Yes, Verizon has responded to the FCC's inquiry with just what you'd expect: some pretty vague excuses. You see, they need to charge such a crazy ETF.

"The higher (early termination fee) associated with Advanced Devices reflects the higher costs associated with offering those devices to consumers at attractive prices, the costs and risks of investing in the broadband network to support these devices, and other costs and risks."

Costs and risks, costs and risks! What they don't address is why they're justified in charging a fee that ends up being far higher than the difference between the actual cost of a phone and the subsidized price, especially if the contract is cancelled many months in. Isn't that all the ETF is supposed to cover? I mean, if you're relying on contract cancellation fees to pay for your network, well, I don't think you need to have an MBA to figure out why that ain't good business. [WSJ via Silicon Alley Insider]

All that's known about it is that it's 802.11b/g wireless-compatible and connects to a TV. Curiously, it's been filed under the 'display devices' category, for 'televisions, monitor, picture frame.' Any thoughts? A Wi-Fi adapter for Sony Bravia TVs? Something which will let you use your PS3 wirelessly? An adapter for flashing up a message on your Bravia, alerting you to the fact that your Sony Ericsson phone has finished charging? Answers on a postcard, please. [FCC via Sony Insider via Engadget]

With the model number PB99100, the HTC-built "NEXUSONE" (as it's listed) is apparently quad-band GSM/GPRS/EDGE, as we heard yesterday, with UMTS/HSUPA on the 850/1700/1900 frequencies, according to the FCC-digging Engadget. This means that the Nexus One will be capable of 2Mbps upload speeds and 7.2Mbps download speeds.

Other specs discovered amongst the FCC jargon include a microSD card slot, 802.11b/g Wi-Fi and Bluetooth 2.1. Got any more details for us? Hit us up on tips@gizmodo.com now. [Engadget]

The regulator is seeking comments "on how to encourage innovation," which basically means how to move past the total failure of the CableCARD system and on to something that will democratize how and where you can access cable video streams. If you're never heard about the CableCARD system, it's effectively the only thing keeping you from using your Xbox 360 as a DVR. A potential change could
open up cable signals to all devices, including your TiVo and Xbox 360.

And until very recently, you couldn't even get your Windows PC to be a DVR unless you bought it OEM from HP or Dell or someone, where they would install the CableCARD for you at the time of purchase. Quite opposite from the way people pictured CableCARDs would work—and how it will work shortly.

Just how bad is it? Ars Technica points out that in the FCC report, a grand total of fourteen non-leased set top boxes were available in the US at retail in 2008. That means that nearly every set-top box in the US is leased by a cable company, allowing them virtually unlimited pricing control and no incentive to innovate. Compare that to the 879 devices for sale in the truly competitive mobile industry, and you can see just how throttled the market is by the cable industry.

There's no telling what exactly is going to happen here, but at the very least it's good to see the FCC continuing their push for openness and sanity. We've waited long enough for something that's really not too much to ask. [ars technica]

You've gotta love the FCC these days, right? First they ask Google, AT&T and Apple just what they hell they're doing rejecting Google Voice from the App Store. Then they just don't fuck around when it comes to backing net neutrality. And now they're calling Verizon on its insane $350 ETF it's forcing people into with their "advanced" phones. It doesn't get much more pro-consumer than this.

[FCC via Engadget]

Microsoft, Google, Motorola and Intel have all shown interest, with devices needing to be GPS compatible—much like your average smartphone. [eWeek via Engadget]

Lots of gear that's still kicking around only has an analog connection with a cable box: like TiVos and Slingboxes made before 2004. And what about your TV? You'd likely be forced to upgrade to gear with digital ports (like HDMI) to watch movies protected with Selectable Output Control.

The studios are desperate to show on-demand movies over cable prior to their DVD release, but claim they can't without SOC. They say the tech protects their revenue by blocking easy analog copying—the so called "analog hole". Problem is, DVDs (a supposed secure format) get ripped and shared online, anyway.

Not only that, but it's almost a moot point. Warner Brothers (who signed the original SOC petition last year) released Observe and Report, and Ghosts of Girlfriends Past for video-on-demand this September—before their DVDs hit stores. Consumer advocacy groups, like Public Knowledge and the EFF, also point out that Magnolia Pictures, distributors like IFC, and more recently, Starz Media, are also doing VoD before DVD.

The MPAA says that the outputs would only be disabled for the new movies, and wouldn't impact any existing content. And they make the fair point that there's always a lag between new experiences early adopters get compared to those with older gear.

