BENTON'S COMMUNICATIONS-RELATED HEADLINES for August 16, 2010
This week's agenda includes spectrum and, of course, network neutrality http://bit.ly/8XHls4
NETWORK NEUTRALITY/BROADBAND RECLASSIFICATION
The Google/Verizon Payment Plan
Why entrepreneurs need Network Neutrality
Open Internet Coalition to FCC: Don't Wait for Congress
ACA to FCC: Third Way Would Be Big Burden
How Clever is That? -- More Thoughts on the Google-Verizon Deal
Contrary To Popular Belief, "Managed Services" Aren't The Devil
Google Plan Disillusions Some Allies
Google Says Any Neutrality Laws Better Than Nothing -- But Not So
Internet Proposal From Google and Verizon Raises Fears for Privacy
Network neutrality is a technical, not a political problem
The Railroad Precedent and the Web
Network neutrality protestors lay siege to Google
Reporters' Roundtable: Network neutrality
Sandvine Expands Cable Support In Bandwidth-Management Platform
INTERNET/BROADBAND
Broadband Performance
Broadband Adoption, a National... meh, whatever
Frontier slips back on its broadband usage cap
Telecom Industry Opposes State Fees on Internet Telephony
Tapping the Web, 22,000 Miles Up
JOURNALISM
Confidence in Newspapers, TV News Remains a Rarity
OWNERSHIP
Zell to bankruptcy court: If lower creditors get money back, I want mine
Oracle's threat to Google mobile push
ACCESSIBILITY
FCC Report Shows TV Accessibility Complaints Continue to Climb
TELEVISION
Three Reasons Over-The-Top TV Apps Will Beat Big-Cable
HDTV gets lost on small screens
HEALTH
Private Sector Shows Support for Meaningful Use
STORIES FROM ABROAD
These headlines presented in partnership with:
China to Build State-Run Search Engine
Peru to cut mobile telephony tariffs by 53%
MORE ONLINE
White House Under Fire for Unspent Infrastructure Cash
Google to open 'Google Ideas' global technology think tank
back to top
NETWORK NEUTRALITY/BROADBAND RECLASSIFICATION
THE GOOGLE/VERIZON PAYMENT PLAN
[SOURCE: New York Times, AUTHOR: Editorial staff]
[Commentary] Verizon and Google created a stir by jointly proposing an alternative set of nondiscriminatory broadband access rules as the basis for new legislation governing the Internet. The overall effect would dangerously limit the Federal Communications Commission's reach. That's not where Congress should be headed. The FCC should have an expanded role in regulating what is rapidly becoming the most important channel of communication in the world. The Google/Verizon proposal gives broadband providers lots of leeway to offer preferential treatment to some and to choke off others. Most important, the two companies propose to exempt wireless communication from most government regulation -- a serious error. This is not an adequate framework to guide Internet policy, especially in a market as concentrated as the United States, where Verizon and AT&T control about 60 percent of wireless subscribers and 80 percent of Americans live in areas with only two wireline broadband providers. Consumers will lose if wireless goes unregulated. The FCC has been searching for a way to ensure an open Internet since April when an appeals court ruled that it did not have the authority to impose nondiscrimination rules on broadband. The problem was the definition of broadband as an "information service," applied during the Bush administration. In May, the FCC proposed to reclassify broadband as a telecommunications service, the right definition for this era. This process must be allowed to proceed. The FCC -- in consultation with broadband providers and users and Internet companies -- can best set reasonable rules to ensure that the open Internet survives into the future.
benton.org/node/40792 | New York Times
Recommend this Headline
back to top
ENTREPRENEURS NEED NET NEUTRALITY
[SOURCE: CNNMoney, AUTHOR: Fred Wilson]
[Commentary] Somehow Network Neutrality got painted as "regulating the Internet" when it is really all about not regulating the Internet. Net neutrality is about keeping the way the Internet works today: an open Internet where innovation is allowed and freedom reigns. In the past 10 years, the on ramp to the Internet has changed. Hundreds, maybe thousands, of dial-up providers have been replaced in the U.S. by a handful of broadband providers with local duopolies. We now have a wireless Internet in the U.S. with an on ramp controlled largely by four carriers (two of which have the dominant market share). And these access providers have invested heavily in packet detection systems that will allow them to use their dominant positions to "manage their networks." So now we have a situation where the access providers want to change the game. And they are seeking the regulatory approval to do just that. They want our government to regulate the Internet and they want those regulations written in a way that allows them to do what they want to do. A regulated Internet is a comforting thought to the access providers and a frightening thought to entrepreneurs and the ecosystem around them.
