August 2010

Apparently, Verizon and Google reached a deal on how to handle Internet traffic, striking their own accord on policy being weighed by the Federal Communications Commission.

The compromise would restrict Verizon from selectively slowing Internet content that travels over its wires, but wouldn't apply such limits to Internet use on mobile phones. Verizon and Google have been adversaries over the issue, known as network neutrality. Verizon was among cable and phone companies saying they need leeway over the delivery of Web content to protect performance of their networks. Google led content providers and advocacy groups that say restrictions are needed so communications companies don't favor their own online offerings or those of partners.

"What is good for Google and Verizon is not necessarily good for innovation and competition on the Internet," said Andrew Jay Schwartzman, senior vice president of the Media Access Project, a public-interest law firm. The FCC must "stay the course" and enact rules "that benefit everyone, not just the largest companies," Schwartzman said.

Free Press president and CEO Josh Silver said, "If true, the deal is a bold grab for market power by two monopolistic players. Such abuse of the open Internet would put to final rest the Google mandate to 'do no evil. If reports are accurate, such a deal would effectively create two Internets where application and content innovators have to ask Verizon and Google for permission to reach mobile Internet customers. Such a deal would make it more difficult for independent and diverse speakers to reach a broad audience and diminish the value of the mobile Internet as a new marketplace for ideas. It would mean that mobile consumers would no longer be able to access the same websites, applications and software as anyone else on the Internet."

Gigi B. Sohn, president and co-founder of Public Knowledge, said, "The deal between Verizon and Google about how to manage Internet traffic is deeply regrettable and should be considered meaningless. As a legal agreement, it is not binding on either company. As an agreement in principle, it should not be taken as a template or basis for Congressional action. The fate of the Internet is too large a matter to be decided by negotiations involving two companies, even companies as big as Verizon and Google, or even the six companies and groups engaged in other discussions at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) on similar topics."

The Federal Trade Commission approved a settlement with Intel Corp. that resolves charges the company illegally stifled competition in the market for computer chips.

Intel has agreed to provisions that will open the door to renewed competition and prevent Intel from suppressing competition in the future. The settlement goes beyond the terms applied to Intel in previous actions against the company and will help restore competition that was lost as a result of Intel's alleged past anticompetitive tactics. At the same time, the settlement will leave the company room to innovate and offer competitive pricing. The FTC settlement applies to Central Processing Units, Graphics Processing Units and chipsets and prohibits Intel from using threats, bundled prices, or other offers to exclude or hamper competition or otherwise unreasonably inhibit the sale of competitive CPUs or GPUs. The settlement also prohibits Intel from deceiving computer manufacturers about the performance of non-Intel CPUs or GPUs. The FTC settlement goes beyond those reached in previous antitrust cases against Intel in a number of ways. For example, the FTC settlement order protects competition and not any single competitor in the CPU, graphics, and chipset markets. It also addresses Intel's disclosures related to its compiler - a product that plays an important role in CPU performance. The settlement order also ensures that manufacturers of complementary products such as discrete GPUs will be assured access to Intel's CPU for the next six years.

Under the settlement, Intel will be prohibited from:

• conditioning benefits to computer makers in exchange for their promise to buy chips from Intel exclusively or to refuse to buy chips from others; and
• retaliating against computer makers if they do business with non-Intel suppliers by withholding benefits from them.

In addition, the FTC settlement order will require Intel to:

• modify its intellectual property agreements with AMD, Nvidia, and Via so that those companies have more freedom to consider mergers or joint ventures with other companies, without the threat of being sued by Intel for patent infringement;
• offer to extend Via's x86 licensing agreement for five years beyond the current agreement, which expires in 2013;
• maintain a key interface, known as the PCI Express Bus, for at least six years in a way that will not limit the performance of graphics processing chips. These assurances will provide incentives to manufacturers of complementary, and potentially competitive, products to Intel's CPUs to continue to innovate; and
• disclose to software developers that Intel computer compilers discriminate between Intel chips and non-Intel chips, and that they may not register all the features of non-Intel chips. Intel also will have to reimburse all software vendors who want to recompile their software using a non-Intel compiler.

A panel chartered by Congress to review long-term threats to the United States has reopened a hotly contested debate on how the government should counter cyber attacks by calling for the Defense Department to expand its authority by defending all federal and key commercial computer networks.

The recommendation, included in a report released July 30 by the Quadrennial Defense Review Independent Panel, encroaches on the Homeland Security Department, which has responsibility for overseeing cybersecurity at civilian agencies. The panel, chaired by former Clinton administration Defense Secretary William Perry, said, "[Defense] should be given clear authority to support DHS for cybersecurity of both the .gov and .com domains so that DHS does not have to replicate the capabilities now resident in U.S. Cyber Command and the National Security Agency."

Aligning its laws with the growing prominence of online social media, Maryland now requires political candidates to identify their online campaign material.

"It allows them to freely use these mediums without having any sort of worry," said Maryland Candidacy and Campaign Finance Director Jared DeMarinis. "And I think that was the biggest problem beforehand -- there wasn't a clear set of rules or guidance on this issue." In time for the Sept. 14 primary, the legislation passed 11-1 by the state General Assembly's Joint Committee on Administrative, Executive and Legislative Review after a hearing last month, DeMarinis said. "By doing this early for this election, it allows them to know the rules up front and engage in these areas with a good set of rules and guidelines," DeMarinis said.

The rules took effect Tuesday, Aug. 3, and expand current campaign material law to include "electronic media" materials like social media sites, microblogs and online ads created by a political committee -- making them subject to "authority line" requirements.