But I'm sorry MPAA, pull your head out of your arse. DVDs still get ripped, and one of the very studios you represent is still releasing on-demand movies prior to their DVD release. Why bother? Think about the huge customer base you're alienating, and stay away from the back of my TV. [Public Knowledge and PC Magazine via BoingBoing]

Maybe the more interesting, number though, is how many companies it takes to make Google Voice happen:

In its correspondence with the FCC, Google also reveals several companies that help it provide Google Voice. The list includes fiber-optic network operators Level 3 Communications (LVLT) and Global Crossing (GLBC). It also mentions Broadvox Communications, Bandwidth.com, and Pac-West Telecomm. IBasis (IBAS) is responsible for connecting outbound international calls on Google Voice and Neustar (NSR) provides "porting and carrier lookup services," Google says in the letter. Syniverse Technologies (SVR) provides the free text-messaging service.

That's eight, not counting Google itself. [BusinessWeek]

The FCC, being all about neutrality nowadays, is probably still going to flick Google in the balls over it, though Google says they "have good reason to believe [those numbers] are engaged in…schemes" that jack up carrier costs.

Given that Google's clearly happy to give something away for free that costs a lot of money to make happen, would they really even consider charging Google Voice like they vaguely threatened? Nahhh. [Washington Post, WSJ]

And before you dismiss the chart outright, check out your cable company's channel packages. Replace content provider fees with new network backbone charges, and cable packages with traffic or website packages, and hey, look, shit—this doesn't seem so crazy, does it? Click here for the full version. [Reddit via Crunchgear]

We've mentioned the FCC's plan to speed up new cell tower rollouts to get more 4G goodness in the air, and now they may shift a portion of the spectrum set aside for digital TV to wireless companies to help create more bandwidth.

Of course, broadcasters don't like the idea, and if you're happy with free over-the-air digital TV, you may not either. But it's clear that something needs to be done.

This latest idea is being considered as part of the larger U.S. national broadband plan, which is set to be made public in February. It's not yet known if the TV spectrum proposal will make into the final plan. [Wall Street Journal]

Microsoft:
• Windows 7: A Weekend Install Guide and More
• You Guys Had Some Wild and Crazy Windows 7 Launch Parties
• Japan's Windows 7 Whopper Is Real, and It's Horrifying
• Behold! The Saddest Example of Promotional Convergence Ever!
• Microsoft's First Retail Store Opens (Like Apple Store With More Colors)
• Windows Mobile 7 Screenshots Leak: Where's the Start Button?
• 38 Surefire Ways (Not) to Make Windows 7 Cooler
• 7 Reasons to Stick with Windows XP
• 27 Takes on Windows 7
• Windows 7 Review: You Can Quit Complaining Now

Apple:
• Apple iMac Review: 27 Inches and Less Chin
• Unibody Apple MacBook Review
• Apple Magic Mouse Review
• Time Capsule and Airport Extreme Grow New Antennas to Get Faster and Stronger
• Mac Mini Updates: Faster Processors, More Memory, and a Dual Hard Disk Server
• 10 Things You Need to Know About Apple's New Stuff

Barnes & Noble
• Exclusive: First Photos of Barnes & Noble's Double Screen E-Reader
• Barnes & Noble's Dual-Screen Nook: $260, Eats the Kindle's Lunch
• Barnes & Noble Compares Nook to Kindle 2: Biased But Fair
• Live From Barnes & Noble's Nook Event
• 8 Reasons You Can Finally Love Ebook Readers (Thanks to Nook)
• Barnes & Noble Nook Up Close: Yep, It's Real Nice

The Rest:
• FCC: We're Going to Make Net Neutrality the Law
• The Totally Predictable Cable Industry Response to the FCC's Net Neutrality Plan
• John McCain's "Internet Freedom Act" Seeks to Block FCC's Net Neutrality Rules
• Motorola Droid Unexpectedly Appears on Motorola's Site Ahead of Schedule
• Canon 1D Mark IV: The $5000 New King of Cameras
• Canon 1D Mark IV 1080p Night Vision Videos Are Simply Incredible
• Canon 5D Mark II Firmware Update Unlocks 1080p Video at 24FPS
• Nikon D3s Hands On Photos and Video: DSLR Night Vision Is a Beautiful Thing
• 48 Stunning Photos of Fall

He's introduced the "Internet Freedom Act", which would block the FCC's rulemaking process. He says the rules would create "onerous federal regulation", and constitute a "government takeover" that would stifle innovation.

"Today I'm pleased to introduce the Internet Freedom Act of 2009 that will keep the Internet free from government control and regulation," McCain said. "It will allow for continued innovation that will in turn create more high-paying jobs for the millions of Americans who are out of work or seeking new employment. Keeping businesses free from oppressive regulations is the best stimulus for the current economy."