benton.org/node/40791 | CNNMoney
Recommend this Headline
back to top
ON MANAGED SERVICES
[SOURCE: App-Rising.com, AUTHOR: Geoff Daily]
[Commentary] If all you do is listen to the true believers of network neutrality then you'd think that "managed services" are a sign of the apocalypse, that the very existence of the Internet as we know it is threatened, and that we must save the open Internet from the self-centered anti-competitive instincts of major corporations. While some of these fears are legitimate, they're also clouding some fundamental truths by painting managed services as the devil. The most important thing to realize in this discussion is that broadband networks are more than just gateways to the Internet. These networks already deliver private managed traffic in the form of TV and telephone services. The question now is what other kinds of services could be enabled by the availability of prioritized access? The problem with much of the criticism of the Google-Verizon net neutrality compromise is that people are denouncing these types of managed services as a universal evil. What they seem to fail to realize is that there are many examples whereby applications and services may be better delivered in-network via prioritized access.
benton.org/node/40787 | App-Rising.com
Recommend this Headline
back to top
GOOGLE DISILLUSION
[SOURCE: New York Times, AUTHOR: Claire Cain Miller, Miguel Helft]
Google's compromise with Verizon is the latest collision between idealism and pragmatism at the company, which has long promoted the idea that its mission, organizing the world's information, is for the public good, as underscored by its unofficial motto: "Don't be evil." Some say that as Google has grown up and become a large multinational company, it has been forced to start weighing its business interests against the more idealistic leanings of its founders and many of its employees. "I don't know that Google pondered the moral decision this time," said Jordan Rohan, an Internet and digital media analyst at Stifel Nicolaus. "I think the business decision to cooperate with Verizon superseded the other complications and side effects that it may cause." But the proposal left Google's former allies, as well as many other technology and media companies, feeling disappointed and even betrayed. The risk, they say, is that without adequate regulation, Internet access companies could exercise too much control over what their customers can do online, or how quickly they can gain access to certain content. They could charge companies for faster access to consumers, hurting smaller players and innovation. The proposal from Google and Verizon was all the more surprising to some advocates because it was released just as broader talks brokered by the Federal Communications Commission were close to producing a draft compromise agreement, according to three people briefed on the talks, who agreed to speak on the condition of anonymity because the talks were supposed to be confidential. Unlike the Google-Verizon proposal, the agreement would have imposed some rules on wireless Internet, these people said. "We were very close," said one person briefed on the talks. Both the FCC and Google declined to comment on those discussions. After reports of a Google-Verizon deal emerged, the FCC called off the talks.
benton.org/node/40803 | New York Times
Recommend this Headline
back to top
GOOGLE SAYS SOMETHING BETTER THAN NOTHING
[SOURCE: MediaPost, AUTHOR: Wendy Davis]
Google's attempt to defend its neutrality pact with Verizon is being met with widespread skepticism -- and with good reason. Google's telecom counsel Richard Whitt argues in a blog post that some neutrality regulations -- any regulations -- would be better than nothing, which is what we have now. But Whitt is wrong. New laws that explicitly allow broadband providers to charge companies for faster carriage -- which Google and Verizon are proposing -- would be worse for consumers and entrepreneurs than the status quo. First, it's not true that consumers currently lack all protection from Internet service providers' whims. For one thing, subscribers still have their contracts with ISPs -- and companies that violate those contracts by, say, preventing users from using lawful applications, can face lawsuits, as occurred when Comcast throttled peer-to-peer traffic. Secondly, the Federal Trade Commission appears to have the power to intervene if ISPs falsely advertise their services. And, while the Federal Communications Commission currently lacks authority to enforce neutrality rules, that situation might soon change. The FCC is currently considering reclassifying broadband access as a telecommunications service, in which case the agency could apply some common carrier rules to broadband providers. Additionally, Congress can pass new laws. As long as the FCC and Congress are even mulling new laws, Internet service providers seem to have an incentive to refrain from degrading or prioritizing certain content. But the Google-Verizon proposal gives ISPs a big incentive to start discriminating.
