The Google/Verizon proposal for a two-class system for Internet delivery differs from previous proposals rejected by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in that it is for cellular carriers only. One thing that makes this interesting is that Verizon is, of course, both a wireline and a cellular carrier, so what it is proposing in essence is net neutrality on its wired service, including Fios, and a two-tiered system for its cellular data service. Verizon certainly gets marks for creativity, and industry response seems to be predictable – the other cellular companies like it, the cable and wired carriers don't. The arguments for this approach are that cellular has a different basic technical problem than fibre optic cable – the

Someone has to say it. The debate surrounding so-called net neutrality proposed policies reminds me of a heavily Marxist-influenced student protest from 1968. It's all about keeping private property in name only, while regulating the product so that it can only be provided in a way defined by the government. In other words, it's a regulated utility which may just as well not be a private enterprise at all. The "debate" regarding net neutrality is in fact no debate at all, reading 99% of the commentary on the matter. It's equivalent to the debate surrounding "rent control" in many cities, say 50 years ago. Just prohibit private property owners to run their businesses the way they want, and the consumer will benefit un

Broadband; we want it, and we all depend on it; but where you live can impact access and adoption of the best that service providers have to offer.  The FCC is looking to change both geographic and demographic limitations now plaguing the U.S. in the global race for broadband economic supremacy. Can combinations of a fixed and wireless-mobile strategy improve broadband economic viability by increasing access, adoption, and affordability across the broadband spectrum? Geographic Limitations The reality is significant, that where you live depends on the access and quality of broadband service available for most U.S consumers. Its impact is felt most positively in highly dense population areas like the Northeast and large urban

We won't be able to have net neutrality/open Internet because the telcos will always have the right to prioritize their own services over their own networks. So let's have real competition to the telcos. But the US has Luddite telcos. The US has some of the slowest broadband and the least penetration. A recent FCC report found that there are 14 million Americans without access to any high speed Internet service. S. Derek Turner, Research Director of Free Press, a lobbying group advocating universal access to communications, said: "The facts present a sobering reality of our broadband problem. We pay far too much for far too little, and the lack of meaningful competition among Internet service providers leads to delayed investment

One of the biggest surprises this week was the net neutrality announcement from Google and Verizon (Googizon).  The New York Times covers the announcement here and the situation raises significant concerns about future control and innovation on the Internet. Net neutrality relates to freedom of accessing data on the Internet and it suggests that all Internet content should be treated equally and that ISPs have no right to limit access or bandwidth to specific sites or content types.  ISPs like Comcast, Time Warner or even AT&T Wireless argue that they should be able to control access to certain types of data or sites that could impact their network.  Some ISPs have already implement technology to prevent access to certa

"Telcos are harming the US national interest," Vint Cerf at the Fortune Brainstorm conference two years ago. Why is Vint Cerf, Google's chief Internet Evangelist and father of the Internet silent on this issue of Internet neutrality? It's an issue that has blown up over the past few days yet Mr. Cerf has been absent. Just over a year ago, Mr. Cerf wrote this on the Google public policy blog: Allowing a handful of broadband carriers to determine what people see and do online would fundamentally undermine the features that have made the Internet such a success, and could permanently compromise the Internet as a platform for the free exchange of information, commerce, and ideas. ...we believe that providers should have the

Do no evil is a phrase Google reiterates in its language, culture and brand. The company’s cheerful, primary colors and dedication to solving everything with an algorithm has been the face of Google from the very beginning. But a swelling movement against its net-neutrality statement this week has led many to question Google’s mantra. In an earlier post we warned Google to not be evil, noting its position as representing all that use the Internet in its decision-making (and deal-making) process. After speculation around Google’s partnership with Verizon running rampant last week, the two companies released a statement yesterday, assuring the world of its support of the open web. Yet the statement seemed contradictory in that it

Google and Verizon may not be ending net neutrality today, but they have released a statement outlining their proposal regarding web access and the freedoms (for consumers and enterprises) that lie within. The gist: Google and Verizon are supporters of net neutrality, but they’re working jointly to devise a way for the two companies to work together on methods around delivery, access and all related business. From their statement: In October, our two companies issued a shared statement of principles on network neutrality. A few months later we submitted a joint filing to the FCC, and in an April joint op-ed our CEOs discussed their common interest in an open Internet. Since that time, we have listened to all sides of the deba

Update: Google has released a statement denying a deal with Verizon, or any other telecom for that matter. The company says it remains a supporter of net neutrality, according to The Guardian. Net neutrality faces yet another compromise, this time by way of a deal between Google and Verizon. The two companies have reportedly entered into discussions regarding a partnership for purchasing preferred data delivery. It means that Google-owned YouTube could pay for premium placement on Verizon networks, encouraging consumers to view content from a portal that’s got speed built into it. I’d love to circumvent slow-rendering clips as much as the next person, but the deal also means I may soon have to pay more for the privilege. For

Kevin Shatzkamer is the Chief Architect for Cisco Mobility and speaks to the mobile research Cisco has developed in helping Mobile Service Providers reach their ROI goals and objectives in projecting an increasingly demand driven market. World Cup and Mobility Q. How will current World Cup viewership demand impact the mobile community from a network capacity standpoint? VIEWING SOURCE – WORLD CUP GAMES Source Company % Internet ESPN-ESPN3 31% Radio ESPN Radio 8% Mobile ESPN Mobile Sites 6% “Traditional TV remains the dominate source of viewing for the games” A. There has been specu