Scott Cleland of Precursor has posted a very interesting analysis of Google’s usage of bandwidth and the associated costs. He claims that Google is underpaying for its bandwidth by a factor of 21 based on a variety of calculations and estimates. The analysis is sound up to a point but it then makes the mistake of conflating two things that are really separate and don’t make much sense being treated the same. I posted a comment on his blog but since it hasn’t appeared (neither have any others) I’ve posted it here too.

In essence I think Scott’s doing a solid job of representing his clients - the telcos - but he also repeats a trope that began, I think, with Ed Whitacre - that Google is somehow using telco bandwidth for free when it should be paying for it. I use an analogy below to critique the analysis because this stuff is complex enough to benefit from it. Let me use another here to critique this idea that Google somehow ought to be paying its fair share. Say a store in a certain area suddenly starts doing great business, and customers are flocking to it on the local bus system. Would it be reasonable for the bus company to start charging the store to recoup some of its costs when all its customers are already paying the prices it has decided to charge in order to ride the bus? No. If it is unable to fund its costs from the prices currently being paid then it needs to charge more or seek ways to reduce its costs. The store isn’t the problem - in fact it’s doing good by creating more demand for the company’s services.

The telcos have no business asking Google to fund the costs of consumer broadband connections any more than the bus company has any right to ask the store owner to subsidise bus tickets. With that, I’ll leave you to the comment I posted on Scott’s blog.

Scott,

You’ve done some very interesting and useful analysis here. Thank you for sharing it with us.

However, one criticism is that you conflate two things and treat them as if they were the same and part of the same category: namely, consumer broadband spending and service provider bandwidth spending. These two things happen at opposite ends of the internet value chain and are entirely separate.

In chart VI of your report you act as if consumer broadband and dial-up internet access spending and Google’s spending on bandwidth were the only chunks of money being spent on bandwidth/broadband in the US. This is, of course, not true. Google’s spending should properly be put in the context of overall service provider spending on bandwidth, not treated as part of consumer internet access spending.

Measuring Google’s spending as a proportion of consumer internet access spending is meaningless - it’s like asking how much it costs the Yankees to drive their players to the stadium as a fraction of how much it costs all the fans to get to the stadium. You’ll get a number of out that but it won’t mean anything.

I would suggest calculating how much Google pays for bandwidth as a portion of all the spending by service providers on bandwidth used to serve US consumers. Your numbers might be just as stark, but at least then you’d be measuring the right thing.

The study attempts to push a theory that AT&T under Ed Whitacre but also others among the broadband providers have attempted to push for some time, which is that consumers and Google and others should all just pay their “fair share” of the costs of the Internet. However, this simply isn’t the way free markets work: the fact is that there is a value chain and different players pay for different parts (as they do in any other free market).

Google pays less than it otherwise might because it has so many peering arrangements (entered into voluntarily by the various parties to them) which it doesn’t pay anything for. That’s the way the system works, and large broadband providers benefit from it too. AT&T, Verizon, Qwest and the cable companies are perfectly free to develop their own business models to compete with Google and are entirely within their rights to sign whatever agreements they want to. No-one is forcing them into anything. They can also charge their customers less or more if they think that will solve the problem. The real issue here is that bandwidth use is skyrocketing and broadband providers don’t want to pass the costs on to their customers, but those customers are causing the increase in costs and should rightfully pay for it.

I’m not a stooge for Google or the broadband providers (though the broadband providers are clients of mine) but I think this analysis needs some tweaks before it becomes really meaningful. Thanks again for some very interesting groundwork though.

Note: I’ve heard Scott argue against net neutrality at a couple of industry events and I think he actually makes some really good arguments (although I think there - as here - he sometimes overplays his hand). I have a lot of respect for the work he does and I’m grateful for the analysis he’s done here too.

Note 2: Google has posted its own critique / response here.

