With Comcast and NBC’s immense lobbying firepower, there’s virtually no chance their merger will be denied by regulators and while there will be some conditions, recent history suggests the conditions may only give a quick nod to substantive consumer protections. According to the Wall Street Journal however, these conditions will be “significant” focused largely on preventing Comcast from withholding, or threatening to withhold, NBC Universal’s programming from competitors. The Journal also claims that the FCC is considering imposing some kind of network neutrality requirements on Comcast’s network:

The FCC is looking at all parts of Comcast and NBC Universal’s combined online-video distribution chain for ways Comcast could promote content over its rivals. The agency is considering imposing a “net neutrality” condition on Comcast’s Internet network, banning it from deliberately slowing or blocking legal traffic. FCC staff members are meeting twice a week with commission Chairman Julius Genachowski about the deal and have set an internal deadline of circulating proposed conditions by mid-December, according to a person familiar with the review.

Given the contentiousness of network neutrality and the FCC’s seeming unwillingness to seriously tackle this issue, any neutrality language will likely be very vague and focused on simple transparency if it even survives the final cut at the FCC. According to the Journal, final DOJ approval could come within weeks, though Comcast is apparently kicking back at any proposed conditions that would cover Internet video.

Link to the original article…

At the tail end of last month, the FTC dropped their inquiry into the Google Wi-Fi Street View kerfuffle, satisfied by Google’s argument that their collection of user Wi-Fi data was a screw up, the data wasn’t particularly useful, and that Google had made changes to prevent this from happening again. That supports studies from earlier this year showing that Google vehicles were moving too quickly, and changing channels too frequently, to really collect much useful information from the unsecured hotspots passed.

The FCC this week confirmed they too have been investigating Google, adding their inquiry to several already underway by numerous state attorneys general. Meanwhile, Joe Barton, most famous recently for apologizing to BP for their “unfair” treatment during the gulf oil spill, is accusing Google of lying:

Key Republicans and Democrats in Congress have indicated that the privacy issues raised by Google’s Street View data collection could be a factor when lawmakers consider new Internet privacy legislation next year. Rep. Joe Barton of Texas, a senior Republican lawmaker, suggested last week on C-SPAN that Google’s data collection wasn’t accidental and that it was “something to look at.”

So why is Barton, a guy who apologized to AT&T for FCC efforts to protect consumers, concerned about Google? Barton’s traditionally a pretty loyal political player for AT&T, Verizon and Comcast, who may be trying to make a little extra policy hay out of Google’s screw up. A new battle looms over privacy laws, and numerous companies (including Microsoft and AT&T) are trying to get privacy laws passed that make disrupting Google’s market power a priority, and consumer protection an afterthought.

The more fear that can be raised concerning Google, the easier it will be for companies who supposedly loathe regulation to get Google heavily regulated. While Google screwed up here, raising very serious questions about how clueless Google is about what they’re doing on a daily basis, there’s no evidence their Wi-Fi collection problem was intentional or malicious. And unlike like some companies that trample privacy laws, Google has at least been very honest about the fact they screwed up.

Link to the original article…

You might recall the big stink raised last year after Apple banned Google Voice from the application store. AT&T and Apple of course played dumb to suggestions that either acted anti-competitively to block an application that poses a significant threat to both the old telco or phone OS business models.

With Uncle Sam sniffing around Apple on numerous fronts, Apple recently eased iPhone developer restrictions and now it appears that the official Google Voice app will finally be arriving on the iPhone. According to Techcrunch, the app has actually already been approved and will pop up soon:

…we’ve gotten word that the official Google Voice application is on its way to the iPhone in the next few weeks. In fact, we’ve heard from a source close to Google that it’s already been approved Google just needs to revamp the application to work with the iPhone 4 and iOS’s multitasking capabilities. If you’re a Google Voice user and you’re on an iPhone, this is great news.

As already explored at length, applications like Google Voice are going to speed up the death of concepts like SMS and voice minutes, given that things like mobile VoIP and push IM make them irrelevant. With reduction in that revenue, carriers like AT&T and Verizon are eagerly looking forward to jacking up mobile data costs with new low cap, high overage data plans.

Link to the original article…

“White space” broadband technology could use unlicensed and partially vacated spectrum created by the shift to digital television to create a new wireless broadband delivery system. You’ll recall that in 2008 the National Association of Broadcasters was busy bickering with the companies pushing white space usage (Dell, Google, Microsoft), and the FCC began fielding comments on possible rules for the technology. According to the Wall Street Journal, the FCC may vote on final white space rules at their upcoming September meeting, though the agency has a mountain of unresolved issues already on their plate.

