Google vs. Verizon: The 'open access' saga continues
First with Net neutrality and now with so-called "open access" rules for forthcoming wireless networks, there seems to be no end to the discord between Google and Verizon.
The latest evidence of tensions surfaced when Verizon Wireless this week quietly filed a petition asking a federal appeals court in Washington to "review" rules set to apply to an auction next January of the coveted 700-megahertz wireless spectrum. Earlier this summer, the Federal Communications Commission decreed that consumers must be allowed to use whichever mobile devices or applications they please on about a third of that chunk.
A number of consumer groups and Google had wanted even more stringent conditions, such as requiring the winning bidders to make their spectrum available at reasonable wholesale prices, but the majority of commissioners didn't agree that the mandate was appropriate. But even the less comprehensive rules drew vocal disappointment from the U.S. wireless-access industry, which had argued that the auction would best serve American consumers and raise more money if carried out with "no strings attached."

Excerpt from Verizon Wireless' appeals court petition
Now attorneys for Verizon have escalated that "disappointment" to court action. In a brief filing dated Monday but not reported until Thursday by various news outlets, they charged that the FCC's action exceeded its authority, was "arbitrary, capricious, unsupported by substantial evidence and otherwise contrary to law," and even violated the U.S. Constitution. (Verizon representatives declined to elaborate further on the claims, saying they'd let the filing speak for itself.)
Google was quick to bite back, attempting to portray its potential rival in the bidding process as anti-consumer.
"The FCC's auction rules are designed to allow U.S. consumers--for the first time--to use their handsets with any network they desire, and download and use the lawful software applications of their choice," Chris Sacca, the company's head of special initiatives, wrote in a Thursday afternoon blog entry. "It's regrettable that Verizon has decided to use the court system to try to prevent consumers from having any choice of innovative services."
It remains to be seen how--or if--the continued sniping will affect Google's own planned forays into the mobile sphere. The company recently announced a partnership with Sprint Nextel to integrate its mobile services into a new 4G WiMax network, and it already has struck deals with large mobile providers in Asia and Europe, such as Vodafone and China Mobile.
But Google Mobile project manager Sumit Agarwal admitted at the time that U.S. carriers have been more hesitant to embrace the company as a partner. It seems possible that what appears to be fundamental divide over "open" network rules could prove a sticking point--that is, if it hasn't already.
Update at 7:35 a.m. PDT: As for whether the Verizon petition will go anywhere, it's too early to tell, based on the company's thin filing, said Blair Levin, managing director of analysis firm Stifel Nicolaus and onetime chief of staff to an FCC chairman during the Clinton administration. He said that although some judges in the D.C. Circuit have "not seemed to want to give much deference to the FCC" in the past, it's impossible to predict what will happen without knowing exactly who will be assigned to the case.
"It's probably appropriate to say the FCC always starts off with an advantage, as the expert agency," he said in a telephone interview. "I think that until you see a lot more, placing odds on this, one way or the other, is foolhardy."







Anyone who wants wireless broadaband should squarely support open access on this spectrum. Otherwise its more of the same from our nations Wireless providers. This is an opportunity to leap ahead instead remained tied down by legacy business models and device authorization.
google is not completely ultristic here either, open access = an open platform = open to more targeted ads, but so what. I would take that possibility over whatever offerings the current wireless providers peddle.
That's why I'm going to be switching on my next contract. I know Apple is a control freak of a company but at least it's a 800 pound gorilla in a different market so they can demand to have certain open-access for a web browser and other features.
Even if the auction somehow gets derailed by Verizon's lawyers, they've already lost me as a customer.
but you're going to have to deal with it. U.S. cell phone carriers
have been riding consumers for too long with anti-competitive
practices. Don't like it? Learn how to compete in an open
environment, like Google does fair-and-square over the Internet,
and most companies that are not U.S. wireless carriers and cable
companies.
Now that is looking out for Consumers.
.... Verizon wants to have total control of lines to control elections and Government communications, AS THEY DO RIGHT NOW, and the best friends of Seidenberg and Jacobs in Congress are Sen.Schumer,R.Emanuel,S.Coleman,R.Lantos,
S.Lieberman,R.Harman,R.Ros-Lethinen,Mike Bloomberg ,Chertoff and Bodman etc., the same neocons pushing to invade Iraq in 2002 and 2003 every day on TV ,Radio and Newspapers,the ones pushing this great country into this nightmare of violence,Verizon is the real test for Congress and the FCC and a future as a Free Country.
