By taking a subsidy on your phone up front (such as on the iPhone 3G), you're paying less in exchange basically telling AT&T that you're going to stick with them for 2 years. If you want to leave, you can pay that $175 and get out of your contract. In this case, with the iPhone 3G, it basically lets you walk away with a iPhone 3G that you can use on T-Mobile for $374. That's not too shabby.

But a recent AP report said that Sprint waived all ETFs to a government agency that was signed up with it, essentially because "the government will never, never accept such penalty amounts." [Ars Technica]

Kevin basically responds that there isn't enough subsidation in the US.

Mossberg moves onto openness of the networks.

Kevin Martin is saying that both consumers and entrepreneurs want it. So in the last auction, they put a condition in that the spectrum needs to be open to any handset or application. And our willingness to embrace that is important. We're not completely there yet, so that every major carrier is embracing openness.

Kara: Would you have done this openness thing before Google spoke up?
Verizon: You see in Japan and Korea that what networks can do when open. But in the past, customers wanted to do things like downloading apps to their phones. And that increased as the broadband speeds picked up.

If someone builds a device that isn't efficient, or uses too much bandwidth, we have to be careful. The shared resource [of the wireless network] is not like a DSL line. (Funny, isn't that what the Net neutrality enemies are saying is a shared resource, too? B.L.)

Mossberg: Will rates be the same for plans using phones that we didn't buy from you?
Lowell: They will be the same, but the functionalities might be different, because of your handset. (Obviously —B.L.)

Mossberg: So you're purely a provider of network services then?
Lowell: Yes.

Mossberg: Let's talk about cancellation fees. How to you justify charging people $175-$200 to cancel plans that have already worked through their subsidation.
Lowell: We don't do that anymore, as of a year ago. In Italy, they don't allow subsidization for these reasons. We tier our termination fees so that over time they get lower. And we sell all our phones without any subsidies as an option but 98% of the people choose the contract. If subsidies were outlawed, we'd have no problem and no other carriers would, too.

Kevin: It should be declined over time if its a recovering fixed cost. There should be a reasonable amount of time to take your phone/service home and try it out. There's a 14-day allowance for this. Some people are wondering what restocking fees should be, too.

Kevin on Net netrality: We have to allow carriers to manage their networks without limiting consumers access to info, but not only info but innovation.

Verizon on Wireless EVDO and 3G vs HSDPA (ATT claimed that EVDO's roadmap is limited): We study a lot of competitor claims. I've got an engineering background and there aren't a lot of miracles out there. We're reliable and fast, and we're not going to relinquish that. (Fluff, didn't address the competitive question.—B.L.)

Martin: For the first time in 10 years, we enforced the rule that the cable companies needed to open up and that probably contributed to Sony's news this week in collaboration with the cable companies.

Lowell on Coverage maps: What DB level constitutes coverage? There's no standard, and I'd be fine if some rules were made. Same with dropped call data. We need those rules before we can get fair comparisons between companies.

D is Done!
[All Things D]

Basically, the peg is that most people in Vermont can't get an iPhone, since AT&T only has roaming coverage there, and none of the carriers in the area can offer it. While it sounds like a nice, egalitarian thing the gov't could latch onto, the petition will probably fail.

As big as FCC Chairman Kevin Martin is on promoting competition, it's really only particular kinds of competition, and this doesn't really fall into the rubric. Moreover, this isn't the first time this kind of petition has been filed, and it's been smacked down every time before. Sorry, Green Mountain Staters and boondocks-dwellers, you're probably not going to get an iPhone till iPhone 4 or 5, when that AT&T exclusive finally runs out. [WSJ via Silicon Alley Insider]

According to their data, "the results show a significant enough difference in the level of resets from one network operator to another, to warrant asking certain network operators to describe their network management practices," and AT&T, Cablevision and AOL are at the top of the heap. In our feature on ISP network management, while AT&T directly stated its "techniques don't include degrading or blocking traffic," they did decline to elaborate on what they did do.

