Google Defends its Verizon Net Neutrality Deal

Richard Whitt, Google senior policy director, defends Google's agreement with Verizon, and inplicitly its belief that the compromise makes sense as a wider framework, for any number of reasons, not the least of which is that it moves the ecosystem forward at a time of apparently "intractable" obstacles.

"At this time there are no enforceable protections, at the Federal Communications Commission or anywhere else, against even the worst forms of carrier discrimination against Internet traffic," he says.

As is true with all grand compromises, the Verizon-Google deal represents "the best policy solution we could devise together," says Whitt. "We’re not saying this solution is perfect, but we believe that a proposal that locks in key enforceable protections for consumers is preferable to no protection at all."

Whitt likely is right about the "best achievable policy solution" angle. Given the serious business repercussions, no endurable solution is possible that fails to give key participants key victories.

If adopted, this proposal would for the first time give the FCC the ability to preserve the open Internet through enforceable rules on broadband providers. At the same time, the FCC would be prohibited from imposing regulations on the Internet itself, says Whitt.

Though ISPs might prefer another outcome, including unrestricted ability to create new tiers of service that optimize end user experience for real-time services, the Verizon-Google compromise does not preclude such Internet-based services. But the decision is left in the hands of application providers, and is a prohibited option for ISPs. That is a big deal.

Nor is Google foreclosing its ability to act later on wireless network neutrality, should it become necessary, and also gains an important regulatory precedent. "In the spirit of compromise, we have agreed to a proposal that allows this market to remain free from regulation for now, while Congress keeps a watchful eye," says Whitt.

The deal also implicitly creates other precedents. The logic implies that network neutrality is needed when markets are not robustly competitive. Some observers would strongly contest the notion that the fixed broadband market is functionally uncompetitive. But the point is that Google gets recognition that, in the future, if wireless networks become less competitive, rules might need to be extended.

Whitt argues that the wireless market is more competitive than the wireline market, given that consumers typically have more than just two providers to choose from. Whitt also concedes that wireless carriers need to manage their networks more actively for several reasons that make wireless technologically more challenging than fixed networks.

"In our proposal, we agreed that the best first step is for wireless providers to be fully transparent with users about how network traffic is managed to avoid congestion, or prioritized for certain applications and content," says Whitt. "Our proposal also asks the Federal government to monitor and report regularly on the state of the wireless broadband market."

The other angle is that the compromise does not prevent Congress from acting to impose new safeguards on wireless broadband providers. Whitt further argues that the new fourth-generation networks already are more open than 3G networks have been.

"So consumers across the country are beginning to experience open Internet wireless platforms, which we hope will be enhanced and encouraged by our transparency proposal," says Whitt.

There is no danger of Internet "cannibalization" because all Internet access services would have to remain "best effort" services. Non-Internet services could be offered. The best examples likely are the voice and video entertainment services consumers already buy, or private network services businesses buy.

"So, for example, broadband providers could offer a special gaming channel, or a more secure banking service, or a home health monitoring capability, so long as such offerings are separate and apart from the public Internet," he says.

If needed, the FCC could step in, should abuses in those separate areas occur.

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/MKuf/~3/icZfrW2iPuc/facts-about-our-network-neutrality.html

read more

What's in the Deal for Google?

The recenlty-announced agreement between Google and Verizon Wireless on network neutrality has just a couple key provisions: the exemption of wireless services; "best effort" as the only service level Verizon can offer for fixed consumer broadband, Google's ability to do so if it chooses, and Verizon's ability to create new managed services that do feature quality-of-service guarantees (such as today's voice or video services).

Some might wonder why Google would agree to a deal that many network neutrality supporters think is too generous to Verizon. Others might wonder why Verizon would agree to permanently limit its fixed consumer access services to "best effort only."

The short answer is that it is a compromise giving each company something each considers important for its own future revenue growth, while trading away other provisions that might have been nice, but which are less central to the future business.

From Verizon's point of view, the agreement puts pressure on the Federal Communications Commission not to adopt rules that could be worse. The deal also protects Verizon's ability to manage its wireless networks, which always will have less physical bandwidth than its fixed networks, and therefore poses the more-difficult network management challenge.

