Do Wireless Consumer Trust The FCC or FTC?

 

TikTok Uses Data on US Citizens to Censor Speech Deemed Sensitive by the Chinese government

The Trump administration expressed concerns that the hugely popular app could be used as a spying tool by Beijing. Authorities also fear that it could be leveraged to collect personal data on US citizens or to censor speech deemed sensitive by the Chinese government.

TikTok, the short-form video app that’s been downloaded 1.5 billion times, is one of the most exciting and goofiest places on the internet, and possibly the only truly fun social media network in 2019. It is also based in China — and that’s the part that has some users, and now, politicians, concerned.

The concern of US politicians about TikTok started with a Guardian investigation published on September 25, which revealed leaked documents that showed TikTok instructing its moderators to censor videos that listed subjects that were sensitive to the Communist Party of China: for example, Tiananmen Square, Tibetan independence, and the Falun Gong religious community. The Guardian's investigation came after the Washington Post reported that a search on TikTok for Hong Kong-related topics revealed virtually zero material about the ongoing and widely publicized pro-democracy demonstrations, which at the time had been a major subject on other social media sites.

“Security experts have voiced concerns that China’s vague patchwork of intelligence, national security, and cybersecurity laws compel Chinese companies to support and cooperate with intelligence work controlled by the Chinese Communist Party,” read the letter, addressed to acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire. “Without an independent judiciary to review requests made by the Chinese government for data or other actions, there is no legal mechanism for Chinese companies to appeal if they disagree with a request.”

Net Neutrality was a long-debated topic before the Coronavirus hit.   

Read more examples of how the Government and Big Tech are censoring free speech. 

Is Apple Creating Bugs To Trick People Into Buying New Phones?

When Will Congress & EU Investigate Apple for Antitrust Issues About Purposely Creating Bugs to Trick People Into Buying New iPhones?

Have you ever asked yourself why your iphone keeps crashing every October or November before the Christmas shopping season?   I think this coincidence of this annual phenomenon is actually done on purpose by Apple secretly to trick people into thinking that they need to buy new phones.  

Apple has created an amazing business through planned obsolescence but ever since Steve Jobs passed away they have not innovated enough that would entice most frugal people enough into buying the latest new iphones.   I think Apple knows this and is not purposely creating bugs in the iOS operating system to make people think their phone is defective.   If the truth was ever was to be investigated and discovered I think this could destroy about half of the companies market capitalization.  Watch Apple's stock if you ever start to hear about an investigation like this.  

If you understand the software business it is not hard to imagine why Apple wouldn't purposely create bugs in their operating system to trick people into thinking their phone is now defective.  Everyone I talk with who owns an iPhone thinks they need to buy the latest iPhone hardware in order for their phones to continue working.  

The Android World is much difference and Google does a much better job of releasing updates and that are consistent with the phone hardware.  You can use an Android phone for many years after a phone is released.  However, older iPhones seem to get bloated with worthless software and bugs that seem to crash and clutter phones with things you really don't need.  

Another thing that Android does is allow you to offload photos to Google Photos easily for minimal costs and doesn't scam you into thinking you need to buy iCloud storage to backup.  This is such a scam by Apple.  If you are a sophisticated iPhone user having Google Photos backup and remove all of your photos is essential so you don't have to use Apple's worthless iCloud storage.  

Would love some Apple supporters to comment on this below.  

What is Zero Rating?

Zero rating has become the center of the net neutrality debate. Toll free data or sponsored data is the practice of mobile network operators (MNO), mobile virtual network operators (MVNO), and Internet service providers (ISP) who do not to charge customers for data used by specific applications or internet services through their network or is limited or metered.

Zero rating plans exempt particular data from counting against a user's data cap, or from accruing any excess usage charges.  A zero rating may provide an unfair advantage to the provider of the content that is zero rated, compared to other content providers or potential new entrants. 

India recently decided to reject zero rating plans such as Facebook's Free Basics, while in the United States carriers push boundaries with zero rating experiments such as T-Mobile's Binge-On plan, as well as AT&T's Sponsored Data, Verizon's FreeBee, and Comcast's Stream TV.  Read more. 

