Time to let the process unfold

Thursday, October 22, 2009 at 12:55 PM ET

Posted by Richard Whitt, Washington Telecom and Media Counsel

This morning, the FCC voted unanimously to begin consideration of proposed rules that would protect and promote open broadband pipes to the Internet. Over the next several months, an official rulemaking proceeding will take place, along with public workshops and technical advisory discussions, allowing everyone to provide feedback before the Commission adopts a final set of rules.

There's been a lot of noise out there, but let's review what's at stake: The Internet was built and has thrived as an open platform, where individuals and entrepreneurs -- not network owners -- can connect and interact, choose marketplace winners and losers, and create new services and content on a level playing field. No one seems to disagree with that fundamental proposition. This new proceeding is aimed at opening a national dialogue on how best to protect that unique environment. For our part, we fully support the adoption of "rules of the road" to ensure that the broadband on-ramps to the Net remain open and robust.

This is a critical debate for the future of the Internet, and no doubt there are different viewpoints on how to move forward. Some detractors unfortunately have gone so far as to work behind the scenes to try to derail the start of an open and transparent process at the Commission. But as Google CEO Eric Schmidt and Verizon Wireless CEO Lowell McAdam showed in last evening's joint blog post, stakeholders can work together with mutual respect to find common ground, even as we acknowledge and defend important policy differences.

We will be weighing in with our thoughts starting in mid-January. We hope you will do the same.

What's at stake at the FCC this morning

Posted by Richard Whitt, Washington Telecom and Media Counsel

This morning, the FCC will propose and ask for public feedback on rules designed to protect and promote open broadband pipes to the Internet. (The Commission will be streaming live video of today's meeting on its website.)

Support for the Commission's effort has been loud and clear. This week alone, visionaries who built and developed the Internet, the CEOs and founders of the world's leading Internet and technology companies, investors, public interest and consumer groups, and tens of thousands of Internet users all announced their support for the Commission's work.

Yesterday, the CEOs of Google and Verizon Wireless outlined their common ground on the issue and threw their support behind a "thoughtful, transparent decision-making process." Unfortunately, some telecom companies have been working behind the scenes to try to prevent the Commission from even considering this issue, an audacious and unprecedented step intended to shut down an independent regulatory agency's discussion before it can even take place.

The fact is, this proceeding will help determine the Internet's future as the world's ultimate platform for innovation, economic growth, and free expression. Now is the time to have a full, open, transparent dialogue between the American people and their policymakers.

Finding common ground on an open Internet

Wednesday, October 21, 2009 at 6:15 PM ET

Posted by Eric Schmidt, Chairman and CEO of Google, and Lowell McAdam, President and CEO of Verizon Wireless

(Cross-posted on the Verizon PolicyBlog.)

Verizon and Google might seem unlikely bedfellows in the current debate around network neutrality, or an open Internet. And while it's true we do disagree quite strongly about certain aspects of government policy in this area -- such as whether mobile networks should even be part of the discussion -- there are many issues on which we agree. For starters we both think it's essential that the Internet remains an unrestricted and open platform -- where people can access any content (so long as it's legal), as well as the services and applications of their choice.

There are two key factors driving innovation on the web today. First is the programming language of the Internet, which was designed over forty years ago by engineers who wanted the freedom to communicate from any computer, anywhere in the world. It enables Macs to talk to PCs, Blackberry Storms to iPhones, the newest computers to the oldest hardware on the planet across any kind of network -- cable, DSL, fiber, mobile, WiFi or even dial up.

Second, private investment is dramatically increasing broadband capacity and the intelligence of networks, creating the infrastructure to support ever more sophisticated applications.

As a result, however or wherever you access the Internet the people you want to connect with can receive your message. There is no central authority that can step in and prevent you from talking to someone else, or that imposes rules prescribing what services should be available.

Transformative is an over-used word, especially in the tech sector. But the Internet has genuinely changed the world. Consumers of all stripes can decide which services they want to use and the companies they trust to provide them. In addition, if you're an entrepreneur with a big idea, you can launch your service online and instantly connect to an audience of billions. You don't need advance permission to use the network. At the same time, network providers are free to develop new applications, either on their own or in collaboration with others.

This kind of "innovation without permission" has changed the way we do business forever, fueling unprecedented collaboration, creativity and opportunity. And because America has been at the forefront of most of these changes, we have disproportionately benefited in terms of economic growth and job creation.

So, in conjunction with the Federal Communications Commission's national plan to bring broadband to all Americans, we understand its decision to start a debate about how best to protect and promote the openness of the Internet. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski has promised a thoughtful, transparent decision-making process, and we look forward to taking part in the analysis and discussion that is to follow. We believe this kind of process can work, because as the two of us have debated these issues we have found a number of basic concepts to agree on.

First, it's obvious that users should continue to have the final say about their web experience, from the networks and software they use, to the hardware they plug in to the Internet and the services they access online. The Internet revolution has been people powered from the very beginning, and should remain so. The minute that anyone, whether from government or the private sector, starts to control how people use the Internet, it is the beginning of the end of the Net as we know it.

Second, advanced and open networks are essential to the future development of the Web. Policies that continue to provide incentives for investment and innovation are a vital part of the debate we are now beginning.

Third, the FCC's existing wireline broadband principles make clear that users are in charge of all aspects of their Internet experience -- from access to apps and content. So we think it makes sense for the Commission to establish that these existing principles are enforceable, and implement them on a case-by-case basis.

Fourth, we're in wild agreement that in this rapidly changing Internet ecosystem, flexibility in government policy is key. Policymakers sometimes fall prey to the temptation to write overly detailed rules, attempting to predict every possible scenario and address every possible concern. This can have unintended consequences.

