Hawaii may keep track of all Web sites visited

Declan McCullagh
January 26, 2012
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57366443-281/hawaii-may-keep-track-of-all-web-sites-visited

Hawaii's legislature is weighing an unprecedented proposal to curb the privacy of Aloha State residents: requiring Internet providers to keep track of every Web site their customers visit.

Its House of Representatives has scheduled a hearing this morning on a new bill requiring the creation of virtual dossiers on state residents. The measure, H.B. 2288, says "Internet destination history information" and "subscriber's information" such as name and address must be saved for two years.

H.B. 2288, which was introduced Friday, says the dossiers must include a list of Internet Protocol addresses and domain names visited. Democratic Rep. John Mizuno of Oahu is the lead sponsor; Mizuno also introduced H.B. 2287, a computer crime bill, at the same time last week.

Last summer, U.S. Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) managed to persuade a divided committee in the U.S. House of Representatives to approve his data retention proposal, which doesn't go nearly as far as Hawaii's. (Smith, currently Hollywood's favorite Republican, has become better known as the author of the controversial Stop Online Piracy Act, or SOPA.)

Democrat Jill Tokuda, the Hawaii Senate's majority whip, who introduced a companion bill, S.B. 2530, in the Senate, told CNET that her legislation was intended to address concerns raised by Rep. Kymberly Pine, the first Republican elected to her Oahu district since statehood and the House minority floor leader.

"I was asked to introduce the Senate companions on these Internet security related bills by Representative Kymberly Marcos Pine after her own personal experience in this area," Tokuda said. "I would defer to her on the origins of these bills as she has done the research and outreach, and been the main champion of this effort."

Pine, who did not immediately respond to queries, has been targeted by a disgruntled Web designer, Eric Ryan, who launched KymPineIsACrook.com and claims she owes him money, according to an article last summer in the Hawaii Reporter. Her e-mail account was also reportedly hacked around the same time. The article said Pine would advocate for "tougher cyber laws at the Hawaii State Capitol" as a result.

"We must do everything we can to protect the people of Hawaii from these attacks and give prosecutors the tools to ensure justice is served for victims," Pine said at the time.

Whatever its sponsors' motivations, the bill isn't exactly being welcomed by Hawaiian Internet companies.

"This bill represents a radical violation of privacy and opens the door to rampant Fourth Amendment violations," says Daniel Leuck, chief executive of Honolulu-based software design boutique Ikayzo, who submitted testimony opposing the bill. He adds: "Even forcing telephone companies to record everyone's conversations, which is unthinkable, would be less of an intrusion."

Mizuno's proposal currently specifies no privacy protections, such as placing restrictions on what Internet providers can do with this information (like selling user profiles to advertisers) or requiring that police obtain a court order before perusing the virtual dossiers of Hawaiian citizens. Also absent are security requirements such as mandating the use of encryption.

Because the wording is so broad and applies to any company that "provides access to the Internet," Mizuno's legislation could sweep in far more than AT&T, Verizon, and Hawaii's local Internet providers. It could also impose sweeping new requirements on coffee shops, bookstores, and hotels frequented by the over 6 million tourists who visit the islands each year.

"H.B. 2288 raises all of the traditional concerns associated with data retention, and then some," Kate Dean, head of the U.S. Internet Service Provider Association in Washington, D.C., which counts Verizon and AT&T as members, told CNET. "And this may be the broadest mandate we've seen."

Even the Justice Department has only lobbied the U.S. Congress to record Internet Protocol addresses assigned to individuals--users' origin IP address, in other words. It hasn't publicly demanded that companies record the destination IP addresses as well.

In Washington, D.C., the fight over data retention requirements has been simmering since the Justice Department pushed the topic in 2005, a development that was first reported by CNET. Proposals publicly surfaced in the U.S. Congress the following year, and President Bush's attorney general, Alberto Gonzales said it's an issue that "must be addressed." So, eventually, did FBI director Robert Mueller.

AT&T’s New Text Plan Overcharges You by 10,000,000 Percent. Literally.

Sam Biddle
Aug 18, 2011
http://gizmodo.com/5832245

AT&T's killing their $10/1,000 text plan. Now, you'll have to choose between $20 for unlimited, or forgo a plan and pay $0.20 per message. AT&T calls this "streamlining." We call it what it is: an outrageous, gigantic scam.

It's important to note, before considering anything SMS, that text messages are essentially free. Not for you, of course, but for companies like AT&T, Verizon, and Sprint. Unlike uploading a video to YouTube from your phone, which eats mobile bandwidth, text messages ride the same itsy bitsy communication channel your handset uses to check in with local towers to make sure it's turned on. Each text hitches a ride on an infinitesimally small data packet, chugging through traffic that would've been there anyway. For AT&T, it's basically a freebie—160 bytes of data. A trifle. Compared to the rest of what they're transmitting, AT&T's texts are like amoebas on the back of a tyrannosaurus.

For you, it's quite the opposite. For you, text messages cost money. A lot of money. How much money? Well that all depends. Starting next week, the only texting options for new AT&T subscribers will be a $20/month unlimited buffet, or paying per text, which is insane.

And here's why it's insane. Absolutely, skull-implodingly, village-razingly, jump-out-your-window-into-spikes insane.

AT&T offers a 2 gigabyte per month phone data plan for $25. By breaking this down, we can find out how much they think each text's worth of data costs. And according to this value, when you're using the same amount of data to send a text without a messaging plan, they're charging you 100,000 times more. Yes. Blink a few times and read that again. When AT&T calls data texting, it costs 100,000 times more than when it's in the form of photos, music, email, or anything else. They're ripping you off with the force of a nuclear bomb.

Here's how it breaks down:

AT&T charges $25 for 2 gigabytes of mobile data, which states how much they think their bits and bytes are worth. That comes out to 80 megabytes per dollar. 80 megabytes will get you 500,000 text messages—assuming you're writing the largest possible message, which you're often not (i.e. "Hey" "Nothing" "lol").

Now divide that dollar by the 500,000 potential texts. That comes out to $0.000002 per text—two ten thousandths of a cent. A very, very, very small amount of money.

Now, let's say you send 5,000 texts a month. That's a large, though wholly realistic number. Multiply that by the above worthless cost per text, and you've got—hold onto your wallet!—$0.01. A penny for five thousand texts, according to how much AT&T says its data is worth in a data plan.

But outside of the data plan? Oh boy! Things get very different very fast. And by very different, I mean inordinately overpriced. Those same 5,000 texts, at a rate of $0.20 per message, will cost you $1,000. Not a penny—a grand. Two very different prices for literally the exact same thing.

They're not alone—every other carrier charges similarly grotesque rates for texting without an SMS plan. The difference here is that AT&T's taken away new customers' option to spend less, whereas carriers like Verizon still offer tiered texting plans for varying budgets. (Though don't be surprised if they follow suit—AT&T's been leading the industry in its data/pricing, often in the worst ways.)

When the blue curtain's pulled back and you see the enormous money tree they're shaking, there's nothing to conclude but outrage. Texting messages are as costly to AT&T as blowing bubbles, but they sell them to you like they're vomiting molten gold.

U.S. gov’t mandates special chip in all cellphones

Users can’t opt out of presidential messages
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
http://macdailynews.com/2011/05/11/u-s-federal-govt-mandates-special-chip-in-all-cellphones-users-cant-opt-out-of-presidential-messages

According to The U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Personal Localized Alerting Network (PLAN) is a new system that allows users who own an enabled mobile device to receive geographically-targeted, text-like messages alerting them of imminent threats to safety in their area. The alerts, currently being rolled out in New York City and Washington D.C. and expected to be in place in those cities by the end of 2011, would be done through a special chip to be installed on new handheld devices. It will use GPS technology and will send some of the alerts based on the location of the phone user. The alert system is expected to be instituted in rest of the U.S. by April 2012. Certain high-end cell phones are PLAN-enabled, but starting next year, all cellphones will be required to have the chip that receives alerts.

The Warning, Alert and Response Network (WARN) Act requires participating wireless carriers to activate PLAN technology by a deadline determined by the FCC, which is April 2012. Participants that will offer PLAN ahead of schedule include AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile, and Verizon.

How Does PLAN Work?

• Authorized national, state or local government officials send alerts to PLAN.
• PLAN authenticates the alert, verifies that the sender is authorized, and sends it to participating wireless carriers.
• Participating wireless carriers push the alerts from cell towers to mobile phones in the affected area. The alerts appear like text messages on mobile devices.

These “text-like messages” are geographically targeted. For example, a customer living in downtown New York would not receive a threat alert if they happen to be in Chicago when the alert is sent. Similarly, someone visiting downtown New York from Chicago on that same day would receive the alert. This requires a PLAN enabled mobile device and participation by the wireless provider in PLAN.