The nation’s two largest wireless carriers have told the FCC to ease up on its probe of zero-rated mobile data policies. But the issue may soon be moot anyway under President-elect Donald Trump’s administration. The commission recently sent letters to both Verizon and AT&T warning that their policies for zero-rated content could harm competition and consumers. The model enables users to consume specific types of video and other content on mobile devices without incurring wireless data charges.  AT&T zero-rates content from its recently launched DirecTV Now for its wireless customers; Verizon does the same with its Go90 offering.  Read more.

Critics claim zero-rated data policies violate net neutrality principles because they give some content providers an advantage over others. The issue has become increasingly contentious as wireless carriers expand into media, enabling them to offer their own content to customers at no cost.

Is Net Neutrality at Risk With Tom Wheeler's Resignation?

The Federal Communications Commission has been led by Chairman Tom Wheeler for the past three years, but Wheeler intends to end his run at the FCC on January 20, 2017. Wheeler, a former lobbyist for the telecommunications industry, was nominated by President Obama to head the FCC in 2013. His appointment initially drew the ire of consumer advocate groups, because of his background. Wheeler’s record in his position has shown that initial fears were misplaced, however, as he oversaw an FCC that enacted rules to protect net neutrality and withstood a challenge in a federal appeals court.

The writing was essentially on the wall for Wheeler, however, facing the prospect of a Donald Trump administration. As Recode pointed out, the Senate recently failed to reconfirm one of the FCC’s other leaders, Jessica Roseworcel, who has been a staunch advocate for net neutrality, a policy which Trump has opposed in public.

Senator Al Franken on Net Neutrality & Merger

You have to love an honest politician from the Midwest who fights for the average consumer.  Al Franken rips AT&T's coverage maps.  Contrary to what the misleading video headline says.  Al Franken does support Net Neutrality but not its' current corrupt form.  He wants Net Neutrality without the current loopholes proposed in the revised legislation that has been pushed by the big carriers and telecom companies.  He will block the legislation and hopefully will try and do the same to block the merger.  Al has had some great quotes on CSPAN recently with regards to supporting OPEN Net Neutrality rules without loop holes and blocking the AT&T and T-Mobile merger. Al Franken thinks that having another wireless oligopoly is a bad idea for consumers.  Al Franken grilled Randall Stephenson CEO of AT&T today with some great questions.   If we can get our hands on the YouTube video of him mocking AT&T's huge coverage maps I will post it below.  Fast forward to 1 hr and 30 minutes in this Al Franken CSPAN video.  Al Franken, "Oooh AT&T it's a great map!"

Net Neutrality is a Civil Right

If Verizon, AT&T, MetroPCS had it their way they could discriminate bits and bytes that come over their pipes and block information.  Sound familiar to civil rights issues of the 1960's?  If Martin Luther King were alive we might have a credible spokesman who could give consumers a louder voice about this importance of keeping the internet open.  These corporate telecom giants are not too dissimilar to the racists who wanted segregation of blacks and whites on the bus.  There are so many analogous issues and parallels to the civil rights issues from the 1960's it makes me sick.  So many people don't understand net neutrality and its' purpose. If this isn't enough to help you understand why it is then watch the Jon Stewart video on Net Neutrality.

Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit today dismissed the Verizon and MetroPCS cases after the FCC argued they were premature. The adopted by the FCC in December have not been published in the Federal Register which is a a step needed before they take effect. Court ruling document.  I hope the Obama Administration and the FCC recognize the parallel issues and permanent block the ability for any telecom company to stop net neutrality.  Republican's hate Net Neutrality because they are deeply in the pockets Verizon and AT&T & other telecom shareholders who are large campaign donors. Any new Republican President after Obama will try and overturn the net neutrality law.

Verizon Paid $5.4 Billion in Dividends in 2010

Why is Verizon Not Investing More Money Into Their Infrastructure? 