benton.org/node/40802 | MediaPost
Recommend this Headline
back to top
GOOGLE-VERIZON AND PRIVACY
[SOURCE: New York Times, AUTHOR: Noam Cohen]
Is there reason to worry about the Google-Verizon network neutrality proposal? "The people who are pushing for a nonneutral world are pushing it for monetary purposes," said Cindy Cohn, legal director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which advocates for privacy online. "Interfering with packets," she said, "creates the space for this kind of surveillance." The fact is that monitoring Internet users is increasingly crucial to online business -- whether by e-commerce sites that recommend purchases or by search engines that remember what you looked for in the past to improve results or by e-mail services that place ads based on words in the messages. Eben Moglen, a professor at Columbia Law School who is an advocate for free software and online privacy, sees frameworks like the one proposed by Google and Verizon as emphasizing the business of the Internet at the expense of the privacy of the Internet. "As the network does more to adapt to what commerce needs, it becomes more and more about knowing what's inside the head of the user, about what the person is doing and buying," he said. Rather than a neutral Internet -- with its implied competition between rival businesses -- the people at Riseup -- a nonprofit collective based in Seattle that hosts e-mail and e-mail lists -- would seem to be wishing for a "plain" Internet that would merely facilitate communication and connections, and minimize the role of commerce.
benton.org/node/40801 | New York Times
Recommend this Headline
back to top
NET NEUTRALITY IS TECHNICAL PROBLEM
[SOURCE: San Francisco Chronicle, AUTHOR: Larry Downes]
[Comentary] Reclassification of broadband
would impose onerous "common carrier" rules on network operators, rules that predate the invention of computers. It would open the door to micromanagement of the broadband industry, new consumer taxes and the chance state and local regulators have been waiting for to get into the rule-making game. It's also illegal. Only Congress can effect such a radical change in the law. The FCC's reclassification end-run, as even its supporters know, will lead to withering lawsuits that could take years to resolve. In the interim, the investment climate for continued innovation in our broadband infrastructure will sour. There is a better way to resolve the network neutrality dilemma. The Google-Verizon proposal strikes a balance between those who fear a government takeover of the network with concerns that unregulated ISPs will someday close the open Internet. It calls for increased cooperation among industry participants but also asks Congress to give the FCC new authority to ensure the neutrality rules are obeyed. Net neutrality is not a political problem. It's a technical problem. And there's every hope that Silicon Valley can solve it without the meddling of lawyers, lobbyists and bureaucrats. Winning the peace is often harder than winning the war. But we should give Silicon Valley the benefit of the doubt. The remarkable value they've generated over the last 10 years has earned them that deference. [Larry Downes is a fellow at the Stanford Law School Center for Internet & Society.]
benton.org/node/40800 | San Francisco Chronicle
Recommend this Headline
back to top
THE FCC AND THE ICC
[SOURCE: Wall Street Journal, AUTHOR: L. Gordon Crovitz]
[Commentary] The reaction to the Google-Verizon network neutrality proposal suggests that the network-neutrality debate has run its course. Google made the simple point that competition justifies treating wireless differently from traditional access. Beyond ensuring nondiscrimination by providers with regard to content, does anyone really want an operating role for federal bureaucrats? Should government regulators assess the reasonableness of terms for cloud computing or pricing plans for cell phones? Regulations today leave providers uncertain whether they can earn back investments in broadband by charging for better levels of service. Few seem to realize the similarities between today's rallying cry of net neutrality and the demands in the 19th century that Washington regulate the rails. The railroads were the Internet of their day, a network of communications, goods and services linking the country together. The Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) was created in 1887 to ensure fairness and set rates, much as net neutrality proponents today want the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to regulate traffic on the Web. The unintended result: Regulators protected incumbent railroads from competitors, suppressed new technologies, and left consumers with fewer choices and higher prices.
benton.org/node/40799 | Wall Street Journal
Recommend this Headline
back to top
INTERNET/BROADBAND
BROADBAND PERFORMANCE
[SOURCE: Federal Communications Commission, AUTHOR: Peter Bowen, Shawn Hoy]
This paper analyzes residential consumer usage of broadband and the performance of fixed broadband connections in the U.S. The data and analyses in this paper were used to create the National Broadband Availability Target described in the National Broadband Plan (NBP), and therefore represent key inputs into the calculation of the broadband availability gap. The paper also explains how networks have evolved and could evolve over time and what drives network usage and performance demands. Data indicate a diverse broadband consumer population with several different usage patterns:
The average Internet user has been online for 10 years and spends roughly 29 hours per month online at home, double the amount in 2000.
