Webware

Conference co-hosts Walt Mossberg (left) and Kara Swisher interview FCC Chairman Kevin Martin and Verizon Wireless CEO Lowell McAdam.

(Credit: Ina Fried / CNET News.com)

CARLSBAD, Calif.--The D6 conference wrapped up on Thursday with a session on broadband access: Walt Mossberg and Kara Swisher interviewed Lowell McAdam, CEO of Verizon Wireless, and Kevin Martin, chairman of the FCC.

Mossberg started by putting a chart up showing how far behind the U.S. is in broadband access, and how expensive our access is. Martin said you need to look at the unique demographics of the U.S., and if you compare some states, like Massachusetts, to Korea, then they'll hold up better. Of course, providing access to less-advantaged areas is still a challenge.

So why do we pay four times as much per megabit, Mossberg asks? Again, Martin says, it's because of demographics: The average cost considers rural areas, which are more expensive to serve. On the issue of providing service to more communities, Martin wants to get away from providing subsidies to multiple carriers in rural regions, although he recognizes that limited subsidies will lead to the "carrier of last resort" being the provider in each community.

Open access
Mossberg asked about spectrum auctions and the open access provision that go with that spectrum. Will we have an open system?

Martin: "I think it's important. I've heard that from consumers and entrepreneurs. So in the most recent auction we did, we proposed that whoever wins this spectrum has to be willing to be more open." He said, "We're not completely there yet, but every carrier is embracing and talking about how they are going to be more open." He listed T-Mobile, Sprint, Google, and Clearwire as participants in this movement. And, of course, he was sitting onstage next to Verizon Wireless' CEO, which has also announced open access to its network.

"Would you have done this without Google?" Swisher asked Verizon's McAdam, referring to Google's push for open wireless access. "Yes, we launched this before Google. We've seen what open networks can do. We don't ever want to be in the business of excluding business."

Regarding the new "open Verizon" network that's been announced, McAdam said access to it will be at the same rates as it is for Verizon's own hardware, although some value-add services that Verizon handset customers get may not be available, at least not for free, for the non-Verizon customers.

McAdam said he's aiming for service penetration beyond the current 80 percent or so that Verizon Wireless enjoys. He's looking for growth up to "500 percent penetration." How is that possible? By counting access to multiple Verizon services available to each customer, perhaps home network access and other services.

Terminate!
"Let's talk about termination fees," Mossberg said, bringing up a pet bugaboo of his. "How do you justify charging people hundreds of dollars two years after they've bought a phone?"

"We don't do that now," McAdam said. It's been about a year since the charges have been adopted. It costs about $200 to subsidize a smartphone, he said, but "we're going to tier that down...pro-rate it over time, so it makes it easier for the customer to leave if they want."

"If they wanted to pass a law that said no more subsidies, I'd eliminate it tomorrow. None of us (the carriers) would complain."

Martin agreed that termination fees "need to decline over time," and that new customers should have a period of time for a new phone--"14 days or so, after your first bill"--during which they should be able to cancel with no nuisance fee. There are class action lawsuits already under way, he said, which are blocking the FCC from working on this issue proactively.

"This practice is now going on in other industries," he said, and implied that he would like to halt the spread of it.

Access and speed
Martin said that many of the same debates that we have on wireless networks apply to other networks. Access providers cannot limit access to content, he said, but "network management" applications can be appropriate. "I think the commission needs to address that in a constructive way, to reinforce that the consumers have unfettered access to the network without the operator getting in the way."

Mossberg repeated to McAdams an AT&T claim that it can double their wireless access speed this year, triple it next. "And you guys are stuck," Mossberg said. "Is your technology limiting you?"

"There are no miracle technologies. You have to work through it. There's a difference between peak speeds and average throughput in the field. There's a difference in how much spectrum you want to dedicate to it. And the third factor is devices. In the next three or four years, that's a series of interesting financial decisions."

Click here for full coverage of the D: All Things Digital conference.

At a hearing in Cambridge, Mass., the five FCC commissioners question Comcast Executive Vice President David Cohen on his company's practice of delaying peer-to-peer file-sharing traffic during congested times.