Google is famous for its “uncluttered design” especially as regards the Google home (search) page. Well, yes, we’ll give them that. Not hard to be better than Yahoo! in this regard given that Yahoo! was a directory first and a search engine second, and in between had become a bloated all things to all people portal.

But there are some things Google really doesn’t do well, or at least could do much better in relation to design, and also in relation to the features of some of its core products. Here are ten of them, from a purely personal perspective as a user of these products:

Gmail

1. OK - they finally gave us themes this past week. But why the heck did it take so long? And why were users limited to third party browser add-ons to achieve this effect? How hard could it be? But more importantly than themes (I’m using Shiny these days, by the way), is the design itself. So this one is more of a past peeve than a current one, but is reflective of how long it takes Google to get some of the basics in place. And I still can’t pick the colors of individual theme elements myself - I have to go with a complete package (pretty though they are).

2. Why should it take me two clicks (or more often one click, a scroll and a click) to file a message in a folder (sorry, under a “tag”)? I have the list of tags in my left navbar anyway - why not just let me drag the message there, as I can in any desktop email program and in Yahoo! Mail and Hotmail (or Live Mail, or whatever it’s called these days)? Are you worried that the extra page weight will slow the app down? Let me choose! You already give me an option to use the “Older version” and an option to use the HTML only version on a slow connection.

3. Why can’t I decide once and for all what font I want to write in, and have multiple signatures? Have you just assumed that if I’m serious about this stuff I’ll use a desktop client via IMAP? Why would I do that? The way you’ve implemented IMAP with tags and folders it screws up my list of folders every time I try to do it - I get three different trash folders and no easy way to manage archiving items… Again, how hard could it be to implement basic email templating and a signature picklist?

Google Maps

4. Why is it that you can remember locations I’ve typed in to the search bar and auto-suggest them when I’m typing but I can’t easily retrieve that list later? And then your “My Maps” feature is entirely separate? Can’t you integrate the two, and let me easily view all the locations I’ve previously either typed in or saved under My Maps in one easy list? You might allow me to sort that list by geography, or history, or by various tags I might have applied (if you let me do that). The way things are now, I’m forced to remember some element of an address to get it to pop up again in the auto-suggest list.

5. Secondly, why can’t you do a simple integration between Google Maps on the desktop and Google Maps for Mobile? I’ve been wondering this ever since I started using Google Maps on my BlackBerry and it’s still a bugbear on my iPhone. Why not allow me to access both my “My Maps” locations and recently searched locations from my desktop on my phone, and vice versa? I’m happy to log into my account in order to do this. Your friends at Yahoo! figured out how to do it long ago and it really can’t be that hard. After all, how likely am I to have my desktop/laptop PC open in front of me with a wireless connection to the Internet as I’m trying to follow those directions I looked up, compared with how likely I am to have my phone with me? And how about a “send to mobile” option so I could send myself an SMS with a link that will open in the Maps app or a browser on whatever mobile device I’m using?

Google Reader

6. My main frustration with Google Reader is that I have a lot of my own direct subscriptions but also several subscriptions to other people’s shared items. Because there’s a fair amount of overlap in coverage areas between these various feeds, I often find that an item that is in one of my direct subscriptions also shows up in one or more of the shared items feeds. It’s possible that I’ll sometimes see the same item directly, again in the TechMeme feed, and then two more times in shared items. Although the TechMeme one is hard to solve without a bit more cleverness, it should be straightforward to implement a filter to allow me to just see the item once (with appropriate annotations to indicate it was also in shared items - perhaps along the lines of FriendFeed’s recently added Related Items feature which I really like). I’m fine with it appearing in each of the appropriate folders so I come across it sooner rather than later, but once I’ve read it once, mark it as read everywhere else too. Please?

7. Then let me filter out stuff I’m not interested in. I subscribe to Engadget Mobile, but what if I’m bored about all the stories about the G1 phone? Why can’t I request that Google Reader automatically mark all stories as read in that feed if they mention the G1? Give me filters with some granularity to do this effectively so I can automatically discard things I know I’m not interested in.

