• On The Insider: Kim Kardashian Tweets Sexy Pics
May 11, 2010 1:39 AM PDT

Firefox 4 release plan: The need for speed

by Stephen Shankland

Mozilla hopes to release Firefox 4 in October or November, a new version that has speed among its top goals.

"Performance is a huge, huge, huge thing for us," said Mike Beltzner, vice president of engineering for Firefox, in a Webcast on Tuesday about plans for the browser. "We created the performance story, and we've got to keep at it."

Among other features planned for Firefox 4--and Mozilla emphatically cautions that plans can change--are support for high-speed graphics and text through Direct2D on Windows; a tidier user interface with more prominent and powerful tabs; support for several newer Web technologies; 64-bit versions; and compatibility with multitouch interfaces.

Performance means any number of things in a browser. Among them: the time it takes to launch the program or to load a Web page, the responsiveness of the user interface to commands such as opening new tabs, and the speed with which Web-based JavaScript programs execute. Firefox programmers also will work on more perceptual speed improvements, Beltzner said, such as changing the order that Web page elements appear on the screen and the appearance of the page-loading progress bar.

Mozilla's Firefox 4 design shows tabs above the address bar and a home-page button replaced by a home tab.

Mozilla's Firefox 4 design shows tabs above the address bar and a home-page button replaced by a home tab.

(Credit: Mozilla)

Speed is one item on a long list of changes Mozilla has in mind for its 5-year-old open-source Firefox browser. Improving Firefox is arguably a greater challenge now, though, for several reasons.

First, there's new energy in competitors including Microsoft's Internet Explorer 9 and Chrome from Web powerhouse Google. Second, making abrupt changes is harder without ruffling feathers among its large user base--Firefox accounts for roughly a quarter of the browser usage worldwide. Third, Firefox is expanding from PCs to mobile phones and tablets with very different hardware requirements. Last, a long list of new technologies are profoundly transforming browsers into a foundation for Web applications, but many of those advancements are far from settled.

Beltzner recognizes the challenges.

"We are in it to win it," Beltzner said. "It's no longer the case where it's all easy wins. There's hard work to be done here. We have to make sure we're the ones leading the charge in keeping the Web open for users."

Mozilla established a Firefox 3.6, 3.7, and 4.0 release plan in 2009, but the organization warned early this year that the browser schedule was changing. Tuesday's Webcast offered a new schedule with no Firefox 3.7.

Why the road map change? One key feature of 3.7 called out-of-process plug-ins, which moves plug-ins such as Adobe Systems' Flash Player to their own separate memory area for better stability, was advanced to Firefox 3.6.4, code-named Lorentz and in beta testing right now. Meanwhile, Mozilla concluded it needed more time for a planned user-interface overhaul and to be liberated by a "rebooted" plan for a new extensions foundation called Jetpack.

So what's the schedule? If all goes well, this:

"I think we need to get to a first beta by the end of June," before the Mozilla Summit in early July, he said. Releasing that version "puts us in a position where we can ship [the final version] somewhere in October or November."

Mozilla's new schedule for releasing Firefox 4--if all goes well.

Mozilla's new schedule for releasing Firefox 4--if all goes well.

(Credit: Mozilla)

Is it possible? Firefox 3.6 had been due in that time frame in 2009 and slipped into early 2010. "This is an aggressive schedule to be sure. We have to focus the efforts of projects already under way so it can come together to be a really great Firefox 4," Beltzner said. And programmers will have to prove the merit of any new projects very soon if they want them included.

So what else is new?
Beltzner grouped the Firefox 4 plan into three broad areas of interest: features for browser users, features for Web developers, and underlying platform features.

Tabs are one area of change for users. Tabs will be above the address bar, as is the case with Chrome, and a home tab replaces the home button. In addition, narrower application tabs can be dedicated to various Web apps. Instead of a menu bar across the top, there's a single Firefox button with a drop-down menu. Typing in the address bar can be used to switch to other tabs. One change that had been bandied about, though--a unification of the address bar and the search bar, a la Chrome--didn't appear in Beltzner's designs.

