Jon Sawer needs to upgrade his old but dearly loved radio and wants to buy a high-spec DAB radio

I'm about to reluctantly upgrade from my existing extremely old but dearly loved radio. I'm intending to spend as much as I can afford on a top range, high specification standalone DAB radio. You have in the past published many articles on the subject on the UK DAB radio format and how you consider this to be inferior to the European model being developed, and I don't really wish to make an error in my purchase when shopping around.
Jon Sawer

You can't really buy decent standalone radios any more, unless you want a portable of the sort often called a "kitchen radio". Above that are "tabletop radios" that usually include other functions. The main features are FM and DAB digital radios, a connection for an MP3 player (often an iPod dock), and internet or Wi-Fi radio. Some have CD players and some have hard drives for storing music files. Finally there are "lifestyle" or microsystems that are actually mini hi-fi units with separate speakers. You'll have to decide which kind of system best fits your needs, and your budget.

This diversity reflects changes in the way people listen to music.
Radio now comes from a variety of sources, including thousands of internet radio stations. Also, many people now listen to music files from their portable music players or PC hard drives, not just to CDs and cassette tapes. The most common factor is FM radio, because it's cheap and because FM radio's network coverage is still much better than DAB's.

Portable DAB/FM radios tend to be mono and have "retro" (old fashioned) designs. The top-of-the-range model in this class is the Pure Digital Evoke-2S (from about £130), which has a smart veneered finish. It's also a proper stereo radio, although the speakers are too close together to create much of a stereo effect. It has the usual telescopic aerial but you can unscrew it and use something more capable if you live in a weak signal area.

There's a very similar Pure Evoke-3 model (from £154), which can record to SD memory cards and also comes with a remote control. However, it doesn't say it's upgradeable to DAB+ (see below), so you'll need to check. A cheaper alternative is the "piano black" Roberts Sound 80 (£85), which has a downward-facing bass woofer of the sort more common on tabletop designs.

Tabletop radios are trending towards a boxy design exemplified by the Roberts MP43 Sound 43 (CD/DAB/FM/Dock, £180). The Monitor Audio AirStream 10 (£224) is a more stylish and distinctive unit that also includes Wi-Fi and Ethernet connections. Pure's challenger is the Avanti Flow Table-top Digital Music System (£228), which also has a downward facing 5.25 inch subwoofer. However, the one to beat is the award-winning Vita Audio R2i (Walnut finish, £280), which has a reputation for its sound quality.

Microsystems attempt to deliver hi-fi, or something close to hi-fi, without the overhead of having a large stack of units and speakers on stands. For a very long time, small silver Denon CD/radio receivers have been the ones to buy, though the line has been challenged by Onkyo and others in the value-for-money stakes. The Denon RCD M38 (up to £300) is the latest model, and it now supports USB playback and DAB+ as well as DAB and FM. It's also available for £200 without the two small SC-M37 speakers usually supplied. This allows you to spend a bit more on better speakers.

There are dozens of small bookshelf speakers on the UK market including the Q Acoustics 2010 and 2020, Tannoy F1 Custom, Monitor Audio BR1 and Mordaunt Short Aviano. They are heavily discounted if you shop around, though in the long run, it's better to buy from a dealer who will let you listen to them first. Most sound much better on stands, but you can use four generous blobs of Blu-Tack to lift each speaker off a shelf.
Sony also offers a lot of "mini hi-fi" systems at low prices. The Sony CMTBX77DBI (CD/DAB/FM/Dock, £130) provides the advantages of separate loudspeakers and room-filling sound for less than the cost of many portable radios.

I've quoted current prices from Amazon.co.uk for convenience, and this is also a good site for checking star ratings and user reviews. You can also use TestSeek.co.uk to find magazine and website reviews of most products before shopping around.

In terms of future-proofing your purchase, the main thing is to look for support for DAB+. This is the relatively new digital radio standard that is replacing the old and inefficient DAB system currently used in the UK. Of course, there are no plans to use DAB+ in the UK at the moment, and even DAB+ will never see the global adoption enjoyed by FM. However, it is painfully obvious that DAB is floundering in the UK, and DAB+ provides the chance to offer higher sound quality, more channels and lower transmission costs than DAB so ultimately it cannot be avoided.

