Part of the problem with the FCC's current rules governing network neutrality is that they're so incredibly vague, they're useless when trying to crack down on anti-competitive behavior by ISPs. Were you the dubious sort, you might argue they were intentionally made that way to give the illusion that the FCC was engaged in a pro-consumer action when really just pandering to major carriers. Regardless of why they're murky, the entire reason for the FCC re-crafting these neutrality rules is to design more concrete guidelines that actually, well, work.

The new rules are only just getting cooked up at the FCC, but a group of law professors have taken an early look and say there's a serious problem: namely that, you guessed it, they're so murky and vague that they might not actually be useful. Yale Law School's Jack Balkin, Stanford Law Professor Barbara van Shewick, South Texas College of Law Professor John Blevins, University of Louisville School of Law's Jim Chen and Harvard Law Professor Larry Lessig all essentially agree -- sending a letter to the FCC warning that their current rules lack teeth:Specifically, the professors don't like that the FCC continues to leave the definition of "reasonable network management" vague -- something that's at the center of their debate with Comcast. The professors also argue that the FCC's proposed rules also fail to define "non-discrimination" in any meaningful way. As the professors note, surely this "unintentional" oversight will be rectified as the rule-making process moves forward.

We've frequently explored how a growing number of VoIP companies were blocking FreeConferencecall.com, because the service relies on a practice known as "traffic pumping," a regulatory loophole that allows small, rural telcos to sock bigger carriers with huge connectivity fees. A few years back, AT&T tried to block access to such services but were yelled at by the FCC because it breaks common carrier laws.

Techdirt points out how the RIAA has come out in favor of network neutrality -- sort of. In a missive written over at the RIAA blog, RIAA President Cary Sherman proudly supports the government's network neutrality push -- provided it in turn supports the implementation of piracy filters. The RIAA correctly notes the FCC continues to use language that indicates any neutrality laws will not apply to the transfer of illegal content (even if determining what's not legal is still very murky ground). Says the RIAA:Given the number of former RIAA employees now working within the Department of Justice, the idea that the FCC's new neutrality rules will be written around the RIAA's desires shouldn't really surprise anybody.

A little more than a year ago, Comcast got their wrist slapped by the FCC for throttling upstream P2P traffic (and lying about it to the press and consumers), though the "sanction" contained no substantive punishment or fine. Still, Comcast has been battling the ruling ever since, arguing that the FCC's neutrality principles (pdf) don't give the FCC the authority to investigate the issue, much less sanction the company.

Last week we told you how some sloppy AT&T lobbying resulted in an Arkansas senior citizen group writing a form letter against net neutrality to the FCC, but forgetting some important details -- like replacing the form field "XYZ Organization" with an actual company name. Telecom companies frequently use a slew of existing or artificial groups to parrot company positions, giving the illusion of broad public support. Several users have subsequently written in to note that the letter signatory, and head of the "Arkansas Retired Seniors Coalition," unsurprisingly worked for Southwestern Bell for nearly thirty years. Mike Masnick at Techdirt has also been digging into the story, and notes that the man still claims he wrote the letter himself, for whatever that's worth.

We've long criticized the broadband industry's biggest companies for their unethical practices when it comes to DC lobbying, from the creation of artificial consumer groups, to the "co-opting" of legitimate groups who parrot anti-consumer phone or cable company lobbying positions for donations. While with one hand AT&T and Verizon are busy publicly throwing their support behind the FCC's new neutrality rules, with the other hand they're doing things like scaring their employees into flooding the FCC comment system from their home e-mail addresses, or using fake and/or hijacked organizations to bombard the FCC with complaints.

Today's the day that the FCC will begin the long and arduous process of hashing out the new network neutrality rules they announced they'd be expanding back in September. You can expect the signal to noise ratio today to be pretty high as lobbyists fire up their bullhorns and the talking points fly, but despite all of the coverage today, actual rules won't really be hashed out until next year.

One of the talking points repeated over and over and over by carriers who oppose network neutrality is that network neutrality rules will "stifle investment" in the sector. Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg said as much yesterday, and AT&T urged their employees (via private e-mail accounts) to bombard the FCC with the talking point earlier this week.