Mozilla hopes to change some dialog boxes to make them more effective. Two examples are the option for Firefox to remember a Web site's password and to permit a Web site to use the browser user's physical location.

Planned for Firefox 4 will be a more elaborate mechanism to see what privileges a person has granted to various Web sites.

Planned for Firefox 4 will be a more elaborate mechanism to see what privileges a person has granted to various Web sites.

(Credit: Mozilla)

Mozilla has always been motivated by the idea of giving the user control, and it's hoping the new Firefox will go further with a revamped control panel for managing passwords, cookies, pop-up blocking, geolocation, local data storage, and related details. Users could see what permissions have been granted to Web sites for each category, or alternatively, see which various permissions a specific site has.

Significant changes to the user interface can lead to confusion, but in the long run, the pain can be worthwhile, Beltzner said. Sometimes, he said, "we're going to have to do the uncomfortable thing."

Web developer changes
Those who design Web sites are a smaller but influential group, instrumental in getting Firefox to its present status. For them, Mozilla has a number of features planned for Firefox 4.

For Web applications, the Firefox 4 plan includes support for WebSockets, a mechanism for easier communication between the browser and a Web server. And as for dealing with the new class of touch-enabled devices, which often don't have a keyboard or mouse, Firefox should be able to let Web developers build pages controlled with a multitouch interface.

The heart of Web programming is Hypertext Markup Language (HTML), and Mozilla is building into Firefox a new HTML5 "parser," the part of the browser that interprets the Web page code. The new parser can handle Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG) and mathematical equations interleaved with the rest of a Web page, runs as a separate computing process to improve browser responsiveness, and fixes "dozens" of longstanding bugs on the previous parser, Mozilla said.

In industry shorthand, HTML5 often stands for many new technologies that aren't part of the actual HTML5 specification or even the broader HTML renovation effort.

Firefox 4 will support some of those, too, but two important ones are only tentative at this stage: the newer Indexed DB effort designed to improve how information from a Web site is stored locally on a computer, and the WebGL effort to build hardware-accelerated 3D graphics into the Web. Required driver support for graphics chips complicates WebGL, and the Indexed DB specification isn't likely to be finished in time, Beltzner said.

For the movement to sidestep Flash with Web technologies, Firefox 4 has a few features planned. Some newer aspects of Cascading Style Sheets (CSS), used for formatting, are set to be supported, including transitions that can animate the transformation of one Web element into another. Firefox 4 also is expected to support more of the newer CSS3 specification.

Areas of Firefox that Mozilla is hoping to improve

Areas of Firefox that Mozilla is hoping to improve

(Credit: Mozilla)

Also stepping on Flash's toes will be support for SMIL, the Synchronized Multimedia Integration Language that can be used for some animation chores, and faster performance with the 2D drawing interface called Canvas.

Under the hood
Performance improvements to Firefox will come through improvements to the underlying software. One significant change coming is JaegerMonkey, which combines Firefox's current JavaScript engine with elements of those used in Chrome and Safari browsers.

"JaegerMonkey has reached a halfway point: we've closed about half the performance gap between our baseline performance and the competition," JaegerMonkey programmer David Mandelin said in a blog post Monday. However, he added, "you can build a browser with JM [JaegerMonkey] today, but you probably won't get too far before crashing. Fixing that is next on my list."

Also on the Firefox 4 plan is support for 64-bit processors. Operating systems have now made the jump in earnest, but not all software has followed suit.

Other hardware changes planned for Firefox 4 include support for Direct2D on Windows, a feature that lets the browser tap into the engine for hardware-accelerated graphics and text. That support exists on Windows 7 and the latest service pack of Vista, but here again, "driver hell" is a risk.

Support for Windows 7 interface features including Aero peek, jump lists, and icons with progress bars also are on to-do list for Firefox 4.

Support for cameras and microphones is only a tentative goal, as is tighter integration with Mac OS X.