This doesn't mean DAB would be phased out immediately: DAB+ is backwards-compatible so the two would co-exist while 10m DAB sets drop out of use. Before there's a switchover from FM to DAB, digital radio listening must reach 50%, and national coverage has to match FM coverage. There is zero chance of digital radio listening reaching 50% by 2013, let alone that being DAB digital radio. Indeed, the number of FM radios is still growing much faster than the number of DAB radios, because FM is also appearing in mobile phones and MP3 players. There's also very little chance of DAB matching FM coverage in time: that would require the BBC to spend more than £100m on building out the network. (The government isn't going to pay for it directly, and commercial radio doesn't have the money.)

But it may never happen. If the government thinks it can make perhaps 150m FM radios redundant then it's in for a very rude shock. (Technically, FM will never be switched off: the plan is to use it for "hyperlocal radio" – presumably schools, hospital radio, community stations etc.)

However, as I've pointed out before, Lord Carter's Digital Britain report said: "To prepare for any such change or additional upgrade we will work to ensure that digital radio receivers sold in the UK are at least compliant with the WorldDMB receiver profile 1; which includes DAB+ and DMB-A." This prepares the way for moving beyond DAB, though I suspect it had more to do with the European Broadcasting Union's desire to find a standard that would actually work across Europe.

You could, of course, wait for radios that support WorldDMB receiver profile 1 (PDF), but don't hold your breath.

Gmail's latest feature is arguably the biggest innovation since the service launched in April 2004.

'Priority inbox' learns from your email usage patterns and begins to prioritise messages that it thinks you'll be most likely to read. Your inbox is divided into three sections: important and unread, starred and everything else.

The classification should improve, because you can mark messages with 'less important' or 'more important', and Gmail will learn to reclassify accordingly. It's like the inverse of junk mail filtering.

Software engineer Doug Aberdeen on the official Gmail blog described this as "a new way of taking on information overload".

"Gmail uses a variety of signals to predict which messages are important, including the people you email most (if you email Bob a lot, a message from Bob is probably important) and which messages you open and reply to (these are likely more important than the ones you skip over)."

Priority inbox is slowly rolling out across Gmail services. It hasn't appeared in my personal account yet, but will in the next few days along with Google Apps users (if their administrator has opted to 'Enable pre-release features').

Drag and drop, launched in April, helped a little. Filters help, for those that can be bothered to set them up. But priority inbox could make a significant difference, and if Wave wasn't quite the right format for centralising and streamlining messages, then this is a more usable step in that direction.

Social news site Digg endures another user revolt as redesign leaves 'Diggers' at a loss

Digg's August redesign was always going to be a totemic moment for the "social news" site. And so it came to pass, as users stage a high-profile revolt against some of the site's changes.

Protesting at the removal of the upcoming news page, the default setting of "My News", deleted favourites, the apparent front page domination of a handful of publishers, and the removal of the "bury" button (for voting down stories), Digg users flooded the front page with links to rival aggregators and pleaded with chief executive Kevin Rose to turn back the clock.

Less than a week since the covers were taken off the new Digg – complete with many a bug and sans small but significant features – Rose was prompted to write a blog post addressing the outrage.

Under a headline (and mantra) of "release, iterate, repeat", Rose tackled 16 complaints, pledging to make changes to suit the feedback. He also pointed out that there were thousands of new registrations, and accentuated the positive. "Our top priority is to stabilize the site, then we'll look at the data/feedback and make decisions on what to change going forward," he commented.

However, social media site Soshable graphed 118 stories on the once-fabled Digg front page in three days after the new iteration's release. Six publishers and one influential technology pundit control the lion share of Digg's most important space, it shows.