8. Then add filters to move items into a special priority folder if they mention keywords I’m particularly interested in, so I can read those before I trawl through the rest.

9. Lastly, let me find features a lot more quickly and easily. Several times now I’ve had to go to a Google web search (ironically) to figure out how to get a Google Reader Shared Items widget for my blog. I shouldn’t have to do this. First, you call it a “clip” instead of a widget, which means I can’t find it using your Help search function. Not helpful. But then you bury it in a totally unintuitive section of the Reader settings. Instead of simply putting that option on the Shared Items page, where it belongs, I have to go and look under Tags and Folders. Now, there’s a reason for that - I might theoretically want to get widgets (sorry, clips) for specific tags or folders as well so you want that feature option there - fair enough. But put two links then - one under shared items (which is the logical place) and one under Tags and Folders.

Google Calendar

10. Again, it’s a question of helping me find features / functions by putting them in a logical place. I want to be able to set whether or not Google Calendar automatically creates a reminder for new calendar items, and if so what the characteristics are. So where do I go? Settings, right? But no, it’s not there. There’s no sign of it there. So I go into a calendar item and find the reminder section. Is there a link there to tell me where to change this setting? No. So I go to the Help function and it tells me that to change this setting I need to click on the tiny arrow next to the name of a specific calendar in the left navbar and then select Notifications (not Reminders, but Notifications, despite the fact that in individual appointments they’re referred to as reminders). Then I can finally set default settings. Why on earth is this so hard to find? Why not just have it under settings where any sane person will look for it? I realize that people might want to set this differently for their different calendars, but this is the default behavior even if you only have one calendar. And what if I want the same behavior for all my calendars? Couldn’t you at least have a link under Settings?

Some caveats

First, I sound like a grumpy old man. I’m not old or grumpy, as it happens, but these are things that repeatedly irk me when I use Google products.

Secondly, as will have become clear from the above, I still use Google products a great deal - Google Reader is my default feed reader, Google Maps is my default mapping provider, and Gmail is where I get my personal email. I also use Google Calendar to track some personal calendar items. So they have me hooked regardless of these shortcomings. Clearly, they’re doing a lot right.

Lastly, some of these will come down to personal preferences - some people may love the way these things work at the moment and some will agree with me. But my plea is partly for more choices - let me choose, and if in doubt provide a link in two different places so I can find something quickly instead of having to hunt around your Help function (or worse, a web search) to find what I’m looking for.

I’ve been meaning to do another post on net neutrality based on a fair amount of recent activity on various blogs but haven’t had time. To cut down on the number of open tabs in my browser, I’m just going to dump the links here and let you read them yourselves:

• Vint Cerf for Google on reasonable approaches to managing networks
• A “history lesson” from Verizon
• Joost CEO Mike Volpi on net neutrality and Adam Smith

I’m not convinced any of these companies has 100% the right approach but I’m glad we’re finally discussing it in a reasonable manner rather than simply posturing or suing one another about this…

I just re-read this recent post from the Google Public Policy Blog, and I still think it’s a lot of pie-in-the-sky nonsense. It really feels as though whoever wrote it either doesn’t know enough about the subject or has dumbed it down for readers to the extent that it makes no sense. Although the example cited is apparently real, the model described is far more complicated than it at first seems, and the chances of it being implemented on any large scale are virtually zero.

When I first saw the headline, “What if you could own your broadband connection?” I assumed that it was going to be about Google’s plans for wireless services - a little late perhaps given that they failed to secure any licences in the 700MHz auction, but it would have been interesting as an academic exercise. But no, it turns out they’re talking about fiber connections:

It may sound strange, and it’s certainly not what we’re used to. Today we have a “carrier-centered” model; phone and cable companies spend billions to build, operate, and own the “last-mile” connection — the copper, cable, or fiber wires that come into your house. Individual consumers then pay for particular services, like phone service or Internet access.

In turn, we tend to think about broadband deployment in carrier-centric ways. If we want to see super-fast fiber connections rolled out to consumers, the main question appears to be whether carriers have appropriate incentives to invest.

