Wireless

Sony is planning a new online store a la Apple's iTunes, but with a few twists.

Announced at a strategy meeting in Tokyo on Thursday, the new service will hawk music, movies, books, and other downloadable content geared for its various electronics, including TVs, mobile phones, music players, and computers.

The service, which Sony aims to launch next year, will link the company's devices and digital content that it produces--setting it apart from other online stores.

"That's the kind of combination that I think is not seen anywhere else," Kazuo Hirai, Sony executive vice president for networked products and services, said in an interview with the Associated Press. "That I think is where our core competence lies, and that's a differentiator for Sony."

Hirai also spoke about the new service with BusinessWeek, saying that it won't just sell products but also tap into social networking by letting people upload their own photos or videos and connect with each other.

"It's not just access content, stream it, and enjoy," Hirai told BusinessWeek. "What are your friends watching right now? There's a screen that says all the programming that's available. It highlights all the things that your friends are watching, for example. It's a community experience."

Called the Sony Online Service for now, it will model itself after the company's successful PlayStation Network, a free service that has captured 33 million registered users who download movies, access social networks, and grab games for the PS3 and portable PSP console. Hirai said that gamers will be able to access the new online service directly through their PlayStation Network accounts.

Of course, Sony has been down this road before in 2005 with its late Sony Connect music service. The aborted iTunes clone was done in by internal politics and a failure to connect with consumers, forcing the company to shut it down in 2007.

But with a new, more cohesive management team put in place by CEO and president Howard Stringer, Sony is hoping to avoid the in-fighting that helped kill Connect.

Sony needs a shot in the arm at this point. Though the company pioneered the portable music concept 30 years ago with its Walkman, it has struggled to compete in the Digital Age. Continuing a string of quarterly losses, Sony took a $292 million net loss in its recent second quarter. Despite cost cuts and layoffs, the company is projecting a total loss of $1.3 billion for the full fiscal year.

Nokia said Friday that a streamlining effort could result in the elimination of as many as 330 positions from its research and development staff, or about 2 percent of its global R&D workforce.

Microelectronics research at Nokia.

(Credit: NOkia)

The changes will likely hit up to 230 workers in the company's Oulu site in Finland and roughly 100 at its Copenhagen site. Nokia said it plans to offer voluntary severance packages to the affected workers and to find alternative jobs for as many people as possible.

The company currently employs more than 17,000 workers in its R&D business. It has 2,000 employees at the Oulu facility and 1,000 in Copenhagen.

Though Nokia still holds the top spot in the smartphone arena, its dominance has been eroded by competition from the likes of Apple and Research In Motion. A recent In-Stat report found that Nokia's share of the smartphone market had dropped to 35 percent in this year's second quarter compared with 50 percent in the prior year's quarter.

Another report from Strategy Analytics revealed that Apple had surpassed Nokia in cell phone profits during the third quarter, the first time that Nokia had fallen to second place.

Nokia's third-quarter results showed a net loss of $832 million, while sales dropped around 20 percent. Nokia Siemens, the network equipment maker run by Nokia and Siemens, has also been a drag on its owners, recently announcing its own layoffs and cost cuts as a result of its weak performance.

If you are considering buying a new BlackBerry, Android phone, or Netbook from Verizon Wireless, you better make sure you won't want to break your contract early, as the penalty for ditching your service before the end of the contract has just gotten a lot steeper.

But what does Verizon's move to increase early-termination fees mean for the rest of the wireless industry? That's a good question.

Verizon Wireless recently doubled its early-termination fee for what it calls 'advanced devices.'

(Credit: Verizon Wireless )

Early-termination fees are not new to the wireless industry. For as long as wireless operators have been selling and subsidizing cell phones, they've required customers to sign contracts. And they've penalized them for canceling their contracts early.

The phone companies say they must charge a fee to recover the cost if a customer quits his or her service early. These fees have angered many customers. Several class action lawsuits have been filed against cell phone carriers and some customers have won. Congress and the Federal Communications Commission have challenged the industry on this practice.