This gets to the nub of the anger, says Media Caffeine. In a barbed post calling Digg a "broken covenant", MC cites this 2004 quote from the Digg founder talking about then-of-the-moment social news site slashdot: "Hundreds of people every single day are submitting content to slashdot. Tons of stories, but an editor chooses about 15 or 20 of them to display to the world. Now the only problem with that is you're relying on whatever the editor thinks is really cool, so it doesn't really give the power back to the people."

MC writes:

"This was the premise behind Digg. It was the promise. It was the covenant. Digg V4 breaks that covenant. Despite what Rose, his team, and their beloved mainstream celebrity buddies believe, the people do not have the power right now. The power has been given to corporate level blogs and Kevin's select-few buddies who, for some strange reason, Rose feels he needs to appease to be successful."

The "bury" button – giving users the ability to vote a story down the popularity rankings – is gone, replaced with a moderated "hide" button, aimed at combating "the bury brigades", as Rose calls them.

Ian Eure, an engineer who worked for Digg between 2008 and May 2010, said that reverting back to the previous iteration, version 3, is "simply not going to happen" – it's an infrastructural change, Eure says, not just a host of feature adaptions:

"Digg v4 is not a redesign, not a reskin, it is a 100% rewrite. It's completely new design, code, architecture, and infrastructure. It has almost no relationship to the v3 system whatsoever."

What's more; of the "core" team of 12 people that made the legacy Digg code work, Eure says, only one is still at the company.

It's already been quite a summer for Digg. Small but significant feature changes, a rewiring of Google's algorithm and a cabal of conservative conspirators teed up this summer's redesign as a(nother) fork in the road – it would either galvanise the site's waning influence or be the straw that broke the camel's back for its users.

This isn't the first Digg revolt in its six-year history, as Rose is at pains to point out on Twitter, but it might be the most consequential. The clock is ticking for the Digg bug fixers. New features are being resurrected – but many "Diggers" may prefer running over to momentum-heavy Reddit (where plucky moderators have posted a 101 for new recruits).

Previous user revolts over changes in the Digg promotional algorithm, new comment systems, the introduction of the browser-framing DiggBar, and the HD-DVD encryption key debacle, have made their impact and subsided. "Release, iterate, repeat", as intended.

But never has a revolt come at such a critical time for the company, competing with the exponential growth of Twitter to become more social and keep its millions of influential, well-organised members engaged. At the same time, predicting the demise of the site has become something of an annual sport for Digg watchers.

But, to you; how are you finding the new Digg? Have you jumped ship?

A peek at official figures shows what BBC is missing by not supporting older Android devices

The BBC iPlayer streamed 5.2m more programmes to Apple mobile devices than it did to devices running Android 2.2 "Froyo" software in July this year, figures released through a Freedom of Information request show.

Viewing of the BBC's popular on-demand service is only supported for Android devices running version 2.2 due to its Flash capability. That puts the vast majority of Android devices being used unable to play the content, despite having a version of Flash Player. Apple devices (which, lest we forget, don't support Flash) have been able to play iPlayer content for two years, initially using 516kbps streams. And while non-2.2 Android devices could, in theory, play the HTML5 stream that Apple iOS users can, the BBC blocks them because of "content protection considerations" restricting delivery by HTTP.

However we can assume that an iPlayer app is in the pipeline for devices running older versions of Android, given the BBC Trust's green light signal in July.

Let's have a look at what we got today, then. It turns out that the iPlayer streams an average of almost five programmes per month to those watching on their iPhone, iPod Touch or iPad, whereas those streaming iPlayer content on an Android device watch an average of 1.4 programmes per month. (Though of course these are early days for Android viewers.)

Data obtained by a request from Ben Griffiths shows gives some fascinating insight into other aspects of mobile viewing of the Beeb's catch-up service.

Quick hits on mobile iPlayer streaming:

• In July 2010, 6,400 programmes (1,026 hours of programming) were streamed from the iPlayer to Android devices
• In the same month, 5,272,464 programmes were "requested" from the iPlayer to Apple mobile devices (iPhone, iPod Touch and iPad)

• In July 2010, there was an average of 230,016 Apple mobile device users accessing programmes via the iPlayer each week
• In the same month, there was an average of 1,106 Android device users accessing programmes via the iPlayer each week

BBC made iPlayer available to stream on Android 2.2 devices on June 23, owners of the iPhone and iPod Touch devices have been able to watch programmes via the iPlayer since March 2008.