Though it might like to have had the ability to offer something other than "best effort" levels of service on its fixed network, Verizon does retain the ability to create new managed services that are more like today's voice and entertainment video services, which must have quality of service measures, even if it cannot do so for Internet access services.

Google's wins might be more complicated to assess, on the surface. Some might argue Google gains recognition of a sort of asymmetrical framework: it can create quality-assured services (such as a streaming video service), if it likes, but Verizon is blocked from ever doing so. That importantly means Google can shape its own destiny without worrying that Verizon might create some form of paid quality assurance service that would raise Google's costs of doing business.

In a business sense, that is at the heart of much of the network neutrality position. Since Google's suite of businesses are based on the Internet, not managed or private network services, that means the whole gamut of things Google might want to do, now and in the future, in terms of services or applications that control latency, remain subject to its exclusive control. Equally important, Verizon cannot do so.

You might argue Google gave up too much in allowing more network management on wireless networks, but those networks always face bandwidth and congestion challenges that might technically require much more management. Google always can take up those issues later, should abuses arise.

The other angle is that if Google decides it wants to create a low-latency service of some sort, and deploys it for wired access, it also will likely work on mobile as well. As users routinely encounter options for "low bandwidth" or optional "high bandwidth" application interaction, so they might be offered a lower-bandwidth mobile experience and higher-bandwidth fixed access versions. The point is that if it goes to the effort and expense of creating low-latency applications, the same techniques should allow such apps to work on mobile networks as well.

But it is the "cost of doing business" angles that likely are equally important. As matters now stand, if consumers decide they want to consume lots more bandwidth, then it is Verizon's problem to make the investments, without direct hope of offsetting the investment costs by essentially getting video providers to pay some of the cost (creating video tiers that cost more, for example).

Verizon might hope to create and sell lots of accounts that feature higher bandwidth and cost more, but that's it. Verizon cannot expect to receive business partner revenues for doing so. As most observers think that is an essential requirement for mobile operators and telcos going forward, that means in the broadband access business, Verizon will be restricted to an end-user-only revenue source.

Verizon will have to hope it can create such partner revenue models in other ways. The agreeemnt does not specifically "commoditize" the broadband access business, but it does complicate matters for Verison to the extent that it bans any effort to create higher-priced "quality assured" access services.

On the other hand, should consumer demand for such services arise, Google retains the ability to create them. At the same time, Google gains assurance that, at least for Verizon users (and it likely hopes the agreement will ultimately apply to all broadband ISPs), Google does not have to worry about the cost of paying for upgraded access bandwidth demand and capabilities the ISPs surely will have to keep providing.

That said, there are always reasons why grand compromises are reached in the communications or other businesses: each of the key parties gets something really important, and avoids something that could be dangerous.

The Google-Verizon compromise is such an agreement. Each gives up something important; and each gains something equally important.

Verizon Thinks Customers Will Pay a Premium for LTE Access

Verizon Wireless executives beleive they will be able to charge customers a premium for access to the new Long Term Evolution network. John Killian, Verizon Communications CFO, says the company has said in the past, and continues to believe, that consumers will pay a premium for LTE quality and premium speed.

(Click on image for larger view)

Others are not so sure. But one way of describing the potential impact  is to look at Clearwire net additions in the second quarter of 2010.

As of June 30, 2010, 52 percent of the company's wholesale subscribers resided outside of Clearwire's currently launched markets, Clearwire says. That's the impact of revenues paid by Sprint Nextel HTC Evo users who live in areas where all they can get is 3G network access.

Of course, that is an indirect indicator, as the net additions were driven by consumer demand for the Evo device, which does require an additional $10 a month payment--not directly for the 4G network, Sprint is quick to point out.

Still, now having had a chance to use the 4G and 3G networks Sprint and Clearwire operate, there is a clear latency advantage for the 4G network, which should be experienced on the Verizon LTE network as well. Sites load noticeably faster on 4G than they do using the 3G network.

Killian says Verizon Wireless LTE speeds will be eight times to 10 times the speed of the 3G network. If that turns out to be true, and there is every reason to believe it will be, consumers likely will make the same value-price decisions they already make for fixed service, namely that there is an expectation higher speed costs more than lower speeds.