Link to the original article…

As already noted, the FCC announced they were ceasing all closed-door negotiations with carriers and Google after reports surfaced that Verizon and Google had been hashing out their own private neutrality arrangement. The Associated Press has now offered their breakdown of this week’s events, speaking to an anonymous source (perhaps the same one that spoke to Bloomberg and the NY Times) who says Verizon and Google will unveil their agreement in “days”:

Verizon and Google expect to unveil their proposal within days and hope it will provide a framework for net neutrality legislation in Congress, said several people briefed on the negotiations between the companies. They spoke on condition of anonymity because the agreement is still not final.

Again, the goal here is to preempt tougher FCC neutrality rules by crafting either a voluntary group of largely meaningless, self-regulatory principles, or by laying the framework for new Verizon-written laws the telco’s massive lobbyist army can then ram through Congress with the help of loyal politicians. Said laws of course would have oodles of loopholes, and would not apply to wireless in order to protect Google and Verizon’s Android love affair.

While this tactic of preempting real consumer protections with lobbyist-written fluff is Verizon’s usual modus operandi, it’s an interesting shift for Google (at least in terms of neutrality).

It’s clear the search giant is now willing to shelve their previous principles in order to protect their lucrative Android relationship with Verizon. According to an AP source, the secret Google/Verizon agreement was in fact partially responsible for the FCC scuttling this round of talks:

But according to one person close to the FCC talks, the deal also undermined the discussions taking place at the FCC and progress that had been made toward an industry-wide compromise. This person said FCC officials fear that the proposal from Google and Verizon would not do enough to prevent phone and cable companies from using their control over broadband connections to become online gatekeepers.

Obviously rules written by Google and Verizon aimed at protecting Google and Verizon revenues would do little to protect consumers from bad behavior on either company’s part. For months AT&T and Verizon (and we’d guess now Google) have been busily crafting a similar alliance aimed at trying to pre-empt real privacy consumer protection laws (like mandatory opt-in) that could constrict their behavioral advertising ambitions.

We should get a closer look at the fruit of these labors in the weeks to come, but amidst the muddled news coverage on this issue it’s important to note one thing: Google is now officially fighting real network neutrality protections.

Link to the original article…

Industry analyst Dave Burstein drops us a line to note that all the top lobbyists for the industry’s heavyweights (AT&T, Verizon, the NCTA) met with the FCC over the weekend and are very close to getting a deal done on network neutrality. With the phone companies now essentially part of our country’s intelligence system, Burstein suggests that top Verizon and AT&T execs and lobbyists were able to put pressure on Chief Of Staff Rahm Emanuel to get a deal done. The deal, according to Burstein is little more than “symbolic and essentially a fig leaf.”

Under pressure like that, Julius has already agreed to almost everything Cicconi (AT&T’s top lobbyist) really wants, including loopholes wide enough to carry 350 TV channels. K & A say there is still some opposition so that nothing is final and that the public interest groups are ready to assail Julius. Meanwhile, Verizon and Google are discussing a separate peace that will make the FCC irrelevant. This one is about power and money, not principle. The likely outcome is an agreement that will allow everyone to say noble things, will allow Julius to look himself in the mirror, and will essentially have no substance.

The approaching deal (confirmed by a Stifel Nicolaus analyst report) comes after months of closed door meetings with carriers, which completely ran contrary to the FCC’s promise of well-documented transparency. An empty network neutrality agreement would mimic our largely toothless national broadband plan, paying lip service to consumer-friendly concepts, but delivering no real substantive policy or rules. With the neutrality deal essentially done, all that’s left is for the FCC and carriers to put on a good fauxsumer show over the next few weeks.

Neutrality rules might not be necessary in the first place if the FCC was willing to stand up to carriers and tackle the sector’s primary problem: a lack of substantive competition in most markets. Real competition would allow consumers to vote with their wallets, more organically punishing carriers who engage in poor behavior of any time (be it unreasonable capping plans, unreasonable throttling, or preferential treatment of their own content).

Instead, FCC boss Genachowski appears completely incapable of making tough decisions or taking solid positions on any subject (which you might recall we noted last year around this time might wind up being a problem). The result (aside from some genuinely good new data-collection efforts) is empty policy with endless loopholes, something that certainly helps carriers more than consumers. In the end, Genachowski’s efforts to please everybody may wind up pleasing nobody, though AT&T may be happy in believing they’ve put to bed a debate they themselves started back in 2005.

Link to the original article…

Now basing their determinations on real data and not just lobbyist Microsoft PowerPoint presentations, the FCC earlier this month released a study highlighting U.S. broadband coverage gaps. While highlighting that ISPs have done some amazing work at getting broadband deployed to many areas, there’s still roughly 14-24 million Americans without broadband, and their hopes over ever getting broadband is “bleak.”

Of course the very idea that U.S. broadband wasn’t a shining beacon of absolute perfection “upset” ISP policy, PR folk and lobbyists, who very quickly attacked the FCC for simply acknowledging what every major study concludes without fail: the U.S. is a mediocre player in terms of broadband deployment, speed and price. Today FCC boss Julius Genachowski defended the FCC’s findings in a Seattle speech (warning: pdf link):

The different reactions to this report were telling. Some saw that high-speed broadband was available to a very large percentage of Americans, and said everything is fine. Nothing more to do. Mission accomplished. I disagree. When up to 24 million Americans don’t have access to a communications technology that is essential to participation in our 21st century economy and democracy, I say that is unacceptable.

