Google And Verizon Find A Tiny Bit Of Common Ground On Net Neutrality... But Still Aren't That Close

from the in-the-spirit-of-cooperation dept

It's no secret that a lot of the network neutrality debate has been positioned as pitting online companies -- such as Google -- against infrastructure companies -- such as the telcos. That's a bit of an unfair characterization, because there are lots of issues at play when it comes to network neutrality, but it's getting a lot of attention that Google and Verizon filed a joint statement to the FCC about net neutrality. Of course, despite the PR value of this, I wouldn't read too much into it. The letter itself (pdf) lays out their "common ground" in incredibly broad and vague language that is borderline meaningless at times. And, of course, at the same time both companies filed their own separate statements in which they disagree heavily (Verizon even calls out Google by name). By way of comparison:

• Joint Submission by Google and Verizon: 9 pages
• Google's submission: 98 pages
• Verizon's submission: 139 pages

There's obviously still a lot that they don't agree on at all. Still, it is nice that they at least tried to come together a bit to find some common ground. That is pretty rare in a political culture often driven by extremes on each end playing tug o' war and hoping that the end result is somewhere in the middle. It would certainly be nice if this sort of thing became a little more common -- with more folks trying to find what the points of agreement are, separate from the points of disagreement.

Filed Under: common ground, fcc, filings, net neutrality
Companies: fcc, google, verizon

There's An Apology For That: AT&T Dismisses Its Pointless Lawsuit Against Verizon Over Ads

from the nice-work dept

We still don't understand why AT&T called so much more attention to Verizon's ads that highlight AT&T's weak 3G network coverage by suing over the ads. Things were made worse when a judge refused to block the ads from airing. Perhaps finally realizing that all this was doing was creating free advertising for Verizon -- and more attention on the quality of AT&T's network -- the company has decided to drop the lawsuit. Apparently, instead, it's going to focus on its own misleading ad campaign.

Filed Under: 3g, advertisements, commercials, lawsuits, maps
Companies: at&t, verizon

Verizon Starts Passing On RIAA Infringement Letters To Users

from the what's-next,-though? dept

Allison K alerts us to the news that Verizon is the latest US broadband provider to agree to pass along the RIAA letters accusing Verizon customers of unauthorized file sharing. AT&T, Comcast, Cox and some other ISPs already do this. The letters don't include specific threats of action (so, no "three strikes" type policies), but the RIAA is clearly hoping that by passing on the letters it will discourage unauthorized file sharing. It's a bit of a waste for Verizon to need to spend resources on this, and it really is just the RIAA's first step in the door to eventually push for kicking people off of the internet, but on the whole it's not that terrible to pass along notices. In the end, my guess is that it will actually serve to do a lot more to promote encryption services than anything else. Maybe some encryption service can approach Verizon about "sponsoring" those customer notifications.

Filed Under: file sharing, isps, letters, warnings
Companies: riaa, verizon

AT&T Sues Verizon Over 'There's A Map For That' Ad Campaign

from the doesn't-like-the-maps dept

Recently, Verizon came up with a rather clever ad campaign, mocking the iPhone ads that claim "there's an app for that" with ads that showcase Verizon's wider 3G footprint, claiming "there's a map for that," and showing the two services' 3G coverage maps side by side: It does a nice job poking fun at one of AT&T's weaker points: its mobile network infrastructure. But apparently, AT&T is not happy with the ad campaign and has sued Verizon over those ads, claiming that it uses an unfair comparison. That's because the maps only show 3G coverage, and Verizon has significantly greater 3G coverage. However, AT&T feels that the map showing its coverage implies, falsely, that AT&T has no coverage outside of its 3G coverage areas. While you can see why AT&T would make this complaint, it does make you wonder if it's really worth the effort to sue. All it's really doing is attracting a lot more attention to the original ad, which does accurately state that it's talking about 3G coverage, not overall coverage, though you can see why some people might not realize that AT&T's network also includes non-3G areas.