While it's very unlikely these fees will ever go away, as of mid-2008, all four of the major wireless carriers in the U.S. have been prorating their early-termination fees, so that customers near their end of their contracts don't pay the same fee as those just starting their contracts.

But now Verizon Wireless has shocked consumers and the industry by doubling its early-termination fee. Verizon representatives say it only makes sense that Verizon would raise this fee since it is subsidizing far more of the cost of sophisticated devices, such as smartphones.

In an effort to help consumers better understand these changes and to understand how other national wireless operators stack up, CNET has put together this FAQ.

How much is Verizon's new early-termination fee?
The new fee has been increased to $350 from $175.

Does this fee apply to all Verizon phones?
No, it only applies to contracts associated with the purchase of what Verizon calls an advanced device, such as a smartphone or Netbook at a reduced price. This change only applies to new contracts that started on or after November 15. For customers who signed a contract before November 15, the old $175 early-termination fee applies when they choose to end their contract early. This means that new Droid customers who bought their phones the first weekend it launched will not be required to pay the $350 ETF if they terminate service early.

Verizon and the three other major phone companies have been prorating their early-termination fees. Will this fee be prorated?
Yes, Verizon will continue to prorate the early-termination fee over the life of the contract. The rate will decrease by $10 each month of the contract. Verizon's previous prorate rate was $5 per month.

What about for non-smartphones or feature phones that run on Verizon's network? What is the early-termination fee for those devices?
The fee for non-smartphones will remain the same, $175. And the rate will decline by $5 a month during the contract.

Why is Verizon changing its policy now? It seems like it is just being stingy.
The company says that the $175 early-termination fee was set long before people were walking around with expensive, sophisticated, mini-computers in their pockets. The new early-termination fee more fairly reflects higher costs associated with advanced devices due to their more complex chip sets, microprocessors, and licensed software that perform more functions than other phones, the company claims.

Is there any way to avoid an early-termination fee or contract?
Yes. First, early-termination fees only apply if you cancel your service before the contract ends. But you also don't need to sign a contract if you'd rather not. But without a contract, customers will pay full retail price for the devices.

Verizon says it offers the option to purchase all its phones with either a two-year contract, one-year contract, or month to month, which requires people to pay full retail price for the phone. For example, the new BlackBerry Storm 2 is $179 with a two-year contract. But the phone would cost $539 without a contract. The new Motorola Droid is $199 after a rebate with a two-year contract. And it is $559 without a contract at the full retail price.

Verizon also offers prepaid wireless phones and service, which allow customers to buy their phones and add minutes of use in advance.

What about other national wireless operators? Have any of them announced they are following Verizon's lead?
So far neither AT&T, nor Sprint Nextel, nor T-Mobile USA have said they plan to raise the early-termination fees on their smartphone devices. An AT&T spokesman said he couldn't speculate on what the company might do in the future, but for now, the company is sticking with its current fee.

T-Mobile USA's spokesman didn't elaborate, but simply said the company has no plans to raise its rate right now.

Sprint Nextel also said it wouldn't raise its early-termination fees, and it criticized Verizon for doing it.

"We have no intention of matching Verizon's new ETF," said Sprint spokesman John Taylor. "We think the decision to double the early-termination fee just on smartphones doesn't make much sense. Why is Verizon trying to disincentive people from buying smartphones? We want people buying smartphones and using more data."

How much do these other national wireless operators charge for their early-termination fees?
Sprint 's early-termination fee is $200. The company reduces that fee beginning in the fifth month of the contract. Then the fee goes down $10 a month until it reaches $50.

AT&T's early-termination fee is $175 and it decreases by $5 for each month of your contract.

T-Mobile USA's early-termination fee schedule is a little more complicated. As of June 28, customers with a one-year or two-year contract with T-Mobile will see their early-termination fee drop from $200 to $100 if they end their contract with 91 to 180 days remaining on their agreement. If they end a contract with fewer than 91 days left on it, they will pay a termination of fee of $50. For customers who terminate their service in the last 30 days of their contract they will either pay the $50 fee or their standard monthly charge, depending on which one is cheaper.