Deeper under the covers, for security and stability reasons, Mozilla is splitting Firefox into separate memory areas with a project called Electrolysis. Its first element, out-of-process plug-ins (OOPP), is the chief feature of Firefox 3.6.4, but more is planned for Firefox 4. The new Jetpack interface moves add-ons to a separate memory area, too. Firefox 4, though, won't get the broader sandboxing design in Google's Chrome, in which browser tabs are separated from one other.

These plumbing details might sound arcane, but they're important as browsers become a foundation for ever-increasing amounts of computing chores. A Monday blog post from Firefox programmer Vladimir Vukicevic captured the essence of the matter.

"Today's Web browser is in many ways acting like a miniature full operating system," Vukicevic said.

Updated at 6:34 a.m. PDT and 9:07 a.m. PDT with further detail.

Stephen Shankland writes about a wide range of technology and products, but has a particular focus on browsers and digital photography. He joined CNET News in 1998 and since then also has covered Google, Yahoo, servers, supercomputing, Linux and open-source software, and science. E-mail Stephen, follow him on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/stshank, or contact him through Google Buzz.
Recent posts from Deep Tech
Firefox 4 release plan: The need for speed
Am I a GPS-enabled phone artist or a touch mad?
Google scraps plug-in, refashions 3D Web plan
Mozilla, HTML5 editor differ with Microsoft
Should your browser address bar show 'http://'?
Scribd picks new Web technology over Flash
Top Microsoft coder heads to Google
Microsoft touts new IE9 test, seeks Web standards
Add a Comment (Log in or register) (44 Comments)
  • prev
  • next
by Philips May 11, 2010 2:16 AM PDT
FireFox to me personally is fast enough already.

What I'm really afraid of is that Mozilla seems to have picked the rivalry with Google's Chrome and thus the focus would be more and more shifting to dumbing the browser down, stripping functionality and removing configuration options.

I would pick convenient browsing over faster browsing any day. Like those milliseconds the most web pages take to load ever really mattered.
Reply to this comment 3 people like this comment
by Random_Walk May 11, 2010 3:22 AM PDT
...as long as they keep the add-ons, it certainly wouldn't hurt to reduce the weight a bit, and if they can pick up the speed while they're at it, all the better.
4 people like this comment
by redmarine May 11, 2010 5:40 AM PDT
Even if they actually removed some functionality it is easily added through addons.
4 people like this comment
by Shankland May 11, 2010 9:11 AM PDT
As somebody who uses a lot of Web sites for hours a day, I think those milliseconds do matter in making the Web feel snappy and responsive. Fast and convenient are not mutually exclusive for using the Web. And paring back the frame around the main viewing part of the browser might demote some convenient buttons, but seeing more content is convenient, too.

Also, if you look at the gradual addition of features to Chrome, I think you'll find that its direction is not stripping out functionality or dumbing the browser down. Google started from a bare-bones product, but they've been adding things left and right. Don't forget they're trying to turn Chrome into an entire operating system, Chrome OS.

I also think Mozilla is pretty acutely aware of what Microsoft is doing with IE9 and Apple with WebKit, based on what I've read and heard from developers and executives there.
4 people like this comment
by sniper6078 May 11, 2010 3:16 AM PDT
Amen Phillips. I think that if you use "namebench" to find the fastest DNS servers, your browser will probably seem to be fast enough already provided you have a good ISP to back it up. I find no complaints with it.
OTOH, some plugin crashes have gotten annoying. But nothing really has taken me from FF yet. Chrome is nice but to me isn't quite there yet.
Reply to this comment 2 people like this comment
by drclue May 11, 2010 3:25 AM PDT
I use Firefox,Chrome and Opera. I tend to be using Chrome a little more these days, but mostly because
of some of the HTML5 features , that Mozilla is behind on , but that I can see from tracking in their development threads coming along nicely.

I don't mind some of the UI scrubbing planed for Mozilla 4 either. Cleaned up is not the same as dumbed down. At least with Mozilla and Chrome duking it out , I have two quality players that will make for healthy
competition as both players are standards orientated.

I don't use Opera much at all , owing to it's somewhat annoying interface, but with a little spit and shine
it too could pick up the pace very nicely.

