Dan's New Blog

But I was gone for 9 months. Anyway I’ve begun blogging again for my employer. My first new post is about the Bitcoin epic fail. Check it out.

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?

Nope. But some people will. And I leave it to ‘em.

Yesterday Google introduced Google TV, which “combines the TV you know and love with the freedom and power of the Internet.”

It’s a lot like Apple TV or maybe Boxee, only better — so I’m told — so I don’t have to get into all the details.

Basically all this boils down to Google (a) worming its way onto your TV’s “desktop”, thus enhancing its ubiquity, and (b) shoving YouTube videos front-and-center on your TV, thus giving the monetization of the site a much-needed boost. (Hey, YouTube might break even this year.)

Do I need another box connected to my TV? No. And given how the digital switchover went for me, I don’t even want to try.

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.

So says Wired. What I never knew is that it took them 7 years to get to the point where they indexed all federal and state courts.

Yesterday a jury returned its verdict in the seven-year legal battle between SCO Group and Novell: SCO does not own the copyrights to UNIX and, by extension, they cannot demand licensing fees from companies that use Linux.

Huh?

Let’s explore the case. Back in late 1995 Novell sold Unix to The Santa Cruz Operation, SCO’s predecessor. The contract was confusing as to who actually owned the copyright for the code. SCO claimed that it was the rightful owner — or if it wasn’t, it should be as a result of the sale. Eight years later, SCO sued IBM, claiming IBM included bits of SCO’s copyrighted UNIX code in its version of Linux. Novell disputed that claim, saying that it owned the copyrighted code and it was just fine with Novell if IBM used it in Linux. (Still with me? Good.)

Three court cases enused. SCO lost the first in August 2007 when a Utah federal judge ruled that SCO didn’t own the copyrighted code. However, SCO sorta won when the Tenth Circuit ruled last August that the issue of who owned the copyrights needed to be settled by a jury. Hence the decision yesterday.

Despite its 1-2 won-loss record in this case, SCO isn’t giving up. According to The Salt Lake Tribune:

“As for SCO, [Edward] Cahn [the trustee running SCO as part of its bankruptcy proceedings] said the company would discuss what the ruling means for its Unix business. He pointed out that presiding U.S. District Judge Ted Stewart still has parts of a verdict to render that will affect the case’s final outcome. For example, Stewart is being asked to rule whether Novell still needs to transfer the copyrights to SCO as part of the sales contract and whether Novell had the right to waive SCO’s claims against IBM. ‘We still have claims against IBM irrespective of this verdict,’ Cahn said.”

The takeaways?

• Whenever you buy something really big or expensive, always take the time to read the fine print. (I’m looking at you, eBay.)

• SCO’s sole line of business appears to be litigation. (Look for the highlighted words.)

• This is a big deal for Linux and open source software, but will go unnoticed by almost everyone.

The USPTO has concluded its reexamination of Amazon’s “1-Click” patent and has confirmed it:

“As amended, claims 1 and 11 now positively recite ‘a shopping cart model’.”

(Dramatic, huh?)

Anyway, Amazon isn’t out of the woods on this one yet. The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear the Bilski case, which concerns whether business methods can be patented. If the court rules against them, 1-Click could be toast anyway.