Do these other carriers offer no-contract options?
Sprint allows some of its phones to be purchased for full retail price without a contract. However, the Palm Pre, which went on sale in June, requires a two-year data plan.

Sprint's prepaid brands Boost Mobile and Virgin Mobile USA also offer customers prepaid options that don't require a contract. And phones are purchased at full retail prices.

AT&T allows some phones to be purchased at full price without a contract, but phones such as the Apple iPhone must be purchased with a two-year contract and a $30 a month data plan. AT&T also offers prepaid phones.

T-Mobile USA also offers customers who don't want a contract different options, including T-Mobile Prepaid phones and plans, FlexPay, and month-to-month services including its new Even More plans.

Its Even More Plus plan allows customers to purchase any phone in T-Mobile's device lineup and sign up for a month-to-month rate plan without signing a contract. Customers pay full retail price for the phones, but have the option to purchase their phones using an Equipment Installment Plan over time until the phone is paid off.

For example, a customer purchasing the Google Android myTouch smartphone would pay $150 for the phone with a two-year contract. But with the Even More Plus plan, the customer would pay $400 for the phone with no contract. If the customer wanted to use the Equipment Installment Plan, he or she would pay $20 a month for the phone over 20 months.

Cisco is offering a free iPhone app that will allow people to get customized alerts on new security threats and other information for safe Web browsing.

The app, which will be available on Friday in the Apple iTunes store, provides information about new malware signatures, bulletins for how to mitigate against threats, ways to see if particular Web sites are compromised, as well as links to podcasts and videos.

The Cisco SIO To Go iPhone app gets its information from the company's Security Intelligence Operations (SIO) system which gathers information in real time from 700,000 sensors located at customer sites, ISPs, and other sites around the world. The data from the disparate sources allows Cisco engineers to do threat correlation to detect Internet attacks and spam campaigns.

The app is designed for professionals and security geeks, not the average consumer, said Michael Weir, Cisco security marketing director.

"I can make it applicable to my needs and the security needs of my [enterprise] network," he said.

The Cisco SIO To Go iPhone app offers information about the safety of particular Web sites.

(Credit: Cisco)

If smartphones aren't already helping us navigate the modern world, they are certainly on track to do so soon.

In Gartner's top 10 predictions for how consumers will use their mobile devices in the year 2012, location-based services landed the No. 2 position, just behind money transfer.

There aren't many surprises on the list, released Wednesday by the analyst firm, though I would have expected to see gaming enter the top 10 consumer applications for mobile devices within the next two years, especially considering the firm previously predicted that mobile gaming revenue would experience a compound annual growth rate of 10.2 percent between 2007 and 2011 with worldwide end-user spending reaching $6.3 billion in 2011.

Gartner's list is based on impact to consumers and industry players, with consideration of revenue, loyalty, business model, consumer value and estimated market penetration. Depending on where you focus geographically, I would imagine that the order of this list could change pretty dramatically. For instance, mobile money transfer is popular in Asia and emerging nations in Africa, but far less common in the United States.

As with any other list of analyst predictions, there are a huge number of variables that can affect trends from one year to the next. Money transfer and near-field communication services are applications that could function on any kind of mobile device, whereas browsing and advertising are likely more relevant to smartphones, which Gartner expects to account for 45.5 percent of all mobile phone sales in 2013, up from just over 9 percent in 2008.

Previously, Gartner projected mobile ad spending worldwide to grow 74 pecent in 2009 to $913.5 million, but not really accelerate until 2011, when advertisers are expected to boost mobile spending as part of an overall shift toward digital marketing channels. By 2013, the firm expects mobile ad spending to surpass $13 billion, with the Asia-Pacific region leading the way, followed by North America and Europe.

Gartner's top 10 consumer mobile applications for 2012:

1. Money transfer
2. Location-based services
3. Mobile search
4. Mobile browsing
5. Mobile health monitoring
6. Mobile payment
7. Near-field communication services
8. Mobile advertising
9. Mobile instant messaging
10. Mobile music

Research and consulting firm Tower Group predicted earlier this year that the number of people actively using mobile banking in the U.S. "will grow by more than five times by the end of 2013" representing a compound annual growth rate of 51.8 percent.

