If not, they're sure putting up a good fight. IP Democracy has a great post about Google's petition, filed with the FCC to effectively deny Verizon's bid.
To sum up, Google isn't too happy about Verizon's "description" of their "Open Access" plan, which they pretty much call an end-run around the requirements of the auction:
Fairly straightforward. Verizon can't allow "special access" for applications by their own customers while denying it to others. How clear could the plain meaning of the auction rules be? I thought it was pretty clear what the Commission wanted: an open platform.Verizon has taken the public position that it may exclude its handsets from the open access condition. Verizon believes it may force customers who want to access the open platform using a device not purchased from Verizon to go through "Door No. 1," while allowing customers who obtain their device from Verizon access through "Door No. 2." As Google previously made clear, Verizon's position would completely reverse the meaning of the rule such that the open access condition would apply to none of Verizon's customers, and thereby render the condition a nullity. Because this "two-door" position espoused by Verizon is contrary to the plain meaning of the rule, as well as the Commission's public interest findings and policy objectives set forth in the 700 MHz Second R&O, it must be rejected.
Considering Verizon has already tried to nullify Open Access in Court, and that CTIA (their trade association) is still trying to do so, isn't it obvious they have no intention of playing by the rules?
I thought the FCC was rather straightforward in the auction rules:
Reasonable Network Management? Hmm. Where have we heard that term before? Seeing as Comcast-Vuze is settled and the Commission yet had a chance to define Reasonable Network Management (despite their recent hearings), does anyone else see the importance of them using the exact same phrase that they use in the Internet Policy Statement?700 MHz Second R&O, at ¶206 ("Specifically, a C Block licensee may not block, degrade, or interfere with the ability of end users to download and utilize applications of their choosing on the licensee'sCBlocknetwork,subject to reasonable network management.").
Clearly, the Commissioners are smart enough to realize that the 700Mhz network will be part of a next-generation Internet backbone, and they are going to hold Wireless providers to the same standard as "wireline" broadband, such as Cable, DSL and Fiber.
(forgetting, of course, that K-Mart wants to let the Telecoms keep their walled gardens for now by denying Skype's petition to apply Carterfone to existing networks)
Could this Verizon-Google tiff force the Commission's hand on Net Neutrality as a whole?
Consider: "Reasonable Network Management" is now an official term used in the CFR. They'll have to define it at some point.
Anyone want to place bets that Comcast weighs in on this?
Leave a comment