Fifth, broadband network providers should have the flexibility to manage their networks to deal with issues like traffic congestion, spam, "malware" and denial of service attacks, as well as other threats that may emerge in the future -- so long as they do it reasonably, consistent with their customers' preferences, and don't unreasonably discriminate in ways that either harm users or are anti-competitive. They should also be free to offer managed network services, such as IP television.

Finally, transparency is a must. Chairman Genachowski has proposed adding this principle to the FCC's guidelines, and we both support this step. All providers of broadband access, services and applications should provide their customers with clear information about their offerings.

Doubtless, there will be disagreements along the way. While Verizon supports openness across its networks, it believes that there is no evidence of a problem today -- especially for wireless -- and no basis for new rules and that regulation in the US could have a detrimental effect globally. While Google supports light touch regulation, it believes that safeguards are needed to combat the incentives for carriers to pick winners and losers online.

Both of our businesses rely on each other. So we believe it's appropriate to discuss how we ensure that consumers can get the information, products, and services they want online, encourage investment in advanced networks and ensure the openness of the web around the world. We're ready to engage in this important policy discussion.

Vint Cerf on the importance of keeping the Internet open

Posted by Mistique Cano, Manager, Public Policy Communications

Earlier this week, Vint Cerf, one of the original architects of the Internet and our Chief Internet Evangelist, joined other pioneers in a letter to the FCC expressing support for the Commission's consideration of safeguards that would preserve the open Internet.

Vint spoke with Cecilia Kang at the Washington Post about the letter and why an open Internet is needed to ensure innovation and growth on the Web:

"The issue is nondiscrimination against applications and against consumer choice. That should be clear by the letter from my colleagues, and by others, that the fundamental concern is that the provider of broadband service not be able to take advantage of that to act in an anticompetitive fashion against others that are trying to provide competitive applications using the same broadband facilities."

Check out the rest of his conversation with Cecilia on her new blog, Post Tech.

Tech CEOs and founders: Keep the Internet open!

Monday, October 19, 2009 at 9:36 AM ET

Posted by Richard Whitt, Washington Telecom and Media Counsel

This morning, in an open letter to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, 24 CEOs and founders representing the world's leading Internet and technology companies -- including Facebook, Sony, Amazon, eBay, Twitter, and Google -- threw their support behind the effort to protect an open Internet.

In the letter, the execs express their strong support for the Chairman's plan to begin a process to consider adopting rules that would preserve and promote consumers' open and robust access to the Internet, explaining:

An open Internet fuels a competitive and efficient marketplace, where consumers make the ultimate choices about which products succeed and which fail. This allows businesses of all sizes, from the smallest startup to larger corporations, to compete, yielding maximum economic growth and opportunity.

These companies have succeeded largely thanks to the open Internet, the world's ultimate platform for innovation, economic growth, and free expression -- an environment where consumers, not broadband providers, choose winners and losers.

Response to AT&T's letter to FCC on Google Voice

Friday, September 25, 2009 at 4:13 PM ET

Posted by Richard Whitt, Washington Telecom and Media Counsel

This afternoon AT&T filed a letter with the Federal Communications Commission, alleging that Google Voice is preventing its users from making outbound calls to certain phone numbers with inflated access charges, and asking the Commission to intervene.

Here's the quick background: Local telephone carriers charge long-distance companies for originating and terminating calls to and from their networks. Certain local carriers in rural areas charge AT&T and other long-distance companies especially high rates to connect calls to their networks. Sometimes these local carriers partner and share revenue with adult chat services, conference calling centers, party lines, and others that are able to attract lots of incoming phone calls to their networks.

Under the common carrier laws, AT&T and other traditional phone companies are required to connect these calls. In the past they've argued that these rural carriers are abusing the system to "establish grossly excessive access charges under false pretenses," and to "offer kickbacks to operators of pornographic chat lines and other calling services." (This is a complicated issue, but these articles from USA Today and the Associated Press explain it well.)

We agree with AT&T that the current carrier compensation system is badly flawed, and that the single best answer is for the FCC to take the necessary steps to fix it.

So how does any of this relate to Google Voice?

Google Voice's goal is to provide consumers with free or low-cost access to as many advanced communications features as possible. In order to do this, Google Voice does restrict certain outbound calls from our Web platform to these high-priced destinations. But despite AT&T's efforts to blur the distinctions between Google Voice and traditional phone service, there are many significant differences:

• Unlike traditional carriers, Google Voice is a free, Web-based software application, and so not subject to common carrier laws.
  
• Google Voice is not intended to be a replacement for traditional phone service -- in fact, you need an existing land or wireless line in order to use it. Importantly, users are still able to make outbound calls on any other phone device.
• Google Voice is currently invitation-only, serving a limited number of users.
  

AT&T is trying to make this about Google's support for an open Internet, but the comparison just doesn't fly. The FCC's open Internet principles apply only to the behavior of broadband carriers -- not the creators of Web-based software applications. Even though the FCC does not have jurisdiction over how software applications function, AT&T apparently wants to use the regulatory process to undermine Web-based competition and innovation.

* Note: This blog post was updated at 4:55 PM ET to clarify the FCC's open Internet principles.

FCC announces plan to protect access to an open Internet

Monday, September 21, 2009 at 10:36 AM ET

Posted by Vint Cerf, Vice President and Chief Internet Evangelist

During a speech at the Brookings Institution this morning, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski outlined a proposal for explicit rules that would protect consumer access to an open Internet. The proposed rules would preserve "network neutrality," preventing broadband-based Internet providers from discriminating against certain services, applications, or viewpoints on the Web, and requiring providers to be transparent about their network management practices.