Users are automatically enrolled, as PLAN allows government officials to send “text-like messages” to all subscribers with PLAN-enabled devices if their wireless carrier participates in the program. Users do not sign up for this service. Users do not pay to receive “text-like messages” from PLAN which will be accompanied by a unique attention signal and vibration, which is particularly helpful to people with hearing or vision-related disabilities.

According to FEMA, users will receive three types of alerts from PLAN: (1) alerts issued by the president; (2) alerts involving imminent threats to safety of life; and (3) Amber Alerts. Participating carriers may allow subscribers to block alerts involving imminent threats to safety of life and/or Amber Alerts, but not presidential alerts. Presidential alerts are required of cellphone users and cannot be turned off.

MacDailyNews Take: We get “text-like messages” all day long; no “special chip” required. What else, if anything, does this “special chip” do? Is it just us or did the slope just get slipperier?

Yeah, yeah, we know: This is for our protection. It’s only for public safety. The government chip is “special.” Take off the tinfoil hats. This is a “Good Thing™. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

We have to wonder, though. What’s next? Maybe we’d all be “safer” if the government could use their federally-mandated “special chip” to turn on your cellphone cameras in “an emergency” in order to get a look at what’s going on around you? And your phones’ microphones, so the government can hear, too? How else could government-mandated special chips be used to make us “safer?”

Has anyone read Nineteen Eighty-Four recently?

You know what? The world is a dangerous place and you can’t protect everyone from everything. We’d rather retain what freedoms we have left and take our chances than to be forced to carry special government-mandated chips and receive presidential “text-like messages” that we can’t turn off, if we simply want to carry our cellphones.

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

– Benjamin Franklin

The iPhone: Up in Smoke

No doubt the iPhone for Verizon is big news for fans of Apple's telecom device. But a new app, Roll Your Own, is pretty cool in its own right. It educates its users on how to roll the skadankiest joints possible. The best app since BaconFarts.com...

Weed Rolling App Attracts 25K Users Overnight
Ray Basile
http://www.iphonesavior.com/2011/01/weed-rolling-app-attracts-25k-users-overnight.html

Consumer Reports readers rank AT&T worst carrier in US

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/12/06/consumer_reports_readers_rank_att_worst_carrier_in_us.html

Monday, December 6, 2010
Consumer Reports readers rank AT&T worst carrier in US

AT&T, the exclusive wireless provider of Apple's iPhone in the U.S., was the only major American carrier that dropped significantly in overall customer satisfaction in this year's Consumer Reports reader survey.

AT&T fared poorly across the board, earning the worst-possible score in all categories related to value, service and customer support, except for the "texting" service category. More than half of survey respondents who used AT&T owned some version of the iPhone.

"Our survey suggests that an iPhone from Verizon Wireless, which is rumored, could indeed be good news for iPhone fans," said Paul Reynolds, electronics editor for Consumer Reports.

The carrier with the highest score was U.S. Cellular, which serves in 26 states mostly in the South and Midwest. To see the full results in the January issue, subscribe to Consumer Reports.

In second place was Verizon Wireless, which is widely rumored to receive the iPhone in early 2011. Verizon also recently began selling Apple's iPad, bundled with a MiFi 2200 Intelligent Hotspot.

Nipping at Verizon's heels is Sprint, which scored better than Verizon in terms of e-mail customer support. Verizon was previously the top U.S. provider since 2003.

In fourth, but still ahead of AT&T, was T-Mobile, which respondents said has poor service, but the best telephone customer support in the industry.

In response to the Consumer Reports survey, AT&T sent out the following response:

"We take this seriously and we continually look for new ways to improve the customer experience. The fact is wireless customers have choices and a record number of them chose AT&T in the third quarter, significantly more than our competitors."

The company also cited a survey from last month, which found that AT&T has wireless speeds much faster than Verizon. That same study, from Global Wireless Solutions Inc., also found that AT&T's dropped call rate is within one-tenth of a percent of Verizon.

Genachowski Offers Pretend Net Neutrality Proposal

http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/12/01/genachowski-offers-pretend-net-neutrality-proposal/

Genachowski Offers Pretend Net Neutrality Proposal
David Dayen
Wednesday December 1, 2010

As if there weren’t enough things going to pot today, the FCC has decided to come out with a proposal to pretend to institute net neutrality regulations.

In a speech he plans to give Wednesday in Washington, Julius Genachowski, the F.C.C. chairman, will outline a framework for broadband Internet service that forbids both wired and wireless Internet service providers from blocking lawful content. But the proposal would allow broadband providers to charge consumers different rates for different levels of service, according to a text of the speech provided to The New York Times.

Mr. Genachowski has decided not to use the commission’s telephone regulatory powers to govern broadband Internet service, a move that he proposed in May that would potentially open Internet service to heavier government regulation.

His proposal would also allow broadband providers to manage their networks to limit congestion or harmful traffic.


I don’t know how you could call this net neutrality at all. Broadband providers could charge different rates for “faster” service; they will not be subject to common carrier regulations on their product; and they can “manage their networks,” which is precisely the point of net neutrality. You can’t block content, but if you can “manage” it, you can essentially slow it out of existence.

I’ll go with Marvin Ammori on this one; we have garbage masquerading as net neutrality.

It exempts wireless. Like the Google-Verizon proposal, Julius’s makes an artificial distinction between accessing the Internet through a wire and through a wireless connection. No nondiscrimination rule applies to wireless. The Chairman’s fig leaf is to ban “blocking” on wireless, but not discrimination [...]

The proposal may not ban paid-priority. A ban on paid priority is central to any real net neutrality proposal, beginning with the Snowe-Dorgan bill of 2006. Indeed, the notion of “payment for priority” is what started the net neutrality fight; in late 2005, AT&T’s CEO said that Vonage and Google had to stop using his pipes for free. The only way a carrier could charge for priority is if basic Internet access was not sufficient for a company to compete; if Yahoo! does need priority to compete effectively, why pay? Without a ban on paid priority, we can expect basic access to deteriorate so companies have to pay for priority [...]

There may no jurisdiction for any of this anyway. In April, the D.C. Circuit interpreted Title I of the Communications Act narrowly, severely curtailing the FCC’s ability to adopt rules for Internet access [...] After a month of studying the question, the FCC General Counsel concluded the obvious: relying on Title I authority after that case was irresponsible and doomed to failure. The Chairman made a video explaining how the FCC should rely on authority under Title II, which is something that several Justices of the Supreme Court (including Scalia) thought the FCC should have done from the beginning. The Chairman described reclassifying to Title II as the principled center, but without principle, the center keeps shifting.In the proposal, the FCC will not reclassify.


So this is a pretend net neutrality proposal, which has all the problems of the status quo if not more, and which is still drawing fire from Republicans because it pretends to call itself net neutrality. They keep pushing from the right, but in reality this proposal would be a gold mine for the telecoms.

AT&T Gains FCC's Ear as Regulators Near Decision on Net Neutrality

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-01/net-neutrality-vote-by-u-s-fcc-set-for-december-after-year-of-conflict.html

AT&T Gains FCC's Ear as Regulators Near Decision on Net Neutrality Rules
Todd Shields
Nov 30, 2010

A U.S. regulator set a vote on rules to bar Internet service providers led by AT&T Inc. and Comcast Corp. from interfering with subscribers’ Web traffic.

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski said in a statement today that he sent colleagues “draft rules of the road to preserve the freedom and openness of the Internet” for adoption at the agency’s Dec. 21 meeting.

Genachowski, a Democrat appointed by President Obama, proposed net-neutrality rules in September 2009, and debate has expanded to involve Congress, courts and companies. Proponents including technology companies said regulations are needed to keep the Internet free of restrictions, while opponents such as telephone and cable companies said rules aren’t needed and may stifle investment.

Google Inc. and Verizon Communications Inc. struck a compromise in August that didn’t call for rules on wireless Internet service. The proposal wasn’t adopted by officials. Genachowski said his rules build upon a proposal advanced in September by Representative Henry Waxman, a California Democrat, who proposed less-stringent rules for the mobile Web than for service delivered over wires.

The net-neutrality regulations before the FCC “would ensure that the Internet remains a powerful platform for innovation and job creation,” Genachowski said in his statement released by e-mail.

The proposed rules would bar Internet-service providers from blocking or slowing access to lawful content and applications, he said.

Congestion, Harmful Traffic

Providers would have flexibility to deal with congestion or harmful traffic, Genachowski said. Wireless networks would be subject to different regulations that include a no-blocking rule, and the FCC would “be prepared to step in” to address anti-competitive behavior, he said.

Net neutrality encompasses the idea that Internet-service providers can’t interfere with content they deliver to subscribers, or favor their own offerings. Technology companies backing regulations include search company Google, Internet- retailer Amazon.com and Dish Network Corp., which provides on- demand movies to subscribers using Internet lines.