Devices also will make a difference, though. Obviously, enough people thought the Evo was worth buying that a $10 a month surcharge did not seem to deter many of the earlier adopters. And though the surcharge is not specifically related to 4G access, more than half of Clearwire's wholesale net adds (Sprint is a wholesaler) were from customers unable to get access to the 4G network immediately.

That is more a test of Evo demand than 4G, but it is illustrative. Consumers might well value faster mobile broadband enough to pay more, especially when bundled with attractive new devices.

transcript

webcast

Tiered Access Pricing the Result of Google-Verizon Net Neutrality Deal?

Well, yes, in a manner of speaking, but probably only in the sense that "cable TV" or multichannel video entertainment services are sold.

Google and Verizon Reach Net Neutrality Agreement

In a move intended to break the current logjam over network neutrality discussions, Google and Verizon have reached their own agreement on network neutrality principles, and the compromise offers something for most key stakeholders.


The agreement enshrines "best effort" access as the mandatory form of service consumers are sold. Internet access providers could not apply their own packet priorities to legal traffic. You might assume this precludes creation of new quality-assured applications. The agreement, though, seems to preserve this option, but makes it an option only application providers can supply.


Application providers, on the other hand, could create quality-assured versions of their applications, while ISPs cannot. 


The agreement also exempts wireless networks from any of the rules, and allows ISPs to create new managed services (sort of like cable TV or satellite TV) that are not limited to best effort features. 


The companies agree that there should be a new, enforceable prohibition against discriminatory practices. This means that for the first time, wireline broadband providers would not be able to discriminate against or prioritize lawful Internet content, applications or services in a way that causes harm to users or competition.

In addition to not blocking or degrading of Internet content and applications, wireline broadband providers also could not favor particular Internet traffic over other traffic. That is a key provision. It means an ISP cannot favor its own video services over rival video services, for example.

The proposal, however, also would allow broadband providers to offer additional, differentiated online services, in addition to the Internet access and video services (such as Verizon's FIOS TV) offered today. Such "managed services" would not be traditional "Internet access" or "broadband access" services, but rather new and separate services.

The Google-Verizon proposal also includes safeguards to ensure that such new online services must be distinguishable from traditional broadband Internet access services and are not designed to circumvent the rules.

The FCC would also monitor the development of these services to make sure they don’t interfere with the continued development of Internet access services.

Wireless broadband is different from the traditional wireline world, so the proposal refrains from applying new rules to wireless networks and services.

The Government Accountability Office would be required to report to Congress annually on developments in the wireless broadband marketplace, and whether or not current policies are working to protect consumers.

Both firms agree also about enforceable transparency rules, for both wireline and wireless services. Broadband providers would be required to give consumers clear, understandable information about the services they offer and their capabilities.

The two firms also call for new ability by the FCC to enforce these openness policies on a case-by-case basis, using a complaint-driven process. The FCC could move swiftly to stop a practice that violates these safeguards, and it could impose a penalty of up to $2 million on bad actors.

Both firms support reform of the Federal Universal Service Fund, so that it is focused on deploying broadband in areas where it is not now available.

Both companies say they favor turning the Federal Communications Commission's "Internet Freedoms" principles into enforceable rules. Those principles, already in place, stipulate that consumers have access to all legal content on the Internet, and can use what applications, services, and devices they choose.

Both firms hope the agreement can serve as the framework for the FCC's broader network neutrality rules.

Video Mashup About Google Verizon Net Neutrality Talks

Multisource political news, world news, and entertainment news analysis by Newsy.com

Google Denies Reports It Has a Deal for Packet Prioritization

Despite reports to the contrary, Google says it doesn't have a deal with Verizon on "network neutrality" that includes packet prioritization, much less paid-for prioritization, Multichannel News reports.


"We have not had any conversations with Verizon about paying for carriage of Google or YouTube traffic," said Google spokesperson Mistique Cano. "The New York Times piece is quite simply wrong."

"The NYT article regarding conversations between Google and Verizon is mistaken," said Verizon spokesman David Fish. "To suggest this is a business arrangement between our companies is entirely incorrect."