To some it may seem like an esoteric issue, but this boils down to protecting the Internet as an engine for innovation, economic growth, social discourse, and the free flow of ideas. Preserving non-discriminatory access also has the virtue of protecting consumer choice, ensuring that an Internet access provider cannot block fair access to any application provider on the Internet. We could not be more pleased to see Chairman Genachowski take up this mantle, and we look forward to working with the Commission as it finalizes its plans.

The Internet was built as an open platform, which means that the creators of new services and content do not need to seek permission from carriers or pay special fees to be seen online. This "innovation without permission" effect has allowed countless individuals and companies to offer new applications to the world, businesses large and small to open shop online, and anyone with an Internet connection to share their opinions freely in the marketplace of ideas. It's not until recently, in the wake of dogmatic deregulation, that this open environment has come under threat.

If consumers had a wide choice of broadband service providers, preserving an open Internet might not be such a critical issue. Unfortunately, the vast majority of Americans have few (if any) choices in selecting a provider. As a result, these providers are in a position to influence whether and how consumers and producers can use the on-ramps to the Internet -- and we've already seen several examples of discriminatory actions or threats that impair openness.

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. By outlining explicit open Internet requirements, the FCC is seeking to prevent this from happening.

There's no doubt that running an Internet service provider is a complicated business. As we've said in the past, we believe that providers should have the flexibility to manage traffic congestion and malware on their networks in non-discriminatory ways. They should not, however, be in the anti-competitive business of picking winners and losers. For example, carriers should not be allowed to degrade access to competitors' web sites, to favor access to a corporate partner or their own value-added services to the detriment of a Mom and Pop shop, or to discriminate against protected political speech.

The Internet was designed to maximize user choice and competition, and we've all benefited immensely as a result. Today the FCC took an important step in protecting that environment and ensuring that the Internet remains a platform for innovation, economic growth, and free expression.

Tweeting #netneutrality

Friday, July 17, 2009 at 2:00 PM ET

Posted by Jacob Glick, Canada Policy Counsel

This week the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission wrapped up its hearings on Internet traffic management. Earlier in the proceeding I testified on behalf of the Open Internet Coalition (of which Google is a member) to argue that "innovation without permission" requires a robust, open Internet -- a view echoed by consumer groups, Internet policy advocates, content producers and distributors.

Fittingly, tonnes of people who would normally never follow a regulatory hearing took to the web to listen to the CRTC's live audiocast, follow the live-blog from the National Post, and tweet up a storm with the tags #crtc and #netneutrality (including me, @jacobglick). Journalist Greg O'Brien (@gregobr) tweeted, "Total listeners to the #crtc proceeding Monday: 371. Highest ever group to take in a Commission webcast, they say."

This impromptu online community was an object lesson in precisely the point we made to the Commission about the power of an open Internet to share insights, test arguments, and facilitate meaningful civic engagement -- all in cool, unexpected ways.

Net neutrality and the benefits of caching

Monday, December 15, 2008 at 12:14 AM ET

Posted by Richard Whitt, Washington Telecom and Media Counsel

One of the first posts I wrote for this blog last summer tried to define what we at Google mean when we talk about the concept of net neutrality.

Broadband providers -- the on-ramps to the Internet -- should not be allowed to prioritize traffic based on the source, ownership or destination of the content. As I noted in that post, broadband providers should have the flexibility to employ network upgrades, such as edge caching. However, they shouldn't be able to leverage their unilateral control over consumers' broadband connections to hamper user choice, competition, and innovation. Our commitment to that principle of net neutrality remains as strong as ever.

Some critics have questioned whether improving Web performance through edge caching -- temporary storage of frequently accessed data on servers that are located close to end users -- violates the concept of network neutrality. As I said last summer, this myth -- which unfortunately underlies a confused story in Monday's Wall Street Journal -- is based on a misunderstanding of the way in which the open Internet works.

Edge caching is a common practice used by ISPs and application and content providers in order to improve the end user experience. Companies like Akamai, Limelight, and Amazon's Cloudfront provide local caching services, and broadband providers typically utilize caching as part of what are known as content distribution networks (CDNs). Google and many other Internet companies also deploy servers of their own around the world.

By bringing YouTube videos and other content physically closer to end users, site operators can improve page load times for videos and Web pages. In addition, these solutions help broadband providers by minimizing the need to send traffic outside of their networks and reducing congestion on the Internet's backbones. In fact, caching represents one type of innovative network practice encouraged by the open Internet.

Google has offered to "colocate" caching servers within broadband providers' own facilities; this reduces the provider's bandwidth costs since the same video wouldn't have to be transmitted multiple times. We've always said that broadband providers can engage in activities like colocation and caching, so long as they do so on a non-discriminatory basis.

All of Google's colocation agreements with ISPs -- which we've done through projects called OpenEdge and Google Global Cache -- are non-exclusive, meaning any other entity could employ similar arrangements. Also, none of them require (or encourage) that Google traffic be treated with higher priority than other traffic. In contrast, if broadband providers were to leverage their unilateral control over consumers' connections and offer colocation or caching services in an anti-competitive fashion, that would threaten the open Internet and the innovation it enables.

Despite the hyperbolic tone and confused claims in Monday's Journal story, I want to be perfectly clear about one thing: Google remains strongly committed to the principle of net neutrality, and we will continue to work with policymakers in the years ahead to keep the Internet free and open.

P.S.: The Journal story also quoted me as characterizing President-elect Obama's net neutrality policies as "much less specific than they were before." For what it's worth, I don't recall making such a comment, and it seems especially odd given that President-elect Obama's supportive stance on network neutrality hasn't changed at all.

