Google-Verizon Recognizes that Wireless is Different, Tauke Says
The Google-Verizon deal takes wireless off the table in the FCC effort to reclassify broadband to be regulated under Title II of the Telecom Act because wireless is different, Verizon Executive Vice President Tom Tauke explained in remarks at the Technology Policy Institute’s Aspen Forum. The exclusion of wireless, at least for now, was one of the most controversial aspects of the agreement when it was unveiled two weeks ago (CD Aug 10 p1).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
"With wireline, we know there will be this connection in the home,” Tauke said. “It doesn’t move. With wireless, all of a sudden people all gather in one place -- in Washington, D.C., they all gather on the mall, or there is a traffic jam. That creates a much different situation when it comes to running a network.” There is also more choice in the wireless sector, he added. “There is a lot of choice in wireline -- more than some people acknowledge,” he said. “But, across the country, people can have six or more wireless carriers that serve their area or nationwide. In some cases, in supposedly hard to serve areas, you could have up to 20 carriers getting universal service support to serve these areas.”
Tauke also cited rapid, ongoing change, in the wireless sector as justification for not imposing net neutrality rules. “Two years ago you weren’t downloading applications on your wireless devices,” he said. “Now we have huge applications stores; hundreds of thousands of applications available to consumers.” Tauke also questioned whether rules for broadband transmission would make a difference. “You know what? We couldn’t find one instance where a wireless carrier was blocking an application in the network,” he said. Applications instead are being blocked by the operating systems developed by Apple, Google, RIM and a variety of others, he observed: “And the operating systems in some cases even have the capability after you download an application, zapping it out."
Tauke said many critics of the agreement misinterpret its language on tiered service offerings. Allowing tiered services means carriers can tailor their offerings to telework, healthcare monitoring, smart grids or smart transportation, all part of the National Broadband Plan, he said. “You know, for years we've had businesses that have used separate networks, virtual private networks, to be able to allow employees to track their benefits or give them the opportunity to collaborate with one another, to be able to work in different locations and send information back and forth, to be able to allow you to go to an ATM machine and pull money out of your bank,” he said. “All of these things have been made available on networks that also, in some cases, carry the Internet. Did it mean you didn’t have access to the Internet? No, it gave another set of services.” The New York Times incorrectly reported that Verizon and Google “have reached a business agreement. Wrong, this is not a business agreement; it’s a policy recommendation,” he said. “They said that we reached an agreement to prioritize Google traffic over other traffic over the Internet; again wrong. It’s just the opposite, no prioritization over the Internet."
"[Tauke] himself is dead wrong on why we do or do not need protections for wireless,” said Derek Turner, research director at Free Press, in response to the Tauke comments: “Precisely because so many consumers are starting to use wireless and it could be a viable alternative to wireline is why we need protections.” Capacity constraints mean carriers have “even greater incentives to engage in economic and unreasonable technical discrimination,” he said.