The original reporting from the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg had suggested agreement on a framework that would have included both "best effort" and "prioritized" services.

All we can say at this point is that the extensive talks between Google and Verizon Wireless will bear fruit. Each company has too much to gain, and much to lose, if the two parties cannot compromise on packet prioritization in ways that allow both firms to move forward.

Each has investors to persuade, at the very least, and both face a more-uncertain framework as the Federal Communications Commission proceeds with its network neutrality proceeding, as that process seems largely deadlocked on the important issues.

Verizon, Google Net Neutrality Agreement?

A slightly different take on what Google and Verizon might have agreed on, as far as network neutrality rules, is offered by Washington Post writer Cecelia Kang.

As Kang describes the reported agreement, Verizon would refrain from offering paid prioritization to the biggest bidders for capacity on its DSL and fiber networks, essentially preserving a "best effort" access regime.

But Google and Verizon apparently also agreed that both could live with assured access tiers of service designed to optimize the performance of voice, video, conferencing, gaming or other services that are latency sensitive, at least on wireline networks.

Kang says the agreement does not cover wired networks.

Post Tech - Verizon, Google make net neutrality pact

What the Google, Verizon Deal Tells You

Verizon Communications Inc. and Google Inc. reportedly have reached their own deal on how to handle Internet traffic management, Bloomberg reports.

The compromise, according to Bloomberg, would restrict Verizon from selectively slowing Internet content that travels over its wires.


That typically implies"no packet prioritization." Verizon, with its FiOS network nearly completely in place, seems to have been willing to concede that it has enough headroom, in terms of bandwidth, not to have to resort to packet prioritization at all when it needs to manage its broadband access business, at least if I am reading the report correctly, and if the report is correct.

What is not clear from this report is whether "best effort" services can be supplemented by application-optimized features. The compromise, as reported by Bloomberg, seems to suggest such quality measures would not be allowed on the Verizon fixed network.

The apparent compromise, though, is that Google seems to have agreed Verizon Wireless can do so to preserve network quality of experience at times of peak load.

There are some clear technology issues here, namely the fact that no mobile network ever has as much bandwidth as a fiber-to-home network. Network management typically is a more-urgent issue for a wireless network.

But the agreement likely also reflects the "fact" that Verizon's wireless network is viewed as the more strategic of the two networks as well. If something has to be compromised, Verizon seems to have concluded that bargaining away some freedom on its FiOS network is wise if it preserves ability to shape traffic on the wireless network.

It isn't so clear other service providers will be able to so "easily" strike this deal, since Verizon is among the few firms to embrace FTTH so universally. It simply has more bandwidth available to deal with congestion issues.

Still, the key issue here appears to have been Verizon's clear understanding that it could not yield on mobile network managment. Trading away a bargaining chip--no packet prioritizaton on the landline network--seems to have been part of the strategic thinking, at least if the Bloomberg report is correct. 

There could be some downstream impact on packet prioritzation suppliers, though. Verizon will still want to know what is going on. But it will not need tools to shape traffic, since it seems to have agreed it will not do so.

It isn't immediately clear how all the ramifications will work out. But Verizon seems to have set itself firmly on a path that preserves "best effort" as the only service level consumers can buy.

Google, Verizon Said to Strike Deal on Web Traffic Rules - Bloomberg

New Motorola Tablet PC Might Support Verizon Multichannel Video

Motorola reportedly is developing a tablet device in conjunction with Verizon Wireless that will allow users to watch television on it, including the sort of multichannel video fare Verizon fixed network customers can watch, the Financial Times reports.

The device, which will have a 10-inch screen and operate on Google’s Android software, could launch as early as this autumn in the U.S. market. The Financial Times report suggests the video features will "tie closely to Verizon’s FiOS digital pay-television service."

As typically is the case for such innovations in the video business, content rights discussions will be key. Perhaps the most-logical offering is a "TV Everywhere" service similar to what U.S. cable operators are developing, where a Verizon FiOS TV service subscriber could watch the same content on devices powered by the Verizon Wireless network, either within the Verizon wired network geographical footprint or perhaps within the Verizon Wireles footprint, which exceeds the fixed network footprint substantially.