Update: Larry Lessig, Save the Internet, Public Knowledge, David Isenberg, Wired and others all found fault with today's piece too.

Response to phone companies' "Google bandwidth" report

Thursday, December 4, 2008 at 3:28 PM ET

Posted by Richard Whitt, Washington Telecom and Media Counsel

Earlier this week I thought that the announcement of a broadband access "call to action" was an encouraging sign that the phone and cable carriers could set aside their differences with Internet companies and public interest groups over network neutrality, and focus on solving our nation's broadband challenges. Unfortunately, a report issued today suggests that some carriers would still rather point fingers and keep fighting old battles.

Scott Cleland over at Precursor Blog is, of course, not exactly a neutral analyst. He is paid by the phone and cable companies -- AT&T, Verizon, Time Warner, and others -- to be a full time Google critic. As a result, most people here in Washington take his commentary with a heavy dose of salt.

The report that Mr. Cleland issued today -- alleging that Google is somehow unfairly consuming network bandwidth -- is just the latest in what one blogger called his "payola punditry." Not surprisingly, in his zeal to score points in the net neutrality debate, he made significant methodological and factual errors that undermine his report's conclusions.

First and foremost, there's a huge difference between your own home broadband connection, and the Internet as a whole. It's the consumers voluntarily choosing to use our applications who are actually using their own broadband bandwidth -- not Google. To say that Google somehow "uses" consumers' home broadband connections shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how the Internet actually works.

Second, Google already pays billions of dollars for the bandwidth and server capacity necessary to connect our data centers together, and then to carry traffic from those data centers to the Internet backbone. That is the way the Net has always operated: each side pays for their own connection to the Net.

Third, Mr. Cleland's cost estimates are overblown. For one, his attempt to correlate Google's "market share and traffic" to use of petabytes of bandwidth is misguided. The whole point of a search engine like Google's is to connect a user to some other website as quickly as possible. If Mr. Cleland's definition of "market share" includes all those other sites, and then attributes them to Google's "traffic," that mistake alone would skew the overall numbers by a huge amount.

Mr. Cleland's calculations about YouTube's impact are similarly flawed. Here he confuses "market share" with "traffic share." YouTube's share of video traffic is decidedly smaller than its market share. And typical YouTube traffic takes up far less bandwidth than downloading or streaming a movie.

Finally, the Google search bots that Mr. Cleland claims are driving bandwidth consumption don't even affect consumers' broadband connections at all -- they are searching and indexing only websites.

We don't fault Mr. Cleland for trying to do his job. But it's unfortunate that the phone and cable companies funding his work would rather launch poorly researched broadsides than help solve consumers' problems.

Europe embraces an open Internet

Monday, September 29, 2008 at 5:58 PM ET

Posted by Vint Cerf, Chief Internet Evangelist

I recently returned from a trip to Europe and discovered some interesting thinking there about the Internet. Last week the European Commission launched a debate about whether broadband now needs to be considered part of "universal service." Today, the European Commission’s Information Society and Media department, led by Commissioner Viviane Reding, has published a fascinating paper on the future networks and the Internet. It is only ten pages long, so I'd suggest everyone take a look.

Commissioner Reding identifies many of the key issues facing the net and proposes realistic, pragmatic solutions. Her bottom line is simple: the Internet will thrive only by remaining free and open. And she recognizes that there are a variety of dangers that could close the net.

The Commissioner reiterates the powerful statement she made last June in Seoul at the OECD conference about the need for open networks. This paper restates the danger of internet service providers using their "traffic management" powers "for anti-competitive practices such as unfairly prioritizing some traffic or slowing it down, and, in extreme cases, blocking it." In order to prevent such a negative development, Commissioner Reding suggests legislation is required to ensure that Internet traffic is treated fairly and not blocked or slowed down. I've spoken out about this issue of net neutrality in the U.S.

In the paper, the Commission vows to help forge new copyright solutions to enable new business models to emerge. We're looking closely at this issue.

The paper also makes a compelling case for open standards. It acknowledges the danger of "dominant players" leveraging "proprietary standards to lock consumers into their products or to extract very high royalties from market players, ultimately slowing innovation and foreclosing market entry by new players." She promises that the Commission will use its regulatory powers to prevent such players from putting a brake on the web.

What impresses me most of all is how the Commission recognizes that an Open Internet requires a combination of these three points. For Europe to keep up in the global online race, it needs to sprint ahead powered by an openness recipe encompassing a neutral network, users rights, and open standards. I'm delighted that Europe’s policymakers stress the successful ingredients to promoting a robust, healthy Internet. As usual, I am especially impressed by Commissioner Reding's clarity and energy. If she is successful in this effort, the Internet community in Europe will have much for which to thank her.

What's a reasonable approach for managing broadband networks?

Monday, August 4, 2008 at 10:48 AM ET

Posted by Vint Cerf, Chief Internet Evangelist

As we said a few weeks ago, the Federal Communications Commission's order last Friday in the Comcast-BitTorrent dispute should help ensure that today's broadband networks remain open platforms to the Internet. But more broadly, the recent attention on Comcast -- and on Time Warner's recently launched trial of "consumption-based billing" -- raises the question: what is a reasonable approach for broadband networks to manage their Internet traffic?

Network capacity (bits per second or data rate) is a limiting factor in all communications networks. Users cannot send traffic faster than the amount of network capacity available to them. But when users' aggregate demand exceeds the available capacity of the network, network operators naturally seek to manage the traffic loads. Even FiOS, Verizon's speedy fiber-based broadband service, divides up the available wavelengths to carry video and data applications. Wireless broadband networks have capacity issues based on their own unique technical characteristics. The end result is the potential for traffic congestion, leading to service delays and even outages for consumers.