David Madden, BBC's executive product manager for the iPlayer on mobile, said last month: "The best way to bring BBC iPlayer to earlier versions of Android (which don't support Flash), is to develop an app. This would provide a single scalable version that could be offered to all Android phones."

"The 400kbps encode requires a powerful mobile phone processor and a Wi-Fi connection to ensure a smooth viewing experience. This means that only newer, more powerful phones connected via Wi-Fi can support the Flash 10.1 streaming experience."

The Beeb took a certain amount of criticism from disgruntled owners of Android devices when it announced iPlayer streaming would be available on devices running 2.2 only, prompting Future Media & Technology boss Erik Huggers to explain the corporation's approach to Flash and iPlayer content.

But another recent BBC FoI request reveals more about the reasoning behind its incompatibility with older Android software – and it ain't one thing to do with kbps.

"Content protection considerations" are what's stopping the iPlayer being streamed on Android devices not supporting Flash. "We confirm that the BBC does not currently provide streams to Android devices as standard MP4 containers by HTTP streams due to content protection considerations," said Lorraine Stiller, legal and business affairs manager at BBC Future Media & Technology, adding: "The BBC hopes to be able to launch an Android application for the BBC iPlayer later this year."

So we may not have to wait too much longer to compare Apples to, er, apples. Though there's no mention of Nokia or BlackBerry viewings. (Or Windows Mobile viewings, for that matter.) Fire up the FoI, Ben...

Claims that Philadelphia authorities are charging bloggers a fee have caused a media furore – but they're simply not true

Churnalism travels fast, especially in silly season. Stories about a supposed new tax on bloggers in Philadelphia have bounced round the US media, with buzzphrase "Philly blog tax" appearing everywhere from CNN to New York Magazine. "Philly wants to tax bloggers", said Gawker. "How does a financially strapped city [...] make a little cash? Tax the bloggers," said the New York Daily News. "Freedom of speech under attack as Philadelphia becomes First City To Impose A Tax On blogging" reads one local blog headline.

But there is no blog tax. Philadelphia levies a licence fee on small businesses, which is no more a tax on bloggers than the UK's VAT is a tax on chocolate buttons.

The rumour started when the Philadelphia City Paper ran an article last week headlined "Pay up", which detailed how blogger Marilyn Bess received a letter demanding $300 for a "business privilege licence". "I've been very interested to see how many writers addressed this topic and used my name without talking to me," Bess told MediaGuardian. "One of my favourite articles in this mess said: 'She probably assumed she was getting a summons or jury duty'. I thought no such thing."

The City Paper story appears to accuse the city of singling out bloggers – if you only read the strapline, that is. "Got a blog that makes no money? The city wants $300, thank you very much." The body copy explains the rather more mundane truth, but why let the facts get in the way of a good sell? The US media certainly hasn't.

Staff at Philadelphia's department of revenue seemed surprised when MediaGuardian got in touch to ask if it had decided any such thing (it hasn't). "There has been quite a bit of sensationalism and misunderstanding," a spokesperson said. "Philadelphia does not have a licence or tax just for bloggers [but] does require anyone doing business and generating revenue for profit to register and get a business licence with the City of Philadelphia." This costs $50 a year, or a lifetime fee of $300, and is only for those making money. "A blog or website that doesn't generate revenue would not be considered a business."

The problem is "people not taking five seconds to realise it's not a blog tax, it's a tax on all the commerce in the city," says Sean Blanda, co-founder of tech news site Technically Philly and an ex-employee of the City Paper. "But people thought it was an affront to free speech. It says nothing about free speech." As Blanda wrote on his blog : "There is no 'blog tax' in Philadelphia. None."