Verizon (VZ) & AT&T (T) are paying out 85% to 72% of their respective earnings as dividends. If you think Verizon's dividend was big, have a look at AT&T dividend which was almost double at $10B in 2010.  What does this tell you about a company that is falling behind the rest of the world?  Do telecom companies like Verizon and AT&T have progress and technology innovation as a priority to improve our lives?  Or are they simply Government protected Ponzi schemes that simply pay off their shareholders with huge dividends?  Does it concern you that one of the highest dividend-paying companies on Wall Street is actually far behind the rest of the world in delivering broadband and wireless speeds?  Does it concern you that US customers are paying double and sometimes triple the rate for data and voice access compared to the rest of the World?  Should you be concerned that this is the same company that wants to filter information that comes over its dumb pipe to you?

Are you one of the suckers willing to pay $1000 per year for high-speed wireless access (LTE) when WiFi is free?  Fewer Verizon and & AT&T customers are buying the iPad 3G data plans and one of the reasons why Apple's (AAPL) stock is getting crushed.  iPads should be subsidized by the carriers if they want to continue tricking consumers into spending hundreds of dollars extra for mobile data outside of their WiFi home networks.

All of these issues creating the perfect storm for industry disruption and WiFi could just be the vehicle that brings this house of cards tumbling down.  It would only take a few million people to open up internet access on their home and business WiFi networks similar to the Fonera business model in France.  See Fon.com.  One of the only companies that is capable of executing this disruption to scale is Google because of their advertising footprint and I can't wait until it happens.  Its only a matter of time before the AT&T and Verizon dividend ponzi scheme house of cards comes tumbling down.  

Why Don't Republicans Believe in Free Internet Markets?

Republicans Think "Not All Internet Traffic Should NOT be Treated Equal"

Are Republicans being hypocritical or are they just uninformed?  Do Republicans know what is Net Neutrality?  Do they realize the US is behind the curve on wireless compared to the rest of the World?  All this lobbying and protectionism is coming from the same big businesses who were lobbying to ban cell phone signal boosters?  I am a very conservative person but the Republicans have it extremely wrong on this topic and are only thinking about their lobbyist pocketbooks on this topic.  Where is Rush Limbaugh when you need him to clean up the air on this topic?

It surprises me that one of the largest proponents of free markets in business is opposed to free markets on the internet.  Net neutrality is the basis for all entrepreneurs being able to thrive creating their business on the internet.  I think what Republicans are doing is simply listening to lobbyists from AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, and other cable operators who are against net neutrality for obvious reasons.  Net Neutrality limits carriers and internet providers' control of the dumb pipes and gives them the ability to grant special access and preferential download speeds to certain content.  Therefore, giving more control to big business.  Is this what free markets are all about?  The internet is about freedom of information and the republicans want to control it.

"We're simply saying that certain conduct by the companies that do control access to the Internet aren't consistent with Internet freedom and shouldn't be permitted," said FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski.  Republicans of the House of Representatives are calling on the FCC Federal Communications Commission to rescind its network neutrality order from last year. The Democratic majority at the FCC has defended the rules as needed because the Internet has traditionally functioned without gatekeepers, noted Representative Mike Rogers, a Michigan Republican. "Aren't you merely making the government the gatekeeper in this particular case?"

What is Wireless Net Neutrality?

Imagine for a minute if highway toll roads only allowed certain makes of cars to use the road. If you didn’t have one of those approved vehicles to use the toll road, then you couldn’t use it. All toll roads are built with either special government funds or, in some cases, private funds authorized by the respective state government. But, in all cases, toll roads are built so that any car or truck can use them. They are not free: the charge is typically based on the amount of toll road resources that are used: 1) higher costs for larger vehicles (typically number of axles) and 2) higher costs for distance driven (typically set as a cost per mile).

Now, jump over to the world of mobile and wireless. We have a very different environment. Private companies have built wireless networks to operate on the spectrum that they have licensed from the FCC. Handset manufacturers have built phones that can operate on the wireless network’s spectrum. There are two kinds of technology used in the U.S.: 1) GSM, the same technology that is used in Europe and many other areas in the world (but at a different frequency) and 2) CDMA, which is implemented on fewer wireless operators in the U.S. including Sprint and Verizon Wireless.

