up or exceeded us,” he said.
The U.S. is going to have to bring “all stakeholders to the table” for this discussion, he said. “We want equity, growth, application value…we have multiple public priorities, and the bulk of capital [investment]…will be a private sector endeavor.”
In his keynote, Chopra outlined the four areas, or “pillars,” of growth in need of attention: harnessing the potential for economic growth; innovation and policy reform in areas such as energy and education; increasing secure connectivity across the nation; and using “retail 2.0″ strategies in government efforts, such as in employment and social services.
March 20th, 2009
Report: Improper use of Deep Packet Inspection could be Internet game-changer
There are legitimate uses for a technology called Deep Packet Inspection. But it’s the “improper” use of the technology that prompted Washington-based Free Press to release a report this week entitled: “Deep Packet Inspection: The End of the Internet As We Know It.”
In a nutshell, DPI allows Internet Service Providers to monitor Internet traffic in their pipelines in real-time and use that data to deliver targeted advertising, control the speed of access to Web-based services or impose tiered pricing models for light or heavy users. That’s the “improper” use that’s made the technology controversial. The legitimate usage would fall in the lines of routing traffic to make sure that emergency services - such as a 9-1-1 call over a VoIP service - isn’t slowed down by a large number of people streaming a March Madness game. In its report, Free Press explains how DPI works:
Messages on the Internet are broken down into small units called packets. Each packet contains a header and a data field. The header contains processing information, including the source and destination addresses. The data field contains everything else, including the identity of the source application (such as a Web browser request, a peer-to-peer transfer, or an e-mail), as well as the message itself (part of the contents of a Web page, file or e-mail). Packets are much like letters – the outside of the envelope is like the packet header, and the inside, like the data field, carries the message.
Historically, Internet communications were processed using only information in the header, because only that information is needed to transfer packets from their source to their destination. By contrast, DPI technology opens and reads the data field in real time, allowing network operators to identify and control, at a precise level, everyday uses of the Internet. Operators can tag packets for fast-lane or slowlane treatment – or block the packets altogether – based on what they contain or which application sent them.
Building on the analogy, it’s like the Post Office opening our credit card bills to see where we shop and dine and then putting coupons in the mailbox to lure us to competing stores and restaurants. It’s no wonder that DPI became a hot-button topic in Washington last fall and that lawsuits against NebuAd and Adzilla have popped up.
In the U.S., ISPs have backed away as far as possible from any connection related to DPI. But that hasn’t been the case in other countries, notably the U.K., where a DPI company called Phorm was given a go-ahead flag by regulators. Phorm’s future, however, looked a bit shaky when executives were leaving late last year.
Still, regardless of who’s providing the technology, Free Press argues that the improper use of it could be a real Internet game changer:
improper use of DPI can change the Internet as we know it – turning an open and innovative platform into just another form of pay-for-play media. Although early uses of real-time DPI by ISPs have been geared toward targeted advertising and reducing congestion, manufacturers market the technology for its ability to determine and control every use of a subscriber’s Internet connection. When a network provider chooses to install DPI equipment, that provider knowingly arms itself with the capacity to monitor and monetize the Internet in ways that threaten to destroy Net Neutrality and the essential open nature of the Internet.
It’s understandable how the ISPs would want to find a new source of revenue from their pipelines, which are under pressure to be faster and fatter to accomodate services such as streaming video, webcasts and voice services - Web-based services that generate revenue for others. And then there are images like these that were highlighted in the Free Press report as a way of showing ISPs how DPI technology can turn their low-margin dumb pipe into a money-making smart pipe.
Also see: Berners-Lee: Deep packet inspection compromises Net integrity
Does Big Brother know where you’ve been surfing?
Verizon: Put the brakes on broadband monitoring
January 6th, 2009
Forget MacWorld and the keynote. Jobs as Obama's CTO? No.
