Dan's New Blog

Today Google and Verizon provided some clarity wrt their views on net neutrality. Like I said earlier, it’s a quid pro quo. In exchange for net neutrality in the wired, non-mobile world:

“So, in addition to not blocking or degrading of Internet content and applications, wireline broadband providers also could not favor particular Internet traffic over other traffic.”

Google advocates letting Verizon manage its network bandwidth any way it wants:

“In recognition of the still-nascent nature of the wireless broadband marketplace, under this proposal we would not now apply most of the wireline principles to wireless, except for the transparency requirement.”

I can live with this.

I’m trying to parse the Google-Verizon deal which, as Om Malik says, appears to be a knife in the back of net neutrality.  The NY Times started it all off by announcing that:

“Google and Verizon, two leading players in Internet service and content, are nearing an agreement that could allow Verizon to speed some online content to Internet users more quickly if the content’s creators are willing to pay for the privilege. The charges could be paid by companies, like YouTube, owned by Google, for example, to Verizon, one of the nation’s leading Internet service providers, to ensure that its content received priority as it made its way to consumers. The agreement could eventually lead to higher charges for Internet users.”

This raises several questions. If Google is so concerned about traffic to YouTube being throttled back, why haven’t they also cut a deal with Comcast? (You may remember that back in April the DC Circuit Court ruled that the Federal Communications Commission didn’t have the authority to tell Comcast how to manage its bandwidth.) And why is YouTube traffic an issue now? Is YouTube a red herring — is this all really about bandwidth for, say, Google Music?

Very confusing.

Both Google and Verizon said uh-uh.  Here’s Google’s Public Policy Twitter feed:

“@NYTimes is wrong. We’ve not had any convos with VZN about paying for carriage of our traffic. We remain committed to an open internet.”

And Verizon’s PolicyBlog:

“The NYT article  regarding conversations between Google and Verizon is mistaken.  It fundamentally misunderstands our purpose. As we said in our earlier FCC filing, our goal is an Internet policy framework that ensures openness and accountability, and incorporates specific FCC authority, while maintaining investment and innovation. To suggest this is a business arrangement between our companies is entirely incorrect.”

(If someone could read between the lines in all that and explain the nuances to me, it would be much appreciated.) Anyway, now the other shoe has dropped. The Washington Post reports that the FCC-hosted talks on a national broadband policy have collapsed:

“Under criticism for its handing of closed-door discussions with certain companies on broadband policy, the Federal Communications Commission announced Thursday the meetings with Verizon, AT&T, Google and Skype were unsuccessful and that it would stop holding them. The announcement comes amid an apparent agreement between Verizon and Google on so-called net neutrality ground rules that would allow certain prioritization of Web sites on fixed wire networks and no rules on wireless networks. Sources familiar with the discussions at the FCC said reports Wednesday of a deal between Verizon and Google on net neutrality upset participants in the meeting, who were moving closer to agreement on stronger rules against blocking and slowing traffic on wireless and fixed-wire networks.”

So what gives? Has Google abandoned “Don’t Be Evil”? Again, I’m confused. But this story from Bloomberg makes a lot more sense to me:

“Verizon Communications Inc. and Google Inc. have struck their own accord on handling Internet traffic, as both participate in talks by U.S. officials on Web policy, two people briefed by the companies said. The compromise as described would restrict Verizon from selectively slowing Internet content that travels over its wires, but wouldn’t apply such limits to Internet use on mobile phones, according to the people, who spoke yesterday and asked not to be identified before an announcement. Verizon and Google have been adversaries over the issue, known as net neutrality. Verizon was among cable and phone companies saying they need leeway on the delivery of Web content to protect performance of their networks. Google led content providers and advocacy groups that say restrictions are required so communications companies don’t favor their own online offerings or those of partners that pay for higher speeds.”

See the difference? Verizon isn’t extorting money from Google. (“Nice little YouTube ya got here. It’d be a shame if anything happened to it.”) It’s actually a quid-pro-quo — Google preserves net neutrality while Verizon gets a free hand with its wireless traffic, which is much more lucrative.

At least that’s what it seems to me. I’m not naive, nor am I a Google fanboy. But who knows?

TechCrunch tidily sums up today’s iPhone media event:

“Let’s recap: Jobs acknowledged the ["Antennagate"] problem, then offered evidence that people don’t really care because the phones are still selling like hot cakes. Not only that, but other phones have the exact same problem. And it only affects less than one percent of all iPhone 4s anyway. Still, we love our customers so much we are giving them all free cases. Any questions?”

The Electronic Frontier Foundation reports that the San Mateo County D.A.’s office has withdrawn its warrant in the case of the lost/stolen/Lord-knows-what iPhone 4 prototype. Gizmodo’s Jason Chen will get his seized computer stuff back, but it could be subpoenaed at a later date.