(Credit: Anne Broache/CNET News.com )

Update at 3:10 p.m. PST: CAMBRIDGE, Mass.--Federal Communications Commission chief Kevin Martin on Monday targeted Comcast's contention that delaying peer-to-peer file-sharing traffic serves user interests, appearing to sympathize with the cable company's critics.

Through pointed questioning at a public hearing at Harvard Law School here, Martin, a Republican, seemed to be pushing a two-pronged agenda: Internet service providers like Comcast should be as transparent as possible about manipulating network traffic, and consumers should have the freedom to, in effect, get what they pay for.

But at the end of the event, which, all told, lasted nearly six hours, Martin told reporters he still hadn't made up his mind about whether Comcast had done anything more than "reasonable" network management.

The chairman was also unable to predict when the Commission would reach a decision on Comcast's conduct and the broader question of constraints on network operators' traffic-shaping practices, except to say, "I think it's important we try to act very quickly."

The FCC convened Monday's hearing as part of an investigation into Comcast's practice of stalling uploads to BitTorrent protocol clients. It's considering two petitions--one from public-interest groups and one from the peer-to-peer video-sharing service Vuze--that ask the FCC to forcibly stop Comcast's BitTorrent throttling and to make new rules defining what constitutes "reasonable" network management by Internet service providers.

The whole debate is an extension of the years-old tussle over whether Net neutrality regulations, which would prohibit network operators from prioritizing traffic as they wish, are necessary to safeguard the Internet's historically open architecture.

Congress is also continuing to consider such moves. Democratic Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), whose district lies near the site of Monday's hearing, has proposed a new bill that would discourage, though not outright prohibit, Internet service providers from engaging in "unreasonable discriminatory favoritism" of content on their pipes. He warned commissioners in a speech at the start of Monday's event to take with a grain of salt any broadband providers' professions of "reasonable" network management in the interest of consumer welfare.

Martin has said in the past that he doesn't believe there's any need for new regulations, be he warned at the outset of Monday's hearing that the commission was taking the allegations against Comcast "very seriously." (Martin has been known to clash with the cable industry on other issues, namely the idea of offering channels "a la carte," in his day.)

Earlier in the day, Martin first asked a series of questions to Gilles BianRosa, the chief executive of Vuze, a video-sharing Web site, in an apparent effort to establish that the service involves transfer of lawful content and does not hog bandwidth.

Then, after hearing from a panel of academics, public-interest group representatives, and Comcast and Verizon executives, Martin asked a series of questions designed to determine whether consumers are getting enough information about the quality of Internet service they're getting and its potential limitations. (None of the panelists, for the record, has ever managed networks, though a second panel in the afternoon consists of people with such expertise.)

He then turned to Comcast Executive Vice President David Cohen and asked why his company "thinks it's necessary to block" peer-to-peer file-sharing traffic when its customers "are acting within the constraints you sold them."

"Doesn't that undermine the arguments you're making?" Martin asked.

"It doesn't undermine the argument," Cohen replied. "I don't think we're restraining the customers from using the service in accordance with the way we're selling it to them."

Cohen went on to read from a list of frequently asked questions for customers, which he quoted as saying, "Comcast may on a limited basis temporarily delay certain P2P traffic when that traffic has or is projected to have an adverse effect on other customers' use of the service."

Martin questioned whether that sort of disclosure is detailed enough to give both Internet surfers and application developers the information they need.

Definitely not, said Marvin Ammori, general counsel for the public-interest group Free Press, which has petitioned the FCC to declare that degrading any Internet applications is a violation of U.S. broadband policy.

"It's not clear when the high periods of congestion are, what they mean by delay, and if I were trying to design software to that...I'm not sure how I'd do it," he told Martin.

Democratic commissioners Michael Copps and Jonathan Adelstein, who have called for nondiscrimination rules, also pressed the Comcast executive to justify his company's practices.