Cable and phone companies that provide Web service say rules may make it difficult to manage the growing traffic on their networks and would limit investment in new Internet capacity. AT&T and Verizon, the majority owner of the largest U.S. mobile provider, Verizon Wireless, have told the FCC that rules aren’t needed for wireless networks.

Obama ‘Big Believer’

President Barack Obama, as a candidate, made net neutrality a campaign issue and has called himself a “big believer” in the approach.

Last month, Republican lawmakers toldGenachowski not to set policy they said was best left to Congress.

Democratic lawmakers released a letter yesterday urging the chairman to act this year to ensure “that the Internet remains an open network.” The letter was signed by Senators John Kerry of Massachusetts, Byron Dorgan of North Dakota and Ron Wyden of Oregon.

The regulations need three votes to pass at the FCC, where two Democrats join Genachowski to form the agency’s majority.

Genachowski said he had abandoned his proposal to put Internet service under the regulatory regime used for telephone service -- a prospect opposed by companies that said such a move could lead to rate regulation.

Not applying rules for telephone companies would be a positive for AT&T, Comcast, Verizon, Time Warner Cable Inc. and Cablevision Systems Corp., Paul Gallant, a Washington-based analyst with MF Global, said in a Nov. 19 note to clients.

Telephone regulation offered a way to reclaim authority undermined by a U.S. court, Genachowski said in May. Judges ruled in April the the FCC lacked authority to punish Comcast for interfering with subscribers’ Web traffic.

“I am satisfied that we have a sound legal basis” for proceeding without using telephone rules, Genachowski said in his statement today.

To contact the reporter on this story: Todd Shields in Washington at tshields3@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Allan Holmes at aholmes25@bloomberg.net

Net Neutrality Advocates Blast Google, Verizon Plan

http://www.pcworld.com/article/202964/net_neutrality_advocates_blast_google_verizon_plan.html

Net Neutrality Advocates Blast Google, Verizon Plan
Emily Price, PC World
Aug 10, 2010

Net neutrality advocates claim Google and Verizon's joint policy proposal for an "open Internet" will do more harm than good when it comes to keeping networks as open to all data. Critics claim the proposal is "worse than feared" and if adopted will result in users paying premium rates to access content such as critical health care services and access to online gaming platfoms.

In a press conference Monday the two Internet giants detailed a plan that would require all broadband connections to be content neutral, preventing service providers from blocking or degrading Web traffic. While on the surface the proposal looks like Google and Verizon are looking out for the best interests of the Internet as a whole, many feel that the companies have a hidden agenda.

The biggest sore spot identified by leading net nuetrality experts centers on Google and Verizon's notion that some Internet traffic should be treated differently than other types of traffic. Things such as "advanced educational services, or new entertainment and gaming options" Google and Verizon argue these services should get preferential treatment. Many see this as Google and Verizon attempting to take steps to create a pay-to-play tier of higher bandwidth and more reliable Internet service. The end result might be either content providers or consumers will have to pay more for access to a premium version of the Internet.

Something To Hide?

Sherwin Sly, Deputy Legal Director of Public Knowledge, a Washington DC based public interest group concerned with digital culture, criticized the idea that Verizon and Google would make a proposal in the first place: "The agreement outsources the FCC's powers and authorities to the very industries these rules are supposed to oversee." Having Verizon and Google make rules about the Web is comparable to having Ford or GM makes rules about auto safety. Public Knowledge has issued a petition on its site to the FCC calling it to "take action now to protect innovation, competition and American broadband consumers" and not allow broadband companies to make rules of their own.

Free Press, a nonprofit organization working to reform the media, issued a statement calling the proposal "worse than feared" and urging policy makers to reject what they call "fake net neutrality." The Free Press says that the framework of the proposal "opens the door wide open for ISPs and deep-pocketed content companies to engage in practices that will turn the Internet platform into something that more closely resembles the closed cable TV model."

While Free Press say the proposal is disguised "as a reasonable path forward" it feels that if adopted the path will instead "lead to toll booths on the information superhighway" where users have to pay to get to get to "premium" content they want to see. "The Google-Verizon pact isn't just as bad as we feared - it's much worse. They are attacking the Internet while claiming to preserve it. Google users won't be fooled."

Is Google "Evil?"

Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, suggests that traditional broadband connections will be obsolete in a few years and that the "transparency rules" suggested in the proposal for wireless carriers will simply allow Americans to "visibly watch" free and open Internet disappear.

Green also suggests that Verizon's large investment in broadband may be a motive for it to keep it alive in a world where wireless is quickly taking over. If only broadband Internet is open, it would stand to reason that more people would in turn want broadband.

Green's committee has started an emergency online petition to Google simply titled "Don't be evil - stand up for the free and open Internet." The petition has currently been signed by more than 300,000 people and contains an open letter to the company:

Dear Google,

As a Google user, I am telling you, 'Don't be evil.' The deal between Google and Verizon is evil, because it threatens the open Internet, which hundreds of millions of people rely on every day. Live up to your founding motto, walk away from this deal and save the Internet.

Sincerely,

[Add your name]

What does the FCC say?

FCC Commissioner Michael Copps posted the following statement on the FCC Website: "Some will claim this announcement moves the discussion forward. That's one of its many problems. It is time to move a decision forward-a decision to reassert FCC authority over broadband telecommunications, to guarantee an open Internet now and forever, and to put the interests of consumers in front of the interests of giant corporations."

How the TeleCom Industry Plans to Take Over the Internet

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/07/02-7

Friday, July 2, 2010
CommonDreams.org
How the TeleCom Industry Plans to Take Over the Internet in Four Easy Steps
Timothy Karr

Have you heard about the battle over the Internet?

It's a power grab that involves lawyers, lobbyists, unscrupulous legislators, phony front groups and the most powerful telecommunications companies in the world.

They've aligned themselves against the rest of us -- the millions of Americans who use the Internet every day, in increasingly inventive ways.

They've opened their wallets to Washington. It's an investment of hundreds of millions of dollars and it's being made right now by AT&T, Comcast and Verizon -- the companies that provide broadband access to the vast majority of Americans.

These companies are chasing the ultimate payout: control, not just of the Internet wires that snake into our homes, but over the information that flows across those wires..

While this fight has been brewing for years, it's come to a head at a time when more and more broadband users are taking to YouTube, Twitter, Mashable and other innovations.

Right now, the FCC and Congress are weighing a series of decisions that could determine whether this decade-long explosion of Internet creativity was a short-lived experiment in people-powered media, or the beginning of an era of more decentralized, participatory and democratic communications.

20th-century media colossi prefer a return to the old ways, where a handful of gatekeeper firms operated the turn-on valve to all popular information. It was a profitable model that worked well for one-way communications like newspapers, radio, and television. If only it can be applied in age of flash mobs and FourSquare, too.

These media giants are spending a fortune to convince lawmakers and regulators to dismantle consumer protections on the Internet and give industry absolute power over the most important communications medium of our time.

Here's how they plan to do it, in four easy steps:

ONE: Buy Congress

The New York Times reported yesterday that AT&T, Comcast and Verizon executives and political action committees are among the top campaign contributors to lawmakers responsible for communications policy on the Hill.

"Political contributions from AT&T in the current election cycle reached $2.6 million by May 16, on the way to exceeding the total in each of the last three elections," according to the Times. AT&T has been especially generous to the campaigns of every Republican (most notably, John McCain), and all but three Democrats on the subcommittee that deals with the Internet in the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg. From 1998 through 2009, AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner Cable contributed more than $96 million to candidates for federal office, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics (and compiled here). In 2010 they're set to break all records for annual spending.

TWO: Mobilize an Army of Lobbyists

The phone and cable industry controls Internet access for more than 96 percent of Americans. Now, with the help of an army of lobbyists, they're planning to expand that control even further. In 2009, they spent more than $70 million on nearly 500 "K" Street lobbyists.

These agents for hire swarmed the FCC and Capitol Hill in a push to consolidate industry control over the Internet and kill Net Neutrality, the principle that preserves the free and open Internet, before the public (and public interest advocates like Free Press) gets a seat at the table.

Paul Blumenthal of the Sunlight Foundation recently revealed that cable and phone companies hired 276 former government officials to lobby for them in the first quarter of 2010. Included in this figure are 18 former members of Congress and 48 former staffers of current members of Congress on committees with jurisdiction over the Internet.

THREE: Spread Astroturf

Astroturf (or fake grassroots) groups surface wherever and whenever public policies threaten the corporate status quo. In Washington, they've spread like kudzu to envelope civic discourse over global warming, health care and financial reform in a tangle of corporate talking points.