While in Comcast's case, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin told a Senate committee they lied about throttling torrents only during periods of congestion and never issued a flat denial, AT&T's repeated, direct counters incline us to believe them. But we still agree with Azureus's goal, to push ISPs to be completely transparent about how they manage their network—we'll leave whether the FCC should mandate net neutrality up to the policy wonks. Besides, it's looking like the FCC is moving toward transparency regulations anyway, if not neutrality. [PC World]

He continues that "Based on testimony we've received thus far, this equipment was typically deployed over a wider geographic area or system, and is not even capable of knowing when an individual ... segment of the network is congested."

Honestly, the Comcast/P2P/net neutrality story is a bit played out, and frustrating, because nothing material has really happened, and I'm actually sort of tired of it. The major reason I'm posting this is because I was specifically told something by Comcast PR—which I gave the benefit of the doubt, because while PR cajoles and spruces, they rarely intentionally deceive—which the chairman of the FCC is stating to be categorically untrue. That's unfortunate, and disconcerting.

While we should always fact check, we shouldn't have to worry about being lied to. I'm waiting for them to get back to me, and I hope there's just some mixed signals going on here, but their response to Computerworld, that doesn't flat-out deny Martin's accusations, isn't very reassuring. [Computerworld via /.]

The Wireless Internet Nationwide for Families Act was introduced by Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) and backed by Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Rep. Chris Cannon (R-Utah). CNet points out that the bill sounds like a plan proposed by a startup called M2Z, which wanted to build a 384-kilobit network on this spectrum that was free, but ad-supported. If this becomes a legit spectrum auction, M2Z would presumably be one of the bidders (the FCC insisted that the company play by the usual auction rules). Rep. Eshoo says that her plan will hopefully engender "a new kind of national broadband service provider."

My instinct is that it isn't going to get very far, for assorted reasons:
• No company with enough cash to build a network like this would take the risk on a completely new business model.
• An "ad-supported" system of weak wireless broadband might be more annoying than useful, even for people who can't afford an alternative.
• The unfortunates targeted for this service would still have to buy or be given equipment that runs on the particular frequency band.
• If all you need to do is promise those low speeds, you could more cheaply create a compressed dial-up service that runs over traditional copper-wire phone lines.
• In the recently concluded 700MHz auction, the so-called D Block was left untouched because of its requirement of a nationwide public-safety network.

Sometimes I wish politicians needed higher-ed degrees in order to serve. This scheme could have used expertise in econ, psych, engineering, maybe even a little history. [CNet]

FCC Chairman Kevin Martin:

"Application designers need to understand what will and what will not work on the network, and consumers must be fully informed about the exact nature of the service they are purchasing."

"Particularly as broadband providers are trying to provide tiers of service, it's critical to make sure that we are understanding that the broadband network operators are able to deliver the speeds and service that they are selling."

Poor Comcast, it really is looking like their whole P2P vaudeville show might not stop the FCC after all. If none of this made any sense to you, check out our quick guide to ISPs and network practices, and what they mean for you. [Reuters]

Adelstein half dodged that with a question: "The problem is, how can you ever tell what's illegal?" Well you can't, not without some serious filtering and snooping by ISPs, and a lot of wrangling over whether uploading or downloading is deemed piracy. And what about telling the difference between illegally sharing a movie from a big studio, and sharing an independently-produced movie designed for P2P sharing? Clearly, the FCC isn't comfortable going all in for content filtering, at least not yet.

We'll just have to watch to see what this implies for the final net neutrality guidelines. [Ars Technica]

Interestingly, the open access C block was the only one to march past its reserve price of $4.6 billion (courtesy of the Goog), with a winning bid of $4.744 billion, probably by Verizon. The winners can claim their prize in less than a year. Good times for all to ensue! [RCR News]

"We're hopeful that that will be made available so that Wi-Fi can explode in terms of its usage, even out into some of these less dense areas where distance has been a big problem for Wi-Fi."

Microsoft along with Google, Dell, HP, Intel and Philips, have been lobbying the FCC to permit white-space devices, which they have been continuously submitting for testing. Broadcasters and others fear static and other kinds of interference.