The wireless operators – in order to protect and keep their networks separate from their competitors – require handsets to be developed only for their networks. This is ‘hard and fast’ for CDMA networks that require customers to activate their phone through Customer Service. GSM networks (AT&T and T-Mobile) use SIM cards that can be inserted into any GSM-compatible phone and run on any network (same as in Europe), although the toll charges may be different on each network.

The recent 700 MHz auction was an attempt by the FCC to make wireless networks more open so that they would operate more like a vehicle toll road: you could take any handset that is certified to run (like a car certified to meet all transportation requirements) and run it on any network of your choice. That would include taking a device built to run on AT&T (say an iPhone) and simply deciding to switch over and use Verizon Wireless. That would be interesting. Users would have more choice to take their phone and operate it on whatever network they wished either because of pricing advantage, service reasons, or any other reason.

The new 700 MHz open networks won’t happen for a while, but when they do, it will be a big experiment to see how handset manufacturers, wireless operators and users deal with their new found freedom. We’d like to have subscribers in the U.S. have at least as much freedom as those in Europe and other areas of the world: They can run their phone anywhere – on any network that’s built and made available.

When this happens, then handset manufacturers can build phones and sell them anywhere, not just through the wireless operator or the operator’s authorized retailer but, literally, anywhere – out of the back of a van, in a convenience store, or in places like Target. Operators would have to provide better services in order to attract subscribers. One might offer a faster network for lower cost, or another might drop far fewer calls, while still others might simply focus on basic services at the lowest cost possible.

What about applications? They should operate in the same manner. Developers should be able to build an application for, say, the iPhone, and get to publish it in the Apps Store without approval from Apple as long as it can be certified to run on the AT&T network and doesn’t crash or disrupt other applications on the iPhone or iPad. That would make applications really open.

Some applications, like those for adults, might have to require authentication that the subscriber is an adult (biometrics could do this) and operate out of a separate gated community. So, each platform such as iOS, BlackBerry, Android, Windows Phone, HP/Palm webOS and Symbian would provide an open environment for all applications -- not just those they like or judge to be ‘appropriate.’

In a dream world, it would also be nice if developers could write their application for one platform (say, Apple iOS) and easily migrate the application to another platform (say, BlackBerry). But, the platforms all typically have different APIs, toolkit libraries, and development editors that makes it impossible to have a ‘write once, run anywhere’ environment. (This was the idea behind Java but it didn’t work out as planned). Plus, you have different screens produced on different handsets that require customization as well.

And then there’s one more area of open to deal with: Can developers migrate outside their application store environment to build different applications that might serve different purposes -- such as manage the wireless connection in a more secure way? Or, another unapproved application might let users sync their music and video clips with their computer over Wi-Fi without using a cable. This process is often called ‘jailbreaking’ since the developer is moving outside the platform’s ‘walled garden’ to do something that is outside the boundaries of traditional applications. On July 26, the Library of Congress (which controls the U.S. Copyright Office) ruled that it is perfectly OK for developers to bypass the phone’s controls over what software will run. The ruling seems focused at Apple but the same case can be made for other platforms as well. Jailbreaking is more prevalent on platforms where there’s a tight ‘walled garden’ but doesn’t exist in other more open environments, especially when the source code for the platform is available to all (like Android).

While this column may appear to focus on Apple and it’s a relatively closed environment, the message about being open is the same for all SmartPhone platforms, for all wireless operators, and for all device manufacturers: Build products that conform to basic operating requirements set by the government but then let users choose what phone they want, what network on which they want to operate that phone, and then choose any application they want to run in that environment.

Simple and easy to declare. Much harder to actually implement. It seems so right and natural. If enough users demand it, then hopefully economic forces with government oversight will enable it.

Guest Article Written by J. Gerry Purdy, Ph.D. from Inside Mobile

Underutilized Spectrum

Where Is Spectrum Underutilized and Who Owns The Local License?  

