geekosystem

We don't know a lot about the Google-built media player, other than the fact that Google made it, and it's a media player, but the device's FCC filing does reveal one interesting tidbit: The model number is H2G2-42. Yeah, you're not seeing things, it's absolutely a reference to The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. Someone has a sense of humor, or we're getting a really awesome media player at some point.

Look, no one expects being the chairman of any major government agency to be a walk in the park, but Julius Genachowski has had a notably turbulent run during his nearly five year long run as chairman of the FCC. Considering the time he's had, during which he's managed the impressive feat of earning the ire of both public interest groups and industry CEOs, it's not a surprise to see the often embattled chairman announce that he will step down in the coming weeks. The real question now is who will succeed him in what promises to be a thankless job.

The Federal Communications Commission is said to be considering a plan that would buy back some frequencies from television stations and use those frequencies to give the country free and ubiquitous "super-WiFi." That sounds amazing. Obviously, the companies providing non-free, non-ubiquitous "ordinary-WiFi" are pretty set against the whole thing. Thankfully, companies like Google and Microsoft want to see this happen. It's just a matter of which giant companies bully the FCC into bending to their will.

Sure, Louis C.K. wasn't wrong when he chastised folks for complaining about in-flight Wi-Fi connections, but that doesn't mean they're wonderful either. Some airlines have them, others don't, and it always seems to be a weird and different method to connect every single time you fly. Then it goes down, or it costs way too much to even bother with, but sure, it's still a cool thing to have. Now, more airlines should start to embrace in-flight Wi-Fi thanks to updated regulations from the Federal Communications Commission. You'll be able to complain on even more flights soon enough!

Well now, this is certainly an ironic development. According to an article distributed by the Associated Press, the FCC is working to give mankind the ability to reach emergency services at 911 via text messaging. You read that correctly, the very same distracting activity that has led to so many vehicular tragedies and other lethal mishaps will soon become our lifeline. You know, for those moments when we find ourselves trapped under rubble or are about to be mauled by a grizzly bear. Only after you text your friends first, naturally.

The FCC has always been something of a nuisance to broadcasters everywhere. The group's vague, inconsistently applied policies strike fear in the hearts of executives everywhere who are afraid they might have to shell out a fine should a careless celebrity let a naughty word slip. Things look like they're headed for a change now, though. Yesterday, the Supreme Court issued a decision on the FCC's obscenity policies, and while it didn't smack down FCC censorship wholesale, the Court did crack its knuckles and let drop a few fightin' words. The stage is set for a battle; the next time the FCC and the Supreme Court inevitably meet, shit is going to go down, if you'll pardon the phrase.

A few weeks ago, the Federal Communication Commission announced that it had concluded its investigation into Google's interception of user data from unencrypted Wi-Fi networks with its street view cars. Now, Google has released the entire report of perusal, giving insight into this curious case.

GPS capable phones have been around for a while and are an absolute godsend if you have a sense of direction that is as bad as mine. The downside is that I have to rely on other people's GPS enabled phones because I'm still living in the Stone Age. If the FCC has its way --which it will, it just ruled on this-- all phones will have GPS come 2018.

Why? The reason they cite is for the purpose of tracking 911 calls. Whether or not that's just a smokescreen depends on your personal level of paranoia and frequency of illegal activites. Currently, if a non-GPS enabled phone dials 911, the provider has to triangulate the location, which is annoying and inefficient, apparently. Straight up GPS is just much better for figuring out exactly where you are, however that makes you feel.

Ladies and gentlemen, the FCC has drafted its net neutrality rules and had them published. After being voted through at a 3 to 2 majority last year, they will go into effect November 20th, assuming they are not delayed by lawsuits. They will probably be delayed by lawsuits. Verizon and MetroPCS have been waiting in the wings, unable to file suit until the rules were finalized and made official so now is their time to pounce.

Despite the fact that no service provider would want to be bound to these rules, they actually seem pretty reasonable. The FCC's own summary describes them as follows:

First, transparency: fixed and mobile broadband providers must disclose the network management practices, performance characteristics, and commercial terms of their broadband services. Second, no blocking: fixed broadband providers may not block lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices; mobile broadband providers may not block lawful websites, or block applications that compete with their voice or video telephony services. Third, no unreasonable discrimination: fixed broadband providers may not unreasonably discriminate in transmitting lawful network traffic.