What remains unclear is whether Verizon Wireless can rework rights agreements enough to be able to offer the equivalent of its FiOS services over the Verizon Wireless network to customers who do not live within the fixed network footprint. That of course would tend to conflict with other distribution agreements programmers have with satellite and other terrestrial providers.

Technology really isn't the issue here: content rights arrangements and compensation are the key issues.

more here

Will Clearwire Make its 2010 Buildout Goals?

Summer normally is the time of year when landline and wireless construction gets into really high gear. In Clearwire's case, it had better.

Clearwire is racing to add coverage and win customers before Verizon unveils out LTE network in the fourth quarter of this year. At the moment Clearwire might be only half way to meeting its 2010 timetable.

Some of us are anxious for Clearwire to meet its goals, on time. Clearwire might be even more motivated, as the spectrum and speed advantage the company has held over all its other major competitors will be coming to an end relatively soon.

Verizon's LTE network is supposed to be lit, covering 100 million people with Verizon's own fourth-generation network, and taking away much of Clearwire's marketing advantage.

Clearwire isn’t Even Halfway to its 4G Coverage Goals

Verizon Tests 10 Gbps to Home

Verizon says it has managed to push 10 gigabits per second through its FiOS trunking network, including 2 gigabit per second service to a customer’s house with two simultaneously-used PCs.


The XG-PON field trial connected a FiOS customer location with 10 gigabits per second downstream to the home and 2.5 Gbps upstream.

The test demonstrates the capability of the Verizon's FiOS network to accommodate a wide array of new and emerging video services and the growing demand for streaming video content and other bandwidth-intensive applications.

The latest field trial was conducted in May in Taunton, Mass., with a XG-PON system developed by Motorola, a supplier of BPON and GPON optical networking equipment to Verizon.

At the customer's home, the optical network terminal (ONT) received the 10/2.5 Gbps feed and used two data communication ports to simultaneously provide transmission speeds of close to 1 Gbps to each of two PCs inside the home. Combined, the two ports delivered approximately 1.85 Gbps in aggregate bandwidth in each direction.

Tests were designed to simulate what two different customers might experience while using their PCs to download, upload or share files to the Internet when served by a 10G PON system.  In addition, speed tests were performed to Verizon's speed test server located more than 400 miles away in Reston, Va., realized speeds of up to 915 Mbps between the PC and the speed test server.

"XG-PON can provide the capacity needed to support the explosive growth in bandwidth envisioned for new and emerging services such as 3DTV and Ultra HD TV, and the growing demand for streaming video content to the PC and TV, as well as the increased use of concurrent applications," said Vincent O'Byrne, director of technology for Verizon's FTTP architecture and design effort.


Verizon trumpeted the test as proof that its gamble on building out a large fiber-optic network will pay off in the future, as user needs for bandwidth outstrip the capabilities of cable and DSL.

The test appears aimed to reassure investors that Verizon made the right decision to deploy the fiber-to-home network, and to assure observers that Verizon can keep up with any new bandwidth initiatives cable competitors may deploy.

Verizon Pushes 10 Gbps Through Fiber Network | Epicenter�| Wired.com

Verizon Offers new FiOS Customers "No Contract: Service

Verizon Communications now will allow customers to sign up for its FiOS television and Internet services on a month-to-month basis at the same price as long-term contracts and without early termination fees. Though Verizon might have preferred the revenue stability contracts tend to provide, consumers hate them, especially the early termination fees.

And though many observers do not believe there is sufficient competition in the fixed broadband access market, the Verizon move seems clearly a result of marketing by its cable competitors blasting the Verizon requirements and touting the ability cable TV customers have to buy without contracts or early termination fees.

Verizon in January 2010 raised the early termination fees for FiOS customers to $360 from $179. To be sure, Verizon's economic rationale was the cost to activate a location. But that's a business issue Verizon has to deal with, as all providers incur additional expense to activate a customer.

But market pressure seems to have had effect. Effective immediately, all new Verizon FiOS customers can opt to pay for a bundle on a month-to-month basis, at the same prices charged to customers purchasing a term contract, and receive price protection for one year without an early-termination fee.