"Comcast does not block any Web site, application, or Web protocol, including peer-to-peer services, period," Cohen responded. "What we are doing is a limited form of network management objectively based upon an excessive bandwidth-consumptive protocol during limited periods of network congestion."

Republican Commissioner Deborah Taylor Tate came the closest to voicing reservations about new antidiscrimination rules for Internet service providers. She indicated barring broadband operators from managing their networks for any purpose much beyond defeating spam and viruses, as some public-interest groups have suggested, would be unprecedentedly broad and could be better addressed by greater transparency by the companies.

Commissioner Robert McDowell, a Republican, like the others, didn't indicate whether Comcast's behavior is acceptable network management. He did, however, suggest the company's techniques may raise separate questions about competition for video content delivery.

"I think if Comcast did not also provide video services," he said, "we would not be here having this debate."

Martin ended the question-and-answer session, which lasted more than two hours, by asking whether the FCC even has the authority to go after Comcast, should it decide the company's network management violates its broadband policy principles. The FCC declared in 2005 that customers have the right to use the content, lawful applications, and devices they wish on the networks they use.

Comcast's Cohen said he doesn't believe the FCC has the power to fine his company. But as for whether the regulators can force the cable operator to stop treating file-sharing traffic the way it does, he said, "I'm not 100 percent sure; I'll get back to you."

Martin told reporters after Monday's hearing that he continues to believe the FCC already has sufficient power to crack down on incidents of Internet discrimination without the enactment of new laws, just as it did a few years ago when a small North Carolina telephone company was accused of degrading a rival's VoIP (voice over Internet protocol) traffic.

Comcast, AT&T, and other network operators would be expected to refrain from "unreasonable discriminatory favoritism" of content on their pipes under a recrafted Net neutrality proposal introduced Wednesday in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Rep. Edward Markey

(Credit: U.S. House of Representatives)

But this time around, the new bill (PDF) sponsored by Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.), chairman of a House Internet and telecommunications panel, isn't directly forcing Internet service providers to follow specific rules. The new bill is an apparent effort to be less prescriptive than his previous efforts, which failed in a Republican-dominated Congress two years ago.

"The bill contains no requirements for regulations on the Internet whatsoever," Markey said in a statement upon introducing the bill. "It does, however, suggest that the principles which have guided the Internet's development and expansion are highly worthy of retention, and it seeks to enshrine such principles in the law as guide stars for U.S. broadband policy."

Rep. Charles "Chip" Pickering (R-Miss.), who has argued against Net neutrality regulations in the past, is now co-sponsoring the rewritten measure, which is being called the Internet Freedom Preservation Act.

The modified approach is an apparent attempt to address the howls of protest from network operators, who have argued that previous Net neutrality bills in Congress amount to unnecessary Internet regulations.

The old bill decreed that broadband operators have certain duties: not blocking or degrading content, not prioritizing some applications over others, and not imposing "surcharges" for premium placement, to name a few. Violators would have been subject to penalties. A pending Senate bill, which hasn't yet seen any action in this session of Congress, takes a similar approach.

The new Markey-Pickering bill, by contrast, proposes adding four broadband policy statements to existing federal communications law. Those statements build upon a set of broadband policy principles that the Federal Communications Commission adopted years ago, including recommendations that the government allow consumers to reach the lawful content and applications of their choice and hook up whatever devices they please, provided that they don't harm the network.

Violation of those principles would not carry any penalties under the new bill, according to a Markey aide. The bill does, however, leave open the possibility of tougher rules later. One principle dictates that the government should adopt and enforce "baseline protections to guard against unreasonable discriminatory favoritism for, or degradation of, content by network operators based upon its source, ownership, or destination on the Internet."

The bill would direct the FCC to study broadband providers' current practices and whether "enforceable" rules governing Internet openness are necessary. The FCC would also be required to stage at least eight public "broadband summits" at "geographically diverse locations" around the United States to discuss the state of competition, consumer protection, and consumer choice in broadband.

The bill's introduction arrives amid a recent stepped-up focus in Washington on network management practices. The FCC for companies to slow down peer-to-peer traffic on their networks, as Comcast has admitted to doing in what it argues is an attempt to keep all its subscribers surfing smoothly.

