Will a net-neutrality policy inhibit or promote wireless broadband? Almost no one asks this question specifically, although AT&T and Verizon are warning that such regulations will reduce their investments.

Wireless networks are currently strained by smartphone demand. FCC rules forcing carriers to provide equal access at the same price, no matter how bandwidth intensive, will require a lot more towers and signal but will discourage investment. A lack of regulation would allow carriers to charge heavy users greater fees, discouraging egregious network use and possibly discouraging egregious buildout of ugly towers and cell sites everywhere. Tough choice, and all but ignored. The focus now is on corporate control v. government control of information channels.

The latest agreement, hammered out privately between Verizon and Google, appears to be a proposal rejected by the FCC, and leaves open all the major issues with wireless networks. Most observers believe wireless networks, currently strained by inadequate infrastructure, will predominate in the future. This isn’t good news for those concerned about the long-term health effects of wireless transmission sites operating 24 hours a day throughout populated areas.

Major commentaries and explanations, under the Paperweight:

Net Neutrality, CNET Video interview with Larry Downes and Maggie Reardon – Focuses on reasons for resistance to the interference of the FCC. Key quotes:

“The real concern is what they might do in the future, like turn it into cable television.”

“Political groups in Washington see this as an opportunity to push other agendas that go along with it…it has been extremely politicized which has been very unhelpful.”

“The whole authority of the FCC to do anything here is being called into question.”

“Either these rules are good for the whole internet, or they aren’t any good at all.”

“Other countries have wired, fiber-optic networks…they have bigger fish to fry…control of internet content [etc.].”

I’m very suspicious and skeptical of the FCC; I think anyone who has looked at the FCC long-term recognizes that there are tremendous risks to introducing them into any industry or any piece of an industry.”

“We will certainly still be talking about this in six months.”

Google, Verizon and net neutrality: what does it mean? – PDA: The Digital Content Blog, August 10, 2010. Key quotes:

The internet today is, mostly, a level playing field. We pay a fee to have access to the internet. Web services pay to host their content and to for that content to be accessible. And internet service providers pay for the bit in between – the connection.

…the desktop is dying – wireless, mobile networks are the future. So the internet of the future will operate on the network of the future which will largely be a wireless one. Under the Google-Verizon proposal, wireless services would be exempt from all these requirements, which means ISPs would be able to discriminate against competitors and would be able to block access to a service even if it was legal. It’s the same principle as your mobile operator charing you more to call a friend on another network – but with everything from video, to email, gaming, music – anything you do on your phone.

A paper trail of betrayal: Google’s net neutrality collapse – ArsTechnica, August 11, 2010:

What’s all this about the “unique” character of wireless networks? Rob Frieden, a respected Penn State telecoms scholar, noted this week that “the rationale for exempting wireless does not pass the smell test… The technical and operational aspects of wireless strongly necessitate the non-discrimination requirement.”

Back in April, Google agreed. It strongly lobbied against this idea and the logic behind it. Wireless companies (like Verizon) that seek a nondiscrimination exemption based on the allegedly “competitive nature” of the wireless sector, “fail to acknowledge some relevant facts,” the company wrote.

Google and Verizon’s net neutrality proposal explained, EnGadget, August 9, 2010:

Now, we don’t know for sure what happened, but we’ve got a theory: the proposal reads to us like Verizon’s basically agreeing to trade neutrality on its wired networks for the right to control its wireless network any way it wants — apart from requiring wireless carriers and ISPs to be “transparent” about network management, none of the neutrality principles that govern wired networks will apply to wireless networks. That’s a big deal — it’s pretty obvious that wireless broadband will be the defining access technology for the next generation of devices and services.

What is clear from all the above is that very powerful corporations are fighting an all-out battle to retain financial and managerial control over commercial information networks, wired or wireless. Doesn’t the public deserve another option to big business or big government control over information networks?