So Mike Contaxis at MacSoda had the “real reason” why Steve Jobs was not going to give the keynote today at MacWorld. This was before Jobs’ disclosure of the “hormonal imbalance” that his medical team has determined is leading him to lose weight.
Jobs is set to become Obama’s Chief Technology Officer.
Nice stab in the dark, Mike. There’s a certain electricity to the idea, even if uttered with tongue in cheek. Nothing would give Obama more of a dramatic distraction as he tries to rejuvenate this ailing economy. After all, if we really want to give this economy a stimulus, it’s not about rebuilding roads. It’s about funding greater innovation. That starts with digital technology, biotechnology, energy and the Internet.
Jobs would certainly “think different” about all of the above. But is he really the right guy for this job?
Don’t think so.
If there’s anything Obama stands for, it’s the principle, at least, of “network neutrality.” That network service providers should not discriminate between applications or types of data flowing over the Internet. If there’s anything Jobs stands for, it’s figuring out business models that encourage discrimination. Of closing up computer design. Of tying users to products of his company’s manufacture, to the exclusion of others.
This is not to say he’d try to use public service as a means of promoting the interests of his private companies (Pixar, Apple). Just that he would not be well-suited to setting up conditions for an Innovation Economy that are not prescriptive, that do not favor any particular business model, that are “open” to all players. He’s an autocrat, more likely to think he’s got or can get the answer and try to mandate it.
He’s a top-down enforcer of revolution, not a bottoms-up fermenter of change.
With his gauntness, he’s probably not able to act as anything more than an adviser at this point. If he’s not up to delivering a keynote at MacWorld, his health condition likely means wouldn’t have the stamina to work shoulder-to-shoulder with Obama on resurrecting this “very sick” economy. He’s got his hown health to worry about.
A much better set of candidates remains the list of 10 candidates nominated by Jason Hiner on Between The Lines in November.
But Google’s Eric Schmidt has taken himself out of the runniing; Bill Gates didn’t get the Internet in the first place and never was able to get real traction on it, before dropping out of the daily mission at Microsoft; and former SAP wunderkind Shai Agassi should not drop his efforts to build an alternative platform for motor transportation. He’s just starting to get traction in his attempt to create a Better Place.
The bet here remains Vint Cerf. He got the Internet off the ground. He’s Eric Schmidt’s in-house visionary at Google — where Obama released his technology platform as a presidential candidate. And Schmidt has been the face of technology for Obama. Even if he won’t take the CTO job himself.
Let’s just hope Obama wants the CTO to be part of his economic team, not just a sort of super-fixit man for the federal government.
Recharging the nation’s economy by helping research and technical innovation flourish, says here, is an easier task, than trying to overhaul the technology that underpins the FBI, IRS, HHS and federal bureaucracies coast-to-coast.
.
December 15th, 2008
WSJ: Google backtracks on Net neutrality; Google says WSJ doesn't understand caching
Updated: Google has reportedly approached network providers to get a so-called fast lane for its content over the Internet, according to the Wall Street Journal. Google shot the Journal story down and said it was merely looking at co-locating content to speed delivery time–also known as caching.
The Journal vs. Google spat is notable since the search giant historically had been one of the biggest proponents of network neutrality–the concept that all Internet traffic is created equally.
The Wall Street Journal reports:
Google Inc. has approached major cable and phone companies that carry Internet traffic with a proposal to create a fast lane for its own content, according to documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. Google has traditionally been one of the loudest advocates of equal network access for all content providers.
From there, the Journal looks at the ramifications on network neutrality and also notes that Google wouldn’t be able to cut a deal with cable and phone companies without raising a ruckus. In fact, the report was a little hard to believe from the beginning. Of course, Google would love preferential treatment for a price, but would it really want to get regulators all wound up?
Keep in mind that regulators are already worried about Google’s power. That’s why the Yahoo ad deal was shot down. Those regulator worries would grow exponentially if Google cut deals with pipe providers.