Of course there is but hope that Internet 9 will actually join the Internet party this time round, as in the
past IE has always functioned as a spoiler for the Internet whereas this time around Microsoft has an interest in cloud computing and such , so they might actually make a real browser.

I'm cheering for the Mozilla folks, although I'm not sure whats going to solve this CODEC issue
for HTML5 unless Google comes through with the expected VP8 this month and folks are willing to transcode video to it. Ogg Theora (VP3) just ain't gonna cut it.

I do like the new layout though, Would be nice if everyone added a clickable zoom that was not buried in a menu for when I'm browsing with my cordless mouse in bed and have put the keyboard away,
Reply to this comment
by evoactivity May 11, 2010 5:35 AM PDT
I had this issue with the zooming as well, you can install an addon that allows you to hold a button on the mouse, and then scroll the scroll wheel, allowing you to zoom in or out.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/2244
1 person likes this comment
by Efrow May 11, 2010 6:17 AM PDT
In Opera, hold ctrl and scroll the mouse wheel to zoom. Shift-8 to go back to the original size. But yeah, if you want to do without the keyboard, you can add the clickable zoom box in the tab bar, so you can zoom with two clicks.

Curious, what do you find annoying in Opera?
3 people like this comment
by Ferretkeeper May 11, 2010 1:21 PM PDT
To drclue: If you use a Logitech wireless keyboard and mouse you can set the wheel to zoom when you click down on it and scroll, and return to page scolling by clicking it again. A mag. glass icon is visible when you are in zoom mode. Not having experience of other manufacturer's products , I am not aware of the availability of this function generally, but you could investigate. Hope this was helpful.
by lars_pallesen May 11, 2010 5:00 AM PDT
This is all very fine, Mozilla, but as long as you don't support HTML5 video (H.264) in Firefox, you are heading for irrelevance. Please fix this.
Reply to this comment 2 people like this comment
by evoactivity May 11, 2010 5:37 AM PDT
1) You're over simplifying the issue of codec licensing.
2) HTML5 video tag is not the H.264 (mpeg-la) codec.
3 people like this comment
by redmarine May 11, 2010 5:44 AM PDT
And by doing so alienating their entire fanbase and destroying what they stand for? Hah, as if!
by Shankland May 11, 2010 9:13 AM PDT
Just to be clear, although there are certainly practical considerations, the HTML5 specification doesn't specify which video codec is to be used. Apple and Microsoft like H.264, while Mozilla and Opera like Ogg Theora, and Chrome supports both.
2 people like this comment
by bluemist9999 May 11, 2010 9:38 AM PDT
The H.264 license would cost millions of dollars. And, once acquired, Mozilla could NOT release the video codec as open source.

Want to use a closed-source H.264 video decoder in Firefox? If so, Flash already decodes H.264 video, and works as a Firefox plug-in.
3 people like this comment
by kojacked May 11, 2010 12:29 PM PDT
"The H.264 license would cost millions of dollars." No it wouldn't. It only costs the encoders, right Random_Walk? That's what you said:

"The licensing comes into play when it comes to encoding, not decoding (see also mp3, Flash, etc etc etc...) Otherwise, MPEG-LA will end up with a completely unusable codec, since no one in their right mind will pay them just to play the thing." in artcile http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-20004031-56.html?tag=mncol

Too bad you are wrong Random:
"For (a) (1) branded encoder and decoder products sold both to end users and on an OEM
basis for incorporation into personal computers but not part of an operating system (a
decoder, encoder, or product consisting of one decoder and one encoder = ?unit?),
royalties (beginning January 1, 2005) per legal entity are 0 - 100,000 units per year = no
royalty (this threshold is available to one legal entity in an affiliated group); US $0.20 per
unit after first 100,000 units each year; above 5 million units per year, royalty = US $0.10
per unit. The maximum annual royalty (?cap?) for an enterprise (commonly controlled
legal entities) is $3.5 million per year 2005-2006, $4.25 million per year 2007-08, $5
million per year 2009-10.8"

Source: http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Documents/AVC_TermsSummary.pdf