Foursquare and Gowalla may fear Facebook's new geo-location service – but perhaps it's really aimed at classified ads

Facebook's geo-location service has finally arrived – ladies and gentlemen, Facebook Places. It mimics the "checking-in" functionality made famous by Foursquare and Gowalla, and allows Facebook users to see where their friends are, and when.

But it goes deeper than that. Facebook has worked with Foursquare and Gowalla to fully integrate their services; it allows badges and check-ins to be imported – not only from Foursquare and Gowalla, but MyTown and Yelp too. The smaller services are exposed to hundreds of millions of users while Facebook becomes a geolocation services aggregator overnight.

Whether these services should be worried depends on the space Facebook moves forward into. Foursquare, Gowalla and MyTown rely on a strong gaming element to gain traction. Foursquare helps local businesses and national brands generate and deepen consumer loyalty. Yelp is about peer recommendation. Facebook could move into any one of these spaces without blinking.

But perhaps there are bigger fish to fry – namely Craigslist. In 15 years, nobody has challenged the site's supremacy in the area of classifieds. That's not to say there aren't start-ups that consider themselves contenders, but none have come close to the site's (rumoured) nine-figure annual turnover or its ubiquitous association with online classifieds.

Since 1995, Craigslist has been instrumental in migrating a cash-rich revenue stream from newspapers to the internet. But Craigslist hasn't moved on since. The most obvious evolution of classifieds is the migration to mobile, utilising geolocation. Craigslist has had more than two years to play with the iPhone, yet has no mobile presence other than a third-party app that mimics the navigation of the site, instead of playing to the strengths of the device.

The iPad version is even worse – all that on-screen real estate, and it's still menu-driven. Why not a map, for crying out loud? Craigslist's own efforts are non-existent – despite its millions of dollars, the site isn't optimised for mobile browsers.

Craigslist, in a continued attempt to keep things simple, has dropped the ball. The mobile web – through web and native mobile apps, and optimised websites too – will revolutionise business in the next five years, just as the internet did 15 years ago. Ignoring trends in design is one thing; ignoring consumer-driven platforms is quite another.

When I look at Facebook Places, I see an impending marriage with Facebook Marketplace and a serious threat to Craigslist. Don't think of Facebook Places as simply being about checking in; it's about the broader ability to create geo-tagged content that can have relevance to tens of thousands of users in a given vicinity.

A simple Marketplace button on the mobile app (and the site) that mashes together Google Maps and local listings local to the user – or allows the user to add simple, geo-tagged listings with photos too – would enjoy massive takeup and become an essential service in no time. Why would you ever look at Craigslist again?

We've dedicated this special Tech Weekly podcast to the unique and vast BBC Archive – home to a treasure trove of audio, video, programme material, props, scores, letters … the life of the BBC, on file.

As the audio and video archive at Windmill Road is being packed up and rehomed in a purpose-built centre Perivale, West London, Jemima Kiss meets BBC research and development engineer Richard Wright. He's tasked with digitising more than one million hours of programmes, explaining how the task has been broken down to speed up the job and how open standards are being used in the process.

We tour the collection with archivist Adrian Williams, who cares for priceless session recordings and news reports dating back to the 1930s. Adrian explains how some of the broadcast equipment worked – as well as the new setup for archiving programmes.

And we meet Roly Keating – the strategic thinker who has had to untangle the thorny issue of rights which will unlock the archive for the public, for education and even for commercial use. He outlines the BBC's Genome project, which will publish online a digitised copy of the BBC's progamme information and schedules from the Radio Times – right back to the 1920s.

Don't forget to ...

• Comment below
• Mail us at tech@guardian.co.uk
• Get our Twitter feed for programme updates or follow our Twitter list
• Join our Facebook group
• See our pics on Flickr/Post your tech pics

If you think net neutrality sounds boring, think again. While the debate has been bubbling along for years, it is a concept that could mean the end of open, free and equal internet of today that we take for granted.

So what does it mean?

Net neutrality is the principle that all internet traffic – content, platforms, and websites – should be treated equally by the networks that deliver them.