Update: Google has shot down the Journal’s take. In a blog, Richard Whitt, Google’s Washington Telecom and Media Counsel, said:
Google has offered to “colocate” caching servers within broadband providers’ own facilities; this reduces the provider’s bandwidth costs since the same video wouldn’t have to be transmitted multiple times. We’ve always said that broadband providers can engage in activities like colocation and caching, so long as they do so on a non-discriminatory basis.
All of Google’s colocation agreements with ISPs — which we’ve done through projects called OpenEdge and Google Global Cache — are non-exclusive, meaning any other entity could employ similar arrangements. Also, none of them require (or encourage) that Google traffic be treated with higher priority than other traffic. In contrast, if broadband providers were to leverage their unilateral control over consumers’ connections and offer colocation or caching services in an anti-competitive fashion, that would threaten the open Internet and the innovation it enables.
Despite the hyperbolic tone and confused claims in Monday’s Journal story, I want to be perfectly clear about one thing: Google remains strongly committed to the principle of net neutrality, and we will continue to work with policymakers in the years ahead to keep the Internet free and open.
October 15th, 2008
The final debate: Don't expect Obama and McCain to spar over net neutrality
When John McCain and Barack Obama take the stage tonight for the final debate before the election, I expect to hear plenty about the economy, domestic issues and foreign policy. What I don’t expect to hear about is net neutrality, wireless spectrum or broadband.
In tech circles, these are important topics, but increasingly they’re placed on the back burner – way in the back – inside the Beltway. Last month, the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation issued a report that points out, among other things, that technological “innovation has been responsible for about 80 percent of the growth in the American economy since World War II.” And seeing how the U.S. economy is pretty much tanking these days, one might think that Washington would turn to Silicon Valley for some ideas on how to spark growth.
The foundation’s report (available as a PDF) goes into detail about the policies of both candidates on a variety of issues, ranging from broadband and R&D investment and to telecommunications and digital privacy. It’s a thorough report, but can be a tough read. For something lighter - and a bit more fun - I would steer you toward Wired’s candidate scorecard, which applies letter grades to the candidates on various technology issues.
Take, for example, the issue of net neutrality. Wired says the issue is whether government should regulate the open pipes of broadband and forbid the telcos of imposing their own policies related to the types of content that can move over their Internet pipes. McCain supports the idea that support for “freedom of access to content” should be voluntary. Obama, on the other hand, supports the idea of network neutrality as a way of preserving open competition on the Internet. On the matter of network neutrality, Wired gives Obama an “A” and McCain a “D.”
The candidates’ technology plans are available on the official websites. McCain’s can be found here. Obama’s is available here.
July 31st, 2008
AT&T to FCC: We Ban P2P Traffic
If blocking P2P traffic is bad, isn’t banning it worse?
It’s now been reported not just once, but twice, that AT&T is banning P2P traffic by its wireless customers. That will not make iPhone 3G customers happy.
So if the first item on the agenda tomorrow for Kevin Martin’s Commission is to penalize Comcast for “secretly degrading” Internet traffic by throttling back BitTorrent packets last year, shouldn’t the second item be AT&T’s open and complete degradation of all P2P traffic, on its airwaves?
And wouldn’t you want to look at how AT&T might be managing P2P traffic on the ground as well?
Or, is there only selective outrage — inside or outside the FCC — when it comes to stated violations of the Commission’s own Internet poiicy?
See also: “Network Neutrality & Google’s Openness Before the FCC”
July 30th, 2008
Network Neutrality & Google's Openness Before The FCC
Google clearly wants the FCC to make sure that other private companies’ networks are open equally to all Internet services. Now, it will be interesting to see if that applies to networks in which Google is involved.
On Friday, the Commission takes up the question of whether Comcast Corp., the nation’s largest provider of high-speed access to the Internet, is “secretly degrading peer-to-peer applications,’’ as the FCC agenda puts it.
As Multichannel News reports, Google Inc. is pressing the Commission to provide clear guidance to broadband network owners on acceptable ways of managing Internet traffic.