The phone and cable lobby has been busily seeding Astroturf to kill Internet consumer protections. Notably they've funded FreedomWorks, Americans for Prosperity and Arts + Labs to paint Net Neutrality as a "government takeover of the Internet" and to dismiss as "extremists" the nearly 2 million people who have called on Washington to enact lasting Net Neutrality protections.

Their dirty little secret? Most of these fake grassroots groups routinely fail to disclose that their operations are fully funded by corporate special interests.

FOUR: Demonize the Public Interest

Behind every corporate lobbying juggernaut lies a smear campaign targeting public interest advocates.

For these smear-mongers, Net Neutrality is better known as "Internet socialism," "the Fairness Doctrine for the Internet," or simply the cornerstone of the Obama administration's frightening "vision of government ownership and control" over all communications and aspects of our lives. Net Neutrality supporters occupy the radical "fringe" of society, they say.

For Glenn Beck, Net Neutrality is a slowly creeping Maoism designed so that the FCC can "turn the Internet into a public utility, which means they have the power to control and regulate every bit of it."

If the uptick in scorn for an open Internet from the shill and talk radio echo chamber seems a little suspicious, look no further than the companies that still advertise with and support these merchants of disdain. You'll find many familiar names.

Everyone has a stake in the outcome of this fight, whether you're a YouTube "celebrity" or a chili pepper salesman, or someone in between. If you want to control your own Internet experience, you'll need to burst the industry spin, learn the facts about Net Neutrality, and get involved in the fight for open communications.

Now is one of those times that Washington needs to be reminded whom they really work for. And it's not AT&T and Glenn Beck.

As the Campaign Director for Free Press and SavetheInternet.com, Karr oversees campaigns on public broadcasting and noncommercial media, fake news and propaganda, journalism in crisis, and the future of the Internet. Before joining Free Press, Tim served as executive director of MediaChannel.org and vice president of Globalvision New Media and the Globalvision News Network.

Airwaves Could Beam High-Speed Internet

http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-01/internet-ether

Airwaves Abandoned by TV Could Beam High-Speed Internet Everywhere
By Amina Elahi
02.05.2010

When TV went digital, Verizon, AT&T and other cellphone carriers shelled out a combined $19 billion for some of the freed-up airwaves, known as white spaces. Now wireless company Spectrum Bridge is using the parts that are still unclaimed to deliver high-speed Internet from its broadcast tower to your laptop computer.

As soon as next month, the Federal Communications Commission is expected to allow commercial white-space Internet, which could help hook up the 54 percent of rural homes without broadband. These white-space channels use lower frequencies than Wi-Fi, so they can pass through physical obstacles easier and travel farther. Last October, Spectrum activated the first white-space network, in Claudville, Virginia, under an experimental FCC license. The town’s hilly landscape and abundant trees made conventional wireless near-impossible, so the company set up an Internet-connected radio transmitter at the town’s edge and gave the school, business district and a few homes modem-like radio receivers. “They’ve been trying to get connected to the outside world for the better part of this century,” says Jeff Schmidt, Spectrum’s director of engineering.

Because wireless mics and news cameras can also use white-space channels, Spectrum’s system chooses among unused channels listed by the FCC. If all goes well in Claudville, the company plans to test the tech in the more crowded airwaves of cities this year.

Verizon and the iPhone

http://scottworldblog.blogspot.com/2009/03/verizon-and-iphone.html

Thursday, March 5, 2009
Verizon and the iPhone
Scott Rose

As you already know, the iPhone has an exclusive deal with AT&T in the U.S. Nobody in the public knows when this exclusivity deal ends, at which point Apple would be able to bring the iPhone to other U.S. carriers such as Verizon or Sprint.

There is absolutely NO DOUBT in my mind that the iPhone will someday be available on both Verizon's and Sprint's networks, because if you go to Apple's Job Opportunities website and search for "CDMA" (which is the cellular technology that Sprint & Verizon use), you will see an increasing list of engineering job openings at Apple that are currently available.

But here's the interesting thing that most people DON'T know: Apple approached Verizon *FIRST* when creating the iPhone and asked Verizon if THEY wanted to be the exclusive U.S. carrier for the iPhone. And are you ready for this? Verizon turned Apple down. They scoffed at Apple. Their bull-headed executives refused to see the value in the iPhone, because they had a problem with two things that Apple wanted: (1) Apple wanted a small percentage of the subscribers' monthly fees in exchange for Apple putting all of their marketing muscle behind the iPhone, and (2) Apple wanted Verizon to make some small changes to their network so that "visual voicemail" would be available to their customers. "Visual voicemail" is the #1 best invention to come to phones since the invention of voicemail itself! It lets you visually see your voicemails like email messages, choose whichever voicemail you want to play in any order, and fast forward/rewind your messages like a song on your iPod. Verizon, showing that it doesn't care about ease-of-use for its customers either, said that they'd rather not provide this to their customers.

So now that the iPhone is the #1 selling smartphone in the U.S., what is Verizon's competitive strategy until they finally get the iPhone for themselves?

Check out this quote from Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg on how he plans on competing with Apple:

"Steve Jobs eventually will get old . . . I like our chances."

This guy's strategy is waiting for -- and wishing for -- the old age of Steve Jobs?

What an ungrateful, disrespectful, and ineffective ass.

Not only did Steve Jobs approach him FIRST and he said NO, but without Steve Jobs, the ENTIRE technology world -- including cell phones -- would be in the complete dark ages right now. Seidenberg should be kissing the ground that Steve Jobs walks on, to thank him for pushing technology ahead so boldly for so many years. We saw practically NO innovation (or ease-of-use) in the cell phone industry until the iPhone hit the market, and now suddenly, everybody has a copycat touchscreen device that they're hawking to unsuspecting customers. Buyer, beware, however... these other products are pieces of crap, to put it kindly. For example, check out these reviews & news stories about the Blackberry Storm, Blackberry's first foray into touchscreen devices and Verizon's current answer to the iPhone.

But this is nothing new for Apple. Apple has always been the innovation leader in the technology world. Everybody else always tries -- and fails -- to copy Apple.

In fact, during the time from 1985 to 1998 when Steve Jobs was unceremoniously kicked out of Apple, we humans entered the darkest time ever in technology history, when there were practically no new technological inventions on computers outside of CD burning and zip drives. In fact, if you look closely at the history of computers, every important technological invention that made a difference in the world has originated at or been popularized first by Apple... then everyone else in the industry scrambled to catch up to Apple. These include:

- The first graphical user interface
- The mouse
- the first trackpad
- Wireless Internet access! Apple was first with this, by over 2 years before any PC's got this!
- the all-in-one iMac
- USB (USB was a floundering technology destined for the dustbin until Apple decided to make it the one & only port type on the first iMac).
- FireWire: created & invented by Apple
- Mac OS X (rock solid stable, no viruses, no crashes, easy to use, built on UNIX)
- Bluetooth (again, this didn't become the de facto standard until Apple brought it to all of their Macs)
- the iPod
- the iPhone
- MULTITOUCH capability (on the iPhone and all of Apple's laptops) - this is different then regular "touch" capability, which doesn't recognize multiple fingers simultaneously.
- I could go on & on for pages.

And most of all, Apple still has the one thing that competitors have never been able to copy: EASE OF USE. Apple's products JUST WORK. And they're EASY TO USE. I feel that Apple is the only U.S. company that delivers on its promise to consumers: to deliver the greatest & easiest-to-use technology products in the world.

Labels: Apple, iPhone, Steve Jobs, Verizon

Supreme Court declines to hear cable DVR case

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10141706-93.html

January 13, 2009
Supreme Court declines to hear cable DVR case
Marguerite Reardon

The Supreme Court has declined to hear what could be a watershed copyright case that has the potential to make it easier for people to record and watch their favorite movies and TV shows at home.

On Monday, the Supreme Court asked the U.S. Department of Justice to look at a case involving a new service proposed by Cablevision that allows people to record broadcast TV shows and movies on a digital video recorder that sits in Cablevision's network instead of in their living rooms.

Cablevision started testing its new remote storage-digital video recorder service called Mystro TV in 2003. And the TV networks and Hollywood film studios sued the cable operator in New York, seeking to block the service. The networks and studios have argued that recording programming in this way violates copyrights.

The case has been winding its way through the court system for three years. In 2007, a U.S. District Court in New York barred Cablevision from launching the service after the cable operator lost its initial suit. Cablevision appealed the decision. And in August 2008, a U.S. appeals court overturned the lower court's ruling, siding with Cablevision.

The TV networks and movie studios appealed to the Supreme Court in October, arguing that Cablevision was violating the law because it did not plan to pay a licensing fee to make copies of their TV shows.