Underutilized wireless spectrum refers to portions of the radio frequency spectrum that are allocated for specific uses but are not fully utilized or efficiently utilized. The radio frequency spectrum is a limited and valuable resource that is used for various wireless communications, including cellular networks, Wi-Fi, broadcasting, satellite communications, and more.

There are a few reasons why certain portions of the spectrum may be underutilized:

Regulatory Constraints: Some portions of the spectrum are allocated for specific uses or licensed to specific entities. If those entities are not fully utilizing the spectrum, it can result in underutilization. Regulatory barriers or restrictions can sometimes prevent efficient allocation and utilization of the spectrum.

Fragmentation: The spectrum is divided into different frequency bands, and different technologies and services may operate in different bands. Fragmentation can occur when certain bands have limited adoption or deployment, leading to the underutilization of those specific frequencies.

Technological Advancements: The deployment of newer technologies and more efficient communication protocols can sometimes render older spectrum allocations less efficient or underutilized. For example, advancements in compression algorithms and spectrum-sharing techniques can make better use of available spectrum.

Regional or Geographic Variations: Spectrum usage and demand can vary across different regions or geographies. Some areas may have a higher demand for wireless services, leading to more efficient utilization of the spectrum, while others may have lower demand, resulting in underutilization.

Efforts are being made to address underutilized spectrum and improve spectrum efficiency. These include spectrum auctions, spectrum sharing policies, dynamic spectrum allocation, and the development of new technologies that can make better use of the available spectrum. These initiatives aim to maximize the use of the spectrum resource, improve wireless connectivity, and support the growing demand for wireless services.

FCC Could Ban Cell Signal Boosters = Bad Idea

People Don’t Seek Solutions Unless There Are Problems!

Comments on the RCR Wireless Article FCC to address cellphone boosters, jammers and is the FCC losing its' authority and credibility based on this court ruling?

The Federal Communications Commission is considering implementing a law that would make cellphone boosters illegal unless they are deployed by a wireless operator (DCZ:  Wireless operates hate signal boosters b/c they are not under their control)  or with the consent of a wireless operator, a move that could impact thousands of end-users already owning such devices.  (DCZ:  What problem are they trying to solve that the network operators have not dealt with for years?)

The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking before the FCC addresses an ongoing controversy within the wireless industry and could impact devices like MagicJack (DCZ: this product is not a booster its VoIP.  However, they have a product called FemtoJack under development) and other femtocell solutions, as well as local and state governments that want to be able to use cellphone jammers to prevent prisoners from unauthorized use of cellphones. (DCZ:  Or schools who want their kids paying attention to the teacher)  Depending on whose argument you believe, the eventual ruling could even have an impact on net neutrality rules.  (DCZ:  I don't see how this applies to Net Neutrality)  One proponent of signal boosters and jammers said that making boosters illegal won’t address the products already in the market, nor will it stop the sale of signal boosters.  (DCZ:  There are a handful of big companies and thousands of people employed by them with hundreds of thousands of devices already on the market.)

Wireless industry trade association CTIA in 2007 filed a petition for a declaratory ruling at the FCC, asking that it outlaw the sale and use of any device that can enhance or impair cellphone calls. (DCZ:  Might have worked under the previous corrupt Bush Administration)  The petition was a surprise to some third-party retailers, who called RCR Wireless News at the time and thought the story had to be wrong. Therein lies the crux of the problem: a cellphone booster can enhance coverage for a customer, but also has the potential to interfere with someone else’s signal (DCZ:  How often and how can they prove this?). Yet, cellphone boosters have been marketed to carriers and end-users alike as a way to improve the cellular signal in areas where coverage is less than satisfactory – and the reality remains that cellphone coverage in some locations is spotty.  (DCZ:  Carriers need to get their act together with Femtocells first before they decide to outlaw something like this. Signal boosters provide a lot of value in the car.)