The push comes from Johanna Mikes Shelton, who used to be the legal advisor of Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein, and is now public policy counsel aka lobbyist for Google.
In a one-paragraph letter, she notes she had a phone conversation with her former boss last Friday (July 25) and that Google, that great beneficiary of a free and open Internet, wants government guidance and “clarity” on what kind of “protocol-agnostic” network management practices are acceptable under the FCC’s 2005 Internet Policy Statement.
Of course, we should all beware of encouraging FCC intervention in the Internet at all, as the Wall Street Journal was wont to point out this morning. That can start the network of networks down a pretty slippery digital slope.
Comcast, of course, came under attack last year for putting brakes on BitTorrent traffic, trying to keep so-called bandwidth hogs sharing big video files from blocking or degrading the speed of service it could provide to the great majority of customers who typically have much less bandwidth-intensive uses (like site surfing and e-mail exchange).
But that Comcast-BitTorrent fracas got settled and Comcast moved on to “protocol-agnostic” means of managing its network. Meaning: It would regulate volume of traffic, as needed, but not the type of traffic. No particular application would be disadvantaged.
Meantime, Google and Comcast become pals, too. They invested in Clearwire, the 4G mobile communications network being championed by cellular pioneer Craig McCaw.
This is a network that expects to leap past the 2.5G and 3G networks that Apple and the iPhone use, via AT&T. In fact, Clearwire chief strategy officer Scott Richardson, in June made this clear:
Steve Jobs delivered and announced the 3G iPhone the other day and he talked about a real usage example. He was on stage, he did a download of the National Geographic website and he compared the 2.5G network of the current iPhone and downloaded that page and it took 59 seconds. So you think of that’s a long time. He did the 3G download and it took 21 seconds. So it’s really half the time. It’s faster. But if you think about it, you really don’t wait 21 seconds for a webpage at home. So we ran out and the network in Portland did a download and it took us four seconds with our network. And we think we have opportunity to actually improve on that.
Google and Comcast made “strategic investments” of $500 million and $1.05 billion, respectively, in Clearwire, which is combining its so-called WiMax assets with those of Sprint.
For its money, Google gets one-click access to its mobile search service on “select new devices” from Sprint. Sprint’s customers also will have “easier access” to Google Maps, YouTube videos and other Google services as the companies announced in May.
Indeed, Google appears to be paying for preferential placement on 4G phones. As noted in the Multichannel News’ piece, George Mason University law economics professor Thomas Hazlett wrote in Financial Times:
Google’s search engine gets its own button on the phones, a cute efficiency copied from the wildly popular DoCoMo network in Japan.
And an “efficiency” that usually entails payments by the mobile app provider to the carrier.
But does that matter, so much as the preferential presentation of Google services on a supposedly neutral 4G network?
Somehow, it would not surprise me to see Google itself on the hot seat a year from now, with the FCC on its “net neutrality” agenda, or, worst case, the Department of Justice and its antitrust version. A decade ago, Microsoft got itself in trouble with the DOJ for strong-arm tactics with suppliers of personal computers. It forced manufacturers to give a preferential placement on the screens of their PCs, if those same suppliers wanted to bundle Windows with their machines. The practice reshaped the browser business, with Internet Explorer becoming dominant and Netscape disappearing.
Today, Google already dominates the search field, so there won’t be the same short of reshaping. And it is paying for its prominence, not forcing the issue through bundling or strong-arm tactics.
Still, prominence matters. And the squeeze will be on Google’s competitors (including, of course, Microsoft). Sure, people could have replaced Internet Explorer with Netscape, on the PCs they bought. But most didn’t. Making changes to the way the Internet is presented to them is not something that every day users tend to mess with.
So, even if you buy your way to prominence, the debate that ought to be forthcoming when Clearwire is up and running is whether the neutrality of the Internet experience disappears in the 4G environment that will be pushed not just by Comcast, but Google. Oh, and the Clearwire “ecosystem” also includes Time Warner Cable, Intel, Samsung, Motorola and Nokia.