Gartner's complete list with accompanying analysis is available in the firm's newsroom.

It's a simple principle of economics: competition and more customer choice results in lower prices.

And so it is true of broadband services. With about 65 percent of the U.S. population now subscribing to broadband, cable operators and telephone companies are duking it out for new customers. The companies are offering cut-throat prices and new promotions to win over new subscribers.

For consumers in areas of the country where competition is heating up, the savings can be huge. For example, Verizon Communications, which has been losing DSL customers to competitors, this week announced aggressive new promotional deals for its high-speed DSL and Fios, fiber-to-the-home Internet services, as it tries to tempt new subscribers.

New Verizon DSL customers can get six months of free Internet service if they commit to a one-year contract. The company also announced a slew of deals for Fios customers, including one that offers new Fios TV subscribers who sign up for service as part of a bundle, free multiroom DVR capability for three months.

These deals sound terrific to consumers, like me, who live in markets with at least two broadband competitors. But for millions of Americans living in rural regions of the country and for people living in some urban areas, where carriers don't find it profitable to offer service, only one choice of Internet provider exists today.

And as a general rule of thumb, these consumers aren't usually offered enticing promotional deals or discounts on service. In fact, on average they pay much more for their services than people living in more competitive markets.

A task force at the Federal Communications Commission that is developing a national broadband policy highlighted this fact as a major barrier to universal broadband access during an open meeting at the commission on Wednesday.

The group also noted that broadband service providers tend to deploy service in higher income neighborhoods where more people are likely to sign up for service over low-income areas. As a result these markets generally have only one provider. What this means is that lower-income people, who have less disposable income, are often the ones forced to pay higher prices, while people who have more money pay lower prices for service.

Big savings in the Big Apple
To test this concept and to see if I could significantly put a dent in my monthly expenses, I decided to investigate my own broadband options in New York City, where I have lived and been a cable subscriber for nearly 12 years. With a little bit of leg work, I quickly discovered, I could save nearly $700 in one year by switching broadband providers.

I currently pay about $147 a month for cable TV and broadband service from Time Warner Cable. This bill does include two DVRs, two remote controls, and HBO channels and on-demand services. But it does not include taxes or a home phone service.

I live on the Upper West Side of Manhattan and even though I have seen Verizon putting fiber underneath the street on my block and even though my inside sources at the company have told me that two central offices near my neighborhood are currently being upgraded this month to provide Fios TV service, I am still not yet eligible for Fios service.

The only option I have from Verizon right now is DSL service. With the new six-month broadband-for-free promotion, Verizon is offering a triple play package that includes 3 Mbps or 7.1 Mbps DSL, DirecTV Plus DVR package, and Verizon's unlimited local and long-distance calling plan for $70 per month for the first six months.

During the second six months of this annual plan, the bundle with up-to-3 Mbps service is $99.99 per month. And for the faster 7.1 Mbps broadband service, the price is $109.99 per month after the first six months.

Factoring in the first six months of free DSL service in this total package, my average monthly cost would be $90 per month for home phone, broadband, and subscription TV services. This is an average savings of $57 per month over my current service, and a yearly savings of about $684.

I called Time Warner Cable to see if the company could beat Verizon's price. The best price offered to me for the same exact package, which includes one set-top box with DVR service, was $119 per month before taxes. The only difference in this package is that I would not have to sign a contract, but the price would be guaranteed for a year. The representative I talked with on the phone offered to give me free Showtime service for a year to sweeten the deal. Even at this price, Verizon's offer is still $29 a month cheaper than Time Warner's revised service. In total, I would still be saving $348 for the year.

But there is one catch to Verizon's deal. Verizon guarantees the price of the bundle for a year. And if customers cancel the service during that time period there is an early termination fee. But DirecTV requires users sign a two-year contract. And pricing on the TV service is not guaranteed during the second year, which means it could go up significantly in 2011.