Faster connections are correlated with more time online.
In the first half of 2009, the median broadband user consumed almost 2 gigabytes of data per month, whereas the average (mean) user consumed over 9 gigabytes per month.
Mean usage is driven by a small set of users who consume large amounts of data.
Overall, per-person usage is growing substantially (30-35% per year).
Based on FCC analysis, there are four distinct use profiles among U.S. consumers, each with different usage characteristics.
For these four use profiles, actual download speed demands range from 0.5 to 7 megabits per second (Mbps), with varying quality-of-service requirements.
Data indicate that 80% of broadband use falls into three of these profiles, which require actual download speeds of no more than 4 Mbps.
Usage is increasing with greater use of video and two-way, interactive applications.
benton.org/node/40784 | Federal Communications Commission
Recommend this Headline
back to top
BROADBAND AS NATIONAL PRIORITY
[SOURCE: Social Science Research Council, AUTHOR: Joe Karaganis]
[Commentary] Complex questions about relevance or, for that matter, the ranking of government priorities, lend themselves poorly to phone survey methods. The question of the 'relevance' of the Internet is, frankly, a weird one that lies outside most people's daily experience with the Internet. In the Pew survey, relevance is a composite of several other reasons for non-adoption, including 'not interested,' 'too busy' and 'don't need it.' Such reductionism is fine except that informants may also be engaged in reductionism or substitution in their answers. Our work, which was based entirely on interviews and focus groups, often ran up against an initial rejection among non-adopters of the Internet's 'relevance' to their lives, only to find those views revised or elaborated as informants reflected on the question and on their wider set of information habits and needs. We routinely found that people who expressed disinterest in a first instance would later signal difficulty or discomfort with Internet or computer use as a major reason for non-adoption. Pew separates these categories, leading to a finding that only 1 in 10 non-users are interested in adopting but 6 of 10 need support or training. Other slippage between terms was relatively common. These effects are magnified, we would argue, in poor or otherwise marginalized communities. The poor tend to be underrepresented in phone surveys for a variety of reasons, including concrete barriers such as lower rates of landline service or English fluency; and softer barriers such as socio-economic or cultural distance from the imagined average respondent for whom the surveys are designed. Issues of trust are also important in these contexts and shape respondents' answers (for this reason we relied on community-based intermediaries to arrange meetings and interviews). The government, in particular, is often regarded with suspicion when it begins to ask questions about people's home lives. And finally, many of the 'essential service,' questions involving education or health, touch on areas that some informants consider private. These issues take time and care to unpack. So while the Pew study isn't wrong, strictly speaking, we would argue that it is the wrong instrument to get at many of the more complex issues it chooses to explore in this space. Unfortunately, the results are easily used to take a swipe at an important new initiative. For our part, we stand by Finding #1 in our report: Broadband Access is a Prerequisite of Social and Economic Inclusion (and Low-Income Communities Know It). We're glad that the FCC knows it.
benton.org/node/40783 | Social Science Research Council
Recommend this Headline
back to top
FRONTIER BROADBAND CAP
[SOURCE: Fierce, AUTHOR: Sean Buckley]
Bandwidth metering is not popular with any broadband consumer as proven by the outcry against the trials conducted by AT&T and Time Warner Cable, but Frontier is okay with imposing bandwidth limits by softening the language of what's deemed excessive use in its terms of service (TOS). With much of the controversy over Time Warner Cable's metering and cap trials over, Frontier is now maintaining its 5 GB cap on its DSL tiers but it has removed references to 5 GB as being "excessive." How generous of them. Interestingly, when Time Warner launched its metering trials, Frontier ran an ad decrying cable's unfair bandwidth caps to get consumers to sign up for their DSL service. Of course, when the furor over TWC's cap trial ended, Frontier went right back to imposing their bandwidth caps. In one case, the ILEC conducted a metering trial in Minnesota that would impose an up to $250 a month fee on any user that violated the 5 GB cap on its 3-6 Mbps DSL service.