But there’s no law of nature that says this is the only possible model. Many businesses, governments, universities, and other entities already own their own fiber connections, rather than leasing access to lines. It may also be possible to find ways for consumers to purchase their own last-mile strands of fiber.

Here, as anywhere, there would be certain advantages that come with ownership over renting. No one necessarily needs to own skis or a car, but many of us do. If you owned your own fiber, you’d be able to connect it to a service provider of your own choosing. Over time, you might save money, and it could make your house more valuable to have a fiber “tail.”

I think the examples used are disingenuous - fiber cables owned by businesses or universities are often for private networks, whereas the whole point of a broadband connection is connecting to the public Internet. Even where Internet access is “owned” by someone other than the carrier, that makes no sense until you put equipment at both ends which allows the cable to be more than just a piece of hardware. And you need a carrier willing to both connect to the business end and to provide you with the appropriate equipment at your end to make that cable work. And of course, the cable itself just connects you to the carrier, which still connects you to the Internet, so they still own the vital connection even if you own the piece of string between your place and theirs. You therefore have no more real ownership over the key piece of the puzzle than you do today.

Then there are all the technical issues involved with maintaining and fixing such a cable. Even if you can get a service provider to hook you up to the Internet, you still own the last mile, and would be responsible for fixing it if something went wrong. Your service goes out - how do you figure out where it’s broken? If it’s someone digging up the road, how do they know who to notify before they do so? And how do you exercise any authority over them to get them to fix it quickly? What if something else goes wrong? Who’s going to fix it for you? Certainly not the local service provider you’ve deliberately bypassed…

I could go on and on - only three commenters have bothered so far on the post itself, so it seems most people haven’t taken it too seriously. But this feels like another one of those occasions on which someone has over-simplified a complex situation in a way that says, “now why in the world do we do this the way we do? Look how easy it would be to do it differently - and better! More freedom! More control for customers!” and so on. It’s also a favorite tool of politicians selling quick fixes to intractable problems usually caused by other politicians…

Ironically, I think there’s a lot more potential for the kind of model the Google blogger is talking about in the wireless sphere. There, no cables are necessary so ownership is a non-issue. It really is about simply having the right hardware at your end and a provider willing to hook you up at the other. With multiple wireless providers being able to serve the same area without digging up the streets there’s potential for real competition with none of the hassles associated with a wired local access network. You’re still going to need a service provider to hook you up unless you’re willing to become an Internet node in your own right. But there is at least the potential for greater competition and more choices for consumers.

Google, of course, merely participated in the 700MHz to try to force the existing carriers to create this kind of model, backing out of the bidding themselves when they thought they’d achieved their aims (possibly erroneously). Perhaps if they’d stayed in they’d have been able to make this kind of model a reality.

A couple of days ago I posted on Google’s evil scale and although the post was mostly meant to be light-hearted, I also suggested that, at some point, Google was bound to start behaving like a big company, and that this was likely to be triggered by increasing criticism of the company by journalists and activists. It appears that Michael Arrington at Techcrunch agrees with me. He wrote the following today under the heading of “Will 2008 be Google’s end of innocence?“:

2008 may be the year that Google’s innocence ends, as media and governments start to cast a less forgiving eye at the behavior of the company that controls 60% of the search market and perhaps as much as half of all online advertising revenue.

…

There’s no getting past the fact that Google has out-competed everyone in the search game, and is justly collecting the economic rewards of that effort. But society loves to tear down their heroes just as quickly as they supported them as underdogs.

This may be the year that things change for the ten-year-old Google. Their days of innocence may be over - perhaps Yahoo, or Firefox, are the apples that they should not have bitten into.