What's more, if Fios becomes available in my building, I can upgrade my Internet and phone services at no penalty. And I would be eligible for whatever special deal Verizon might offer me. But I would have to pay a penalty to DirecTV if I terminate my TV service early to get Fios TV.

Still, with a yearly savings of almost $400 to $700 sitting on the table, I'd be a fool not to make some kind of change now. But just imagine if there was a third or even a fourth competitor in my market? The savings could be even greater.

More competitors lead to lower prices
According to a Pew Internet and American Life Project study released in June, the more competitors there are in a market, the cheaper the price of the service for consumers. In the survey, about 21 percent of high-speed Internet users said they had only one choice in broadband provider. And on average these customers spend about $44.70 a month on high-speed Internet service. About 69 percent of respondents said they had two choices in broadband providers, and on average they spent about $38.30 on Internet per month. Average prices fell yet again for the 17 percent of respondents who said they had four or more broadband provider choices. The average amount they paid for service was about $32.10 per month.

What this tells us is that more choices matter. And when broadband service providers are forced to compete, consumers get better deals.

This basic thesis was also the conclusion of a recent study (PDF) commissioned by the FCC and conducted by Harvard University's Berkman Center for Internet & Society. This study concluded that that other countries have faster and cheaper Internet access because there is more competition. The report went on to conclude that this new competition was made possible by regulatory policy that promoted open-access rules or rules that force service providers to share their infrastructure with competitors.

"The lowest prices and highest speeds are almost all offered by firms in markets where, in addition to an incumbent telephone company and cable company, there are also competitors who entered the market, and built their presence, through use of open access facilities, " the report says.

The report has gotten plenty of criticism. AT&T and the National Cable & Telecommunications Association have filed letters warning the FCC against applying the findings to its national broadband policy. The NCTA said the FCC should be careful in accepting these results when past attempts here in the U.S. to impose open access rules have failed.

Whether open access rules really create more competition is debatable. But one thing that cannot be debated is the effect that more competitors have on prices and the quality of service in the overall market.

With this in mind, I hope that the FCC's new national broadband policy, when it's finally presented to Congress in February, will do more than simply ensure everyone in the U.S. has access to at least one broadband provider. I hope the plan also includes aggressive measures to encourage competition among two or more companies in as many markets as possible.

When you've lost the first round in your case against Verizon's persistent and persuasive mockery, who do you turn to?

Luke Wilson, that's who. After all, he starred in "Legally Blonde" and, well, "Jackass Number Two."

Actually, Wilson is lovable. Truly lovable. Perhaps if he'd dressed down a little and Justin Long had suffered an interminable hiatus hernia, Wilson might have got the part of Mac, the Microsoft Mocker.

Instead, he has the slightly more difficult task of persuading the folks who adored him in "Old School" that AT&T's 3G will serve them well on the 3.10 to Yuma.

The creators didn't give him much of a script, as I suspect they wrote it a couple of lattes and a shot of bourbon before this opus was filmed in what looks like the empty space above Victoria's Secret in Santa Monica, Calif.

Luke is forced to stand before a board and prove that AT&T has the fastest 3G network, lets you talk and surf at the same time, and offers you more apps that feature people making strange noises, half-clothed women, and animals that smile when you touch the screen. (Disclosure: slight exaggeration)

Sadly, it all looks a little analog. Luke looks as if he'd prefer to be surfing, as he really doesn't have the tools to make you believe what he's being paid to say.

His hair looks as if it's been hurriedly greased with Czech lard and his face offers a certain hemorrhoidal mien as it offers a little jape at the end of the spot. Yes, a jape about Verizon beginning with "V" and AT&T not beginning with "V." That rumbling you can hear is the collective guffaw from Verizon Central.

Verizon is hurting AT&T with its clinical, delighted unpleasantness. And I fear that before "Legally Blonde 2: AT&T's Revenge" can possibly be effective, the iPhone carrier needs to dramatize its argument rather better than the gospel according to Luke.

AT&T has lost the first battle in a legal war against Verizon Wireless to force the company to stop showing advertisements that compare its 3G wireless network coverage with Verizon's coverage.