The internet today is, mostly, a level playing field. We pay a fee to have access to the internet. Web services pay to host their content and to for that content to be accessible. And internet service providers pay for the bit in between – the connection.

What telecoms firms want is the right for companies to pay a premium to have their content delivered faster than rival content, or to establish new layer of faster internet on which to to serve paying, premium services.

That would leave non-commercial sites on a poorer, slower web where they would find it harder to attract readers – changing the democratic nature of the internet. It would also mean poorer users, or those in the developing world, would find it harder to access the "full" internet experience.

Photo by JasonWalton on Flickr. Some rights reserved.

Against net neutrality

Those against net neutrality are the big telecoms networks in the US - Verizon, AT&T, Comcast and others - because they want to introduce tiered, prioritised services. That could mean Yahoo, for example, paying to have its search results delivered faster, through a faster network, than Microsoft's Bing.

Computer scientist David Farber is one of those who has cautioned against net neutrality saying it may hinder the progress of new, innovative networks. "An updated internet could offer a wide range of new and improved services," he told the Washington Post in 2008. "including better security against viruses, worms, denial-of-service attacks and zombie computers; services that require high levels of reliability, such as medical monitoring; and those that cannot tolerate network delays, such as voice and streaming video. To provide these services, both the architecture of the Internet and the business models through which services are delivered will probably have to change."

For net neutrality

Several high-profile figures from the tech industry have spoken out in defence of the net neutrality principle, including the internet protocol co-inventor Vint Cerf and web inventor Tim Berners-Lee.

Berners-Lee has said: "Control of information is hugely powerful. In the US, the threat is that companies can control what I access for commercial reasons. In China, companies could control what users access for political reasons. Freedom of connection with any application to any party is the fundamental social basis of the internet."

Where did the term come from?

Network neutrality isn't a new concept in telecoms. In the US, the "common carrier" laws ensured that customers of different phone networks could talk to each other. Regardless of who and how they paid to access the telephone network, once they are on the line, they can call anyone.

The term was popularised in the late 1990s but became commonplace when the arguments were picked up by the press around 2006. In the US, coverage has centered around the Federal Communications Commission which upheld a complaint against ComCast for illegally restricting paying web users from using filesharing services. In the UK, "traffic shaping" can similarly be seen as a precursor to wider tiers of internet use with ISPs commonly demoting and even blocking P2P traffic, for example. ISPs in the UK have also indicated they are concerned about services that put pressure on their networks like the BBC's video traffic, which may lead to them charging.

What does this Google-Verizon pact mean?

Google has always said it supports net neutrality, whereas Verizon is one of the biggest networks in the US and wants to be allowed to charge for different services. But the two have agreed a proposal, rather than a formal deal, which listed key principles that business and regulators could work with:

• ISPs cannot discriminate against any service in an anti-competitive way.
• ISPs cannot block consumers from any legal service.
• ISPs have the right to manage and prioritise web traffic.
• ISPs must be transparent about how they are managing services.
• The FCC would enforce on a case-by-case basis, and have its regulatory powers over broadband services restored.
• A fixed part of all phone fees would be dedicated to investment in broadband networks.

And the last and most significant two:

• ISPs can introduce new and different internet services, such as 3D.
• Wireless services are exempt from all these proposals, apart from the condition of transparency.

Photo by gt8073a on Flickr. Some rights reserved.

First, new types of content and new types of services on new types of network – this is the internet of the future. While the internet today operates as one largely unified system, the internet of tomorrow will need investment and innovation to build new features and functionality we can only dream of.

Second, the desktop is dying - wireless, mobile networks are the future. So the internet of the future will operate on the network of the future which will largely be a wireless one. Under the Google-Verizon proposal, wireless services would be exempt from all these requirements, which means ISPs would be able to discriminate against competitors and would be able to block access to a service even if it was legal. It's the same principle as your mobile operator charing you more to call a friend on another network – but with everything from video, to email, gaming, music – anything you do on your phone.