ISPs such as Comcast and AT&T oppose preserving the Internet as a single, neutral pipeline and, instead, wish to bifurcate or multitier the Internet pipeline into lanes based not on broadband access/speed (as it is now) but rather on content (much like cable). This takes power out of the hands of consumers. For example, one’s current access to the Internet is dependent on speed and geography. A users computer equipment and access to broadband service (versus dial-up service) control speed. Once on the Internet, however, a consumer can access all content. A non-neutral Internet is one in which a consumer’s access to information is controlled by the ISP and subject to the ISP’s price and aggregation choices. This model may have benefits for entertainment properties trafficked on the Internet, but those benefits may only go to a few since Comcast, the nations largest cable provider, is poised to acquire NBC Universal in an environment where ISPs can discriminate against content. A discriminatory Internet may also prove dubious if it creates a cultural and educational divide. Several issues come to mind. Will news organizations also see their way to the Internet lanes with the highest subscriber fees or most desirable bundles? What happens in a society when the information pipeline is no longer accessible to citizens on an equal basis? What happens to advertising and media when the viral market is no longer neutral?

Less than a month after an appeals court ruled the FCC lacked authority to regulate Comcast’s network management practices, FCC Chair Julis Genachowski announced a new strategy to push for net neutrality and the National Broadband Plan (touching on many of the themes above in the video announcement).

The Comcast v. FCC case in question concerned a cable provider, but bandwidth hogs are actually a greater threat to wireless networks.

Will a net-neutrality policy inhibit or promote wireless broadband? Almost no one asks this question specifically, although AT&T and Verizon are warning that such regulations will reduce their investments.

Wireless networks are currently strained by smartphone demand. FCC rules forcing carriers to provide equal access at the same price, no matter how bandwidth intensive, will require a lot more towers and signal but will discourage investment. A lack of regulation would allow carriers to charge heavy users greater fees, discouraging egregious network use and possibly discouraging egregious buildout of ugly towers and cell sites everywhere. Tough choice, and all but ignored. The focus now is on corporate control v. government control of information channels.

Check out these links under the Sunroom Desk paperweight for views on the dilemmas facing the FCC, carriers, Congress, and U.S. citizens:

FCC says it has compromise on key broadband rules – AP, in MIT Technology Review, May 6, 2010

Key US lawmakers back FCC on broadband policy, Telecom Engine, Thursday, May 6, 2010

The FCC Makes Its Move on Net Neutrality – Reason, May 7, 2010

Net Neutrality War Heats Up – American Thinker, May 8, 2010

FCC to U.S. Court of Appeals: Drop Dead! – BigGovernment.com, May 10, 2010

Net Neutrality and the Third Way – HuffingtonPost.com, May 10, 2010

The FCC’s National Broadband Plan, originally set for release in February 2010 until the FCC requested an extension to mid-March, could be the next big business battleground. It could also increase the number of local battlegrounds, as residents fight carriers at city halls over attempts to install more cell sites for FCC-backed wireless broadband.

Generic issues from the banking crisis and the health care financing crisis are pertinent to the debate over the future of broadband:

How can decades of complicated regulations be efficient and consistent with new technologies and delivery methods?

What is government’s appropriate role in pricing and guaranteeing access?

Who will pick up the tab for nationwide provision of services?

How can control over systems and services be balanced with citizens’ freedom, choice and privacy? (In this vein, how can top-down imposition of rules favoring wireless infrastructure expansion be deemed consistent with property rights, local determination, and protection of public health?)

Will a new framework for this huge business sector benefit the country, or a small group of players lobbying for favorable rules and treatment?

FCC’s Broadband Plan Called Infeasible, posted today on PCWorld.com, predicts no immediate action will be taken on the plan.

Going Mobile – CommLawblog, February 24, 2010 spotlighted the issue of wireless providers’ need for more spectrum to serve smartphone applications. Quoting FCC Chair Julius Genachowski:

“the Mobile Future Auction is a win-win proposal: for broadcasters, who win more flexibility to pursue business models to serve their local communities; and for the public, which wins more innovation in mobile broadband services, continued free, over-the-air television, and the benefits of the proceeds of new and substantial auction revenues.”