As I mentioned a couple of days ago, at some point Google will cross over from innovative upstart to established incumbent, and many other changes will follow. I tend to agree with the assertion Arrington makes here: I think when that happens, which is a shift that will happen in people’s minds as much as in the corridors of the Googleplex, Google will find itself facing many more challenges than it currently does. And how it weathers that shift will be the indicator of whether Google is likely to be the next Altavista or Mapquest (companies which once dominated but then declined) or the next Microsoft (a company which, for all its faults has nonetheless remained tremendously dominant and very successful).

I found this pretty entertaining - I guess it’s a little dated at this point but still very relevant in light of the ongoing debate about Google’s position on Chinese censorship. The attention to detail here is impressive - it’s been created to look just like the corporate pages at Google (although all the links point back to the creators at Lot49.com. The introduction, written as if a Google press release, follows:

At the 2006 World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, CEO Eric Schmidt discussed Google’s decision to censor its search results. During his speech, he mentioned that we used an “evil scale” to weigh our actions. Applying that scale, we concluded that to withdraw from China would be “worse evil” than participating in censorship.

Having received a number of queries about our evil scale, we present an explanation here. Our scale divides evil into 15 degrees because we like hexidecimal and because it’s convenient for representing shades of gray online. Also, we find that the shift from numeric to alphabetic characters is useful in separating bad things from those that are really terrible.

We determined that removing certain information from search results on Google.cn rates a 6 on our scale. Withdrawing from China qualifies as an 8. Disorganized information helps no one. In fact, it is a detriment to society. When all messages are equally probable, entropy is maximized: H(M) = log | M |. We are committed to fighting entropy by organizing the world’s information. Working with Chinese censors will help us achieve our goal.

I wonder how Google feels about this stuff. They don’t yet have the reputation of other large corporations like Microsoft and AT&T for being overly sensitive about criticism of their products and policies, but you do wonder whether they will eventually move in that direction. It’s tough for any big company that strongly believes in its own mission and attitude to take criticism. So far Eric, Larry and Sergey seem to be fairly level-headed about it - let’s hope they stay that way.

I just tried to sign up for Google’s new FriendConnect service. I filled in all the details and clicked “Submit” and then up came this page:

It appears Google is using one beta service (Google Spreadsheets - specifically, the feature which allows you to use forms to create spreadsheets for databases) to register for another (FriendConnect). As a result, “something bad happened.” This probably isn’t best practice for a hotly-anticipated new service from Google, much as I understand the urge to eat one’s own dogfood, as it were. Wouldn’t a standard web form with a more robust backend have done the trick?

At any rate, I’m looking forward to trying out the service if and when I can get it working. Looks like an interesting approach to “socializing” non-social networks, but a lot will come down to how it works in practice. I’m also looking forward to trying the other similar initiatives that were somewhat suspiciously all launched within a few days of each other (MySpace Data Availability and Facebook Connect).

Interesting news today on Verizon’s approach to the open access requirements associated with the 700MHz spectrum it won in the recent auction:

On Friday, Google urged the FCC to block Verizon Wireless’ $4.7 bil. successful bid for the C Block band of spectrum in the recently completed 700 MHz auction unless Verizon is forced to agree that open access rules apply to handsets it provides its own customers. Specifically, Google claims that Verizon Wireless has no intention of abiding by the open access rules governing the C block spectrum for devices it gives to its own customers and that the FCC should condition Verizon’s grant upon a clear commitment that Verizon will not exclude these handsets from the requirement.

This echoes in reality what I had said might happen in a previous post a few weeks ago:

…isn’t Google mistaken here? Is it assuming that the FCC’s open access rules go further than what Verizon Wireless had already agreed to do? The FCC’s rules are unfortunately vague, and it may be counting on a more favorable interpretation of them than Verizon is.