But Cablevision has argued that it is the cable subscriber who is determining what is copied. The networked DVR only sits in the Cablevision network where the content is stored and accessed. The company wants to keep this technology in its network because it is more efficient and cost effective to deliver the service than providing every home with multiple DVR set-top boxes.

Cablevision, which services over 3 million customers in the New York metropolitan area, claims each set-top box costs about $100. This cost is passed on to consumers who must pay a rental fee for their DVR set-top-boxes. The cable operator also incurs costs for installing and maintaining this equipment. Eliminating the need for one of these boxes in the home could reduce Cablevision's capital costs, and it could also help reduce the cost of the service for consumers.

It could also allow consumers to get rid of their set-top boxes altogether or at least get smaller devices that don't take up as much room as the bulky DVR boxes of today. And because the DVR function is housed in Cablevision's network instead of at home, consumers also won't have to deal with the hassle that often comes along with housing a relatively complex piece of networking equipment in their homes.

Experts agree that how the legal questions surrounding the case are ultimately decided will likely have a huge effect on the TV industry. Some believe it could even be as important a decision as the 1984 Supreme Court decision to allow consumers to record TV shows and movies on home videocassette recorders. That decision paved the way for the VCR, and it also cleared the way for DVR services that were first offered by Tivo and are now a mainstay of every cable, satellite, and phone company offering paid TV services.

It's been reported that Comcast and Time Warner Cable are also planning to introduce a networked DVR service if Cablevision wins its legal battles. And Verizon, which offers TV service through its Fios service, has also said it would consider offering a similar service.

For now the Supreme Court has sent the case to the Justice Department to consider. But the solicitor general at the Justice Department still has the option to toss the case back to the Supreme Court. If that happens, it wouldn't be heard until fall.

Google Wants Its Own Fast Track on the Web

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122929270127905065.html

DECEMBER 15, 2008
Google Wants Its Own Fast Track on the Web Article
By VISHESH KUMAR and CHRISTOPHER RHOADS

The celebrated openness of the Internet -- network providers are not supposed to give preferential treatment to any traffic -- is quietly losing powerful defenders.

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.

At risk is a principle known as network neutrality: Cable and phone companies that operate the data pipelines are supposed to treat all traffic the same -- nobody is supposed to jump the line.

But phone and cable companies argue that Internet content providers should share in their network costs, particularly with Internet traffic growing by more than 50% annually, according to estimates. Carriers say that to keep up with surging traffic, driven mainly by the proliferation of online video, they need to boost revenue to upgrade their networks. Charging companies for fast lanes is one option.

One major cable operator in talks with Google says it has been reluctant so far to strike a deal because of concern it might violate Federal Communications Commission guidelines on network neutrality.

"If we did this, Washington would be on fire," says one executive at the cable company who is familiar with the talks, referring to the likely reaction of regulators and lawmakers.

Separately, Microsoft Corp. and Yahoo Inc. have withdrawn quietly from a coalition formed two years ago to protect network neutrality. Each company has forged partnerships with the phone and cable companies. In addition, prominent Internet scholars, some of whom have advised President-elect Barack Obama on technology issues, have softened their views on the subject.

The contentious issue has wide ramifications for the Internet as a platform for new businesses. If companies like Google succeed in negotiating preferential treatment, the Internet could become a place where wealthy companies get faster and easier access to the Web than less affluent ones, according to advocates of network neutrality. That could choke off competition, they say.

For computer users, it could mean that Web sites by companies not able to strike fast-lane deals will respond more slowly than those by companies able to pay. In the worst-case scenario, the Internet could become a medium where large companies, such as Comcast Corp. in cable television, would control both distribution and content -- and much of what users can access, according to neutrality advocates.

The developments could test Mr. Obama's professed commitment to network neutrality. "The Internet is perhaps the most open network in history, and we have to keep it that way," he told Google employees a year ago at the company's Mountain View, Calif., campus. "I will take a back seat to no one in my commitment to network neutrality."

But Lawrence Lessig, an Internet law professor at Stanford University and an influential proponent of network neutrality, recently shifted gears by saying at a conference that content providers should be able to pay for faster service. Mr. Lessig, who has known President-elect Barack Obama since their days teaching law at the University of Chicago, has been mentioned as a candidate to head the Federal Communications Commission, which regulates the telecommunications industry.

The shifting positions concern some purists. "What they're talking about is selling you the right to skip ahead in the line," says Ben Scott, policy director of Free Press, a Washington-based advocacy group. "It would mean the first part of your business plan would be a deal with AT&T to get into their super-tier -- that is anathema to a culture of innovation."

Advocates of network neutrality believe it has helped the Internet drive the technology revolution of the past two decades, creating hundreds of thousands of jobs.

The concept of network neutrality originated with the phone business. The nation's longtime telephone monopoly, nicknamed Ma Bell, and its regional successors were prohibited from giving any public phone call preference in how quickly it was connected. When the Internet first boomed in the 1990s, content largely traveled via telephone line, and the rule survived by default.

'Dumbpipes'

The carriers picked up the unflattering nickname "dumbpipes," underscoring their strict noninterference in the Internet traffic surging over their networks. The name heightened resentment among the carriers toward the soaring wealth of the content providers, such as Amazon.com Inc., that couldn't exist without the networks of the telecom and cable companies.

In August 2005, amid a deregulatory environment, the FCC weakened network neutrality to a set of four "guiding principles." The step had the effect of making the FCC's power to enforce network neutrality subject to interpretation, emboldening those looking for ways around it.

Stirring the waters further, major phone companies including AT&T and Verizon announced they intended to create new fast lanes on the Internet -- and would charge content companies a toll to use it. They claimed Internet companies had been getting a free ride.

That unleashed a firestorm of criticism. A diverse group including Internet companies Google, Microsoft and Amazon joined the likes of the Christian Coalition, the National Rifle Association and the pop singer Moby in what they characterized as a fight to "save the Internet." The coalition claimed such steps could endanger freedom of speech.

Advocates of network neutrality also claimed that dismantling the rule would be the first step toward distributors gaining control over content, since they could dictate traffic according to fees charged to content providers. The fortunes of a certain Web site, in other words, might depend on how much it could pay network providers, rather than on its popularity.

That concern would grow if the carriers themselves offer content, which some have tried, with mixed success. AT&T, the country's largest broadband provider, recently launched its own online video service, called VideoCrawler, to compete with YouTube and others.

"One way AT&T can win that competition is to give their own video service preferential treatment on their network," says Robert Topolski, a networking engineer based in Portland, Ore. An AT&T spokesman says the company has no plans to give VideoCrawler preferential treatment on its network.

Mr. Topolski discovered that Comcast was slowing a video file-sharing service called BitTorrent. That discovery eventually led to sanctions against Comcast by the FCC. Comcast has appealed the decision, arguing the FCC did not have the authority to make such a ruling.

In 2006, Microsoft felt strongly enough about the issue that it wrote Congress to declare that saving network neutrality "could dictate whether the U.S. will continue to lead the world in Internet-related technologies."

The debate eventually reached a stalemate. Legislation to codify network neutrality failed to pass, and carriers backed off their plans for a tiered Internet.

During his presidential campaign, Mr. Obama spoke frequently about the Internet, which was a critical tool in his grass-roots effort to reach new voters, and the importance of network neutrality. "Once providers start to give privilege to some Web sites and applications over others, then the smaller voices get squeezed out," he told Google employees a year ago when he campaigned at the company. "And then we all lose."

Obama Advisers

But some of those who advise the new president on technology have changed their view on network neutrality. Stanford's Mr. Lessig, for one, has softened his opposition to variable service tiers. At a conference, he argued that carriers won't become kingmakers so long as the faster service at a higher price is available to anyone willing to pay it.

"There are good reasons to be able to prioritize traffic," Mr. Lessig said later in an interview. "If everyone had to pay the same rates for postal service, than you wouldn't be able to differentiate between sending a greeting card to your grandma versus sending an overnight letter to your lawyer."

Some telecom experts say that broadband is the most profitable service offered by phone and cable companies, and they are simply trying to offset declining revenue from their traditional phone business.

In the two years since Google, Microsoft, Amazon and other Internet companies lined up in favor of network neutrality, the landscape has changed. The Internet companies have formed partnerships with phone and cable companies, making them more dependent on one another.

Microsoft, which appealed to Congress to save network neutrality just two years ago, has changed its position completely. "Network neutrality is a policy avenue the company is no longer pursuing," Microsoft said in a statement. The Redmond, Wash., software giant now favors legislation to allow network operators to offer different tiers of service to content companies.

Microsoft has a deal to provide software for AT&T's Internet television service. A Microsoft spokesman declined to comment whether this arrangement affected the company's position on network neutrality.

Amazon's popular digital-reading device, called the Kindle, offers a dedicated, faster download service, an arrangement Amazon has with Sprint. That has prompted questions in the blogosphere about whether the service violates network neutrality.