TV broadcasters, and many members of the public, don’t see it quite that way, as the article goes on to point out.

Other links under the Sunroom Desk paperweight on the FCC Broadband Plan:

FCC misses deadine for broadband plan: They’ll do great with more power – Big Government, February 10, 2010. The comment by Randyl2 is a brilliant analogy:

Government is the worst virus of all, now trying to worm it’s way into the internet. We need a firewall to keep the government out of our lives. Actually our Constitution was enacted to act as a firewall, we just haven’t had the sense to use it regularly to scan all government actions. It’s time we do before the country crashes.

FCC Net Neutrality Workshop Examines Importance of Transparency – BroadbandBreakfast.com, January 21, 2010

McDowell Warns Against Regulation of Broadband As Telecommunications Service – BroadbandBreakfast.com, January 29, 2010, an argument over industry classification (who is subject to what rules).

**”Open Internet Proposals” and Internet Activities by Ordinary Americans, an FCC-invited presentation by Instapundit blogger Glenn Reynolds, covers citizen journalism, the First Amendment, the temptation of government to control communications channels, and the dangers of rules set up to prevent problems that haven’t yet occurred.

For a view of the proposed rules and wireless providers’ stake, check out this Network Computing review of the rules and its comment on wireless industry problems: “the real motivation behind killing the proposed rules is that the wireless carriers are offering Internet enabled broadband phones. The wireless broadband industry is very much in the same place that the ISP industry was in the late 90’s, with far more demand than they had capacity to meet.”

For more information, do a Google search or consult Save The Internet, which represents consumer users of the internet and asserts that “phone and cable companies have been busy stuffing the docket full of misinformation that could guide the FCC to make a rule that doesn’t serve the public interest. We have to counter their spin and misinformation.”

The second half of that sentence is not a non sequitor. Wireless providers are fighting to keep control over their networks and fee structures as they plan to build thousands more cell towers to meet the growing market for mobile broadband devices. Many towers and cell sites will likely be built in Glendale after the moratorium ends and an ordinance is in place.

Where will new cell sites be placed? Now is the time for Glendale citizens to voice their concerns about that question. Read the draft ordinance and attend one of the upcoming community meetings.

How will fee structures, wireline vs. wireless services, and access to the internet change in the future? As with the National Broadband Plan, the FCC is now soliciting comments on its proposed rules. Read up on this complicated but critical communications policy issue. The terms of citizens’ future access to internet services are at stake.

The FCC says open internet rules are critical for the free flow of information. Telecom carriers say the FCC’s rules are actually the first step in government control over the internet. Google, Yahoo, Facebook and others want unlimited access to customers through carriers that in some instances are their competitors.

Citizens are left to sort out the reality from the rhetoric:

US Rep Barton Asks FCC To Stop Vote On Open Internet Rule – Dow Jones Newswire, October 20, 2009, describes Barton’s concerns that the rules could “retard the deployment” of mobile Internet.

Amazon, Facebook, and Google back FCC on Net neutrality – CNET, October 20, 2009, says these companies’ CEOs applaud the FCC’s proposed rules as encouraging innovation and a “more competitive and efficient marketplace.”

Comcast CEO Brian Roberts: On Cable, Twitter, And Net Neutrality – Silicon Alley Insider, October 20, 2009, Notes on Roberts’ industry talk include insights into changes in the industry and his opinion that “net neutrality is a solution seeking a problem.”

New BFFs Verizon, Google agree on net neutrality, except for wireless – Washington Post, October 21, 2009, highlights network management problems faced by the wireless industry under net neutrality rules.

FCC sets Internet regulation in motion – CNET, October 22, 2009, suggests by its title this is the first step in government regulation of internet access, but also reports that one commissioner doesn’t believe the FCC has the legal authority to impose such rules. This article also admits open internet rules will have a greater and more disadvantageous effect on wireless services.

Verizon CEO Slams FCC on Net Neutrality, Wall Street Journal, October 22, 2009, reports his belief that the FCC rules would favor internet companies like Google over carriers like Verizon.