Google and Verizon have had conflicting opinions on the meaning of the FCC’s open access requirements - each taking the position that most clearly reflected its own views - Google’s being the most expansive interpretation possible, and Verizon’s being the most minimalist. However, in my previous post, I pointed out that even though the rules are vague, they certainly strongly suggest that Verizon will have to go beyond its existing open access project. For example:

Wireless service providers subject to this requirement will not be allowed to disable features or functionality in handsets where such action is not related to reasonable network management and protection, or compliance with applicable regulatory requirements. For example, providers may not “lock” handsets to prevent their transfer from one system to another. We also prohibit standards that block Wi-Fi access, MP3 playback ringtone capability, or other services that compete with wireless service providers’ own offerings. [emphasis mine]

At any rate, looks like we’re in for more fun and games, and more uncertainty for Verizon and its customers. Not what anyone would have wanted, and it could all have been avoided if the FCC had just been clearer about these requirements up front. Verizon can now reasonably argue that it bid based on its understanding of these rules and it’s too late to change that understanding now.

I am constantly astonished by the fact that many websites still use Mapquest on their “directions” pages. It makes me wonder why they do so, when surely no-one really uses Mapquest anymore when there are alternatives like Google Maps and Yahoo Maps around. For several years now, those two alternatives have been considerably better options, with a much more usable interface (both on PCs and on mobile devices) and much higher quality maps (Mapquest’s were until very recently still those funny line drawings where roads are shown as single lines instead of two dimensional objects although this appears to have changed in the last couple of months).

And yet, according to Hitwise, Mapquest still has an over 50% share of the online mapping market. Google Maps, while coming up quickly, is still around 20%. Yahoo Maps, which had been in second place, has recently dropped to third, losing subscribers to Google along with Mapquest itself. Microsoft’s Live Maps product, meanwhile, is hovering around 3% of the market.

I found this astonishing, because I’m not sure I’ve ever used Mapquest, and I certainly never have in the last 5 years. For a time, Google Maps and Yahoo Maps were playing leapfrog in courting my attention by launching new features alternately. But Mapquest was never a serious contender. So why is Mapquest still such a major player?

I think the answer lies in the fact that many people on the Internet are inherently inert when it comes to choosing service providers. Their inertia ties them to the first service they used that worked in a particular space - be it mapping, search or photo sharing. They don’t actively seek out alternatives and so never realize that there are better services available. In the case of Mapquest, it was so dominant in the early days that its name transcended its brand and became generic in the manner of Kleenex, Hoover or Ziploc (”shall I give you directions?” - “no - I’ll just Mapquest it”).

I think this same inertia is what has allowed AOL (coincidentally, the owner of Mapquest) to continue to exist as a walled garden provider even when the same content and services that you can pay $10 to $26 a month for is now available for free at aol.com. The same group of subscribers probably make up much of the customer base for both Mapquest and the old AOL service. And this group of relatively inert Internet users is large and probably growing as more seniors and others who are less adventurous on the net come online.

This all gives a massive advantage to the first company that makes a significant new service work well enough for these relatively conservative users of the Internet. Google is able to overcome this advantage in the case of mapping and other areas such as email because it already has a strong entrenched position in search and is good at leveraging its strength across its properties through those links at the top left of each of its pages.

This is in contrast to Yahoo!, whose website is so cluttered that finding new services is very much more difficult. There are lessons to be learned both from Mapquest and from Google here. From Mapquest we can learn that being the first good provider of an online service is a massive advantage. But from Google we can learn that it is possible to overcome that advantage by leveraging mind share in an existing market into an adjacent one. And we can also learn that the time to market for competing services is very much shorter today than it was when Mapquest first launched, so that the first mover advantage is being eroded over time.

Service providers on the Internet have essentially two choices: they can target this large group of inert users, which takes a long time to jump on a bandwagon but will then ride it for many years, or to target the equally large group of more technically savvy users who are more adventurous and therefore faster to adopt a new service but also faster to jump ship when something better comes along. A third option, the holy grail, is to produce a service which serves both markets and can therefore grow quickly but also retain a large base over time. But that’s a rare service indeed.

Rick Whitt of Google has come clean about its strategy in the 700MHz auction and confirmed what many suspected - that Google deliberately bid up the price of the C Block, even upping its own bid in the absence of a higher competing bid several times, in order to trigger the open access provisions.