New FiOS consumers who order a Verizon bundle as part of a two-year contract can take advantage of the "Worry-Free Guarantee," allowing them to cancel their service within 30 days of the date of activation, with no termination fee.

The month-to-month option and "Worry-Free Guarantee" expand upon offers introduced earlier this year in Florida and Pennsylvania and that have met with very favorable customer response. It's hard to imagine those offers getting anything less than that reception, given the distaste consumers have for contracts and termination fees, despite the "goodies" that sometimes are part of the overall offers.

http://newscenter.verizon.com/press-releases/verizon/2010/new-verizon-fios-customers.html

AT&T Issues First Warning About Common Carrier Regulation

The great danger of the Federal Communications Commission's drive to regulate broadband access as a common carrier service is that it will choke off investment that is needed if we are to get the 100-Mbps network the FCC says it wants to see built.

Now AT&T has fired the first warning shot, saying it will reevaluate spending on its broadband access networks if the Federal Communications Commission decides to regulate broadband access as a common carrier service, the Wall Street Journal reports.

The warning can hardly come as a surprise. Both policy advocates and financial analysts already have warned that a capital strike is precisely what will happen if Title II regulations are imposed on broadband access.

"We would expect a profoundly negative impact on capital investment," warns Stanford Bernstein analyst Craig Moffett in a research note to clients.  "The only potential winners are the satellite providers, DirecTV and Dish Network, for whom incremental broadband regulation would dramatically reduce the risk of competitive foreclosure in the video business at the hands of bottleneck broadband providers," he says.

Former FCC Commissioner Harold Furchgott-Roth says the Federal Communications Commission's drive to reclassify broadband access as a common carrier service is "reckless" and "risky," will lead to a dampening of investment in networks, years of legal challenge and replaces an investment climate with a "casino" environment.

Of course, the drive to regulate broadband access as a common carrier service, despite being described as a targeted "third way" between unregulated information services and regulated common carrier services can be no such thing. The service either is an unregulated data service or it is a common carrier service under Title II. There is no permanent middle ground, as the FCC can later apply virtually any Title II common carrier obligations if it so desires, once the change is made.

In fact, the FCC's latest effort is the fourth time the FCC has launched inquiries into the status of information services, concluding three times before (Computer Inquiry I, II and III) that information or enhanced services are in fact to remain unregulated.

"The uncertainty the proposal creates will create a dampening effect on investment in the broadband business,"
says Furchgott-Roth, former FCC commissioner. Companies aren't sure what will happen and will delay
investment until there is certainty, he says.

If the FCC proceeds, and succeeds, "things will be tied up in courts for years an investors will gravitate to areas with greater certainty and opportunity for profit.

"There is a very clear correlation between certainty and investment," says Furchgott-Roth. "Unfortunately, both regulation and uncertainty is where we appear to be headed."

Some policy advocates will dismiss the AT&T threat as bluffing. "If this Title II regulation looks imminent, we have to reevaluate whether we put shovels in the ground," AT&T Chief Executive Randall Stephenson says, according to the Wall Street Journal.

AT&T could cut back spending on its U-Verse home television and Internet service, a move that would damage the FCC's other initiatives to spur more-rapid broadband adoption, at speeds up to 100 Mbps, for 100 million U.S. households.

U-verse service based on AT&T's fiber-to-curb archtiecture now is available to 24 million homes, and AT&T has a target of making it available to 30 million by the end of 2011. But AT&T warns that those plans could grind to a halt if common carrier changes the economics of fiber plant upgrades, which many observers believe is likely.

The reason is simple: common carrier regulation, even if touted as initially having a "light touch," would reverse decades of policymaking in the data services business and give the FCC ability to apply price regulations and wholesale obligations with mandatory pricing. The last time the FCC did that, in the wake of the Telecom Act of 1996, carriers put the brakes on new investment. In fact, Verizon did not begin its aggressive FiOS build until price controls were lifted.

Though the FCC says it won't invoke the most onerous Title II rules, such as regulating pricing, telecom companies worries that posture could be changed easily. And why wouldn't they?

"I'm a 3-2 vote away from the next guy coming in and saying I disagree with that, I take it away," Mr. Stephenson says.