Net neutrality faces political, legal hurdles – CNET, October 24, 2009, leads with “Net neutrality supporters may be celebrating the Federal Communications Commission’s unanimous vote Thursday to begin developing open Internet regulation, but the battle is far from over as the yet-to-be-written regulation is already facing Congressional opposition and will also likely be challenged in court.”

Mr. Genachowski had a solid bit of good news for wireless carriers. He said the FCC will soon act on a proposal to impose a “shot clock” timetable for companies seeking permission to build cellular towers in local communities.

CTIA has been urging the FCC to act on the tower-siting proposal for years, saying dragged out negotiations with local communities on cell towers harms providers’ ability to improve their networks.

Immunity from municipal zoning restrictions is a big priority for the industry. Additional spectrum (along with more towers) to meet demand for mobile broadband uses is another; Genachowski promised action on that as well.

Recent FCC-proposed internet openness rules, known as “net neutrality”, are disadvantageous to wireless providers, whose transmission is more constrained than wireline broadband. On this front, though, the wireless industry appears to have retreated, as a recent announcement by Apple indicates.

The excerpts below describe the current state of telecommunications and broadband policy and the corporate, legal, and legislative moves that have shaped them:

Americans pay more per month for broadband than consumers in all but seven of the 30 nations in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

…Nowhere is this digital mediocrity more evident than in the state of competition in our broadband markets. In the aftermath of the 1996 Act [Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996], the average American consumer had access to more than a dozen ISPs; today, our broadband market is a stagnant duopoly. Nationwide, incumbent phone and cable companies control 97 percent of the fixed-line residential broadband market. When complementary (and slow and expensive) mobile data connections are factored in, the incumbent phone and cable companies’ nationwide market share stands at 95 percent.

…Today, the FCC throws almost $5 billion per year down the drain by inefficiently supporting legacy telephone technologies while, 20 million rural Americans live in areas unserved by any broadband provider. This is especially wasteful given the fact that in the 1996 Act, Congress directed the FCC to treat universal service as “evolving” and to modernize the support system to account for advances in technology.

… While cellular companies have widely deployed 3G-level “high-speed” Internet services, this technology has not yet shown to be a viable substitute for a dedicated fixed home broadband line (what’s more, the same incumbent telephone companies control more than 80 percent of the mobile high-speed Internet market, and these services are far slower and far more expensive than a typical DSL or cable modem line).

… The FCC first dealt with the issue of two-way cable modem communications in its consideration of the merger between AT&T and TCI cable. In that proceeding, many parties petitioned the Commission to require that independent ISPs be granted access to the cable system as a condition of the merger. The Commission in its 1999 ruling declined to mandate such open access on the grounds that the merging parties agreed to allow their customers unfettered open access to the Internet. A year later, in another cable merger proceeding, the FCC once again decided against imposing open access conditions on AT&T Cable because the company made promises that it would negotiate independent access contracts with unaffiliated ISPs. This is a typical pattern in broadband matters at the FCC: Give companies whatever anti-competitive “relief” they are seeking in exchange for unenforceable promises to allow third-party access at some future point.

… Not only are mobile data services not a substitute for fixed broadband, but these 3G devices are so slow they don’t deserve to be classified as “broadband.” Real world speed tests of devices that are supposed to be able to deliver more than 3 Mbps in downstream speeds reveals that these devices can only deliver about a third of that when used in a fixed setting. When used in a mobile setting, the downstream speeds drop well below 1 Mbps (see Figure 23).

… Verizon undertook a large-scale fiber-to-the-home deployment effort. Yet this effort is unique among the other incumbents, and only extends to a fraction of Verizon’s service territory; FiOS is available in less than 10 percent of U.S. homes. Companies like AT&T and Qwest have affirmatively decided against fiber-to-the-home deployments, instead choosing to milk the legacy copper network for years to come. AT&T, and, to a much lesser extent, Qwest, have finally recently deployed some limited “VDSL” upgrades. But overseas telcos implemented similar “innovated broadband capability” upgrades years ago and are already deploying even faster VDSL2+ pair-bonded technology.