"Amazon continues to support adoption of net neutrality rules to protect the longstanding, fundamental openness of the Internet," Amazon said in a statement. It declined to elaborate on its Kindle arrangement.

Amazon had withdrawn from the coalition of companies supporting net neutrality, but it recently was listed once again on the group's Web site. It declined to comment on whether carriers should be allowed to prioritize traffic.

Yahoo now has a digital subscriber-line partnership with AT&T. Some have speculated that the deal has caused Yahoo to go silent on the network-neutrality issue.

An AT&T spokesman said the company should be able to strike any deal it sees fit with content companies. Yahoo said in a statement that carriers and content companies "should find a consensus on how best to ensure that Americans have access to a world-class Internet."

Google Connections

Google, with its dominant market position and its perceived ties to the Obama team, may hold the most sway. One of President-elect Obama's most visible supporters during the campaign was Eric Schmidt, Google's chief executive officer. Mr. Schmidt remains an adviser during the transition.

Eric Schmidt

Google's proposed arrangement with network providers, internally called OpenEdge, would place Google servers directly within the network of the service providers, according to documents reviewed by the Journal. The setup would accelerate Google's service for users. Google has asked the providers it has approached not to talk about the idea, according to people familiar with the plans.

Asked about OpenEdge, Google said only that other companies such as Yahoo and Microsoft could strike similar deals if they desired. But Google's move, if successful, would give it an advantage available to very few.

The matter could come to a head quickly. In approving AT&T's 2006 acquisition of Bell South, the FCC made AT&T agree to shelve plans for a fast lane for 30 months. That moratorium expires in the middle of next year. A Democratic lawmaker has already promised new network-neutrality legislation early in 2009. And a new chairman of the FCC could take a stricter position on forcing companies to comply with network neutrality.

Richard Whitt, Google's head of public affairs, denies the company's proposal would violate network neutrality. Nevertheless, he says he's unsure how committed President-elect Obama will remain to the principle.

"If you look at his plans," says Mr. Whitt, "they are much less specific than they were before."

Write to Vishesh Kumar at vishesh.kumar@wsj.com and Christopher Rhoads at christopher.rhoads@wsj.com

AT&T to try limits on monthly Internet traffic

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20081104/D9487NGO0.html

AT&T to try limits on monthly Internet traffic
Nov 4, 2008
By PETER SVENSSON

NEW YORK (AP) - AT&T Inc., the country's largest Internet service provider, is testing the idea of limiting the amount of data that subscribers can use each month.

AT&T will initially apply the limits in Reno, Nev., and see about extending the practice elsewhere.

Increasingly, Internet providers across the country are placing such limits on the amount of data users can upload and download each month, as a way to curb a small number of "bandwidth hogs" who use a lot of the network capacity. For instance, 5 percent of AT&T's subscribers take up 50 percent of the capacity, spokesman Michael Coe said Tuesday.

But the restrictions that Internet providers are setting are tentative. And the companies differ on what limits to set and whether to charge users for going beyond the caps.

Starting in November, AT&T will limit downloads to 20 gigabytes per month for users of their slowest DSL service, at 768 kilobits per second. The limit increases with the speed of the plan, up to 150 gigabytes per month at the 10 megabits-per-second level.

To exceed the limits, subscribers would need to download constantly at maximum speeds for more than 42 hours, depending on the tier. In practice, use of e-mail and the Web wouldn't take a subscriber anywhere near the limit, but streaming video services like the one Netflix Inc. offers could. For example, subscribers who get downloads of 3 megabits per second have a monthly cap of 60 gigabytes, which allows for the download of about 30 DVD-quality movies.

The limits will initially apply to new customers in the Reno area, AT&T said. Current users will be enrolled if they exceed 150 gigabytes in a month, regardless of their connection speed.

"This is a preliminary step to find the right model to address this trend," Coe said. The company may add another market to the test before the end of the year, he said.

Customers will be able to track their usage on an AT&T Web site. The company will also contact people who reach 80 percent of their limit. After a grace period to get subscribers acquainted with the system, those who exceed their allotment will pay $1 per gigabyte, Coe said.

Comcast Corp., the nation's second-largest Internet service provider and AT&T's competitor in Reno, last month officially began a nationwide traffic limit of 250 gigabytes per subscriber. Comcast doesn't charge people extra for going over the limit, but will cancel service after repeated warnings. Previously, it had a secret limit.

Two other ISPs, Time Warner Cable Inc. and FairPoint Communications Inc., are planning or testing traffic limits as low as 5 gigabytes per month, which is easily exceeded by watchers of DVD-quality online video.

Among the largest ISPs, Verizon Communications Inc. is a holdout, and has said it does not plan to limit downloads.

Google Likely Out, And Happy

http://www.forbes.com/business/businesstech/2008/02/06/auction-wireless-spectrum-tech-wire-cx_ew_0206auction.html

Wireless Auction
Google Likely Out, And Happy
Elizabeth Woyke
02.06.08

After dominating the U.S. wireless spectrum auction for months, from influencing the terms of the auction to bidding, it looks like Google is off the hook.

Nine days into the closely watched Federal Communications Commission auction, it appears that enough competitors are keen on the spectrum that Google won't be stuck shelling out billions of dollars for the right to own and operate a new wireless network. Instead, analysts believe that Verizon--thought to be the only bidder besides Google that is both rich and motivated enough--is poised to win the coveted C block of spectrum that Google was eyeing.

The spectrum is being auctioned off in five blocks, labeled A, B, C, D and E. Blocks C and D are national; the others are divided into regional licenses. To prevent cheating, bidding is anonymous and companies are barred from discussing their participation.

"Verizon wants more spectrum to close the gap between it and AT&T," said Stifel Nicolaus analyst Rebecca Arbogast. Verizon owns 49 megahertz of spectrum compared to AT&T's 75 megahertz. "I'm reasonably confident that Google does not have the spectrum now," she added.

But Verizon likely didn't bid for the C block directly, analysts said. Instead, it likely bid on a host of less expensive regional slices of spectrum and made sure that the total amount was more than what was bid for the C block. It's a savvy strategy, because under FCC rules, if the regional bids top the bids for the C block, that block must be split up and apportioned to the highest bidder or bidders. By the end of Tuesday, the regional bids added up to $4.74 billion, about $30 million more than the current total for the C block.

Analysts speculated that Google likely bid $4.7 billion for the C block last week. Under FCC rules, a bid of at least $4.6 billion would ensure the creation of a broadband network "open" to any devices or application. Industry watchers speculated that Google, which lobbied the FCC to adopt open access rules for the auction, was participating in the auction out of a sense of duty rather than a desire to win.

Ceding the C block to Verizon would allow Google to exit the auction gracefully and direct its billions elsewhere. For instance, the Internet giant is reportedly interested in providing financial assistance to Yahoo! to stave off an unsolicited acquisition bid from Microsoft. (See: "Google Slams Microsoft Bid For Yahoo!")

Spectrum serving Chicago (currently priced at $892 million) and Seattle ($219 million) is in high demand, with various operators, including regional players such as Leap Wireless and Metro PCS, likely battling for these regions. Cable companies could also be in the mix. Cablevision, Cox Communications and EchoStar are all approved bidders.

The auction isn't over yet. Under FCC rules, it stays open until all bids dry up; the latest round of bidding, late Tuesday, attracted 90 new bids and an additional $6 million. Taken together, high bids for all five blocks totaled $18.9 billion on Tuesday night. Still, analysts and observers are already calling it a done deal. "We're now seeing stability in the C and D blocks," says Arbogast. "I don't think there will be any radical shifts."

Industry watchers say Verizon has a clinch on the C block while another carrier, perhaps Alltel, likely has won one or two licenses. Google is presumed to be (happily) out, and AT&T, the other major player, is thought to be buying up smaller, cheaper slices of spectrum in the A and B blocks to complement a chunk of spectrum it acquired from an independent company last October.

A new FCC rule should also speed up the auction. Starting Wednesday morning, auction participants will have to use more (95% rather than 85%) of their "bidding units" to discourage them from sitting out rounds or making other stealth moves. "It will flush out people's positions," Arbogast said.

That's not likely to help the D block, however, which has languished since the auction's first round, when it attracted its sole bid of $472 million. The FCC wants the D block to be used as a combined commercial and public safety communications network. Experts say the challenges of building out such a network has scared bidders away. If the $1.3 billion reserve price isn't met, it will probably be auctioned again.

The only question left is whether the E block will sell. It is considered less useful because it is limited to one-way data transmission. Bids on that block are still 10% below the FCC's reserve price. If the floor price isn't met, it could be auctioned again as well, but Arbogast suspects that wireless technology firm Qualcomm will step up and grab it. The company is a registered bidder and already owns similar spectrum that it uses for its mobile TV network, mediaFLO.