If the FCC is counting on private capital to build the 100-Mbps new networks, and it is, then the drive to impose common carrier regulations virtually everyone expects will dry up investment is an unwise move. Whether the FCC understands this any better than it did in 1996 is questionable.

Latest Motorola Droid?

It appears Motorola is getting ready to launch the next version of its "Droid" device, called by some the "X," by others the "Shadow." It reportedly features a metal frame, as the iPhone 4 does. The Droid "Xtreme" supposedly features a 4.3-inch screen, as does the HTC Evo, has "HDMI Out,"  as does the Evo, but will ship with Android 2.1, a new version of Motoblur, and a 750Mhz OMAP processor, unlike the 1-GHz processor the Evo ships with.

You might get an argument about screen size. Some argue the X will have a larger screen than the Evo. It doesn't sound like that will be the case, though (not that a 4.3-inch screen is inadequate by any means). Some think the X will have a larger screen than the Evo, but so far the leaks suggest a same-size screen.

Some worry about the overall size of the device, but I haven't noticed the Evo is a problem in the pocket. Lots of people seem to be more adept at typing on a smaller screen, but I'm not one of them, so the larger screen helps when doing data entry. Others notice the heft of the device, as is true of the Motorola Droid, or Incredible. I also don't find that to be an issue.

But that's the whole point of having lots of devices with different form factors, isn't it? We all get to pick devices that make different design trade-offs.

Sprint May Throttle Heavy Roaming Users

Sprint Nextel Corp. says laptop customers using an excessive amount of mobile data while roaming could have their accounts temporarily suspended, though the carrier still doesn't plan to limit the wireless connection for its high-volume smartphone customers, the Wall Street Journal reports.

The key issue here is heavy roaming use, off the core Sprint network, and the primary reason appears to be that Sprint obviously incurs direct incremental costs when users are on partner networks.

Sprint is changing its policies for data service for laptops users with mobile broadband cards or USB modems will not apply to smartphones.

Sprint already has a cap of 5 gigabytes of data usage within the network, and 300 megabytes of roaming data. Starting July 11, excessive data roaming by mobile laptop users could lead to Sprint suspending the off-network service until the customer's next billing cycle, unless the customer opts into a plan with extra charges for off-network usage.

Sprint says it will notify broadband customers by text message or email when they hit 75 percent and 90 percent of the roaming data limit. The plans include 5 cents per megabyte on the Sprint network and 25 cents when roaming.

The threat of suspension doesn't apply to usage on Sprint's 3G network or the 4G network run by partner Clearwire Corp., says Sprint spokesman Mark Elliott. "Sprint does not, nor plan to limit speeds, nor change a customer's ability to use any particular application or Internet site."

Analysts are expecting an industry-wide shift to control the amount of data traffic consumed by users, so the Sprint move is not unexpected, though Clearwire continues to say it will not cap data usage.

The issue is whether the new move will complicate Sprint's "simplicity" and "simply everything" marketing message.

T Mobile USA already has in place policies to throttle users who exceed the 5 gigabyte monthly cap. AT&T has adopted new caps of 200 megabytes and 2 gigabytes.

Verizon Wireless has not yet made any specific announcements about changes.

Verizon Launches Group Communications

Verizon Wireless is launching "Group Communication," a way of simply handling one-to-many communications to members of a group.

Family Group Contact provides a toll-free number 888-894-7687 that automatically connects up to 20 members of an account with a call, text or voice message.

Businesses that have more than 20 lines can select up to 20 account contacts and connect with them using the toll-free number.

Members of a Family Group may include anyone on an account, plus one non-Verizon Wireless number or any wireline number not associated with that account.

Family Group Contact is $4.99 per month per account, and once subscribed, any member of the group with a Verizon Wireless number has the ability to initiate communication with the others.

"Group Contact" allows a customer to create up to seven customized groups, each with up to 20 different wireline, wireless or international phone numbers. Group owners can initiate communication with a call, text or voice message by dialing a unique phone number assigned to the group when it is created. Group Contact is $6.99 per month per line and includes Quick Contact, which allows users to ring all members of a Quick Contact group simultaneously.