At least one proposal has surfaced that would charge users by the byte after a certain amount of data has been transmitted during a given period. This is a kind of volume cap, which I do not find to be a very useful practice. Given an arbitrary amount of time, one can transfer arbitrarily large amounts of information. Rather than a volume cap, I suggest the introduction of transmission rate caps, which would allow users to purchase access to the Internet at a given minimum data rate and be free to transfer data at at least up to that rate in any way they wish.

Others have suggested that users should be able to contract for a "floor" capacity and that they might possibly receive more capacity if it is available. One problem with charging for total bytes transferred (in either direction) is that users will have no reasonable way to estimate their monthly costs. Clicking on a link can take you to an unexpected streaming site or a major file transfer.

So the real question for today's broadband networks is not whether they need to be managed, but rather how.

In my view, Internet traffic should be managed with an eye towards applications and protocols. For example, a broadband provider should be able to prioritize packets that call for low latency (the period of time it takes for a packet to travel from Point A to Point B), but such prioritization should be applied across the board to all low latency traffic, not just particular application providers. Broadband carriers should not be in the business of picking winners and losers in the market under the rubric of network management.

Network management also should be narrowly tailored, with bandwidth constraints aimed essentially at times of actual congestion. In the middle of the night, available capacity may be entirely sufficient, and thus moderating users' traffic may be unnecessary. Some have suggested metered pricing -- charging by the megabyte rather than flat fee plans -- as a solution to congestion, and prices could be adjusted at non-peak periods. These kinds of pricing plans, depending on how they are devised or implemented, could end up creating the wrong incentives for consumers to scale back their use of Internet applications over broadband networks.

Over the past few months, I have been talking with engineers at Comcast about some of these network management issues. I've been pleased so far with the tone and substance of these conversations, which have helped me to better understand the underlying motivation and rationale for the network management decisions facing Comcast, and the unique characteristics of cable broadband architecture. And as we said a few weeks ago, their commitment to a protocol-agnostic approach to network management is a step in the right direction.

Heroes of the open Internet

Friday, March 28, 2008 at 7:43 PM ET

Posted by Andrew McLaughlin, Director of Global Public Policy

The fight to keep the Internet free and open is, at its heart, motivated by a keen vision of how the world ought to be -- interconnected by open communications networks on which free expression, creativity, community, culture, commerce, politics, innovation, and competition thrive. The movement behind that fight is fueled by a powerful awareness that the Internet has, to an astonishing extent, made that vision possible, yet today finds itself under threat from a complex matrix of business and political interests.

In recent weeks, there has been some good news for the open Internet movement. In response to a growing public outcry, some major wireline carriers around the world are taking small but important steps toward content-, service-, and protocol-neutral network management. Some major wireless carriers have announced moves toward opening their networks. The 700mhz auction triggered important open-device and open-application requirements for new nationwide mobile networks. The Federal Communications Commission has been showing genuine concern about the potential for abuse inherent in non-neutral carrier policies. And key members of Congress are calling for legislative action. Pretty impressive (though no one's counting any unhatched chickens, I can assure you).

There are many heroes who built the movement and got it to this point, and one of them just got some well-deserved recognition: The Washington Post is today running a profile of Free Press's Ben Scott. A tip of the hat to Ben and his team at Free Press. It's great to see a major newspaper getting into the details around the open Internet debate.

Rep. Markey's net neutrality legislation

Wednesday, February 13, 2008 at 2:29 PM ET

Posted by Derek Slater, Policy Analyst

Today, Rep. Ed Markey and Chip Pickering introduced bipartisan legislation to help preserve Internet freedom and explicitly make "net neutrality" a guiding principle of U.S. broadband policy. The bill would affirm that the Internet should remain an open platform for innovation, competition, and social discourse, free from unreasonable discriminatory practices by network operators. It would also require the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to solicit input on the nation's broadband policy from ordinary Americans by conducting eight "broadband summits" around the country and seeking comments online.

As we've discussed before on this blog, innovation has thrived online because the Internet's architecture enables any and all users to generate new ideas and technologies, which are allowed to succeed based on their own merits and benefits. Some major broadband service providers have threatened to act as gatekeepers, playing favorites with particular applications or content providers, demonstrating that this threat is all too real. It's no stretch to say that such discriminatory practices could have prevented Google from getting off the ground -- and they could prevent the next Google from ever coming to be.

While regulations on certain types of discrimination is one way to help preserve the Internet's openness, other remedies including expanding broadband competition and market-based initiatives may be important complements. Rep. Markey's legislation sets a sound course towards properly putting all the options on the table, by adopting the proper general principles and asking the FCC to address the right kinds of questions.

As important, Internet users themselves will get a chance to answer those questions. From the start, the heart and soul of the movement for net neutrality has been the grassroots -- the thousands and thousands of ordinary Americans who have already spoken up for Internet freedom on sites like Save The Internet and beyond.

Net neutrality is too often painted as just about particular companies' competing interests, but that's missing the point. Rather, net neutrality and broadband policy are -- and should be -- about what's ultimately best for people, in terms of economic growth as well as the social benefit of empowering individuals to speak, create, and engage one another online using the wide panoply of innovations available to them. In other words, broadband policy should come from the bottom up.

"Americans invented the Internet, but the Japanese are running away with it."

Thursday, August 30, 2007 at 4:58 PM ET

Posted by Richard Whitt, Washington Telecom and Media Counsel

As I've pointed out in the past, the most recent figures show that of those Americans with high-speed broadband service, 99.6% receive that service from either their local phone company or their local cable company. Many have only one choice of broadband provider, and still others have none at all.