The same consumer advocacy groups that support Net neutrality legislation have asked the FCC to declare that such practices aren't, in fact, "reasonable," and should be forcibly stopped.

The FCC also announced on Tuesday that it's holding a February 26 public hearing at Harvard Law School in Cambridge, Mass., to hear from experts on network management issues.

Fans of Net neutrality laws--including Amazon.com, Google, and a number of consumer advocacy groups--support Markey's latest proposal, heaping praise on the new language before the congressman had even formally introduced it. They have long argued that without strong Net neutrality principles enshrined in law, there will be nothing to stop network operators from, say, charging YouTube additional fees to be delivered to consumers faster than a rival video-sharing Web site.

The Markey bill is "an important step in ensuring the Internet remains open for consumers and innovators," said Markham Erickson, executive director of the Open Internet Coalition, whose members include major search engines, electronic retailers, librarians, and public-interest groups.

Network operators, by contrast, have long opposed Net neutrality regulations because they argue that they need the freedom to manage their networks as they see fit and that new obligations could discourage investments in building out their pipes.

Scott Cleland, the chairman of NetCompetition.org, a group whose members include all the major cable, telephone, and wireless companies, said Markey's new approach doesn't blunt those concerns. While the "letter" of the new Markey bill may not include those new regulations, he said, the "spirit" of it does, creating the same heartburn for opponents as the earlier version.

Updated at 9:53 a.m. PST: Comcast declined to comment on the measure, and cable industry representatives were not immediately prepared to comment.

The U.S. Telecom Association, which represents large Internet service providers like AT&T and Verizon Communications, blasted the new bill. Group president Walter McCormick said it would "blindly legislate a new national broadband policy, without regard to its implications, and then require the FCC to spend the next year determining whether the Internet is being constructed, managed, and operated in conformance with this new government mandate."

Federal Communications Chairman Kevin Martin on Tuesday threw his support behind Google's Open Handset Alliance.

On Monday, Google officially unveiled Android, its new mobile phone software. It also announced the Open Handset Alliance. Thirty-four companies have said they will join the alliance, which will work on developing applications on the Android platform. Members of the alliance include mobile handset makers HTC and Motorola, mobile operators T-Mobile and Sprint-Nextel, and chipmaker Qualcomm.

It should come as little surprise that Martin would support the alliance. Earlier this year, he made open devices a requirement in the rules for the upcoming 700MHz spectrum auction, which are expected to get under way in January 2008. Essentially, the rules will require winners of the spectrum in certain slivers of the 700MHz to be required to allow any device to connect to the network.

"As I noted when we adopted open network rules for our upcoming spectrum auction, I continue to believe that more openness, at the network, device, or application level, helps foster innovation and enhances consumers' freedom and choice in purchasing wireless service," he said a statement.

Google, which lobbied for open access rules for the 700MHz rules, is planning on bidding on some of the spectrum licenses. Even if it doesn't win any of these licenses, the new Android software could put Google in a prime position to be one of the main suppliers of software to handset makers that could help them comply with the FCC requirement.

Today Revision3 rolled out a new show called XLR8R TV (pronounced like "accelerator"), which is being pitched as a local music and event show for indie folks. Think of it as something you'd see on MTV, but local and without extravagant parties for high schoolers.

XLR8R TV will air twice a month and feature music artists from New York and San Francisco. It's a formula show with reoccurring segments about musicians, their fans, and how they make their music. What interests me is a segment called "A Day in the Life" which follows around an artist throughout the day. MTV had something similar with Diary, but the Internet can provide a level of realism the FCC might have censored.

We've never covered Revision3 before. For free media content, there's been a lot of buzz about Joost and Babelgum as of late, but Revision3 has been pushing out tons of original content to the masses without the need for a TV, a portable device, or a software install. Other notable programming includes the flagship official Digg podcast, Diggnation, and the irreverent cooking show CTRL+ALT+Chicken.

You can read more on XLR8R TV here.