Open-Access Rule Triggered by FCC Spectrum Bid

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2254770,00.asp

Open-Access Rule Triggered by FCC Spectrum Bid
01.31.08
By Chloe Albanesius

A portion of the 700-MHz spectrum currently up for auction by the FCC is guaranteed to have open-access requirements now that bidding has surpassed a $4.6 billion reserve price.

Bidding on a package of licenses that cover all 50 states in the so-called C-block reached $4.7 billion Thursday. Last year the FCC agreed to designate the 22-MHz upper C-block as one that would be open to devices and applications, provided those licenses attracted at least $4.6 billion in bids.


Driving this call for open access was Google, which argued in July that wireless spectrum for mobile phones and data in the U.S. was controlled by a small group of companies, leaving very few choices for consumers, and should include open access requirements.

The search engine later pledged to spend at least $4.6 billion on the spectrum auction if the FCC agreed to open applications, devices, services and networks. The FCC allowed open access but denied Google's request for a wholesale approach. Nonetheless, Google applied to participate in the auction and was granted permission to bid under the name Google Airwaves.

At issue is a portion of spectrum in the 700-MHz band that will become available once television broadcasters shift from analog to digital signals in early 2009. On January 24, the FCC started auctioning off access to that spectrum to a group of 214 approved bidders. The commission will continue to hold bidding rounds, conducted by phone and via Internet bids, until there is a round in which no bids are placed. The most recent round drew 913 bids, so the auction could continue for weeks.

Media reports speculated that bidding in the C-block was finished now that the reserve price had been met, but the FCC said that bidders could still conceivably bid on the C-block in future rounds. No bids were placed on the 50-state C-block package in the last three rounds, and anyone who wishes to place a bid must now pledge at least $5.2 billion, according to the FCC auction Web site.

Though FCC rules prohibit the commission from revealing who is actually bidding on what licenses until the auction is complete, it is widely believed that Google is among those currently competing for the C-block. Another possible bidder on the C-block is Verizon Wireless. It will not be clear until the auction concludes, however, whether Google has slowly been inching toward the $4.6 billion reserve price by itself or if Google and Verizon have been battling it out for the past week.

Another license to watch is the D-block, which will be used for public safety use should it reach a reserve price of $1.3 billion. It has thus far only received one bid worth $472 million, however.

Ten Worst Telco Moments of 2007

http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2007/12/17/five-worse-telco-moments-of-2007/

Ten Worst Telco Moments of 2007

A few years ago, President Bush pledged that every corner of America would have high-speed Internet by 2007. Well, the year is drawing to a close, and millions of Americans still do not have access. The United States has dropped from fourth to 15th in the world in broadband penetration in the past five years — a result of a telco stranglehold on both broadband markets and broadband policy that puts their profits before innovation and the public good.

But that’s not all. Even when Americans can get online, an open and neutral Internet is not guaranteed. In the past year, phone and cable companies have been throttling the free flow of information on the Internet and cell phones — giving us a harrowing glimpse of a world without Net Neutrality.

A review of the 10 Worst Telco Moments of 2007 (in no particular order):

1. White House Declares ‘Mission Accomplished’ for the Internet

“We have the most effective multiplatform broadband in the world,” the Bush administration’s top technologist, John Kneuer, told skeptical Web experts and the media in June, despite several international surveys that place the United States far behind countries in Asia and Europe.

Kneuer says the real problem is not bad policy, but faulty data in the surveys. While the Bush White House seemed over eager to declare broadband success, America’s failing report card told a story of a larger systems breakdown. “Previous generations put a toaster in every home and a car in every driveway as signs of economic progress,” Sen. John Kerry wrote in September. “To stay competitive, we should strive to do the same with nationwide broadband.”

Let’s hope our next president understands that ubiquitous broadband access needs to be more than a mirage.

2. Telcos Spy on Millions of Americans

For several years now, the nation’s largest telecommunications companies have been spying on their own customers without a warrant. In the process, they delivered to the federal government the private records of millions of Americans. Their excuse — national security in the face of a known terrorist threat — holds little weight when one considers that they’ve been spying on us with the NSA well in advance of the September 11 attacks.

Now, they are pushing a bill — “Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act” — that would grant complicit phone companies retroactive amnesty from prosecution for violations of our civil liberties. While a few, brave senators have stood in the way of the bill and refused to let the telcos off the hook, the legislation still stands a good chance of getting through.

3. Comcast is Busted for Blocking BitTorrent

In October, an Associated Press investigation revealed that Comcast - technically a cableco - was secretly blocking peer-to-peer file sharing programs like BitTorrent and Gnutella. Comcast’s blocking is a glaring violation of Net Neutrality.

BitTorrent is rapidly emerging as one of the most successful online platforms for the sharing of large files. Comcast has a natural incentive to keep customers watching movies and television shows through their system, not the Internet.. Despite the evidence, Comcast’s David Cohen told Ars Technica that Comcast does not block access to file sharing applications and that their practice is just “content shaping.” In response, SavetheInternet.com members filed a petition urging the FCC to stop Comcast from blocking Internet traffic and fine them for their violations.

And what can you do if you find out that you’ve been blocked by Comcast? Switch to AT&T or Verizon and suffer with slow DSL speeds and their own draconian terms of service. Free Press has sifted through the agreements of several Internet and cell phone providers and found similar language that reserves their right to cut off users on a whim.

4. AT&T and Verizon Censor Free Speech

In September, Verizon Wireless blocked NARAL Pro-Choice America’s efforts to send mobile text messages to its members. After a New York Times expose, the phone company reversed its policy, claiming it was a glitch.

A month earlier, during the live Lollapalooza webcast of a Pearl Jam concert, AT&T muted lead singer Eddie Vedder just as he launched into a lyric criticizing President Bush. AT&T launched its own bungled PR response after a flurry of criticism. But both companies refused to change internal policies which allowed them to censor in the future.

Their apologies aren’t cutting it anymore. Censorship by AT&T and Verizon is further proof that these corporate giants simply cannot be left at the controls of Internet content. These same providers handed customer phone records over to the NSA without a subpoena and are now strong-arming Congress for retroactive immunity (see No. 2). And they want us to trust them with the Internet?

5. Caught Red-Handed, Telcos Change Their Tune

For some time, phone and cable companies and their shills and lobbyists had been spinning Net Neutrality as a “solution in search of a problem.” But 2007 brought us a series of violations of Internet freedom which brought the “problem” into vivid relief for millions.

Undaunted, the shills quickly changed their tune, admitting that indeed some mistakes were made, but the telcos were merely implementing “reasonable network management” (aka content discrimination) to bring us the Internet that we all love and cherish. The moral of this story: Follow what the telcos do, not just what they say.

6. Media Insiders Suffer Telco-Vision

Don’t always believe the purveyors of conventional wisdom in Washington media. Some of these pundits are so steeped in their own “knowledge” that they get stuck spinning in place when faced with evidence to the contrary. This was the case for a chosen few who in 2007 hunkered down behind their laptops to write commentaries to convince the world that Net Neutrality was dead and gone. The issue is a “fading memory,” one crowed. It “barely raises a yawn” said another.

Their view of the world, however, rarely extends beyond the Potomac, where the Net Neutrality issue was leading the news and being vigorously debated along the campaign trail. Indeed, Net Neutrality emerged as the No. 1 issue that thousands of visitors to TechPresident selected to be answered by all the presidential candidates. So the next time an insider tells you that Net Neutrality is dead, I advise you to check his pulse instead. Then point out the more than 1.5 million Americans who are taking action to protect the free and open Internet.

7. The iPhone Gets Shackled

The introduction of the iPhone over the summer highlighted both the promise and the problems of America’s wireless marketplace. On the one hand, it demonstrated the promises of a truly mobile Internet. On the other hand, the iPhone raised serious questions about the fact that most every mobile phone consumer is locked into a long-term contracts, using a phone that has been “crippled” by carriers, with significant penalties for switching to a new provider.

The iPhone was shackled to AT&T. The reason? We have allowed carriers to exert almost complete gatekeeper control over all devices, services and content in the wireless sector — a move that has left U.S. innovation generations behind other nations. Reviewing the state of the wireless market in America, New York Times blogger David Pogue called American carriers “calcified, conservative and way behind their European and Asian counterparts.” Despite recent efforts to open devices, the lockdown of cell phones remains the dominant characteristic of most every user agreement in the country.

8. Bush’s Justice Dept. Files Against Net Neutrality

In September, departing Attorney General Alberto Gonzales filed a brief with the Federal Communications Commission, urging the agency to oppose Net Neutrality. The DOJ stated that broadband companies like AT&T should be able to erect toll booths and filter traffic — upending the even playing field that has made the Web an unrivaled engine of democratic discourse and new ideas.