The FCC isn't too pleased that Google and Verizon are trying to dictate policy, however. Commissioner Michael J Copps said: "Some will claim this announcement moves the discussion forward. That's one of its many problems. It is time to move a decision forward – a decision to reassert FCC authority over broadband telecommunications, to guarantee an open internet now and forever, and to put the interests of consumers in front of the interests of giant corporations."

Net neutrality campaigners say Google's response is contradictory, hence the negative response to the Verizon pact. Despite its proclaimed commitment to net neutrality, Google has proposed a future where ISPs can build and charge new networks as they wish.

Google and Verizon offer to uphold net neutrality while giving more power to wireless and private network operators

After last week's excitement – when the New York Times boldly but inaccurately claimed that Google and Verizon were cutting a sweetheart deal over internet traffic – the truth has turned out to be less dramatic but potentially more worrying for US consumers and net users.

Instead, Google and Verizon have announced a joint policy proposal, intended as a framework for the future regulation of US internet provision.

In a nutshell the two companies are putting forward a system of regulation that suits them both, as you might expect. One cynical way of reading this is to think of Google and Verizon as two syndicates carving out a piece of the action: Google gets a commitment to net neutrality over the standard, wired internet that people access via computers at home or at work, while Verizon gets far weaker regulation on wireless networks accessed via smartphones.

Why does Google feel it needs to work with Verizon on this? Verizon in the US is in a uniquely powerful position of straddling both wired and wireless access, since it operates one of the two major wireless networks (AT&T running the other), while also being a major wired ISP competing with the likes of cable provider Comcast.

All this is a far cry, though, from the New York Times's suggestion that a specific deal between the two was in the works, which was bluntly denied by both companies.

In fact, the joint policy framework suggests the complete opposite, in certain respects. What the Google-Verizon proposal seeks to do is define current thoughts on net neutrality and apply them to what the document calls "wireline broadband", while placing fewer such restrictions on wireless provision and what it terms "differentiated services" offered in addition by an ISP.

The details are vague – the whole proposal is only two pages long – but here is how it would apply to users.

The proposal would split net consumption into three categories: wireline internet (accessing the internet via wires to a modem – DSL connections, for example), wireless internet access (via an iPhone or a wireless data card), and the hitherto unknown "differentiated services" (over Verizon's Fios fibre-optic network maybe?) of specialised content or services.

The proposal suggests four areas of regulation – but the first three would only apply to "wireline internet" users:

• Consumer protections, to safeguard users' access to legal content, devices and applications (hello, Comcast?)

• Non-discrimination requirements, to guarantee net neutrality:

In providing broadband Internet access service, a provider would be prohibited from engaging in undue discrimination against any lawful Internet content, application, or service in a manner that causes meaningful harm to competition or to users.

• Network management, in which broadband providers would also have to meet "reasonable network management" standards and practices.

Only the fourth area would apply to both wireless and wireline users:

• Transparency, with ISPs "required to disclose accurate and relevant information in plain language" about what they are offering.

A provider which met all four of those conditions could be rewarded by being able to offer "additional or designated services" for additional fees (presumably), as well as "traffic prioritisation," which is what the original NYT story maintained. The examples for these suggested by Google and Verizon today included "healthcare monitoring, the smart grid, advanced educational services or new entertainment and gaming options."

Needless to say, the lack of regulation applying to wireless access and the possibility of future "designated services" doesn't please anyone outside the telecoms industry, or indeed at the FCC.

Susan Crawford, a specialist on internet regulation, blogged:

The key trade-off being made here is between the treatment of wireless services, on the one hand, and the treatment of nondiscrimination, on the other. Google gave on wireless, and so there's no policy suggestion for wireless net neutrality that has been provided by the companies. That's a huge hole, given the growing popularity of wireless services and the recent suggestion by the [FCC] that we may not have a competitive wireless marketplace.

Meanwhile, Dan Gillmor is concerned the "designated services" might turn into a "parallel network that could, in the long run, become the default network":

For Verizon's part, the acceptance of what sounds like fairly serious neutrality rules on current wire-line networks was welcome. But I see the rest as a Trojan Horse for a modern age. Verizon and other carriers have every incentive, based on their legacies, to push network upgrade investments into the parallel Internet, not the public one.