Given that it must have been fairly clear early on that Verizon Wireless was the other bidder, and it’s already initiated its open access program, what did Google really gain by doing this, other than using its own cash to force Verizon to part with more of its money? One of three scenarios must hold true:

1. Google wasn’t sure Verizon was the other bidder and wanted to make sure any other bidder (AT&T) would be subject to open access too
2. Google merely wanted to force Verizon to pay more for the spectrum because there weren’t any other serious bidders for it
3. Google believes that the open access provisions attached to the C Block will require more of Verizon than it has already announced it will provide.

The most likely scenario is 3. But isn’t Google mistaken here? Is it assuming that the FCC’s open access rules go further than what Verizon Wireless had already agreed to do? The FCC’s rules (see page 89) are unfortunately vague, and it may be counting on a more favorable interpretation of them than Verizon is. But there are one or two areas where Verizon has not yet agreed to go as far as it will now be required to:

Scope of the requirement for open platforms for devices and applications. Wireless service providers subject to this requirement will not be allowed to disable features or functionality in handsets where such action is not related to reasonable network management and protection, or compliance with applicable regulatory requirements. For example, providers may not “lock” handsets to prevent their transfer from one system to another. We also prohibit standards that block Wi-Fi access, MP3 playback ringtone capability, or other services that compete with wireless service providers’ own offerings. Standards for third-party applications or devices that are more stringent than those used by the provider itself would likewise be prohibited. In addition, C Block licensees cannot exclude applications or devices solely on the basis that such applications or devices would unreasonably increase bandwidth demands. We anticipate that demand can be adequately managed through feasible facility improvements or technology-neutral capacity pricing that does not discriminate against subscribers using third-party devices or applications. In that regard, we emphasize that C Block licensees may not impose any additional discriminatory charges (one-time or recurring) or conditions on customers who seek to use devices or applications outside of those provided by the licensee. Finally, C Block licensees may not deny access to a customer’s device solely because that device makes use of other wireless spectrum bands, such as cellular or PCS spectrum. However, we also note that, in accepting a multi-band device for use on its network, a C Block licensee is not required to extend the requirement for open platforms for devices and applications to other spectrum bands on which the provider operates.

However, the FCC goes on to limit the scope of these rules:

We emphasize that we are not requiring wireless service providers to allow the unrestricted use of any devices or applications on their networks. In particular, we are mindful of the risks network operators face in protecting against harmful devices and malicious software. Wireless service providers may continue to use their own certification standards and processes to approve use of devices and applications on their networks so long as those standards are confined to reasonable network management. For example, providers are free to choose their air interface technology, and to deny service to devices or applications that cannot operate on the same technology, since such a restriction permits significant network efficiencies without significantly reducing consumer access to services and features. We also recognize that wireless providers have legitimate technical reasons to restrict particular non-carrier devices and applications on their networks, specifically to ensure the safety and integrity of their networks. In particular, we believe that it is reasonable for wireless service providers to maintain network control features that permit dynamic management of network operations, including the management of devices operating on the network, and to restrict use of the network to devices compatible with these network control features. Standards to ensure that network performance will not be significantly degraded would also be appropriate.

If I were Verizon, I would be pretty annoyed with Google at this point, whatever its rationale. It artificially bid up the price of the spectrum, triggering both a higher price paid by Verizon and the open access requirements, even though it apparently never had any plans to own the spectrum. I’m not sure it would have any legal grounds for taking action on this, but it certainly appears that Google abused the system for its own advantage and to Verizon’s disadvantage.

At any rate, Verizon is pressing ahead with its plans to use the 700MHz spectrum for its LTE network, as is AT&T with its 700MHz spectrum, and so far it isn’t complaining too hard about those open access rules. Since it has done an about face on the question of “openness” perhaps it is willing to embrace these additional conditions too. But I would guess that it will fight for the loosest possible interpretation of the remaining conditions when the time comes, while Google will probably put some high-paid lawyers on the other side.