Filed Under: advertising, lawsuit, map
Companies: at&t, verizon

Fresh Off Victory Over Dish, TiVo Sues AT&T, Verizon

from the can't-compete?-litigate! dept

Why bother competing in the market when you can just sue everyone else? That appears to be TiVo's big strategy these days. Just a month after winning a big court victory over EchoStar/Dish over a patent that the USPTO is not really sure it should have issued, TiVo has moved on to sue both AT&T and Verizon in a nearly identical lawsuit. And, of course, you know exactly how the negotiations on this one start. TiVo will point to the headlines about the millions the the court has told Dish to pay. Whatever happened to the good old days when companies competed in the marketplace rather than in court? TiVo is a great and innovative product, no doubt. While not really the first such product, it did a great job convincing the market of the value of DVRs. But then others innovated as well, sometimes making their product even better. That's called competition and it should drive everyone to make better products. It appears TiVo would rather that the competitors be kept out of the market, rather than bothering to innovate in the market.

Filed Under: dvrs, patents
Companies: at&t, echostar, tivo, verizon

The Problems Of A Legacy Business: Verizon's Union Freaks Out That Verizon Wants To Look Forward

from the what-a-shame dept

It's really sad to see some of the struggles that legacy businesses go through in trying to adapt to a more modern world, but not all of it is the fault of those businesses themselves. Look, for example, at what's happening with Verizon. Subsidiary Verizon Wireless -- which is 55% owned by Verizon -- began a marketing campaign pushing people to ditch their landline phone and go completely wireless. That's not a bad marketing campaign (and, in fact, might be a very good marketing campaign these days). So what happens? The union that represents Verizon's landline telco workers flips out and accuses the company of trying to undermine the union by helping Verizon get out of the landline business, so it can get rid of those workers. Seriously. First of all, there's little evidence to suggest that's true. Like most traditional telcos, Verizon still sees its basic landline business as a useful cash cow that I'm sure it intends to milk for as long as possible. Chances are, since VZW is a separate company, the marketing plan had nothing to do with the parent's marketing efforts. But, either way, at some point the company should be pushing customers to ditch landlines and other older technologies and embrace better solutions. Not because it puts old union guys out of work, but because it's where the market is headed.

Filed Under: landlines, markets, mobile, progress, technology, unions
Companies: verizon, verizon wireless

Verizon: US Broadband Is Really Competitive, If You Just Redefine The Market The Way We Want...

from the that-whole-'and-wireless'-bit dept

Almost all of the issues facing broadband in this country (our slow speeds and high prices relative to other countries, questions about "neutrality" and things like customers being forced into broadband tiers) are really symptoms of a lack of significant competition in many markets. Many customers really only have one or two options, neither of which they like (I'm in that camp myself). Yet, the broadband providers want to make everyone believe it's a really competitive market. That's why they've done everything possible to block the FCC from getting accurate data about actual broadband deployments and competition over the years. Their most recent plan has been about pitching the idea of an organization called "Connected Nation" to "map" broadband penetration. However, as has been discussed previously, Connected Nation seems more like a front for the big telcos to try to pretend there's significant competition... and an increasing number of doubts are being raised about Connected Nation's efforts -- even as it seems to remain a darling of DC politicians. However its "mapping" still won't look at house-by-house penetration and competition (by demand from the broadband providers) and the collected data will remain proprietary, rather than open.

Meanwhile, Verizon has put up a video claiming to explain why there's plenty of competition in broadband in the US, but it does so by pulling a neat little trick: rather than defining the market as DSL and cable providers, it dumps wireless providers into the mix... So when you add mobile data providers, yes, there are more players in the space, but that ignores the fact that (1) many of the mobile players and broadband players are actually connected (i.e., AT&T has both, as does Verizon) and (2) that the cellular wireless broadband providers are all greatly limited, and use terms of service that tend to forbid using the data account as a primary connection. In other words, they're not really part of the same market at all.

But, most importantly, the video fails to back up its thesis that the US is "one of the most successful broadband markets in the world." It says there's lots of competition, investment in new technologies and consumers are getting more as prices go down. That suggests there is, in fact, some competition in the market -- a point pretty much everyone agrees on. But it does nothing to compare the US to other markets around the world that have much more competition, much more investment and much greater consumer value per dollar spent. Just saying that because there's some competition, the US is one of the most successful in the world, doesn't back up the thesis at all. It's like saying that you won a baseball game because you fielded nine guys. You forgot about the actual game.