It's no secret that American consumers would benefit greatly from more competition for high-speed Internet access. Just take a look at the Japanese.

Yesterday's Washington Post reports that Japan has some of the fastest Internet connections in the world -- up to 30 times as fast as those in the United States. As the Post put it, "Americans invented the Internet, but the Japanese are running away with it." Accelerating broadband speeds in Japan, South Korea, and most of Europe are "pushing open doors to Internet innovation that are likely to remain closed for years to come in much of the United States."

The folks at the Save the Internet blog explained why, noting that "less than a decade ago, DSL service in Japan was slower and pricier than in the United States. So the Japanese government mandated open access policies that forced the telephone monopoly to share its wires at wholesale rates with new competitors. The result: a broadband explosion. Not only did DSL get faster and cheaper in Japan, but the new competition actually forced the creaky old phone monopoly to innovate."

Save the Internet Blog also reported on Arkansas Senator Mark Pryor's recent public hearing on the state of broadband in Arkansas, which was attended by FCC Commissioners Jonathan Adelstein and Michael Copps:

"While some have protested the international broadband penetration rankings," Adelstein said, alluding to some of his colleagues at the Commission, "the fact is the U.S. has dropped year-after-year. This downward trend and the lack of broadband value illustrate the sobering point that when it comes to giving our citizens affordable access to state-of the-art communications, the U.S. has fallen behind its global competitors."

Copps called the lack of a national broadband policy "tantamount to playing Russian roulette with our future."

"Each and every citizen of this great country should have access to the wonders of communications," Copps said. "I'm not talking about doing all these people some kind of feel-good, do-gooder favor by including them. I'm talking about doing America a favor. I'm talking about making certain our citizens can compete here at home and around the world with those who are already using broadband in all aspects of their lives."

We hope policymakers take a careful look at exactly what is now happening overseas, why, and then draw the right conclusions about the steps necessary to bring the benefits of real broadband competition and innovation to all Americans.

Net neutrality, con't (part 3): payment for bandwidth

Thursday, June 28, 2007 at 1:04 PM ET

Posted by Richard Whitt, Washington Telecom and Media Counsel

I've addressed some of your comments about the broadband market and differentiating web traffic based on type. Now I'll turn to another big subject of your comments on net neutrality.

Doug, Keith, Drywall, asokoloski, psmith, and others engaged in a lively debate about whether and how Google and other Web companies compensate the telecom infrastructure providers for our use of their network facilities. As many well know, the Internet’s longstanding charging arrangements allow each party to pay for its own connection to the Internet. That party then is free to utilize that connection in whatever lawful ways are desired. Google believes that consumers should be able to acquire higher speed or performance capacity from the broadband providers, and then use this capability to reach any service they wish on the Internet. In particular, consumers should be able to purchase tiered pricing arrangements, based on the use of bandwidth, latency requirements, or other objective measures. Such arrangements would constitute an appropriate, cost-based practice that fully compensates the broadband provider for the additional capabilities provided.

On the other end of the “pipe,” Internet-based companies spend billions of dollars annually on R&D to create and deploy compelling content, applications, and services for American consumers. This massive amount of material typically is deployed on millions of Web servers located around the country. In order for the content and applications to be delivered into the Internet, so it then can be made available to consumers, Web companies must arrange with network operators to: carry the data traffic from company facilities to their Web servers over local telecom lines (the “last mile”); carry the data traffic from the Web servers into the Internet over high-speed, high-capacity data lines (“special access”); and carry the data traffic over the numerous interconnected networks that make up the Internet (the “Internet backbone”). To accomplish these important connectivity and transport functions in a fast and effective manner, Internet companies collectively pay many billions of dollars per year to network operators, which fully compensates them for their network investment.

We believe that broadband providers should be precluded from charging content providers for terminating traffic to a particular end user. Allowing broadband providers to leverage their “situational monopoly” over terminating traffic would allow them to choose which content providers receive preferential treatment over others, thereby distorting the marketplace. The institution of terminating charges also could lead to the balkanization of the Internet, in which each of the hundreds of local telephone and cable operators around the country – and, perhaps even more importantly, around the world -- would assess its own set of fees for terminating traffic on its network.

I hope these clarifications have been helpful, and that you'll keep sharing your thoughts.

P.S.: Be sure to check out Robert Cannon’s outstanding blog, Cybertelecom, which should be required reading for anyone interested in the Internet and broadband policymaking discussions in D.C.

Net neutrality, con't (part 2): type-based differentiation

Wednesday, June 27, 2007 at 10:14 AM ET

Posted by Richard Whitt, Washington Telecom and Media Counsel

Yesterday I addressed some of the comments on my net neutrality post dealing with the broadband market. Today I'll delve a little deeper on another issue you asked about: type-based traffic differentiation.

Several users commented on Google’s position that reasonable type-based differentiation of Internet traffic can be an acceptable business practice. As we explained in our FCC comments, we do not dispute that broadband providers should have the ability to manage their networks, as well as engage in a broad array of business practices. To us, the real question comes down to what kinds of business models and network management techniques rely on unilateral control over last-mile broadband facilities (the proverbial “on-ramps” to the Internet), in the service of anticompetitive or discriminatory intent.

Most known network management techniques will create few if any marketplace harms. So, for example, we believe that a broadband provider should have the leeway to utilize legitimate application and content-neutral network management practices that seek to neutralize objective network harms. These practices would include halting harmful denial of service (DOS) attacks, or blocking certain traffic containing viruses or worms.