As you may know, AT&T has had its sights set on T-Mobile for a while now, and the two had agreed that AT&T would be allowed to gobble up T-Mobile for a scant $39 billion. If you had your money on the merger getting blocked for antitrust violations, you were right. Today, the U.S. Government sued to block the merger on grounds that it would "substantially lessen competition," at which point AT&T's stock took a 5% hit. If the merger should happen to go through after all, we will see the birth of the largest mobile service provider in the United States.

Due to cancelation language written into the merger agreement, AT&T has some significant incentives to fight these antitrust allegations. If the deal fails to go through, AT&T owes T-Mobile a check for $3 billion and reduced charges for dialing into AT&Ts network as part of a package that's worth somewhere around $7 billion.

Yesterday's news that AT&T plans to acquire T-Mobile for $39 billion sent shockwaves through the mobile phone-owning populace, and based on our informal Internet sentiment analysis following the deal, a lot of people are unhappy about it. Many T-Mobile customers don't want to go over to AT&T, and web freedom advocates dislike AT&T's complicity in sweeping NSA surveillance programs. And cell phone owners on all networks have plenty to fear about an America in which there are only three relevant carriers, and one, AT&T-Mo (our coinage, not theirs) essentially has a monopoly on GSM technology in the U.S. The acquisition is not a done deal yet, but its opponents who simply assume that it would be open-and-shut antitrust may be in for a rude surprise.

Earlier this week Verizon and MetroPCS filed suits contesting the FCC's new net neutrality statues, the ones that aren't even as firm as most internet users would hope. The FCC is now requesting that the DC appeals court in which the suits were filed throw them out, on some solid but incredibly procedural grounds. In as nutty a nutshell as we can get, people aren't allowed to sue part of the government in front of the DC circuit court before the thing that they are suing about is published in the Federal Register by that part of the government.  The FCC's new rules have only been announced. Verizon countered by saying that since the new laws would affect their licenses, the suits fall under a law about licensing, which says that you can sue as soon as the law is announced. But it doesn't stop there.

Despite the murmurings that the FCC's new net neutrality rules were basically a reiteration of Google's and Verizon's proposal allowing leeway for a second, paid Internet, Verizon is contesting the ruling, saying that the FCC is overreaching. Verizon's statement:

Verizon Communications on Thursday (Jan. 20) filed an appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, challenging the Federal Communications Commission's Report and Order on rules dealing with the issue of net neutrality. The following statement should be attributed to Michael E. Glover, Verizon senior vice president and deputy general counsel: "Verizon has long been committed to preserving an open Internet and meeting the needs of our customers. We have worked extensively with all players in the Internet and communications space to shape policies that ensure an open Internet and encourage investment, innovation and collaboration with content providers and others to meet the needs of consumers. "Today's filing is the result of a careful review of the FCC's order. We are deeply concerned by the FCC's assertion of broad authority for sweeping new regulation of broadband networks and the Internet itself. We believe this assertion of authority goes well beyond any authority provided by Congress, and creates uncertainty for the communications industry, innovators, investors and consumers."

(via Brian Stelter)

This afternoon, the FCC voted to approve a new set of rules governing online communications, its first enforceable rules on net neutrality, by a vote of 3-2. As Wired points out, the only group that seems to be especially happy about the rules as approved by the FCC is the telecom companies: Whereas many conservatives see any net neutrality ruling as a federal overreach and liberals denounce this particular set of rules as "woefully inadequate to protect the public from the predations of an industry keen on turning the internet into a cyber-version of cable TV, with tiers and premium packages affordable by the wealthy," the proposal as it currently stands is similar enough to Google's and Verizon's Internet proposal leaked over the summer in that it reserves the possibility for phone companies to charge more for certain kinds of high-speed traffic -- so-called "paid prioritization." Considering that mobile carriers' plans have recently leaked exploring different rates for Facebook, YouTube, Skype, etc, this is not purely an academic fear. In his remarks prepared to be delivered this afternoon (via NYT media reporter Brian Stelter), FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski defends the compromise: "As we stand here now, the freedom and openness of the Internet are unprotected. No rules on the books to protect basic Internet values. No process for monitoring Internet openness as technology and business models evolve. No recourse for innovators, consumers, or speakers harmed by improper practices. And no predictability for Internet service providers, so that they can effectively manage and invest in broadband networks. That will change once we vote to approve this strong and balanced order." His full remarks below:

In an attempt to update 911 to current trends in modern technology, the Federal Communications Commission is looking to have the emergency service respond to text messages and video streaming from mobile phones. Though it may seem a little ridiculous at first, allowing for text messages and streaming video would actually help people report crimes without being overheard.