The FCC’s definition of signal boosters is fairly broad as it includes amplifiers, repeaters, boosters, Distributed Antenna Systems, and in-building radiation systems that enhance CMRS signals or Part 90 signals. CTIA is asking that the commission rule that companies must have an FCC license to operate a signal booster or have the consent from an FCC licensee (i.e., operator), and that the sale and marketing of devices to unauthorized parties (i.e., end-users or commercial building owners) is illegal.

CTIA also says that wireless microphones, jammers, and new products like the MagicJack femtocell device also are threats to the network.  (DCZ:  What happened to let entrepreneurs create technology to help the industry progress?)

“Unlike wireless handsets, which are under the control of the wireless licensee’s base station, signal boosters cannot be controlled by wireless licensees. However, it is clear that the commission’s rules require carriers to control and govern the use of signal boosters and amplifiers. In fact, this control contemplated in the commission’s rules exists for very good reasons. Signal boosters, because they are not controlled by the base station, do not operate at the lowest possible power. Rather, these devices are intended to operate at much higher power, which raises the noise floor, harming spectrum efficiency and causing interference that leads to degraded or dropped calls unless the devices are properly installed and overseen by the carrier,” CTIA said in comments on the NPRM.

“To address the harm caused by unauthorized signal booster operation, the commission must affirm its existing requirements, which prohibit the sale or marketing of signal boosters to unauthorized users. Currently, many manufacturers and retailers market and sell these products to end-users with the knowledge that these devices do not and cannot comply with the commission’s licensing and interference control obligations. Under FCC rules, the use of signal boosters is only permitted by licensees or parties authorized by licensees. However, illicit sale and operation of these devices will continue to proliferate – and will be impossible to effectively enforce – if the commission does not take prompt action to affirm these requirements.”

Not everyone agrees. Howard Melamed, CEO of CellAntenna, said a blanket “make them illegal” mandate doesn’t solve the problem. It will just force end-users in need of a solution to buy products overseas. “People don’t go out seeking a solution unless there is a problem.”

Howard said some of his clients are hospitals that have needed coverage but not been able to get satisfactory coverage from the carrier. Instead of a blanket mandate, the FCC should force signal-booster manufacturers to tighten the design specifications. He’s also advocated that a registry be created where people can register their signal booster with the FCC so in the event the signal booster is affecting the network, the carrier can know who or what is causing the problem. Melamed also joked in an interview with RCR Wireless News that he is a “persona non grata” within the wireless carrier community.

Wilson Electronics in its filing with the FCC argued that mobile amplifiers should not be subject to the same rules as larger, traditional fixed power boosters. Wilson also said the mobile boosters, designed for personal use in a car, for example, are an example of net neutrality initiatives at the FCC that are designed to allow any device to attach to the network.

CTIA disagrees with that assessment, as well as comments filed by The DAS Forum that recommend a code of conduct is followed, rather than more regulation.

Both CTIA and Howard agree that poor-quality boosters can cause problems. But Howard argues that not allowing U.S. companies to sell boosters that meet FCC certification standards will only lead people and businesses to buy poorer quality boosters overseas. Signal boosters are sold throughout the rest of the world, he said; the controversy only is occurring in North America.  (DCZ:  Pointing the finger in the wrong direction)

Jammer issues

But cellphone boosters are only half of the FCC’s notice of proposed rulemaking. The commission is also reviewing the sale of cellphone jammers, which block signals. Jammers can only be sold to federal authorities under the way the law reads today. Melamed argues that state and local authorities need to be able to use jammers, especially in a society where cellphones are used to remotely detonate bombs and are the No. 1 device illegally snuck into prisons. However, the FCC may not be the final authority on the use of cellphone jammers at the local and state levels. The Senate in October passed the Safe Prison Act, which allows the director of the federal bureau of prisons or the CEO of a state to seek FCC approval to deploy cellphone jammers in their jurisdictions to block wireless coverage in correctional facilities.