We also stated that it may be a reasonable business practice to prioritize all packets of a certain application type. Our rationale for that position is that there may well be tangible end user benefits from giving preferential treatment to certain Internet packets, such as those in a streaming video transmission, in order to enhance the end user experience. As long as the categories of “type” are identified and designed with objective criteria in mind (such as sensitivity to latency or jitter), and prioritization is apply in an even-handed manner to all packets in that category, the practice can be a fair one. If, on the other hand, type-based prioritization is used to promulgate discriminatory practices – such as degrading or prioritizing certain applications based on an intention to impair the offerings of competitors – such practices should be prohibited as unreasonable.

I will be the first to say that allowing type-based prioritization is a close call, and reasonable minds certainly can differ. Many in the Internet community lack trust that the broadband provider will employ packet prioritization over last-mile networks in a manner that still preserves an open Internet environment and does not facilitate the introduction of anticompetitive practices. Moreover, prioritization generally creates a host of practical, economic, and technical problems, not least of which is that the broadband carrier has fewer incentives to build out its network capacity where it can make more money simply by charging for differentiated service.

On balance, though, we believe that the possible end user benefits from differentiating between certain broad categories of Internet traffic outweigh the potential competitive and discriminatory threat. That doesn’t mean that we cannot subsequently criticize, and seek to halt, any such practices that take an anticompetitive turn. Nor does it mean that Google somehow is going “soft” on network neutrality. We have merely drawn the line in a slightly different place than others in the pro-net neutrality camp.

Tomorrow, I'll address your comments about another net neutrality topic: paying for bandwidth.

Net neutrality, con't (Part 1): the broadband market

Tuesday, June 26, 2007 at 9:51 AM ET

Posted by Richard Whitt, Washington Telecom and Media Counsel

Thanks to all who read my initial posting on network neutrality, and especially to those folks who took the time to leave comments. While I don’t have the personal bandwidth (ouch) to respond to each and every posting while also taking care of my “day job” here at Google, I will check back periodically and offer follow-up reactions.

I believe it is important for companies like Google to establish a place of meaningful dialogue with the general public, and to open our policy advocacy role to outside analysis -- and yes, criticism. I also welcome your thoughts on other telecommunications and media policy issues of interest to you (my own current favorite topic is the FCC’s ongoing consideration of rules governing the upcoming 700 MHz auction). And I urge folks to take their views to the places where they ultimately count: the well-trod halls of the FCC and the U.S. Congress.

Today, I'll offer some thoughts on one of the key issues raised in some of the comments on my net neutrality post: the broadband market. Later this week I'll address two other issues you asked questions about: type-based traffic differentiation, and payment for bandwidth.

Market analysis

Scott Cleland asked whether the search market is as highly concentrated as the broadband market, and thus deserves network neutrality regulation as well. Scott asked me the same question at an EDUCAUSE policy conference last month, but I’m happy to repeat my response and elaborate here.

I’m certainly no economist, but I do try to keep up on the latest thinking about how markets function. The available evidence demonstrates that the U.S. consumer broadband market is highly concentrated, with extensive barriers to entry, high consumer switching costs, and no near-term competition. By stark contrast, the search market is robustly competitive, with numerous major players, new near-term competition, no significant barriers to entry, and zero user switching costs.

• First, the broadband market suffers from a pronounced and intractable lack of competition. At best, consumers have a choice today between a telephone company and a cable company. The Congressional Research Service has described the current market as a “broadband duopoly,” where telephone and cable companies face little real competition. The FCC’s own skewed July 2006 figures still showed an overwhelmingly concentrated broadband market, with telephone companies and cable companies controlling access to 99.6 percent of all U.S. consumers. The share of alternative broadband platforms also has been decreasing steadily over time, from a less-than-impressive 2.9 percent in 1999 to an anemic 0.4 percent today. The GAO further found that only about 28 percent of all US households subscribed to broadband service in 2005, and noted that DSL and cable modem service together constitute the only broadband technologies actually available to consumers.
  
  By comparison, the market for search engines in the United States is highly competitive. Stats from comScore and other market analysis firms show that Google has only about half of the overall U.S. search market. Indeed, Google competes every day with large, well-funded companies like Yahoo, Microsoft, AOL, and Ask.com. Aggregator search services such as dogpile.com also flourish, along with dozens of other popular search-based services in the U.S. alone. In short, the U.S search market is anything but concentrated.

• Second, while emerging technologies may eventually enable viable competitors, such channels currently do not compete in terms of speed, price, availability, or technological maturity. In fact, each of the supposed technology alternatives –- such as broadband over powerline (BPL), satellite internet, and 3G wireless -- provide no real competitive option. In particular, 3G wireless fails the test because, among other drawbacks: (1) most services do not qualify as “high speed” under the FCC’s current definitions; (2) data plan prices typically are at least double what consumers pay for cable or DSL service; (3) wireless providers block many common Internet applications and services, foreclose outside network attachments, and reserve the right to terminate service arbitrarily for using “non-conforming” services; (4) few consumers have substituted wireless broadband service for wireline broadband service; and (5) the FCC’s figures include all owners of 3G phones, whether or not they have purchased or used them for Internet access. Perhaps most significantly, the largest national wireless high speed Internet providers represent two incumbents from the wireline market and two longstanding telecommunications provider. The appropriate way to add up the available consumer options is not by simply counting individual broadband technology platforms, but rather independent platforms.
  
  By contrast, the search market is dynamic and expanding all the time. Not only do we seen a raft of new entrants in the text-based search market, but also nascent services such as video search, image search, news search, and other specialized search functions. No company can afford to rest on its laurels in this ongoing race for faster and better search functionality.