The DOJ move once again proved the point: Powerful corporate and government gatekeepers are working together to dismantle Internet freedoms and impose their will upon the Web. By moving against Net Neutrality, Gonzales was merely pulling last-minute favors for friends in high places. Soon thereafter, Free Press submitted a FOIA request to shed light on the DOJ’s recent hit job against Net Neutrality and uncover whether industry lobbyists or White House politics had a hand in this unusual action. We’re still waiting for a response.

9. FCC’s Rosy Broadband Report Wilts Under Scrutiny

In February, the FCC released its biannual report on the U.S. broadband market. On the surface, the numbers sounded good. High-speed Internet lines increased by 26 percent during the first half of 2006, and broadband was reportedly available in 99 percent of all U.S. ZIP codes. But the broadband reality is much darker. According to Free Press Research Director Derek Turner, the FCC used an “absurd standard” to measure broadband — 200 kilobits per second. “That was barely fast enough to surf in 1999, but is far below what’s needed to enjoy streaming video, VoIP, flash animation or other common Internet applications.”

Indeed, speeds are much slower than what’s available in the rest of the world. Half of all U.S. broadband connections are slower than 2.5 megabits per second — yet in countries like Japan and South Korea, they’re rolling out 100 megabit services. And there’s no real competition. 98 percent of high-speed residential lines in America are provided by incumbent cable or telecom companies. Using ZIP codes alone vastly overstates the availability and competition for broadband services. While the FCC’s data has been widely debunked, the telco lobby crowed that the FCC had proven beyond a doubt that the American broadband marketplace was a haven of free-market competition — which leads us to our final “worst moment.”

10. More Astroturf Sprouts Up, Speads Lies

Washington policymaking has spawned a cottage industry of phony front groups put in place by phone and cable companies eager to spread misinformation about anything that threatens their control over the network. Nowhere is this more evident than in their campaign to defeat open Internet initiatives.

Throughout the year, companies like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast have funneled millions of dollars toward “Astroturf” front groups such as the disingenuously named NetCompetition.org, Hands Off the Internet and The Future Faster. For example, Hands Off the Internet — which sounds like a citizens group to protect the Internet from gatekeepers — is actually a telco-backed lobbying group that spends hundreds of thousands of dollars on video PSAs and “grassrootsy” Web campaigns aimed at eliminating efforts to restore Net Neutrality protections and spread open access.

True to form, these front groups spent much of 2007 cranking out phony PR, mouthing telco taking points and casting doubt against any effort to ensure that the Internet is open, neutral and free of interference by gatekeepers. And these groups aren’t going away soon. Expect to see them on our worst moments list at the end of 2008.

Verizon Dumps on Open Access, Sues FCC

http://blog.wired.com/business/2007/09/verizon-dumps-o.html

Verizon Dumps on Open Access, Sues FCC
By Bryan Gardiner
September 13, 2007
Categories: Legal, Telecom, Wireless

Casting aside all pretense of public interest (and concern for corporate image), Verizon Wireless filed a petition in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit earlier this week decrying the open access rules pertaining to the FCC's forthcoming 700 MHz auction.

Despite the conventional wisdom that carriers would avoid challenging the 700 MHz auction rules, Verizon Wireless confidently assumed the role of industry jerk earlier this week by asking the federal court to overturn the FCC's open-access rules calling them "arbitrary and capricious, unsupported by substantial evidence and otherwise contrary to law."

To be clear, Verizon has not sought a stay to prevent the auction from actually starting on Jan. 16, 2008. It apparently just wants the government (and everyone else) to know that competition won't be appreciated. This, in and of itself, is odd because the company, under anti-trust precedent, would not be able to even hold this yummy spectrum, according to Frontline Wireless.

In reaction to Verizon's legal move, Frontline observed that the petition "throws a wrench into the auction to promote competition and innovation for consumers…," adding that "[the company] is challenging the FCC for doing what Congress required it to do in the first place -- ensure that auction policy is guided solely by the public interest."

Google's not too impressed, either. On the company's Public Policy Blog, Chris Sacca said "It's regrettable that Verizon has decided to use the court system to try to prevent consumers from having any choice of innovative services. Once again, it is American consumers who lose from these tactics."

Indeed, Verizon's short petition (.pdf) seems to prove, among other things, that the open access rules being imposed (for now) on the 22 MHz block really do have the potential to give consumers more choices.

Of course, what's even more odd about all of this is that those two open access rules the FCC granted to Google and others are in fact not all that guaranteed. Here's an interesting little portion of the current auction rules:

…if the license block that had been conditioned on limited no-locking, no-blocking requirements fails to sell for at least $4.6 billion, it will be re-auctioned in smaller chunks without any conditions applied.

That escape clause, as communications law professor Susan Crawford notes on her blog, could very well "hand the industry the pen to write the auction rules and to constrict all the opportunities this spectrum held forth."

In response to Verizon’s move this week, Crawford also had this to say:

The very modest, much-less-than-halfway measures taken by the Commission are under attack -- which shows how vitally uninterested these incumbents are in having their business models undermined. Even for a tiny piece of spectrum. Even when they already have all the frequencies they need.

Verizon was not immediately available for comment and was last seen punching old ladies and stealing candy from babies.

We Still Need Net Neutrality Legislation

http://www.freepress.net/news/24353

We Still Need Net Neutrality Legislation
From Information Week, July 4, 2007
By David DeJean

We haven’t heard much about net neutrality legislation lately. That could be because the current Congress might actually be able to pass it, and opponents like AT&T and Verizon are laying low, spreading lobbying money, and trying to wait out that shocking possibility. That makes the Federal Trade Commission’s anti-net neutrality announcement last week even more puzzling. Was it intended as a warning from the Bush administration to Congress to back off, or was it yet another shake of the money tree?

The news story about the FTC report notes that “the FTC sided with high-speed Internet providers such as AT&T and Verizon,” and trotted out once again hollow justifications like “such rules could stifle innovation” and “”This report recommends that policy makers proceed with caution in the evolving, dynamic industry of broadband Internet access, which generally is moving toward more — not less – competition,” which it probably didn’t even think up itself, but copied from industry propaganda.

The paradox is that these providers have been working very hard to stifle innovation and move toward less competition for years – take their well-funded resistance, at both national and state levels, to public WiFi and similar local initiatives, for example. U.S. Internet service providers deliver less service for higher prices than many other countries around the world. In April, when the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet held hearings on broadband in this country versus others, the committee heard that the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) had just lowered the United States to the number 15 spot on the list.

Technological innovation in broadband access is a threat to corporate profits, and the FTC report comes down on the side not of the public interest but of the private interests.

As a government policy, this isn’t working. Communication Workers of America union puts it this way:

Our reliance on market forces, deregulation, and inadequate governmental programs has not served us well. We invest relatively less on communications; we are charged more for slower speeds; millions encounter a significant digital divide based on income and geography, and unionized jobs with good wages and benefits are being replaced by low-wage jobs with less training and higher turnover.

Of course, the CWA has a vested interest in this – the more broadband Internet access there is in the United States, the more jobs there will be for well-trained, well-paid members of their union. But that’s a better fit with the public interest than the FTC’s position, as far as I can tell.

The idea that net neutrality would somehow diminish competition is a strange one that I’ve never seen actually explained. It’s almost as strange as the FTC’s contention that we we live in a country where “the evolving, dynamic industry of broadband Internet access … generally is moving toward more — not less — competition,” in the words of FTC chairman Deborah Majoras.

Where exactly does she live? Not where Gigi Sohn and I live. Ms. Sohn is the president of Public Knowledge, a consumer advocacy group, and she said of the FCC report, “”Despite the fervent wishes of the FTC staff, there is not a competitive market for high-speed Internet services. New technologies, particularly wireless technologies, are not soon going to have the same robust qualities or market penetration as the duopoly cable and telephone-company services.” That’s the situation in my town, and in most towns across America where you can get high-speed broadband access at all.

Another quote from the Reuters piece I loved: “Proposals to impose new regulation actually threaten further advancements in broadband Internet connections. That hurts consumers by denying them new and better services,” said Verizon executive vice president Tom Tauke.

Verizon and AT&T and Comcast and other high-speed Internet service providers have seemed to be far more interested in innovating their revenues by cutting themselves into the content business than in innovating their technology. Net neutrality legislation would help drive innovation by clarifying the service provider’s business and focusing them on actually advancing broadband Internet connections, which this country sorely needs, as a way of building their bottom lines. That’s what the FTC and the FCC should be working on – how to get higher access speeds and truly innovative delivery technologies into the marketplace, not protecting their corporate masters from having to compete with them.