Paranoid Android: the worst way to complain about net neutrality

After this week's passage of an open Internet rule at the Federal Communication Commission, some of the Web's pundits had a tough time deciding whether the agency is more stupid than it is corrupt, or more corrupt than it is stupid. Sadly, all the episode really shows is that bloggers often get a bad rap for good reasons.

The accusations started after Engadget read the FCC press release issued yesterday after the net neutrality vote. The complete text of the new rules is not yet available, the FCC tells Ars, because the new Order was opposed by two commissioners and thus has to address their objections before being released. Instead, the press office yesterday sent out snippets from the most crucial bits of the Order. One of these gave the FCC's reasons for not applying the same "unreasonable discrimination" standard to wireless that it applied to wired networks.

And at the end of this section come the line: "Further, we recognize that there have been meaningful recent moves toward openness, including the introduction of open operating systems like Android." With that, it was off to the races.

Slightly more paranoid

Engadget was incredulous. "It doesn't matter how open your OS is when you're stuck with a filtered and throttled connection, and it's a pretty huge stretch to think Android's openness (however you want to define it) has anything to do with network access itself… If we were slightly more paranoid, we'd be pretty sure there's a link between the FCC's Android mention and the combined furious lobbying of Google and Verizon."

Well, if Engadget won't come right out and make the charge, who might muster up the paranoia to do so? Take it away, TechCrunch:

I am slightly more paranoid. What the hell is Android doing in that statement?…

Now the FCC is using the “openness” label to screw us on net neutrality? Great.

Why doesn’t the FCC just say something like: “We just attended this great Google conference and heard that Android was open. Therefore, we see no need to regulate mobile broadband. It’s open, you see. That’s good for everyone. That means that everyone is going to do the right thing. An open operating system ensures there won’t be any throttling or filtering. Why? Because. Well. Open! Verizon agrees.”

It was only a month ago that FCC head Julius Genachowski said that the Verizon/Google proposal “slowed down” the process of coming up with a net neutrality proposal. Apparently, that’s because they had to rewrite the thing to include exactly what Verizon and Google agreed upon.

Less dramatic were comments from TechDirt, which seemed to lean more towards the "incompetence" rather that "greed" side of the scale.

Just because Android is a more open operating system has nothing to do with network discrimination or questions about the end-to-end principle of networks. Making such a statement suggests that the FCC doesn't understand the difference between an operating system and a mobile network... and that's just scary.

BoingBoing contented itself with a suggestion that the FCC wasn't even willing to figure out the difference between Android and a cell network: "Though not the only reason given in the FCC's press release, conflating the appliance with the pipe does sound like a shibboleth regarding the Commission's willingness to understand the issues."

Then there were the commenters: "No what probably happened is this: Old people who don't get it were in charge of making these rules. Google talked to them and said 'Look at our open-source Android, see, open-source.' And the old people said, 'yeah that makes sense' and then innovation died."

Indeed, that makes perfect sense, since old people are so stupid.

What's actually being claimed

There's more than a hint of "From my basement, I stab at thee!" to all this, but the sad irony to these charges of incompetence is that the writers don't themselves appear to comprehend what the FCC is saying. You don't have to agree with the argument being made here (we don't), but at least attempting to understand it is a good first step.

Not one of the sites we mentioned quoted more than three sentences from the FCC Order, but here's the complete argument:

Mobile broadband presents special considerations that suggest differences in how and when open Internet protections should apply. Mobile broadband is an earlier-stage platform than fixed broadband, and it is rapidly evolving. For most of the history of the Internet, access has been predominantly through fixed platforms—first dial-up, then cable modem and DSL services. As of a few years ago, most consumers used their mobile phones primarily to make phone calls and send text messages, and most mobile providers offered Internet access only via “walled gardens” or stripped down websites. Today, however, mobile broadband is an important Internet access platform that is helping drive broadband adoption, and data usage is growing rapidly. The mobile ecosystem is experiencing very rapid innovation and change, including an expanding array of smartphones, aircard modems, and other devices that allow mobile broadband providers to enable Internet access; the emergence and rapid growth of dedicated-purpose mobile devices like e-readers; the development of mobile application (“app”) stores and hundreds of thousands of mobile apps; and the evolution of new business models for mobile broadband providers, including usage-based pricing.

Moreover, most consumers have more choices for mobile broadband than for fixed broadband. Mobile broadband speeds, capacity, and penetration are typically much lower than for fixed broadband, though some providers have begun offering 4G service that will enable offerings with higher speeds and capacity and lower latency than previous generations of mobile service. In addition, existing mobile networks present operational constraints that fixed broadband networks do not typically encounter. This puts greater pressure on the concept of “reasonable network management” for mobile providers, and creates additional challenges in applying a broader set of rules to mobile at this time. Further, we recognize that there have been meaningful recent moves toward openness, including the introduction of open operating systems like Android. In addition, we anticipate soon seeing the effects on the market of the openness conditions we imposed on mobile providers that operate on upper 700MHz C-Block spectrum, which includes Verizon Wireless, one of the largest mobile wireless carriers in the U.S.

In light of these considerations, we conclude it is appropriate to take measured steps at this time to protect the openness of the Internet when accessed through mobile broadband.

The FCC is not concerned here solely with "network neutrality," which is one reason it prefers the term "open Internet." It cares about the entire ecosystem. Indeed, talking about "net neutrality" without talking about the devices, apps, and operating systems that access the network is pointless. Android and the Verizon cell network, to take two examples, simply don't exist in isolation from one another.

Think back to a decade ago. Devices were locked down hard and controlled by the major carriers. Even a few years back, you had to take whatever little apps your carrier thought fit to allow, and on the devices they saw fit to allow. In such a situation, the FCC could mandate that the cell network be as "neutral" as you care to define that term, and it wouldn't matter; providers still controlled the devices and the apps and, in many cases, the OS.

A cell network might be so neutral that even Free Press would love it, but if the carriers didn't allow a Skype app, all that neutrality in the network didn't matter (this is the reason that the new open Internet order actually says that carriers can't ban apps "that compete with the provider's voice or video telephony services").

You need openness on both the edge (the device, the OS) and in the core (the network). Just look at the world of personal computers. If every PC operating system was locked down and only came with apps preapproved by your Internet provider, wouldn't having a more open OS be a key part of an "open Internet"?

That's the claim being made. Android is mentioned (last) simply because it goes beyond things like iOS and allows more devices to be made more quickly and more cheaply (even horrible, horrible tablets), thanks in part to its open source code. And those devices are increasingly able to buy connectivity from carriers (Verizon is one of the furthest along on opening its network to any safe device).

The rise of devices not sold by carriers, the birth of app stores, the development of open mobile OSes, a new openness to serving any device, and openness rules on the key 700MHz spectrum block leased by Verizon—they all combine to create an ecosystem that's moving in the right direction. In addition, there's often more competition than in wireline.