Jon Stewart & Rachel Maddow Take On Net Neutrality

Jon Stewart Takes On "Net Neutrality"

Jon Stewart took up the issue of 'net neutrality' and Senator John McCain's efforts to create one of those ironically named pieces of legislation that sounds like it is going to deliver something good -- in this case 'Internet Freedom' -- but would actually make the Internet suck out loud, forever and ever. As Stewart explains, everything on the Internet moves through what former Alaska Senator Ted Stevens famously called the 'series of tubes... at the same rate.' As Stewart explains, 'If you've got a packet of information from a major corporation like Google, that information gets exactly the same treatment as a packet from a little start-up company like

All of which makes sense -- even the part where people would want to see John Stewart's head on Mario Lopez's body carnally impaled by an onrushing unicorn. That's what 'net neutrality' allows for. But telecoms have been lobbying for changes in those rules so that Internet service providers would have the leeway to privilege their own content over the content of other sources by slowing or blocking access. In this cause, telecom lobbyists have found a friend in John McCain, author of the 'Internet Freedom Act.'

STEWART: The "Internet Freedom Act of 2009." Now I know it sounds like that bill is the opposite of what its name implies in the way that, say, George Bush's "Clear Skies Act" gutted environmental regulations or Larry Craig's "No Handjobs For Me, Thanks Act" -- which oddly enough allocated a million dollars in federal funding for... and I'm quoting here, "handjobs for Larry Craig." But it's not! What McCain is proposing is that AT&T and Verizon be given "freedom" to control what information passes through the Internet. Information like: John McCain is the number one recipient of donations from the telecom industry and its lobbyists for the past three years, that I looked up on Google, and it loaded pretty fast!

As Stewart points out, there's a hidden motive behind everyone who promotes net neutrality! And that is, naturally, advancing a radical socialist agenda by controlling the Internet! Set the telecoms free! Surely we can trust them!

Rachel Maddow, Boing Boing Editor On McCain And Net Neutrality

Cell Phone Reception Through Wifi

Cell phones can use your home's wireless internet connection to make and receive calls. It's a handy technology if the cell phone coverage in and around your house is in a dead zone. Phones will automatically select Wifi if it's there but will require a compromise between economy and mobility. For example, Voice over Wifi offers potentially free service but is only available within the coverage area of a Wifi Access Point and currently will not allow you to hop between networks.

VoIP mobile applications that may be compatible with your phone's operating system.

Skype - iPhone, Windows Mobile, Nokia
Line2 - iPhone, Android

Truphone - Nokia-Symbian, iPhone, Android, Blackberry

Jajah - Windows Mobile, Symbian OS

fring - Symbian 8.x and 9.x, Windows Mobile 5 and 6, iPhone, Maemo

Nimbuzz!- J2ME, S60, Windows Mobile, iPhone

Gizmo5 - Windows Mobile, Motorola, Nokia, Blackberry, Java PDA, Sony-Ericsson, Samsung

Windows Mobile 6 - Windows Mobile 6 Professional/Standard


3 Mobile VoIP Protocols The Applications Above Are Built On

Skype - closed proprietary peer to peer network and working on video mobile phones

SIP - the standard used by most VoIP services

UMA - the Unlicensed Mobile Access Generic Access Network, designed in response to Skype by a group of carriers to allow VoIP to run over the GSM cellular backbone.

See Wikipedia VoIP software platforms for more details. The challenge for the mobile operator industry is to deliver the benefits and innovations of IP without losing control of the network service. Users like the Internet to be free and high speed without extra charges for browsing the internet. VoIP services challenges the most valuable service in the telecommunications industry — voice — and threatens to change the nature of the global communications industry.  Net neutrality is an important issue with the FCC for these reasons.

Related article: UMA Phone + Wi-Fi = Home Cell Coverage

End Data Discrimination

As expected, the FCC voted to move forward with a proposal to codify its four net neutrality principles and add non-discrimination and transparency rules to the regulations that will govern both wireless and wired broadband networks.

The first of the new principles would prevent Internet access providers from discriminating against particular Internet content or applications while allowing for reasonable network management. The second would ensure that Internet access providers are transparent about the network management practices they implement. The other four are:

• To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice.
• To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement.
• To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network.
• To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.