I'm trying to keep politics out of this, but apparently his view of "Internet Freedom" refers to big business freedom, not Joe public (or Joe the plummer). It's strange, because I always thought that thriving competition was the best way to boost jobs and protect us consumers. Apparently not.

Lest we forget: Mac or PC? "Neither, I am an illiterate that has to rely on my wife for all of the assistance I can get." His words, not mine. Even if you don't agree with the FCC, is this really the right guy to oppose them? [Computerworld]

We fully appreciate that Chairman Genachowski and all Commissioners have approached a difficult set of issues in a constructive way. The Commission has provided a fair and transparent process to comment on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) adopted today, and we will participate fully in helping the Commission develop a record on these issues. To be clear, we regard this as a debate about means, not ends; we support a free and open Internet. However, we continue to believe the broadband marketplace is an unparalleled American success story and already offers consumers an open Internet experience. So, we welcome the opportunity to make our case that investment, innovation and consumer welfare are all enhanced by continued government restraint. Given the tremendously high stakes, we hope the Commission will approach these issues with a healthy skepticism of hypothetical harms, and with a full understanding of the very real consequences that regulatory action may have on investment, job creation, and the continued expansion and improvement of next generation networks.

We appreciate it! It's fair, and transparent! We supports a free and open internet! But hey, by the way, we hope the commission guts this proposal until it bleeds out, because it's dumb. Get that?

The event is still happening, but they got right to the meat. Here are the proposed guidelines—the first four are old, drawn from a nonbinding policy statement the FCC made regarding net neutrality in 2005, and the latter two, the ones that matter, are new:

Under the draft rules, subject to reasonable network management, a provider of broadband Internet access service may not:

1) prevent any of its users from sending or receiving the lawful content of the user's choice over the Internet;

2) prevent any of its users from running the lawful applications or using the lawful services of the user's choice;

3) prevent any of its users from connecting to and using on its network the user's choice of lawful devices that do not harm the network;

4) deprive any of its users of the user's entitlement to competition among network providers, application providers, service providers, and content providers.

5) A provider of broadband Internet access service must treat lawful content, applications, and services in a nondiscriminatory manner.

6) A provider of broadband Internet access service must disclose such information concerning network management and other practices as is reasonably required for users and content, application, and service providers to enjoy the protections specified in this rulemaking

Now, this is just a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, so it's not yet an actual, binding rule; this is the stage where the FCC seeks public comment on their proposal, after which they adjust (or not!) accordingly. The draft proposal, which Chairman Julius Genachowski and co. are universally expected to follow through on, would be open to scrutiny until January 14th. The biggest issue up for debate, aside from the core principles, is how to apply them.

The Notice will seek comment and input on these principles and their affect on internet services. With the tremendous growth of mobile and wireless broadband enabled devices, there will be a large question concerning the application of these principles to those devices.

That's the literal billion dollar question, which, rest assured, armies of lobbyists have a ready answer for.

What's important, though, is that this is what they intend to do, which is fantastic for net neutrality proponents, if not, you know, objectively fantastic—an open internet means no tiered service, sure, but the possible data caps and metered bandwith—two ways telcos and ISPs can recoup heavy users' bandwidth costs in the near-term—probably wouldn't be too popular either.

UPDATE: The five commissioners have now voted on the NPRM; here's how it shook out:

FCC votes on Open Internet NPRM: Genachowski, Clyburn & Copps in favor. Baker & McDowell dissent in part, concur in part

If I've got my procedural rulemaking protocols right (this is the iffiest of ifs, by the way), that means the process is going forward. Mazel tov, FCC.

UPDATE 2: Ars has a skeptical piece up about the vagueness of some of the proposed rules, specifically the definition of "reasonable network management processes" as it concerns rule six. It's fascinating, but presumably exactly the kind of thing that'll be publicly discussed during the vetting process. [FCC]

Seidenberg's points are sometimes fair, though often seem feeble. Net neutrality would bar providers from granting faster access to whomever they please, and Seidenberg suggests this will slow the transfer of, say, medical records. Mostly, though, he seems concerned with Verizon's profit margin if tiered service is banned, saying that will take away Verizon's ability "to make a return on their investment." The legislation, despite protests, is likely to pass, given that the five-person committee is controlled by pro-net-neutrality Democrats. Seidenberg really goes to town on the FCC, claiming they're favoring application providers like Google (who, along with companies like Amazon and Facebook, has voiced support for net neutrality) rather than service providers like Verizon and Comcast.

Check back tomorrow to see more coverage of this topic. [CNET, image also CNET]

Update: AT&T says that the letter was sent to "U.S. managers only" and that they "were providing important information to our employees, and it was up to them to respond personally. If they use their company email that is fine, too."