Filed Under: broadband, broadband competition, us, wireless
Companies: verizon

As Expected, Judge Dismisses Warrantless Wiretapping Lawsuits Against Telcos

from the it's-the-law... dept

This isn't a huge surprise, but a judge has tossed out the ACLU and the EFF's various lawsuits against telcos for enabling warrantless wiretapping for the government. The reason it isn't a huge surprise is that the gov't last year, in a well publicized move, granted the telcos immunity from prosecution, and the judge basically pointed that out in dismissing the case. Instead, the judge said that if these groups have a complaint, it's with the gov't for granting immunity (not to worry, there are lawsuits against the gov't as well). Not surprisingly, the EFF and ACLU are appealing. Still, it does seem like these lawsuits are a longshot, even if it's disappointing. It seems ridiculous that the gov't can grant widespread immunity to a company for potentially breaking the law -- but, again, it seems that's an issue to take up with the government -- and once that's solved, go back and deal with the companies specifically. The judge's job is to interpret the law, and in this case, the law says that the telcos are immune. Now, if you believe (as I do) that such a law is ridiculous and should be seen as unconstitutional, than the issue is to take it up with the government. So, the judge's ruling makes sense, even if it's disappointing to see telcos potentially get off the hook for violating customer privacy rights.

Filed Under: telco immunity, telcos, warrantless wiretapping
Companies: aclu, at&t, eff, verizon

Long Island Continues To Be The Place To Be For Broadband

from the amazing dept

I left Long Island for Silicon Valley years ago, partly on the assumption that the cooler things were happening here. Yet, when it comes to broadband, that doesn't seem to be the case. I have had rather notorious problems getting broadband at home here over the years, despite living in the heart of Silicon Valley. Where I used to live (until a year and a half ago) I had one single broadband provider who provided absolutely terrible service. Where I am now, I do have two choices, but neither choice is compelling, and my speeds top out about about 1 Mbps. So... consider me a bit jealous of my parents back on Long Island who now have the opportunity to be among the first US homes to have 100 Mbps connections with no caps or meters.

A few years back, we noted how the battle between Cablevision and Verizon on Long Island had turned nasty, involving all sorts of underhanded tricks on both sides, but noted that the end result might actually be good for competitors, as it was one of the rare situations where the two competitors were actually investing in technology to top each other. So, while Verizon is offering FiOS connections, Cablevision is now rolling out those 100 Mbps using DOCSIS 3.0. The fight is still a bit nasty, with Verizon calling Cablevision's announcement nothing more than a parlor trick, but that's misleading itself. Cablevision has, no matter how you look at it, significantly increased the bandwidth available to home users.

Unfortunately, in most other areas (such as right here in the heart of Silicon Valley) it seems the focus is on seeing who can avoid being the "least worst" provider, rather than on pushing the boundaries forward. In a normal market, this would be a huge opportunity for a third provider to come into the market and offer much better service, but thanks to the structure of the broadband market, and quite a bit of regulatory capture, most folks are limited to just two choices. If only they'd start competing on quality like the two choices on Long Island...

Filed Under: broadband, competition, long island
Companies: cablevision, verizon

Verizon's Take On Broadband Caps: A Sign Of Competitive Market?

from the hmm...-not-quite dept

Of the broadband providers out there, Verizon has certainly been better than others in terms of actually trying to create a much better product, rather than focusing on ways to just squeeze more for less out of their customers. I've always thought that Verizon made the right move six or seven years ago, when it decided to invest heavily in providing fiber to the home, while other providers said it was too costly. While it was costly, at some point (say: now) it would give Verizon a real leg up on the competition in offering a much better service. While I have plenty of disagreements about some of Verizon's other positions, the company has at least focused on providing value.

So, I was hopeful that when Verizon weighed in on the whole "broadband cap" debate, it would take a much stronger position than simply claiming that broadband caps are a sign of "highly competitive markets with companies trying to come up with more value, innovation and differentiated offerings to help them attract customers." While the discussion does make it clear that Verizon is focused on investing in adding more value, it's a bit disingenuous to claim that the caps are somehow a sign of a competitive market. If anything it's the opposite. The public reaction to the caps shows that the problem is the lack of competition, allowing these providers to move forward with such plans, knowing customers in many cases can't switch to a competitor. Also, it's difficult to see how providing less service for more money is "coming up with more value [and] innovation."

So, Verizon is right to point out (as it does), that it's more focused on providing higher quality service, rather than caps, but it's not being entirely honest in saying that this is a sign of competition. It's not.

Filed Under: broadband caps, competition
Companies: verizon