What essentially google wants is for the customer to make the choices as to what instrument to buy and have the freedom to choose subscription plans (with/without contracts) which is in direct contravention to how major telecom companies operate. Why wouldn't they disagree?
I am a teacher artist doc student- subscriber to Verizon phone and DSL services- not a competitor with any hidden agenda.
ago I had to take them to Small Claims Court because they
wrongfully put a mark on my credit for allegedly breaking a
service contract. I won. About two months ago they tried to
weasel out of reimbursing me for a discount promised through
by employer for state of Florida empoyees. I persisted and got
it.
Verizon is about as anti-customer as you can get. They rank up
there with health insurance providers.
I have sent an email to my congressman complaining about cell
phone providers in general and Verizon in particular. They are
getting rich off a public resource - the radio spectrum - while
constantly playing a game of gotcha with the customer. The cell
phone service is better in rural china than in big city america
Verizon is wrong to claim that the FCC exceeded its authority in applying these rules; and in fact it is the FCC's responsibility to do so in managing the public airwaves for the public benefit. I expect the court will agree.
The FCC has only adopted some of the provisions for some of the 700 MHz licenses. It's clear that the FCC should support the most open access possible. Their decision really should have been to support even more open access provisions.
Open access is the only way for the public to realize the full benefit from new allocations. Open access works well in Europe. The U.S. economy is increasingly tied to the internet, while we continue to fall behind other countries in broadband access. These newly available airwaves may provide our last great opportunity to jump ahead.
A week after they installed FIOS and my triple-play package, I got a bill for only the phone portion of that, at full phone-only pricing. No triple-play package discount. I never agreed to pay full price, ever. I was never told beforeahnd that it may take a few months for the triple-play package pricing to begin. My next bill would not be adjusted to add credit toward this statement to correct things. But somehow the TV and internet service amounts would be the package retroactive price back to install date, but not the phone. I got pretty displeased at the situation and they did agree to credit the $7.13 to my account, telling me that in doing so I was somehow going to get 25 months of package priced phone service instead of the 24month contract I'd signed. That whole situation stinks to high heaven, and I believe they're hoping that a lot of people won't notice or realize that they're paying more for that month or two than their contract specified, and rake in a pile of extra money.
Verizon Wireless seems to be late in getting advanced phone devices. Competing services often have phones long before Verizon does. (ignore the iPhone, there's many more examples than just that one) They refuse to help me choose a phone that would be more likely to work at my house, as the one I have gets very poor signal there, but roommates with competing services and phones not available under Verizon have no service complaints there. I've asked customer service a number of times in case I find someone who knows more or is less lazy or something than previous operators, but all I'm told is that I must randomly buy phones until I find one that works and return those that do not. my phone is limited to 15 second video recordings from the camera. Friends on other services are limited only by memory capacity. To get pictures out of and music into my phone, I had to buy a USB cable from China and use some reverse-engineered open-source software, or pay Verizon for each item transferred over the network. Friends with other services use bluetooth, storebought cables and software. Nothing comparable was availabel from verizon when I looked a year ago, and I had to go to the gray market. When I got a phone for my mom as part of my account, that was a total screwup that took two stores to solve jsut to activate the phone, they changed my one year contract to a two year term without my permission or even asking me, assigned two phone numbers to my mom's single device and billed me for the unknown (to me) second number, sending statements to another mailing address and in two or three months this unused, nonexistent phone number's bill was over $300 and I eventually somehow found out they were sending delinquency notices to this wrong mailing address. Took a couple weeks to get that cleared up last year, and I don't believe they ever did apply the credit they promised me in resolving that.
I'm not impressed with Verizon at all. My experience shows they're out to screw people. I've never interacted with any company that presented themselves in such an anticonsumer way as Verizon has acted toward me.
Wholesaling ain't competition. Why buy a wholeseller product if it's still Verizon?
Google maps on my Verizon phone... I have tons of choice--there's
Verizon's map software, there's Google, there's Yahoo!Go, and even
MSN live search. How is that a closed world with no consumer
choice?