Feeds

Google questions Verizon 'open network'

A closed door is not open

Remote control for virtualized desktops

Google wants to make darn sure that when Verizon opens up its wireless network, it actually opens up its wireless network.

In a new petition (PDF) to the US Federal Communications Commission, the world's largest search engine questions whether Verizon is planning to sidestep the commission's new open access rules, urging Kevin Martin and crew to put an extra clamp on the mega telco.

Thanks to some heavy lobbying from Google and friends, the FCC has attached an open access requirement to the so-called 700-MHz C Block, a prime portion of the US airwaves auctioned off earlier this year. Verizon ended up winning the auction with bids totaling more than $4.7bn, and in theory, it must open the block to any device and any application. But Verizon has spent many years keeping its world as closed as possible.

Yes, Verizon has told everyone it will open up its entire network by the end of the year. But Google wonders if its rival is playing fast and loose with the word open.

In previous FCC filings, Verizon has advocated a so-called "two door" open access policy where open access doesn't apply to Verizon-sold phones, and Google argues that this sort of open access policy is less than open.

"Verizon has taken the public position that it may exclude its handsets from the open access condition," Google's petition reads. "Verizon believes it may force customers who want to access the open platform using a device not purchased from Verizon to go through 'Door No. 1,' while allowing customers who obtain their device from Verizon access through 'Door No. 2.' As Google previously made clear, Verizon’s position would completely reverse the meaning of the rule such that the open access condition would apply to none of Verizon’s customers, and thereby render the condition a nullity."

So, Google wants the FCC to order Verizon to refrain from such a two-door policy, which the telco has failed to publicly disavow. Judging from FCC boss Kevin Martin's comments at last month's CTIA wireless trade show - and his general politics - we seriously doubt such an order will ever arrive. ®

Secure remote control for conventional and virtual desktops

More from The Register

next story
Download alert: Nearly ALL top 100 Android, iOS paid apps hacked
Attack of the Clones? Yeah, but much, much scarier – report
Broadband sellers in the UK are UP TO no good, says Which?
Speedy network claims only apply to 10% of customers
Virgin Media struck dumb by NATIONWIDE packet loss balls-up
Turning it off and on again fixes glitch 12 HOURS LATER
Yahoo! blames! MONSTER! email! OUTAGE! on! CUT! CABLE! bungle!
Weekend woe for BT as telco struggles to restore service
Fujitsu CTO: We'll be 3D-printing tech execs in 15 years
Fleshy techie disses network neutrality, helmet-less motorcyclists
Facebook, working on Facebook at Work, works on Facebook. At Work
You don't want your cat or drunk pics at the office
Soz, web devs: Google snatches its Wallet off the table
Killing off web service in 3 months... but app-happy bonkers are fine
prev story

Whitepapers

Why and how to choose the right cloud vendor
The benefits of cloud-based storage in your processes. Eliminate onsite, disk-based backup and archiving in favor of cloud-based data protection.
Forging a new future with identity relationship management
Learn about ForgeRock's next generation IRM platform and how it is designed to empower CEOS's and enterprises to engage with consumers.
How to determine if cloud backup is right for your servers
Two key factors, technical feasibility and TCO economics, that backup and IT operations managers should consider when assessing cloud backup.
Reg Reader Research: SaaS based Email and Office Productivity Tools
Read this Reg reader report which provides advice and guidance for SMBs towards the use of SaaS based email and Office productivity tools.
The hidden costs of self-signed SSL certificates
Exploring the true TCO for self-signed SSL certificates, including a side-by-side comparison of a self-signed architecture versus working with a third-party SSL vendor.