A federal judge in Atlanta on Wednesday declined to grant AT&T a temporary restraining order that would force Verizon to stop showing the ads.

(Credit: Verizon Wireless)

AT&T filed a lawsuit in federal district court in Atlanta earlier this month asserting that Verizon Wireless' advertisements mislead customers by suggesting that AT&T subscribers cannot access wireless Internet services throughout its network. AT&T has called the ads blatantly false and has said that the commercials have caused irreparable harm to the company.

AT&T had asked the court to keep Verizon from running the advertisements until the matter is settled in court. But the judge on Wednesday declined this request.

The advertisements that Verizon is running show two maps that each indicate 3G wireless coverage. One map shows coverage for Verizon and the other depicts AT&T's coverage.

AT&T doesn't argue that the maps are incorrect in terms of showing its 3G coverage. But it says that Verizon is misleading customers by implying that they cannot use their phones or access the mobile Web when they aren't in 3G coverage areas. The reality is that customers can make phone calls and access the Internet from their phones using the company's slower EDGE or GPR networks.

Verizon argues its advertisements are simply pointing out the fact that AT&T has not invested enough in upgrading its network to handle increased traffic from smartphone devices, such as the Apple iPhone.

Verizon has modified its ads slightly to indicate that the map applies only to 3G coverage and not regular 2.5G service, which is adequate for making voice calls and connecting to the wireless Internet at slower speeds.

Verizon said in its 53-page rebuttal to the court earlier this week that AT&T is not suing Verizon because the claims are false, but because it doesn't want to face the truth about its network.

AT&T said it plans to press on with its case despite the fact that it lost the latest legal battle.

"While we are disappointed with the court's decision on our request for a temporary restraining order, we still feel strongly that Verizon's ads mislead consumers into thinking that AT&T doesn't offer wireless service in large portions of the country, which is clearly not the case," Mark Siegel, a spokesman for AT&T, said in an e-mail. "We look forward to presenting our case to the court in the near future."

The Federal Communications Commission met Wednesday to discuss obstacles to enacting a national broadband policy that will provide high-speed Internet access to every American.

President Obama has made universal broadband access a key goal. Grants and loans for helping make universal broadband access a reality have already started being doled out as part of Congress' economic stimulus package.

In an effort to ensure that new programs and policies work toward achieving the same goal, the FCC has been tasked with developing a national broadband plan to help direct policy makers in getting affordable broadband to every American. A task force, headed by Blair Levin, who had been chief of staff for former FCC chairman Reed Hundt, is developing the plan that will be presented to Congress on February 17, 2010.

Levin and his staff appeared before the FCC Wednesday to present what they see as gaps or obstacles that must be overcome to develop clear recommendations and policy for universal broadband.

Levin said that commissioners and policy makers must consider the broadband ecosystem if they hope to achieve the president's goals. This means taking into account not only consumer needs but also considering the needs of the industry, which will likely fund the bulk of the $20 billion to $350 billion that will be needed to build new infrastructure and develop new programs for spreading broadband throughout the country.

In considering these needs, Levin said it is important to identify and come up with ways to overcome some hurdles that stand in the way for achieving the ultimate goal of providing broadband to every American.

Obstacles to universal broadband access
One major issue has to do with the Universal Service Fund, a program funded through extra charges on consumers' phone bills. The USF was originally designed to provide subsidies to pay for phone service in rural communities. But the task force believes that more of the $7 billion that is allocated each year from the fund should also be used to help subsidize the cost of deploying broadband in rural areas.

Today, most of these funds are used for voice services and not broadband, the task force reported. And of the money that is used to subsidize broadband, the group noted it is often used inefficiently so that gaps in broadband deployment are still not filled.

The task force also reported that there is still a high level of disparity in income levels between people who subscribe to broadband service and those who do not. Nearly 90 percent of families with incomes of $100,000 or more subscribe to broadband services, compared to 35 percent with incomes of $20,000 or less. Rural households are less likely to subscribe to broadband service than urban households. About 65 percent of white households subscribe to broadband, while only 40 percent of Hispanic households subscribe to broadband and 46 percent of African-American households have broadband.