benton.org/node/40782 | Fierce
Recommend this Headline
back to top
VOIP AND STATE FEES
[SOURCE: CongressDaily, AUTHOR: Juliana Gruenwald]
AT&T, Verizon, Vonage and other leading telecommunication companies sent a letter to the Federal Communications Commission recently urging the FCC not to subject Internet telephony to state fees for the Universal Service Fund, a program that subsidizes telecommunications costs in rural areas. States are preempted from regulating Internet telephony, also known as voice over Internet protocol (VoIP), the companies say, citing a 2004 FCC order. Nebraska and Kansas have petitioned the FCC for a ruling that would allow states to collect fees on VoIP services for the Universal Service Fund. According to sources familiar with the situation, the FCC is considering a declaratory ruling that would accomplish as much. The Telecom industry letter echoes sentiments expressed earlier this week by House Commerce Committee ranking member Joe Barton (R-TX) and the ranking member on the panel's Communications subcommittee, Cliff Stearns (R-FL). According to the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, the law has already made clear that Internet telephony services are obliged to contribute to state Universal Service Funds. "There is no dispute on the law," said Brad Ramsay, the association's general counsel.
benton.org/node/40781 | CongressDaily
Recommend this Headline
back to top
SATELLITE BROADBAND
[SOURCE: New York Times, AUTHOR: Susanna Kim]
Satellite companies have been the also-rans of Internet providers. They serve a little more than one million customers, most in rural areas that have no other options. Their services can be painfully slow and cost twice as much as high-speed broadband. But two companies, WildBlue and HughesNet, are now in a race to change all that. Both plan to launch satellites in the next couple of years that will dwarf their predecessors in space. WildBlue's alone will have 10 times the capacity of its three current satellites combined. Such behemoths, the companies say, will enable them, at prices similar to what they now charge, to provide Internet service at speeds many times faster than they now offer -- as fast, in some cases, as fiber connections. Further, the companies argue, satellites can provide service more easily and cheaply per subscriber than their earthbound cable and phone company competitors, particularly to the 14 million to 24 million Americans who live in areas without broadband service. While the new satellites will transmit signals more quickly, there will continue to be slight delays -- a half a second or so -- on users' computers because the signals have to travel 22,000 miles up into space and back down again. There's also the problem of serving residents who are not able to point a satellite dish toward the satellites' location in the southern skies. And then there's the question of making sure satellite modem dishes are clear of snow in winter.
benton.org/node/40798 | New York Times
Recommend this Headline
back to top
JOURNALISM
GALLUP POLL
[SOURCE: Gallup, AUTHOR: Lymari Morales]
Americans continue to express near-record-low confidence in newspapers and television news -- with no more than 25% of Americans saying they have a "great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence in either. These views have hardly budged since falling more than 10 percentage points from 2003-2007. Americans' confidence in newspapers and television news is on par with Americans' lackluster confidence in banks and slightly better than their dismal rating of Health Management Organizations and big business. No matter the cause, it is clear the media as a whole are not gaining new fans as they struggle to serve and compete with growing demand for online news, social media, and mobile platforms.
benton.org/node/40778 | Gallup
Recommend this Headline
back to top
OWNERSHIP
ZELL WANTS MONEY FROM TRIBUNE DEAL
[SOURCE: Crain's Chicago Business, AUTHOR: Lynne Marek]
Tribune Company Chairman Sam Zell is demanding his share of repayment in the media company's bankruptcy if lower-priority creditors, emboldened by a recently released examiner's report, get anything. EGI-TRB LLC, the company that the real estate mogul created to invest $315 million in debt and equity in the 2007 Tribune leveraged buyout, filed a conditional objection to the current plan of reorganization this week, saying it expects its debt claims to be repaid if creditors whose trustee is Wilmington Trust Co. get any payment. The Wilmington creditors have about $1 billion in claims known as the "phones" notes. EGI-TRB is slated to get nothing under the proposed reorganization plan currently on file in the Delaware Bankruptcy Court. But that plan is now in flux in the wake of a bankruptcy examiner's report buttressing Wilmington creditors' allegations against Tribune lenders that Mr. Zell's deal left the company insolvent. Tribune attorneys have said that changes to the plan are likely.