Specifically, he tells employees how to register to post comments on the FCC's net neutrality site using their "personal" email accounts, so it doesn't look like they're from AT&T shills, and lays out talking points for them to use, like "competition in the wireless industry is strong" and, hmmmmm, "the rules should apply to more than just network operators and should also include Web content companies like search engines." They're really pulling out all the stops, aren't they? Which should show you how truly scared they are of the FCC's proposed net neutrality rules.

If you want to comment in favor of net neutrality (or, um, not I suppose) to counter the lobbyist scum quotient, you can direct your comments here until Thursday. In the meantime, the FCC's busy tweaking the proposal, in particular the sections about network management—which is obviously what the carriers are most concerned about. [Washington Post]

In the letter, AT&T outlines a lot of their specific problems not just with Google Voice but with what they see as lack of regulation of Google as a whole. Their first main point is that Google Voice isn't merely software (which wouldn't be regulated by the FCC), but seeing as how it connects calls between users, it should be seen (and regulated) in the same way as typical wireless carriers. They've asked for an FCC investigation of GV before, but now we're getting some more in-depth reasoning and, even better, some smack talk. The salient paragraph:

But Google Voice is far more than just a software application. Rather, Google Voice uses telecommunications (supplied by its wholesale partner Bandwidth.com) to transmit voice calls between end users and it thus unquestionably constitutes "interstate and foreign communications by wire or radio" under the Communications Act, placing it squarely within the Commission's jurisdiction. Indeed, Google Voice appears to be a telecommunications service insofar as it transmits ordinary telephone calls between customers using the public switched telephone network.

AT&T further contends that if Google is not regulated, they could easily use their position as de facto "gatekeeper" of the internet to block access or visibility to cloud software or sites which they see as competition to their own services:

Indeed, if the Commission cannot stop Google from blocking disfavored telephone calls as Google contends, then how could the Commission ever stop Google from also blocking disfavored websites from appearing in the results of its search engine; or prohibit Google from blocking access to applications that compete with its own email, text messaging, cloud computing and other services; or otherwise prevent Google from abusing the gatekeeper control it wields over the Internet?

In terms of call blocking, Google does admit to blocking certain numbers, which they claim as sex lines (which have a high cost to connect). But AT&T found that they block more than just sex lines, which if true would make Google's position as a proponent of net neutrality less tenable:

In fact, Google is blocking calls to, among others, an ambulance service, church, bank, law firm, automobile dealer, day spa, orchard, health clinic, tax preparation service, community center, eye doctor, tribal community college, school, residential consumers, a convent of Benedictine nuns, and the campaign office of a Member of the U.S. House of Representatives.

AT&T has some smack-down words reserved for the FCC, too. In AT&T's view, it is the Commission's duty to hold Google to the same standard to which they believe everyone else has to conform.

And as an agency committed to "preserving a free and open Internet," the Commission should show no hesitation in ensuring its Internet principles are applied evenhandedly to the "network providers, application and service providers, and content providers—including Google—who are expressly subject to them today.

That's kind of formal language, but the message is clear: Oh, snap! FCC and Google, you done got served: How dare you show such favoritism! On the other hand, as TechCrunch points out, AT&T ends the letter by saying they don't agree that the FCC should expand its position on net neutrality:

AT&T once again emphasizes that the principles in the existing Internet Policy Statement are serving customers well in their current form and there is no sound reason to radically expand and codify those principles.

Basically, AT&T is saying that they don't want the FCC to pursue changes in policy, but if they must, Google better be regulated as much as anyone else.

The whole letter reads like whoever wrote it is modulated but really angry about how everyone's on Google's side. It doesn't look like AT&T is about to give in and support Google Voice anytime soon, that's for sure. [TechCrunch]

A brief recap: Google Voice doesn't allow calls to some rural numbers, sexy talk lines or conference call services because the access and termination fees to them are pricey. AT&T has oh-so-kindly asked the FCC to investigate them for not following net neutrality rules (hilarious, since AT&T is quite pissy about the FCC's serious desire to apply them to mobile broadband networks), largely because AT&T got smacked for doing the same thing back in 2007. The FCC these days, headed by Mr. Neutrality Julian Genaschowski, is all about investigating stuff, so they're dutifully asking Google WTF is up with that.

Google says they're not providing a phone service like AT&T, but a free software/web service that's a supplement to your phone, emphasis on the free part:

Google Voice is a free application and we want to keep it that way for all our users — which we could not afford to do if we paid these ludicrously high charges.

Given that Google Voice isn't even a VoIP service and runs on top of your actual phone service—not to mention, is invite-only—they sorta have a point. Plus, um, free is good. [Google Policy Blog via Ars]