AT&T recently told us they unsurprisingly support the FCC's existing network neutrality principles, given they're fairly wimpy and are currently are being challenged by Comcast in court. However, AT&T isn't too keen on the FCC's plan to add additional principles that would give the FCC the ability to actually enforce them or extend them to wireless -- nor is AT&T particularly thrilled by Congress's latest effort to impose network neutrality law.

Last year Comcast faced an FCC investigation and endless media scrutiny for their decision to use packet forgery to throttle upstream P2P for all users. Cox dodged much of that media attention despite the fact they were busy doing roughly the same thing. That's in part because nobody noticed what Cox was doing (well, almost anybody). But it's also because unlike Comcast, Cox didn't lie about what they were up to when asked about it.

As we've been exploring, both AT&T and Verizon absolutely despise Google. Why? Because the company represents an Internet future where phone companies are relegated to "dumb pipe" network operators, and more innovative and adaptable companies wind up making a killing in the content and service business.

Earlier this month we discussed how "research firm" Nemertes Research had returned once again with their Chicken-Little prognostications that the Internet would soon start facing an Exaflood, or Internet capacity collapse. As we argued then, the entire Exaflood idea is a myth cooked up by carriers to help scare lawmakers and the public into believing that bandwidth is a dangerously limited and precious resource, and if you don't give carriers what they want (the right to metered billing, fewer consumer protection laws, no neutrality laws, removed price controls) the Internet will explode and you'll all be sorry.

Last week we noted how AT&T managed to very cleverly deflect attention from AT&T and Apple's own anti-competitive behavior by highlighting how Google Voice blocks FreeConferenceCall.com. Of course everybody these days is blocking such services, including Speakeasy, Level 3, Viatalk, Magic Jack, Google and even at one point AT&T, but don't tell a well lobbied Congress that.

Just one day after the FCC's neutrality push and anti-competitive inquiries netted some substantive results, FCC boss Julius Genachowski gave a speech at the CTIA wireless industry trade show today in San Diego. In it, the FCC head repeated promises to get more wireless spectrum into the hands of carriers, and reiterated his plans to impose shot clocks in municipalities to help speed up tower builds.

If you recall, AT&T and Apple caused waves back in March for crippling Skype for the iPhone so that it would only work via Wi-Fi. Why? Having it work over 3G would present a threat to AT&T voice revenues, and treating Skype VoIP as just data (which it is) is thereby prohibited under AT&T's deal with Apple.

While they normally fight over wireless competition, net neutrality and white spaces, Google and Verizon got along well enough today to announce a collaboration that will bring Google Android handsets to Verizon within weeks. Rumors of Android phones on Verizon have been bubbling for a while, but this morning saw some additional details emerge.

Earlier this year, Nemertes Research reconstituted a 2008 report claiming the Internet was about to run out of bandwidth, and that looming brown outs would be hitting us any day now. The "Exaflood" myth, cooked up by the same think tank that brought you intelligent design, has been repeatedly debunked by network capacity experts, who note that the Internet's growth is actually quite manageable with only modest infrastructure upgrades.

There's not a broadband provider out there who wouldn't instantly begin billing you by the byte if they thought you (the consumer) would sign off on it. Unfortunately for them, Time Warner Cable's recent PR disaster illustrated that consumers aren't sold on low caps and high overages when broadband delivery costs continue to drop.

As the network neutrality circus continues, the editorials continue to dribble out from the nation's largest papers. Unfortunately, most of them either repeat the same talking point ISP lobbyists have been using in 2005 (like the Wall Street Journal did last week), repeating pre-fabricated opinions without the slightest regard for consumer welfare.

As we discussed at length last week, network neutrality is about incumbent phone companies trying to hold on to market power in the face of Internet evolution, some of which just happens to be coming from Google. One such example is how AT&T and Apple (despite denials) prevented Google Voice from coming to the iPhone, in order to protect the companies' mobile OS and MMS/voice businesses.