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?

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.

Details on the plan are being released slowly – update today from the Wall Street Journal.

In the face of uncertainty and the unprecedented, the prudent decision is simply to err to the side of caution.

If science can’t confirm global warming, but circumstantial evidence suggests it, mankind should adjust fossil-fuel consumption patterns and energy use. The result will be fewer imports of foreign oil, less carbon-intensive energy production, less pollution, and more investment in renewable energy infrastructure. For the vast majority of humanity with no direct stake in fossil fuels, the net result should be positive, whether or not it affects climate change!

Scientists are split on whether exposure to low-level radiation from wireless networks poses long-term health risks, but circumstantial evidence again suggests it. If the U.S. reduced allowed exposure levels and increased deployment of wired networks, the result would be faster wired internet service, a less cluttered landscape, and possibly less energy use! For the vast majority of humanity with no direct stake in wireless telecom profits, and no real need for a wireless internet connection wherever they go, the net result should be positive!

Check out recent documentaries (see upcoming post) for the scientific debate on health risks from low-level radiation.