Again however, the primary reason the U.S. remains mediocre in broadband price, speed and availability is a lack of competition. And again, the FCC isn’t going to tackle competition because it would upset some of this nation’s biggest campaign contributors. Trying to “reform” the infinitely-broken USF and doling out grants isn’t necessarily a bad thing but none of the FCC’s current proposals really get to the real problem: the fact that most people live in a monopoly or duopoly broadband market, and as a result pay too much money for frequently sub-par connectivity.

Link to the original article…

As the battle heats up over the FCC’s push to partially reclassify broadband ISPs under Title II of the Communications Act, carriers (and their army of lobbying groups have been trotting out some familiar arguments. Namely, that if the FCC takes any action (no matter how wimpy), the result will be stifled investment and lost jobs. Art Brodsky at Public Knowledge takes a look at claims that Title II reclassification will result in lost jobs and stifled investment, and notes that both AT&T and Verizon are doing a good job on that front all by themselves with no real change in the regulatory environment:

Let’s talk jobs. Between March 31, 2009 and June 30 this year, Verizon cut 26,455 jobs. During the same period of time, AT&T cut 22,350 jobs. That’s 48,805 jobs cut by two companies during a period in which the regulatory regime did not change.

Let’s talk investment. In 2008, AT&T spent $19.6 billion for capital expenditures in networks and other spending (capex in the parlance). In 2009, it was $16.6 billion a 15.7% decline during a period in which the regulatory regime did not change. Verizon spent $17.2 billion for capex in 2008. In 2009, it was $17 billion an 11.6% sic, should be 1.6% decline during a period in which the regulatory regime did not change.

Of course the “stifled investment” meme is the oldest telecom lobbyist talking point in the playbook, and no matter how many times it’s debunked (even by the companies own CFOs) it never goes away. Back in reality, network investment is far-more-frequently dictated by competition, which neither Verizon or AT&T see in many of their markets. Meanwhile in Verizon’s case, their job reductions have far more to do with the death of the landline and Verizon’s conscious decision to hang up on rural Americans than anything the FCC may or may not do.

Link to the original article…

As noted back in June, companies like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast started indicating they were actually looking for Congress to begin enacting telecom law “reform.” Why? These three companies have such immense influence over Congress, they’re the ones that are usually ghost writing new laws. Not surprisingly, Politico notes that AT&T, Comcast and Verizon outspent nearly every other major tech giant in lobbying during the second quarter, spending a combined 11.3 million.

What is that money buying? Bills like Sen. Jim DeMint’s (R-S.C.) “Freedom for Consumer Choice Act,” which essentially bogs the FCC down in red tape at AT&T’s behest (AT&T is DeMint’s third largest campaign contributor).

As a South Carolinian, this affects me in more ways than just a few. Fight it, if you can, vote accordingly.

Link to the original article…

Fairpoint Communications utterly imploded after regulators rubber stamped their acquisition of Verizon’s unwanted New England (Maine, Vermont and New Hampshire) DSL and landline networks, though the company insists they should be able to exit bankruptcy by the end of the summer. With everyone watching closely to see if the company can overcome its own dysfunction and provide things like reliable 911 service, Fairpoint has decided that now’s a good time to ask for government favors. After missing their broadband expansion commitments completely, Fairpoint recently stated they wanted to weaken previous broadband expansion promises.

Fairpoint is also now asking regulators to weaken their oversight of the company once they emerge from bankruptcy.

Link to the original article…

As far as April, the FCC has struck a deal with UK measurement firm SamKnows to test user broadband speeds across the United States. The agency plans to use a modified Cisco Valet with custom firmware in subscriber homes in order to test connections – and will use honest-to-goodness science to then forge broadband policy (surprisingly a first for the agency). According to an FCC blog post, the agency says that 20,000 users have already volunteered but they’re looking for more users “that represent a wide swath of ISPs, access technologies, service plans, and regions of the country” (well, unless you have bandwidth caps). The FCC’s TestMyISP.com website has information for those interested.

Link to the original article…

According to an FCC announcement (warning: pdf link), the FCC will officially unveil our first ever national broadband plan at an FCC meeting next Tuesday, March 16, at 10:30 EST. That’s one day earlier than the plan was supposed to be unveiled before Congress, though technically it’s about a month behind its originally-scheduled unveiling date.

The plan is expected to put a heavy emphasis on delivering more spectrum to incumbent wireless carriers, the construction of a national wireless emergency network and “digital literacy” efforts. However, early glimpses indicate the plan does little to shake up a stagnant U.S. duopoly market or to seriously tackle limited competition and high prices.

Link to the original article…