FCC votes for the net neutrality rule-making process

The commission voted 5-0 to begin the rule-making process. The next steps will likely involve months of debate now that the FCC is asked for comments on the proposal. Initial comments are due on Jan. 14. Hours later, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) introduced legislation aimed at prohibiting the FCC from enacting rules that would regulate access to the Internet. The legislation, called 'The Internet Freedom Act of 2009,' aimed at keeping the Internet from being regulated by the government. 'Keeping businesses free from oppressive regulations is the best stimulus for the current economy,' he said. The two Republican FCC commissioners, Robert McDowell and Meredith Attwell Baker dissented in part on last week's vote, arguing that the commission should proceed with its eyes open to the unintended consequences of the new regulations. They said they were unsure that there was enough of a problem to warrant new regulations, and questioned whether the FCC had the authority to impose the new rules. The GOP commissioners' dissent essentially signals that they intend to move forward with the action, but disagree with the current language in the proposal.

As promised by Chairman Julius Genachowski, the proposed rules governing wireless networks took into account that wireless networks have different network architectures, market structures, patterns of consumer usage, and regulatory history than wired networks. The draft rules will seek comment on how in what time frames and to what extent the rules should apply to wireless. Moreover, another point of debate will likely center on what "reasonable network management" means as it pertains to an operator's ability to manage network traffic (based on tiered access?). The draft rules say that such management includes practices that reduce or mitigate network congestion, address traffic that is unlawful, unwanted by users, or deemed harmful. The commission staff also noted that nothing in the rules will prohibit service providers from delivering emergency communications. Additionally, the notice seeks comment on how to define managed services, such as subscription video services, telemedicine, or smart grids, and how the new policies should apply to them. The commission also is going to form a technical outreach group to discuss network management issues and all other issues that have technical ramifications.

Instances of data discrimination listed on Wikipedia from 2004-2007, unfortunately, cause hardship for other applications that get grouped into the same categories and get blocked. 

• In 2004, a small North Carolina telecom company, Madison River Communications, blocked their DSL customers from using the Vonage VoIP service. Service was restored after the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) intervened and entered into a consent decree that had Madison River pay a fine of $15,000.^[6]
• In 2005, Canadian telephone giant Telus blocked access to voices-for-change.ca, a website supporting the company's labor union during a labor dispute, as well as over 600 other websites, for about sixteen hours after pictures were posted on the website of employees crossing the picket line.^[7]
• In April 2006, Time Warner's AOL (America On-Line) blocked all e-mails that mentioned dearaol.com, an advocacy campaign opposing the company's pay-to-send e-mail scheme. An AOL spokesman called the issue an unintentional glitch.
• In February 2006, some of Cox Cable's customers were unable to access Craig's List because of a confluence of a software bug in the Authentium personal firewall distributed by Cox Cable to improve customers' security and the way that Craigslist had their servers misconfigured. Save the Internet said this was an intentional act on the part of Cox Cable to protect classified ad services offered by its partners. The issue was resolved by the correction of the software as well as a change in the network configuration used by Craig's List. Craig's List founder Craig Newmark stated that he believed the blocking was unintentional.
• In September 2007, Verizon Wireless prevented a pro-choice organization from sending text messages to its members coordinating a public demonstration, despite the fact that the intended recipients had explicitly signed up to receive such messages.
• In October 2007, Comcast was found to be preventing or at least severely delaying uploads on BitTorrent.

COMMENTARY: All this seems great in theory but it still seems to indicate that tiered network access is coming and carriers are still going to largely be able to control and discriminate packets across their network. Is that good for companies who want open access like Skype, Google, Slingbox who don't control the pipes? I suppose it depends upon which tier of access they end up on. Hopefully its the top tier.

Related Net Neutrality articles:
Verizon's Seidenberg blasts net neutrality as debate continues
AT&T urges employees to lobby FCC against net neutrality
Democrats, Internet firms lobby FCC on net neutrality
Net neutrality debate heats up ahead of vote
Opposing net neutrality, GOP puts pressure back on FCC