Another issue that was brought up by the task force during the meeting is the fact that broadband service providers tend to favor higher-income regions in more populated areas over low-income areas.

The data suggests that many low-income people in these parts of the country are offered only one broadband service option. The data also suggests that these consumers who have only one option tend to pay higher prices for service.

What this means is that lower-income people, who have less disposable income, are often the ones forced to pay higher prices, while people who have more money pay lower prices for service.

Deployments in rural areas are often affected by the high cost of building infrastructure and providing service. The task force noted that "middle mile" costs are almost three times higher than general network operations costs. This high cost is often a serious barrier to rural broadband deployments, the group said.

Blair Levin, head of the task force developing a national broadband policy for the FCC.

This "middle mile" infrastructure consists of equipment and fiber that connects local cable head-ends or telephone company central offices with bigger points of presence that connect those networks to nationwide networks. The task force said there was a lack of efficient coordination when carriers or other utility providers dig trenches for fiber infrastructure. The group also noted that these deployment gaps don't only affect rural consumers, but many residential neighborhoods and small business marketplaces as well.

As the Internet and television markets converge, the task force also noted that a lack of innovation exists in the TV set-top box market. Specifically, the majority of consumers today use set-top boxes provided through their subscription TV providers. And only a very small number of devices are even available to purchase at retail. By comparison, there are hundreds of devices available in the mobile phone market. Due to a lack of competition, innovation has been stifled. And the task force recommends the FCC adopt policies to encourage a retail market for such devices.

That said, the FCC has tried to encourage the consumer electronics industry to develop set-top boxes that could be bought separately from cable services, but so far the efforts have largely failed.

More spectrum needed
On the wireless side, the key barrier is a lack of spectrum, the task force said. The problem is simple, as demand for mobile broadband increases, there is a need for more spectrum to support these services. Demand for these services comes from the rapidly growing market for smartphone wireless devices and Netbooks. By 2011, smartphone sales are expected to overtake standard mobile phones.

The task force said it is critical for the FCC to identify and reallocate available spectrum as soon as possible. The group said the nation could face a spectrum shortage as soon as 2013 or 2015, if nothing is done today.

The wireless trade group CTIA and the Consumer Electronics Association support this claim. And the groups sent a letter to FCC chairman Julius Genachowski on Tuesday urging him to investigate using broadcast TV spectrum for mobile Internet use.

The measure is opposed by the broadcast TV industry. But the FCC task force noted that as the need for wireless broadband spectrum increases, the need for broadcast TV spectrum is actually decreasing. Specifically, smartphone subscriptions have increased by 690 percent since 1998, while over-the-air TV viewership decreased by 56 percent. This proposal is already generating criticism from lawmakers supporting the TV broadcast industry.

Levin and his staff acknowledged there are many other barriers that exist in providing affordable broadband access to every person in the U.S. Levin said his staff is on track to meet its February deadline, but he said the process will remain open throughout the remaining 90 days that are left to incorporate new ideas. He also emphasized the fact that the ultimate success or failure of the national broadband plan will be in the hands of Congress and policy makers who must remain committed to implementing the plan.

"In my experience and seeing what has worked in other countries, you can plan all you want, but there really needs to be a long-term commitment for such plans to succeed," he said.

Also as part of the meeting, the five-member FCC unanimously voted to impose a "shot clock" for wireless tower applications to speed up the time it takes for wireless operators to deploy new cell phone networks.

Chairman Genachowski promised last month at the CTIA tradeshow in San Diego that the Commission would do what it could to speed up this process. And the Commission's vote solidified that promise.

"Tower siting is a vital piece of our industry," CTIA president and CEO Steve Largent said in a statement. "It enables mobile services, including voice and broadband, for consumers, public safety, and businesses. Both Congress and the Supreme Court recognized the importance of taking concrete steps to ensure that the zoning process does not become a barrier to the reasonable deployment of, and competition among, diverse wireless networks."