Interestingly, the FCC hasn’t criticized Comcast for favoring any of its Internet services, such as the Fancast online video services guide or its YouTube rival, Ziddio, in the way its managed its Internet network or provided Internet access service.
But if you come in through a Sprint portal or a Clearwire portal on the new venture’s 4G phones, you most likely will be seeing the Internet through Google’s eyes.
Google says the network is open and Clearwire will only “engage in reasonable and competitively-neutral network management.”
But, from a practical standpoint, is it “competitively-neutral” if the managers of the network favor one of their partners to be the door that customers open to enter the Internet?
November 15th, 2007
Man sues Comcast over BitTorrent flap; Net neutrality to the front burner?
The suit, reported by Ryan Singel on Wired’s Threat Level blog, alleges that Comcast has violated computer fraud laws, user contracts and anti-fraud ad statutes.
Jon Hart, represented by the Lexington Law Group, a San Francisco law firm, alleges that Comcast markets its broadband access with claims of “lightning fast” and “mindblowing speeds” and promises “unfettered access to all the Internet has to offer.” According to Hart, the reality is that Comcast impedes the use of peer to peer services. Comcast has been mushy on the specifics of how it manages its network, but the Associated Press has determined that traffic impediments abound. Hart is seeking class action status and the lawsuit could revive the Net neutrality debate.
Comcast disputes blocking anything. The last time this BitTorrent controversy flared up a Comcast spokeswoman said that that cable giant manages its network, but doesn’t block anything. Comcast’s FAQ says the same thing. From the FAQ:
We do not block access to any Web site or applications, including BitTorrent. Our customers use the Internet for downloading and uploading files, watching movies and videos, streaming music, sharing digital photos, accessing numerous peer-to-peer sites, VOIP applications like Vonage, and thousands of other applications online.
And.
Our customers enjoy unfettered access to all the content, services, and applications that the Internet has to offer. We respect our customers’ privacy and we don’t monitor specific customer activities on the Internet or track individual online behavior such as which Web sites they visit. Therefore, we do not know whether any individual user is visiting BitTorrent or any other site.
A few observations:
- The odds are that this lawsuit won’t get too far. I’m no lawyer, but the complaint doesn’t outline a lot of specifics. If Comcast is denying what Hart is alleging it’s a he said, she said situation. And is it really fraudulent advertising? Comcast’s service is still fast. As for unfettered access that could be debatable but the courts would have to define it. The claims would be much clearer if Comcast were blocking Google and Yahoo and not traffic shaping on its network. However, the technical details in any discovery process will be very interesting.
- The lawsuit is still important though. Why? The publicity is likely to get the Federal Communications Commission or even the Federal Trade Commission interested. If Comcast truly did something wrong, these parties will be the ones to hand out the punishment.
- Net neutrality as an issue is likely to heat up again. With Barack Obama stumping for Net neutrality and items like this appearing the issue may become front burner again.
- Comcast has a major PR issue on its hands. When these lawsuits are filed the first day coverage always gets the most attention. If nothing else, Hart’s suit has hurt the perception of Comcast. It may not matter what the facts are, Comcast will have an uphill battle on the perception front.
October 23rd, 2007
AT&T's Randall Stephenson: 3G iPhone and saving the world from Net Neutrality
During his interview at the Web 2.0 Summit, AT&T Chairman and CEO Randall Stephenson explained why Apple went with the slower EDGE network in the U.S. instead of the faster 3G variety (”Steve Jobs wanted to be on the EDGE network. He wanted the broadest, most ubiquitous data network. It’s the only one that covers the entire country.”), and said that AT&T would have a program for corporate that want to buy hundreds or thousands of iPhones (currently each employee must be buy a phone and have a separately billed account).