This earlier post contains excerpts of the book dealing with internet open access, or “net neutrality.”

The FCC didn’t name citizens as stakeholders; instead, it asked for input from American consumers. Why, in so many cases, are we consumers instead of citizens? Does the FCC define our interest solely on the basis of our monthly ISP bill and what’s included on it? Shouldn’t civic interests in a “national broadband plan” override consumer interests? Is this a semantic gesture to advocates of the free enterprise system? Here’s the last part of the call –

We seek comment in this Notice from all interested parties on the elements that should go into a national broadband plan. Our plan must reflect an understanding of the problem, clear goals for the future, a route to those goals, and benchmarks along the way. Our plan must also allow for modification as we learn from our experience. And our plan must reflect the input of all stakeholders—industry, American consumers; large and small businesses; federal, state, local, and tribal governments; nonprofits; and disabilities communities. With this Notice, we begin to make our plan.

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 is widely acknowledged to have been heavily influenced by the telecom industry. Further, as the Free Press notes in its May 2009 book Changing Media, those provisions of the 1996 act that were intended to keep markets open for competition and provide more choices to citizens were subsequently quashed by telecom companies who sought changes in definitions, appeals, and changes in how the law was applied.

This time around, citizens should insist on getting the best technology and the best service, along with a range of choices at reasonable prices. The telecom companies should not be allowed to shut out competition, to receive egregious subsidies, to set tiered pricing or other restricted access schemes, or to change definitions and applications, without citizens’ approval, once a plan is instituted.

Citizens: Check out the Notice of Inquiry, and send in your comments by June 8, 2009 (the end of the document has instructions for submitting comments).

The Free Press just published Changing Media: Public Interest Policies for the Digital Age, a free downloadable book.

The book explains how telecommunications policy since 2000 has quashed competition among internet service providers, covers the Net Neutrality controversy of open internet access, and explores solutions to the crisis facing public interest journalism.

Open internet recommendations in the book have widespread support, with the notable exception of large broadband providers and their business lobbies. Free Press contends that the FCC should preserve “nondiscrimination” to prevent those owning the pipeline from setting tiered prices for access, speed, and content. Extended excerpts from the document are below:

How should the FCC design a nondiscrimination principle or rule?

First, nondiscrimination rules must prohibit Internet access providers from blocking, discriminating against or otherwise degrading any lawful content, applications or services.

…Second, nondiscrimination rules must prohibit network operators from selling or offering any capacity to prioritize some Internet packets over others, whether to a third party or to an affiliate… Nondiscrimination rules must prevent the creation of two separate lanes of traffic for Internet packets, particularly when access to the “fast lane” is available only to the network owner’s affiliated content or to the highest bidders.

…Finally, nondiscrimination rules must prohibit Internet access providers from charging additional fees to allow specific types of Internet content, applications or services to be used. As with prioritization of Internet packets, charging special fees for certain uses of the Internet – for example, selling two subscription levels, where a “basic” level does not allow P2P communications but a “premium” level does — raises the costs of entry, increases costs for consumers, and turns the Internet into a form of pay-for-play media like cable TV. To avoid limiting innovation and
consumer choice, nondiscrimination rules must prohibit any discriminatory fees for specific content, applications or services.

…Enshrining nondiscrimination into the Internet Policy Statement and codifying these principles into rules for all technologies delivering Internet access — including wireless technologies — should be a top priority for the FCC. It should also be a top priority for Congress. Though the Commission has the clear authority to directly deal with this issue, it would be a cleaner process if Congress were to put Network Neutrality explicitly back into the law. This would give the Commission a mandate to proceed, and would ward off the eventual legal process that will follow Commission action.

…The notion that discrimination is needed to encourage investment has been completely discredited.

…It is frustrating that there is even a debate over Network Neutrality, because neutrality is the very lifeblood of the network; it is what made the Internet into a service that companies like AT&T and Comcast could get rich selling.