Dennis Wharton, a spokesman for the National Association of Broadcasters, argues for the regulated model:

"Broadband penetration could be drastically improved through a fixed, licensed service without interference to TV reception. Unfortunately, Microsoft continues to push for an unlicensed technology that simply does not work...TV viewers should not be inundated by the inevitable interference caused by such faulty devices."

Microsoft's chief research and strategy officer, Craig Mundie, addressed the situation in a more desperate tone:

White space activity today is sort of our last hope to get some good spectrum.

It is reported that the henchmen were identifiable by the yellow highlighters they wore. Are there denials? No! Comcast is admitting that they paid people to hold seats for local employees who wanted to attend the hearing. And although it is reported that this tactic is not uncommon at congressional hearings, I don't care. If you needed proof that Cable is up to no good, here it is. Absolutely Comcastarded. [BB]

"The time has come for a specific enforceable principle of nondiscrimination. This principle should allow for reasonable network management, but make crystal clear that broadband network operators cannot shackle the promise of the Internet."

Here's why I'm a Kevin Martin fanboy: He called out Comcast for selling tiered bandwidth packages while crapping up the service at the same time, saying "it's a little odd" before asking, "Doesn't it undermine your arguments and isn't it inconsistent?"

Topping it off, the NY Attorney General just subpoenaed Comcast for information about its non-neutral network practices, so we might be looking at even more regulatory beatdowns.

It sucks to be Comcast right now, but I've never been happier with the FCC. [NYT, NYT]

As Saul Hansell points out, if we see the bidding continue to escalate, it indicates that Google might actually be playing to win (though it's doubtful), as long what we're seeing isn't an influx of bidders locked out of the B block pool by rocketing prices—driven up, no doubt, by big telcos looking to patch up holes in their 700MHz network.

Like say, AT&T, whose purchase of $2.5 billion worth of 700MHz spectrum licenses back in October finally got the FCC rubber stamp earlier today. Regardless, the picture will start getting clearer a lot quicker as of tomorrow, when the auction moves into the higher stakes phase 2, where entrants are basically forced to bid hard and fast. [Bits, PC World]

The Search Page
The first step is knowing when and where to look. New FCC entries pop up every day of the week, but Thursdays seem to be the best day for new stuff. The page you want to search is the Electronic Authorization System. If you click the Search link on the top of the FCC home page, then choose FCC ID Search (or just click the link above), it will take you to the form that runs through the test files for all pending electronics. All the entry fields may look intimidating at first, but getting through this is surprisingly simple. Here are the fields you should pay attention to:

Grantee Code
Every company has a three-character code under which all their filings appear. While knowing this code is not mandatory, it is an easier way to bring up search results. Here's a quick list of codes for the hottest or most innovative companies:
• Apple – BCG
• Nokia – PYA
• Samsung – A3L
• Sony – AK8
• Sony Ericsson – PY7
• Nintendo – BKE
• LG – BEJ
• Microsoft – C3K

Applicant Name
This is where you list the company whose gadgets you're searching for. Generally, using a term such as Sony, Apple, Microsoft, etc..., will bring up the results you want. But if you feel like you aren't getting the gadgets you think should be there, try getting more specific (i.e. Sony Ericsson), or using the Grantee code. Sometimes a company will have its products listed under the name of another company. In 2006 Nintendo passed a pair of black and pink Wiimotes through the FCC using the company names Mitsumi Electric and Foxconn Technology, respectively. And if you aren't looking for a specific company, just leave it blank. In our example, we selected Samsung.

Grant Date Range
This field is arguably the most important. Without entering a date, your results will come back in a mess with dates spanning a decade or more. When I scour for products in general, I search across a date range of about a week. This will return about 150 to 250 results, many of which are the same gadget listed multiple times. If I'm searching for a company, I search across a time span of a month, which again gives me plenty of results to work with, without overwhelming the mind. Here, we're searching between 01/15/2008 and 01/22/2008.