Om Malik extracted some more data out of AT&T Chairman and CEO Randall Stephenson about the iPhone. Om chatted with Stephenson after his on stage interview at the Summit, and he admitted the obvious: “Yes, there will be a 3G device,” he said. Perhaps in January at the annual Macworld Expo Jobs, and AT&T, will give iPhone users a capable cellular network for browsing the Internet.
Stephenson also told Om that he uses his iPhone for watching episodes of “24″ but not for checking his work email. Unlike Jack Bauer, Stephenson doesn’t have a single device that he can use to save the world from terrorists, or in his case Net Neutrality, which he clearly doesn’t advocate.
Stephenson on Net Neutrality from the Web 2.0 Summit:
We all want the same thing. We are kind of new in this, and we all want the Internet to flourish and grow rapidly. We come at it from infrastructure and we are plowing a ton of money. We are learning how to work together. Don’t regulate until there is a problem.
The rules get dorked up and nobody will invest in these businesses.
If somebody steps out of line they need to be slapped–don’t mess with the business model.
September 7th, 2007
DOJ comments on Net neutrality; Histrionics ensue
The Department of Justice comments on potential Net neutrality regulations, indicates that broadband Internet providers can charge for premium services and the usual Armageddon chorus emerges.
After all, it’s just wrong to charge for faster speeds when you have spent billions to build a network.
Russell Shaw calls it an outrage. MoveOn.org calls for Net neutrality to become a presidential issue, according to a statement Russell posted. And other folks are just freaked out by the DOJ comment. Of course none of these other folks spent billions to build a network before. These things just magically appear.
But let’s get real here. All the DOJ said is that imposing Net neutrality could deter investment in networks. If there’s no profit motive why would you bother building a Wimax network, FiOS or any other broadband service?
The United States Department of Justice (”Department”) submits this ex parte filing to respond to suggestions by some companies and individuals that the Federal Communications Commission (”FCC” or “Commission”) adopt new regulations governing the transmission of traffic over the Internet–so-called “net neutrality” rules. The FCC should be highly skeptical of calls to substitute special economic regulation of the Internet for free and open competition enforced by the antitrust laws. Marketplace restrictions proposed by some proponents of “net neutrality” could in fact prevent, rather than promote, optimal investment and innovation in the Internet, with significant negative effects for the economy and consumers.
The public policy objective here is clear: a thriving and dynamic Internet capable of meeting the demands of consumers for fast and reliable access to a rich variety of content and applications. Many commenters in this proceeding agree that the best way to achieve this objective is through marketplace competition. Other commenters, however, have urged the FCC to consider imposing prophylactic “neutrality” regulations to prohibit what they regard to be undesirable differentiation in the provision of Internet services. Some of these proposals, for example, could restrict broadband providers from offering different levels of quality of service at varying costs to content and application providers in a manner that efficiently responds to market demands. Other proposals would require interconnection, open access, and structural separation of companies offering both Internet access services or transmission and content or applications deliverable over the Internet.
The Department submits, however, that free market competition, unfettered by unnecessary governmental regulatory restraints, is the best way to foster innovation and development of the Internet.
Any Silicon Valley capitalist pig really want Congress fiddling with your business models? But in la-la land this profit motive thing is forgotten.
Now I’m no huge fan of AT&T, Verizon and Comcast, but the idea that these guys will block sites they don’t like is ludicrous. They need customers just as much as any other company. And if these providers did block sites like Google just for giggles there are other means to put these folks in their place. There are antitrust regulations and other laws already on the books.
When it comes to Net neutrality repeat after me: Congress will screw it up–big time. It’s a given. If anything you may want to follow Google’s lead. Google has been spending a lot of time in Washington D.C. of late. That’s why it has backtracked a bit on the issue. Google isn’t dumb–it realizes Congress and technology can be a toxic brew. Trust the FCC and DOJ to do its job until proven otherwise. Fixing a problem that doesn’t exist is a disaster waiting to happen.