benton.org/node/40780 | Crain's Chicago Business
Recommend this Headline
back to top
ORACLE'S THREAT TO GOOGLE
[SOURCE: Financial Times, AUTHOR: Richard Waters]
The legal war over software rights that Oracle launched against Google could hamper the Internet company's successful push into the smartphone market, industry analysts warned. Oracle's aggressive move was also a "nuclear deterrent" that would spread much more widely across the mobile devices industry, with long-term implications for many handset makers and carriers, said Mark Driver, an analyst at Gartner. The lawsuit, filed in federal court in San Francisco, accuses Google of patent and copyright infringement over the inclusion of parts of Oracle's Java software in its Android smartphone operating system. Android, which Google makes available free of charge, has been taken up by handset makers including Motorola and HTC, and in the most recent quarter phones carrying the software overtook Apple's iPhone in global sales. Oracle acquired rights to Java, a set of tools that make it easier for software developers to write applications that run on many different operating systems, as part of its purchase of Sun Microsystems earlier this year. The lawsuit shows that Oracle will seek to make more money from the rights to the widely used Java than Sun did, analysts said.
benton.org/node/40796 | Financial Times
Recommend this Headline
back to top
ACCESSIBILITY
ACCESSIBILITY COMPLAINTS
[SOURCE: Coalition of Organizations for Accessible Technology, AUTHOR: ]
On August 13, 2010, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued its first quarter 2010 Consumer Complaints Report. Among the general complaints, the quarterly report shows some disability-related consumer complaints/inquiries regarding video description, closed captioning, and emergency access to video programming. Complaints about hearing aid compatibility, accessible phones and services (Secs. 255 and 251), relay services and other disability requirements are not included in this report. COAT notes -- not for the first time-- that the FCC reporting about disability complaints/inquiries does not state any trends, outcomes or resolutions of these television complaints, or if further investigatory steps were taken. Hopefully, the new reporting requirements in S.3304, once enacted, will stimulate the FCC's Enforcement Bureau to more action.
benton.org/node/40779 | Coalition of Organizations for Accessible Technology | read the FCC report
Recommend this Headline
back to top
TELEVISION
OVER-THE-TOP VS CABLE
[SOURCE: GigaOm, AUTHOR: Michael Wolf]
With Apple bringing its second-generation living room box to market, it might be time for cable carriers to reconsider their decade-plus journey through the interactive TV desert. The Cupertino giant isn't the only competition, after all; Google's app-platforms are coming to an HDTV near you soon, the outlook for big cable's own app efforts has never looked more dim. So why are over-the-top apps likely to win out over the cable industry's efforts?
Carriers are too slow and cautious. Speed is perhaps the biggest reason carriers are being left in the OTT app dust. Cable MSOs have been cautiously developing their app-platform for over a decade. But they have been slowed down by a combination of factors: a large installed base of underpowered infrastructure, a fiscally conservative predisposition towards investing CAPEX, a lack of enthusiasm for the necessary market development needed for interactive services (at retail, developer and hardware partner levels) and glacial testing and rollout process for their interactive services.
The mobile-market proved the OTT app model works. In a sense, over-the-top won in mobile as well, when Apple, and later Android, clearly beat out on-deck carrier app stores in the U.S. If that fact is any indicator, Apple, Google and others building on their platforms could conceivably move ahead of the MSOs in reaching consumers with app-platforms in just a few years.
Where developers go, consumers will follow. Anyone who knows someone working on an iPhone app, raise your hand. Now how many know someone developing a Java app for EBIF/OCAP? Thought so. Developer momentum is key; with an installed base of hundreds of thousands of hungry iPhone and Android developers now seeing a new market for TV apps, chances are high that these markets will see an explosion of innovation over the next few years.
benton.org/node/40777 | GigaOm
Recommend this Headline
back to top
STORIES FROM ABROAD
These headlines presented in partnership with:
China to Build State-Run Search Engine
CHINA TO BUILD SEARCH ENGINE
[SOURCE: New York Times, AUTHOR: David Barboza]
In an apparent bid to extend its control over the Internet and cash in on the rapid growth of mobile devices, China plans to create its own government-controlled search engine. The new venture would be fresh competition for Baidu.com, a private company that runs China's dominant search engine. Baidu has seen its market share grow since Google retreated from the mainland earlier this year. State-owned China Mobile -- the world's biggest cellphone carrier -- and Xinhua, China's official state-run news agency, signed an agreement Thursday to create a joint venture called the Search Engine New Media International Communications Co. China already has the world's largest number of Internet users, more than 420 million, and also the largest number of mobile phone subscribers, more than 800 million. Private startup companies play a big role on the Web in China, but the government maintains tight control over Internet firms and censors what it deems to be dangerous or sensitive content.
benton.org/node/40775 | New York Times
Recommend this Headline
back to top