On Friday U.S. District Court Justice Nancy Gertner took a page from the Jammie Thomas file-sharing case and reduced the penalty in the Joel Tenenbaum case from $675,00 to $67,500. It appears now that the de facto acceptable damages award is $2,250 per song.

Let us devoutly hope that Tenenbaum’s case doesn’t keep coming back from the dead like Thomas’.

Speaking of which, Ars Technica says the judge slashed the award, as does the Boston Globe (as well as a host of others), while Wired goes for broke and says she gutted it. I’m assuming this is a manifestation of the authors’ unconscious feelings towards the Recording Industry Association of America.

After a 3-month hiatus, Google has resurrected google.cn. It only offers music search and text translation, but does sport a big honking link to Google Hong Kong. Six of one, half a dozen of the other as far as I’m concerned, but TechCrunch says Google “flinched“.

The Supreme Court upheld the Fed Circuit in denying patent protection for the Bilski energy hedging business method, but they didn’t, as many people hoped, rule on business method patents as a whole. The NY Times says they stuck to the “middle ground“. (Amazon can finally exhale on this one.)

Dell sold almost 12 million computers from 2003-2005 that they knew were junk. The problem was bad capacitors on the motherboard. The Times says this epitomizes the “decline of one of America’s most celebrated and admired companies“.

Today U.S. District Justice Louis L. Stanton ruled against Viacom in its copyright-infringement suit against YouTube. Here’s some (subdued) crowing from the YouTube blog:

“Today, the court granted our motion for summary judgment in Viacom’s lawsuit with YouTube. This means that the court has decided that YouTube is protected by the safe harbor of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) against claims of copyright infringement. The decision follows established judicial consensus that online services like YouTube are protected when they work cooperatively with copyright holders to help them manage their rights online.”

This is only the first round. The NY Times says Viacom is already working on its appeal:

“We believe that this ruling by the lower court is fundamentally flawed and contrary to the language of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the intent of Congress and the views of the Supreme Court as expressed in its most recent decisions. We intend to seek to have these issues before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit as soon as possible. After years of delay, this decision gives us the opportunity to have the Appellate Court address these critical issues on an accelerated basis. We look forward to the next stage of the process.”

This case drags on and on and on. And now, Wired reports, Michael J. Davis of the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota wants a settlement rather than yet another trial. I wish him the best of luck with that.

Two months after Apple filed suit against them, HTC is countersuing Apple for infringing on 5 of its patents. War (Apple vs. Google) by proxy!

The UK’s infamous Digital Economy Bill — otherwise known as DEBill passed the House of Commons last night and appears to be on track for approval in the House of Lords. The bill, which was given the hurry-up treatment so that it would pass ahead of the May 6 general election in the UK, is supposed to combat media pirates. The plan is that content providers will use the nation’s ISPs to police BitTorrenters by “speed blocks, bandwidth shaping, account suspension or other limits.”

(Hmmm … I’ve read something about ISPs throttling-back their customers recently, haven’t I? Oh, yeah.)

Apparently the UK took a page out of Germany’s book and passed an unpopular, unwanted law:

“Heavily lobbied by digital liberties activists, some MPs admit they don’t understand the proposal and many suspect the measures — rather than reduce piracy — will instead punish downloaders’ parents or public WiFi operators, while abusers find workarounds.”

BoingBoing’s Cory Doctorow provides us with an example of how much the MPs really don’t understand about all those pipes and wires and blinky lights:

“Here’s Mark Todd, Labour MP for South Derbyshire, explaining why you should have your Internet connection cut off without even a written notice: ‘Is my Hon. Friend sure that a postal delivery will suffice? Many people may have chosen to form a contract with an ISP at some stage before moving, and may not have seen any particular reason to notify the ISP of a change of address.’ Yes, the last time I moved, I simply had the movers run a private fiber loop from my old premises to the new place. It took most of the day and they had to dig up nearly all of central London, but it was lots easier, ultimately, than notifying my ISP of my change of address.”

Comcast won Round 2 of its battle with the Federal Communications Commission this morning when the DC Circuit Court ruled that the FCC “has failed to tie its assertion of ancillary authority over Comcast’s Internet service to any ‘statutorily mandated responsibility’”. Thus, the court granted Comcast’s 2008 appeal of the FCC’s order to stop throttling-back file sharing traffic.

So much for net neutrality.

I’m sure there’ll be Round 3 sometime soon. TechCrunch ponders the FCC’s possible next move. The WSJ Digits blog tells us which of the playahs — and it’s not just Comcast — in this case are smiling and lighting up victory cigars.