And finally here’s what would really alarm me about the Net neutrality debate: Presidential campaign attention. If MoveOn.org’s statement is to be believed presidential candidates should vow for first year action on the Net neutrality issue. I think we have bigger fish to fry.
March 14th, 2007
Google: Backpedaling away from Net neutrality stance?
GigaOm’s Drew Clark makes a convincing case that Google is backing off of its stance as Net neutrality champion.
Clark quotes Google Senior Policy Counsel Andrew McLaughlin saying:
“Net neutrality will ultimately be solved by competition in the long-run,” describing fiber, broadband over power lines, and wireless efforts to crack “the existing telco-cable duopoly…Cutting the FCC out the picture would probably be a smart move. It is much better to think of this as an FTC or unfair competition type of problem.”
McLaughlin goes on to say that there’s a pragmatic view as long as telecom companies charge more based on quality of service. As long as these telecom giants don’t discriminate all charging more is ok.
Clark outlines the situation very well. The next logical question is why the switch–if it is indeed a switch?
My hunch: Google got smart about the business ramifications of Net neutrality. It also may realize that a Net neutrality law would only screw things up–not to mention hinder any Google plans to use competitive technologies, say broadband over powerlines or wireless.
For the record, I don’t support a Net neutrality mandate largely because Congress will botch the legislation. It’s a given. More importantly, Net neutrality regulation could freeze Internet development in it’s current state–and that can’t be good going forward. There are unintended consequences to a Net neutrality law.
Bottom line: Net neutrality is complicated and pragmatism and competition will win the day. Knowledge@Wharton outlined some of the consequences of a Net neutrality law and roughly concluded that “mandating network neutrality could have adverse effects on Internet development and result in unforeseen consequences.”
Maybe Google sees something we don’t. Maybe Google, which is increasingly delivering video, wants to get access to those big fiber optic pipes to the house that Verizon will charge a premium for. Maybe Google sees a Net neutrality mandate as something that will limit its big plans for world domination. If Google is backing off–and it appears to be–there’s a good reason.
Larry Dignan is Editor in Chief of ZDNet and Editorial Director of ZDNet sister site TechRepublic. See his full profile and disclosure of his industry affiliations.
For daily updates, follow Larry on Twitter.
Subscribe to Between the Lines via Email alerts or RSS.
SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads
- The Impact of Virtualization Software on Operating Environments VMware Today's use of virtualization technology allows IT professionals to ... Download Now
- Five Steps to Determine When to Virtualize YourServers VMware Server virtualization isn't just for big companies. Entry-level ... Download Now
- Why Isn't Server Virtualization Saving Us More? A Few Small Changes May Dramatically Increase Your Efficiency VMware Companies have rapidly adopted server virtualization over the past few ... Download Now
Essential Topics 
Recent Entries
- DreamHost customers hit with nightmare
- The Big Question podcast: Will News Corp. really pull its content from Google?
- SaaS and cloud computing: A look at the due diligence
- News to know: Thanksgiving tech support; Apple; Silverlight; Facebook; Black Friday
- Microsoft CFO Liddell to leave; Klein named new finance chief
Blogs From Our Sponsors
Most Popular Posts
- Verizon to AT&T: "Our ads are true and the truth hurts"
- My scareware night and how McAfee lost a customer
- Netbooks dead? Not when sales are up 264 percent
- Intel to pay AMD $1.25 billion as companies end litigation war; Is it a new chip era?
- Live from Googleplex: Chrome OS details revealed
- Memo to AT&T: When you're in a hole, stop digging
Top Rated
- Verizon to AT&T: "Our ads are true and the truth hurts"+44 votes
- Yes, Ubuntu can absolutely be the default Windows alternative+42 votes
- L.A. votes to "Go Google"; pressure shifts to Google and the cloud+31 votes
- Intel to pay AMD $1.25 billion as companies end litigation war; Is it a new chip era?+27 votes
- My scareware night and how McAfee lost a customer+25 votes
- New York AG files antitrust charges against Intel; alleges bribery, coercion+24 votes
- Netbooks dead? Not when sales are up 264 percent+21 votes
- AT&T launches Verizon counter-punch ad, keeps digging that hole+14 votes
Premier Vendor Content Whitepapers, webcasts & resources from our Power Center Sponsors
- Reduce risk. Reduce complexity. Increase reliability.