Latest Voice 2.0 IMS 2.0 news: Verizon Launches Group Communication for Family,Friends and Business

Top-10 U.S. Telecom Sites Suggest

The May 2010 Hitwise report on site traffic has some interesting potential implications for communications service providers.

The top single site was Cricket, a firm historically focused on the wireline replacement market and using value pricing to replicate the unlimited free local calls element of fixed line service.

Verizon has three sites in the top 20, as well as holding spots two and three for traffic.

What is notable is that one of the three Verizon sites is the customer portal, indicating that people are becoming quite comfortable with using the portal for paying bills, asking questions and checking on usage and status information.

AT&T has two sites on the list, and the percentage of traffic for the four leading U.S. mobile carriers mobile sites is in line with their respective market shares.

T-Mobile USA also has two sites in the top 10, one of them its customer service portal, which likewise suggests user comfort with online support, as well as T-Mobile's possible success converting its customers away from paper billing to online-only billing.

Comcast's site in the top-10 also is a customer support portal. Back in the "old" days the top-10 sites were likely to be retail sales and transaction portals. These days, three out of 10 are relatively strictly customer support sites.

17% of Verizon Mobile Subs Would Switch to an iPhone?

AT&T’s iPhone-exclusivity deal hasn’t yet expired; nor has Apple announced plans to sell the device through a second U.S. carrier, despite what seems to be a constant stream of rumors.

But Morgan Stanley equity analyst Katy Huberty has estimated that nearly 17 percent of all Verizon mobile customers would upgrade to an iPhone when given a chance to do so.

“There is substantial pent up iPhone demand within the Verizon installed base as 16.8 percent of Verizon subscribers said they are ‘very likely’ to purchase an iPhone if offered on the Verizon Network,” Huberty says. “This 16.8 percent is higher than AT&T subscriber’s 14.6 percent extreme interest in the current AT&T iPhone and well above the overall iPhone extreme interest of 7.5 percent.”

Assuming Verizon does add the iPhone to its smartphone lineup and that most of its subscribers who said they were “very likely” to purchase the device do so over a two-year period, Huberty estimates Verizon would sell about seven million to eight million iPhones annually, for a couple of years, at least.

Huberty does not appear to be among those who believe existing iPhone customers on AT&T's network would switch over to Verizon. Sure, there will some switchers, but Huberty does not think it will be a sizable number of subscribers.

In markets where the iPhone has gone from single-carrier to multiple-carrier distribution, such as France, the original iPhone carrier that lost exclusivity hasn’t suffered much at all.

Beyond this, there’s the issue of early-termination fees, which will make it difficult for current AT&T iPhone users to flee, says Huberty: Also, since it appears 70 percent of U.S. wireless accounts, as well as about 70 percent of AT&T's accounts, are part of a family plan, it would be even harder to switch, as the entire family account would have to change.

The early termination fees for a five-line account would be substantial, depending on when in the two-year cycle the switch occurred.

Can Clearwire Break Into Top-Five Mobile Ranks?

There being somewhere between 234 million and 238 million mobile customers in the U.S. market, one percent of market share represents about 2.4 million customers.

That means Clearwire now has less than half a percent market share, as it has about a million customers.

WiMAX no longer offering an advantage over Long Term Evolution, despite its headstart in the market for 4G services, one has to wonder whether it is realistic to expect Clearwire to reach the ranks of the top five contenders.

Clearwire is in eighth position at the moment, but with a healthy gap between it and number-seven Leap, which most observers think will become part of another company in the not-too-distant future. MetroPCS is the most-often-mentioned partner.

That would clear the ranks above Clearwire, allowing it to move to spot seven, but with a bigger gap than it now faces for future moves. A merged Leap and MetroPCS would have 12 million to 13 million subscribers.

Clearwire would have to leapfrog US Cellular to take spot number six, assuming US Cellular itself did not wind up as part of one the largest carriers.

One suspects Clearwire's center of gravity will have shifted to wholesale customers, rather than retail, several years into the future, as Sprint and Clearwire's cable customers ramp up sales of 4G services.

Breaking into the  top five retail ranks seems impossibly distant.