In the course of my research on broadband access and quality in the United States, I’ve found a great number of competing opinions on the matter of exactly how far behind the U.S. is verses some of our international competitors. If you listen to FCC Commissioner Robert M. McDowell, America is on the right track in regards to broadband penetration, speed and access and that the U.S. should not veer towards increased government regulation.

This explains the commissioner’s opposition to Google’s open access requirements for the 700 MHz wireless spectrum auction and other regulatory efforts to boost broadband access and speed in the U.S. (IPDI will be holding a discussion with Google on September 25th about the wireless auction and Google’s vision for broadband in America…more details to come).

The Washington Post took a different view on the matter yesterday in a piece by Blaine Harden which outlined the huge advancements the Japanese have made in relation to broadband technology though innovation and government assistance. The article points out that Japan has dramatically higher broadband speeds than the U.S. because of America’s bombing of Japan’s infrastructure during World War II (which prompted them to use better cooper wire with smaller loops that allow for higher DSL speeds) and because the Japanese government ordered phone companies to allow independent internet startups access their phone lines. This resulted in heavy competition which in turn prompted Nippon Telegraph and Telephone Company to roll out a new fiber-optic network, spurring even more innovation, driving down prices and boosting speeds. This competition through regulation strategy has catapulted Japan far ahead of America. According to the article, the Bush Administration actually had the opportunity to provide the same incentives for innovation in the U.S. but the FCC and the federal courts blocked the effort.

Link Hoewing of Verizon responded to the post article on Verizon’s policy blog citing that the U.S. is making progress and catching up. I don’t disagree with that but I believe the point of the post’s article was to spark conversation as to whether the U.S. is perusing the right type of (government) strategy to ensure competition and innovation, a question IPDI will be focused on in the coming year.

Update: Check out what Richard Whitt says about it on the Google Public Policy blog:

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.

Every tried to download software on your phone?

It’s a trick question. Downloading mobile applications and software can be next to impossible. But it might get a little easier.

Yesterday, the Federal Election Commission ruled that it would auction off some of the 700 MHz broadcast spectrum. As previously noted on this blog, Google was one of the most vocal proponents of the ruling, which will allow Google (and other companies) to bid on about 60 MHz. The ruling also means that consumers may have more choices when it comes to their mobile devices and software.

Today’s mobile phone users are locked into two-year service agreements with their carriers and can only use mobile phone and applications approved by their carriers. Want a cool, new phone not offered by your carrier? Then you have to either wait until your contract ends and change carriers or buy your way out of your contract. Tomorrow’s users might not have to go through all the bother.

But not everyone is satisfied. Open devices and open applications are only one part of the story, as the Google Public Policy blog reported:

. . . it would have a more complete victory for consumers had the FCC adopted all four of the license conditions that we advocated, in order to pave the way for the real “third pipe” broadband competition that FCC Chairman Kevin Martin has been touting. For our part, we will need time to carefully study the actual text of the FCC’s rules, due out in a few weeks, before we can make any definitive decisions about our possible participation in the auction.

We checked the Verizon PolicyBlog, hoping to get some insight from the other side of the debate. No comment on the blog yet. No comment for the New York Times, either.

The nation’s largest telecommunications carriers were not that vocal in response to Tuesday’s decision. “We don’t really have anything to say about this,” said Jeffrey Nelson, a spokesman for Verizon Wireless.

We’re willing to wait. We’d like to hear from both sides. And we’re hoping both groups will discuss the issue at our 2008 Politics Online Conference (details to come soon).

Update: The Wall Street Journal  covered the story Thursday morning:

The walled-garden approach “didn’t work with AOL,” says Ingo Schneider, vice president at T-Mobile International. “It’s not going to work in mobile either.”

In a show of Google’s increasing public policy presence in Washington D.C., the company is now pushing the Federal Communications Commission to adopt rules that they say will help diversify the sources of broadband access in the United States. Right now, Google contends that telecommunications companies like AT&T and Verizon and cable companies like Comcast and Time Warner constitute a “broadband duopoly” in the United States and that this practice is hurting the consumer. Companies like Verizon, through their public policy blog, counter Google’s claims by pointing out that prices for Broadband service is dropping while speeds and services increase.

Google (and its Coalition for 4G in America) wants the FCC to impose “open access standards” on a new block of wireless spectrum it will be auctioning off sometime this year, forcing whoever wins that new 700MHz spectrum to keep it open to all applications, devices, services, and other networks. This, Google believes, will create a new third “pipeline” of Internet access that will benefit all Americans. Besides Google’s backing, the Washington Post is reporting that key democrats Rep. John D. Dingell (D-Mich.) and Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) support the “open” network model.

Now it should be said that Google’s interest in the upcoming wireless spectrum auction isn’t totally benign, at least according to Scott Cleland (President of Precursor LLC, a “techcom” industry research and consulting firm). Mr. Cleland believe (and I get the sense that Verizon agrees as well) that Google is simply trying to enter the broadband market on the cheap and at the taxpayers’ expense creating a national wireless network that favors their advertising business model over a traditional subscription that most broadband service providers use. This is a conclusion that Google denies.

Only time will tell how the Federal Communications Commission will decide on this matter but Google’s sustained public pressure on Telecom and Cable companies in regards to this auction and previously on “Net Neutrality” legislation show that the Internet, Internet commerce, and Internet access are becoming more important issues on the domestic policy scene, a phenomenon that might continue as the 2008 election season heats up.

This post was guest blogged by Chris Wimbush.

Next time you log onto someone’s unsecured wireless network or decide that you don’t want to bother applying encryption or password protection to your own, be prepared for the legal consequences of your actions.

A 2004 essay entitled The Fourth Amendment Unplugged: Electronic Evidence Issues & Wireless Defenses by then-Georgetown University Law Student Tara McGraw Swaminatha considers the challenges that widespread adoption of wireless technology has presented to our legal system. This is with special attention to our understanding and application of the Fourth Amendment. In addition, Ms. Swaminatha hypothesizes that based under current federal and state laws, a person may be held criminally liable if their unsecured wireless network is used in the commission of a crime. She presents a theoretical scenario to conceptualize the issue in which an unknown perpetrator, using an innocent victim’s unsecured wireless network, downloads and stores (on the victim’s computer without their knowledge) child pornography.

Swaminatha points out that the burden is on the state to prove that the wireless network owner was in possession (both mentally and physically) of the pornographic material. However the defendant has to overcome the established legal principle of presumption based on the idea that if a person possesses stolen property, it is reasonable to assume that the “possessor” stole it. Beyond the criminal implications and uncertainty, Swaminatha finds that if an unsecured wireless is used to “hack” into a corporate network to steal information or crash systems, civil charges could be filed against the unknowing and innocent wireless operator.

The essay seems prophetic considering the concern >law enforcement and the news media has given to the issue recently. With this in mind, we should give serious thought to public policy and legislative solutions. One option rejected by members of Congress in 2003 was making wireless network owners liable for any illegal actions committed on their system, even if they were not directly responsible for the criminal acts themselves. While rejected at the time, I think it is a mistake to discount such a measure as it would promote owners to use security protocols that are provided for on every wireless router. Another option is for the federal government to work with (or force) wireless hardware producers to have wireless security protocols pre-activated and required on all routers for use. Your best bet for the time being is to stay away from those “too good to be true” free and unsecured wireless networks out there and keep your own locked up tight.