-
A simplified IT environment isn't just less complex. It's also more reliable. Standardize on a single Linux platform with SUSE Linux Enterprise from Novell, and get the world's most interoperable Linux
- Learn more >>
- The best support in the Linux business
-
If Linux is going to power your mission-critical applications, you'd better have the best support known to business. Novell was rated the top provider of Linux technical support.
- Learn more >>
- Learn more about tools to grow your business
-
The Business Essentials Guide provides you useful tools and templates to help grow your business and save you time with automated shipping solutions.
- Save time with the UPS Business Essentials Guide
- Keep Up With The Latest In Document Management with The DocuMentor.
-
Doc delivers the scoop on today's enterprise content management, printer maintenance, and all other issues related to document management. It's the DocuMentor Blog.
- Learn more >>
- Microsoft Dynamics CRM Online - Free Six-Month Trial for Eligible Organizations
-
Microsoft Dynamics CRM Online provides fast online access, simple contact management and better sales performance for a low monthly cost - the best value on the market today.
- Learn more about the free, six-month trial offer>>
Archives
Favorite Links
Favorite Sites
- Ars Technica
- Deal Journal
- Engadget
- Enterprise Irregulars
- GigaOm
- Google Blogoscoped
- Horses for Sources
- Mac Rumors
- Mashable
- Official Google Blog
- Read/WriteWeb
- Scobleizer
- Seeking Alpha
- TechCrunch
- Techdirt
- Techmeme
- The Ponderings of Woodrow
- The Unofficial Apple Weblog (TUAW)
- Valleywag
- ZDNet: Latest blogs and news
ZDNet Blogs
- All About Microsoft
- The Apple Core
- Between the Lines
- BriefingsDirect
- Collaboration 2.0
- Dev Connection
- Digital Cameras & Camcorders
- Ed Bott's Microsoft Report
- Emerging Tech
- Enterprise Web 2.0
- Forrester Research
- Googling Google
- GreenTech Pastures
- Hardware 2.0
- Home Theater
- iGeneration
- Irregular Enterprise
- IT Project Failures
- Laptops & Desktops
- Lawgarithms
- Linux and Open Source
- Managing L'unix
- The Mobile Gadgeteer
- On Sustainability
- Rational Rants
- The Semantic Web
- Service Oriented
- Smartphones and Cell Phones
- Social Business
- Social CRM: The Conversation
- Software & Services Safari
- Software as Services
- Storage Bits
- Team Think
- Tech Broiler
- Technology and the Global Supply Chain
- Tom Foremski: IMHO
- The ToyBox
- Virtually Speaking
- The Web Life
- ZDNet Education
- ZDNet Government
- ZDNet Healthcare
- Zero Day
White Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads
- Building the Virtualized Enterprise with VMware Iinfrastructure VMware VMware virtualization software has been adopted by over 120,000 enterprise ... Download Now
- VMware Infrastructure: A Guide to Bottom-Line Benefits VMware Frustrated by the costs of maintain ever larger data centers?or building ... Download Now
- The Impact of Virtualization Software on Operating Environments VMware Today's use of virtualization technology allows IT professionals to ... Download Now
Meet Doc
-
-
Here to help you with your Document Management Needs
- Check out Doc’s Blog on ZDNet
- Help your company, help the earth I want to share with you the Environmental Defense Fund Paper Calculator, which allows you to gauge your organization's environmental impact.
- Which is Greener: Paper or Digital? The Answer May Surprise You Anything we can do to reduce paper consumption is good. But what about the impact of digital waste?
-
Produced by
ZDNet and -