Product Description
This is the last field worth paying attention to while searching the FCC. Here you can use terms like computer, phone, networking etc., to narrow down your search to a specific category of electronics. I found the colored Wiimotes mentioned earlier by entering "wii" in the product description and searching between a date range of 2003 and 2007.

Now you're ready to hit the search button (to prevent tedium, be sure to view more than 10 results at a time). You've got your results, but what do they all mean?

The Results
Things to pay attention to on the Search Results page are company name and FCC ID. Sometimes the FCC ID wlll contain a model number, sometimes it won't. But it helps to identify which entries are repeats on the results page (each gadget has a unique FCC ID). Once you find a result that piques your interest, hit the link that says details to bring up the product page. We're going to select the entry with the FCC ID "A3LSCX4300" (aka the SCX-4300 Printer).

The Details
Key links on the OET Exhibits page are Test Report, External Photos, and FCC Label ID. Test Report may include info about the model number and specific functions of the gadget in question. External Photos will offer up some "spy shots." And if all else fails, the FCC Label ID link might offer an outlined sketch of what a gadget looks like e.g. Sony Mylo 2).

FCC Label ID Example (taken from entry for Samsung SGH-L320)

But this is just a starting point. You may find more nuanced ways to glean the results you want from the FCC search page. We hope you do. And remember, if you find anything excellent, we hope you forward those findings to tips@gizmodo.com.

700 MHz auction and analog-to-digital TV switchover
• Martin says the neat stuff he saw at CES last year led in part to the 700MHz auction open-access rules
• He thinks it's "possible" we'll see 700MHz devices within a year—which is why the "hard" analog cutoff date of Feb. 19, 2009 is important
• Speaking of, the cutoff date is engraved in frickin' stone, people—no extensions
• He has no interest in "any particular company winning," just wants someone to make the minimum bid that would enforce open access
• Regarding big bidder Verizon, Martin said it "may win" the auction (Freudian slip?)
• Since poor broadband penetration in rural areas is the main reason we're so far behind Asia, the 700MHz will serve as a good bridge, and might even become the new broadband platform

Cable
• Neither Martin nor CEA chief Gary Shapiro have any love for cable—no wonder the FCC's been reaming them
• "We've seen a signficant decrease in prices" in everything the FCC regulates except cable—that's gonna change
• It is "critical" that consumer-electronic devices are able to attach to cable networks and do two-way communication without a set-top box (i.e., two-way CableCARD is mandatory)
• Proposed pay-per-channel cable is a "real market solution" to cable sucking balls and "I'm doing everything I can" to make it happen
• Independent content providers such as NFL Network need to be able to get their shows on cable

Comcast's Alleged Blockage of BitTorrent
• He's going to investigate it (FCC investigates "all complaints") and make sure no one is being blocked from access in a "discriminatory way"
• If a company engaged in "reasonable network practice" for traffic management they should be honest about it

Satellite Radio and TV
• The FCC will look at XM and Sirius merger proposal "soon," but "isn't sure" it'll clear all the hurdles—awaiting on Department of Justice
• Regarding a potential, but by no means proposed, merger of DirecTV and Dish, he doesn't know whether the XM-Sirius thing would set a precedent; at the bare minimum they'd have to enforce the same price protection XM and Sirius are proposing

Broadband Penetration
• "We've done some very significant steps over the last three years" toward increasing the options for broadband—in particular letting telcos get into IPTV so they'd invest in fiber optic pipes; busting up cable apartment contracts, etc.
• Wants to redefine the term "broadband" to higher speeds—200Kbps is not broadband and people are getting hosed

DRM
• "We need to make sure that consumers have fair use, reasonable expectations" that they can "copy things and use them themselves" which is "not only fair but important, and we need to continue to protect that."
• "I do believe that fair use" and protecting what "consumers are able to do in their home on their devices" is the "guiding principle," and that's a "reasonable and fair" expectation

In sum, more openness, more competition, more consumer protections—in theory. It could be a great year for us across the board at the expense of closed industries, particularly cable and wireless. I actually feel like the government is working for us for a change.