• Third, considerable and insurmountable barriers to entry also limit the possibility of new competition. To build and operate a nationwide broadband system capable of competing head-on with the incumbents, would-be market entrants must (among other things) pour tens of billions of dollars into constructing local, regional, and national communications infrastructure, pay for backhaul, access rights of way, and interconnect with hundreds of other U.S. carriers. On top of that enormous investment, the market entrant then must create a commercially viable service offering, complete with retail sales outlets, technical and customer support, and advertising.
  
  By contrast, barriers to entry in the search market are quite low. Even though established search engines from Yahoo, Infoseek, MSN, Altavista, and many others had a considerable head start in the late 1990s, Google showed how a good idea hatched on a neutral and open Internet can change the industry in a few short years. Of course, any individual or company with an algorithm, and a means of accessing the Internet, can pave their own way into the burgeoning search engine market.

• Fourth and finally, even assuming the ability to choose another broadband provider in a particular area, consumers endure considerable switching costs. Providers typically bind their customers with multi-year contracts (sometimes termed “stickiness”), bolstered by substantial early termination penalties. The prevalence of bundling together different services also helps providers reduce “churn,” where there are competing offerings. Equipment costs, truck rolls, and even legacy email accounts all create disincentives for consumers to move to another broadband service provider.
  
  By contrast, it is the user of search engines that possesses all the power. If an end user decides he or she no longer likes a preferred search engine, the time and cost to change search engines is zero. Changing search engine preferences – as with many other Web-based businesses -- is literally just a mouse click away. As a result, stickiness is not a common feature of Web-based entities.

Together, these salient factors -- excessive market concentration, no viable competitors, considerable consumer switching costs, and substantial barriers to entry -- should lead policymakers to conclude that there is a major competition problem in the broadband market. No such problems exist in the search market.

I'll have more to say later this week about some of the other issues you've raised. In the meantime, what do you think?

What Do We Mean By "Net Neutrality"?

Saturday, June 16, 2007 at 5:52 PM ET

Posted by Richard Whitt, Washington Telecom and Media Counsel

Network neutrality -- the concept that the Internet should remain free and open to all comers -- has been a major public policy priority for Google over the last two years. But anyone who has followed the debate closely knows that one of the challenges raised by our opponents has been defining what exactly the term means. The fact is, net neutrality can mean different things to different people.

Last year Google and other members of the Open Internet Coalition played a big part in the congressional debate over net neutrality. Earlier this year, the FCC agreed to take a fresh look at the issue and seek public comments. We figured this would be a good opportunity to help clarify what we mean when we talk about net neutrality, so yesterday we filed these comments with the FCC. A few key points:

What's the problem?
Most Americans (99.6%, to be exact) receive broadband service from either their phone company or their cable company -- in antitrust terms, a duopoly. And far too many people have only one choice of broadband provider, or even none at all. While there are increased options for wireless Internet services, these "3G" services presently aren't nearly fast enough to deliver true high-speed services. That lack of broadband competition gives providers the market incentive and ability to discriminate against Web-based applications and content providers. In fact, economic analysis and real-world experience from the wireless market suggest that the problem will persist even if more competition eventually emerges. And broadband-based discrimination would violate the founding design principles of the "end-to-end" Internet: openness, transparency, and user choice and control.

What kind of behavior is okay?
There are a lot of misconceptions about which market practices Google and other net neutrality advocates consider "discriminatory," and therefore should be subject to regulation by the FCC. There is widespread agreement among all parties that outright blocking, impairing, or degrading Internet traffic should not be tolerated. Beyond that, we also believe that broadband carriers should have the flexibility to engage in a whole host of activities, including:

• Prioritizing all applications of a certain general type, such as streaming video;
• Managing their networks to, for example, block certain traffic based on IP address in order to prevent harmful denial of service (DOS) attacks, viruses or worms;
  
• Employing certain upgrades, such as the use of local caching or private network backbone links;
• Providing managed IP services and proprietary content (like IPTV); and
  
• Charging consumers extra to receive higher speed or performance capacity broadband service.
  

The key point here is that these activities do not rely on the carrier's unilateral control over the last-mile connections to consumers, and also do not involve discriminatory intent.

What isn't okay?
If all these different activities are acceptable in Google's view, what should the broadband carriers not be allowed to do? The answer is those last-mile activities that would discriminate against certain Internet applications or content with an anticompetitive intent. These would include:

• Levying surcharges on content providers that are not their retail customers;
• Prioritizing data packet delivery based on the ownership or affiliation (the who) of the content, or the source or destination (the what) of the content; or
  
• Building a new "fast lane" online that consigns Internet content and applications to a relatively slow, bandwidth-starved portion of the broadband connection.

What should be done?
In our filing with the FCC, we explained our strong support for the adoption of a national broadband strategy. That strategy should include (1) some incremental fixes (like requiring carriers to submit semiannual reports with broadband deployment data, and mandating that carriers provide clear and conspicuous terms of service to customers); (2) structural changes (various forms of network-based competition, such as interconnection, open access, municipal networks, and spectrum-based platforms); (3) a ban on most forms of packet discrimination; and (4) an effective enforcement regime. We also urged the FCC to take the next step in its oversight on net neutrality, by instituting a formal rulemaking proceeding to consider these ideas.

Without nondiscrimination safeguards that preserve an environment of network neutrality, the Internet could be shaped in ways that only serve the interests of broadband carriers, rather than U.S. consumers and Web entrepreneurs. As Craig Newmark of Craig's List puts it, “Imagine if you tried to order a pizza and the phone company said AT&T's preferred pizza vendor is Domino's. Press one to connect to Domino's now. If you would still like to order from your neighborhood pizzeria, please hold for three minutes while Domino's guaranteed orders are placed.”