The FCC isn't happy either, so this proposal may not go much further. If it spurs the FCC into action, for a change, that would be something.

Google and Verizon offer to uphold net neutrality while giving more power to wireless and private network operators

After last week's excitement – when the New York Times boldly but inaccurately claimed that Google and Verizon were cutting a sweetheart deal over internet traffic – the truth has turned out to be less dramatic but potentially more worrying for US consumers and net users.

Instead, Google and Verizon have announced a joint policy proposal, intended as a framework for the future regulation of US internet provision.

In a nutshell the two companies are putting forward a system of regulation that suits them both, as you might expect. One cynical way of reading this is to think of Google and Verizon as two syndicates carving out a piece of the action: Google gets a commitment to net neutrality over the standard, wired internet that people access via computers at home or at work, while Verizon gets far weaker regulation on wireless networks accessed via smartphones.

Why does Google feel it needs to work with Verizon on this? Verizon in the US is in a uniquely powerful position of straddling both wired and wireless access, since it operates one of the two major wireless networks (AT&T running the other), while also being a major wired ISP competing with the likes of cable provider Comcast.

All this is a far cry, though, from the New York Times's suggestion that a specific deal between the two was in the works, which was bluntly denied by both companies.

In fact, the joint policy framework suggests the complete opposite, in certain respects. What the Google-Verizon proposal seeks to do is define current thoughts on net neutrality and apply them to what the document calls "wireline broadband", while placing fewer such restrictions on wireless provision and what it terms "differentiated services" offered in addition by an ISP.

The details are vague – the whole proposal is only two pages long – but here is how it would apply to users.

The proposal would split net consumption into three categories: wireline internet (accessing the internet via wires to a modem – DSL connections, for example), wireless internet access (via an iPhone or a wireless data card), and the hitherto unknown "differentiated services" (over Verizon's Fios fibre-optic network maybe?) of specialised content or services.

The proposal suggests four areas of regulation – but the first three would only apply to "wireline internet" users:

• Consumer protections, to safeguard users' access to legal content, devices and applications (hello, Comcast?)

• Non-discrimination requirements, to guarantee net neutrality:

In providing broadband Internet access service, a provider would be prohibited from engaging in undue discrimination against any lawful Internet content, application, or service in a manner that causes meaningful harm to competition or to users.

• Network management, in which broadband providers would also have to meet "reasonable network management" standards and practices.

Only the fourth area would apply to both wireless and wireline users:

• Transparency, with ISPs "required to disclose accurate and relevant information in plain language" about what they are offering.

A provider which met all four of those conditions could be rewarded by being able to offer "additional or designated services" for additional fees (presumably), as well as "traffic prioritisation," which is what the original NYT story maintained. The examples for these suggested by Google and Verizon today included "healthcare monitoring, the smart grid, advanced educational services or new entertainment and gaming options."

Needless to say, the lack of regulation applying to wireless access and the possibility of future "designated services" doesn't please anyone outside the telecoms industry, or indeed at the FCC.

Susan Crawford, a specialist on internet regulation, blogged:

The key trade-off being made here is between the treatment of wireless services, on the one hand, and the treatment of nondiscrimination, on the other. Google gave on wireless, and so there's no policy suggestion for wireless net neutrality that has been provided by the companies. That's a huge hole, given the growing popularity of wireless services and the recent suggestion by the [FCC] that we may not have a competitive wireless marketplace.

Meanwhile, Dan Gillmor is concerned the "designated services" might turn into a "parallel network that could, in the long run, become the default network":

For Verizon's part, the acceptance of what sounds like fairly serious neutrality rules on current wire-line networks was welcome. But I see the rest as a Trojan Horse for a modern age. Verizon and other carriers have every incentive, based on their legacies, to push network upgrade investments into the parallel Internet, not the public one.

The FCC isn't happy either, so this proposal may not go much further. If it spurs the FCC into action, for a change, that would be something.