I'm glad you know what you are talking about lars.
by WulfTheSaxon May 11, 2010 3:24 PM PDT
@kojacked
To quote the very page you quoted yourself, royalties apply to "a
*decoder*, encoder, or product consisting of one decoder and one encoder". And Mozilla would be paying the maximum -- $5,000,000.
by mik3dell May 11, 2010 6:26 AM PDT
I dislike to use Mozilla fire fox cause my time waste here. Chrome is the best One! Bye to FF
Reply to this comment
by FF2009 May 11, 2010 12:13 PM PDT
it is the best one indeed. Only if you don't mind giving Google all your browsing habits.
by burkeen May 11, 2010 6:57 AM PDT
What is the problem with menu bars? I don't get this trend of having start buttons on applications. I like menu bars, they're intuitive (if programmers stick to common standards). To me the button just adds a step in getting where you want to go.
Reply to this comment 1 person likes this comment
by Shankland May 11, 2010 9:18 AM PDT
I think it's not quite as simple as that. Yes, having menus makes it easier to get where you want to go--as long as using a menu gets you there. But how often does the lost screen real estate block you from seeing something useful on a Web site, hampering you from getting where you want to go in another area? I for one use menu commands very rarely. do use keyboard shortcuts a lot for the handful of browser commands I perform frequently, such as opening new pages or tabs. For those operations, you don't need the menu. Mozilla also gathers usage data through its Test Pilot program (which by the way it wants to expand), so I don't think they're making this decision on a whim.
by Efrow May 11, 2010 9:20 AM PDT
Menu bars are fine, but if you want to maximize screen real estate, the 'tabs on top + start button" is better. In Opera, you can go menu bars or "tabs on top + start button" - I would think that new versions of Firefox would make it so you can choose both also.
1 person likes this comment
by redryder23 May 11, 2010 7:54 AM PDT
What about fixing bugs first? There has been an annoying (make that extremely annoying) bug in Firefox that is well documented and never fixed by the Mozilla folks. Sometimes when you quit there is still an instance of Firefox open and you have to kill the process before you can relaunch another session. This must not be too difficult to fix now must it? Yet the folks at Mozilla give you complicated workarounds and various excuses and NEVER fix it. If it's not fixed in next version I'm ditching FF and its Chrome for me.
Reply to this comment 1 person likes this comment
by borisf98 May 11, 2010 9:46 AM PDT
I had this bug in 3.5 but it seems to be gone in Firefox 3.6.x
1 person likes this comment
by DragonStab May 11, 2010 10:14 AM PDT
I've noticed that a lot as well. I close FF and go to re-open it and it won't let me saying that an instance is running and must be shut down first. Have to bring up the Task Manager and end the FF process. And sometimes, can't even do that and have to reboot the computer.
by Joe_Wulf May 11, 2010 10:36 AM PDT
Indeed, this specific area, as well as the LONG-standing purvasive problems with deeeeeep memory leaks are vital to be resolved.

R,
-Joe Wulf
by Adam-M May 11, 2010 12:21 PM PDT
@boris

I've had this same bug on Linux and Windows.
by dexter_birdbrain May 11, 2010 2:23 PM PDT
You know, I have been affected by the same 'bug' too. However, there is no need to actually kill the process from task manager (or system monitor). You just need to give it some time to die down on its own. On my 6-yr old Dell Latitude D505 this 'some time' goes up to 5 mins. On a newer machine, it should be just a minute or two :P
by ncr7002 May 11, 2010 8:23 AM PDT
They are right, the thing needs light speed, now, Chrome is unstable and buggy, and missing all the addons that I need, but I do envy the speed it has. I don't mind if it needs a gig of ram to achieve it.
Reply to this comment 2 people like this comment
by bluemist9999 May 11, 2010 9:39 AM PDT
I run Chrome in Linux and on Windows, and have never had the browser crash, even when it's running Flash.
1 person likes this comment
by Silas0220 May 11, 2010 12:21 PM PDT
I was on the dev channel for awhile and it would crash fairly often. I got annoyed at this, until I stopped myself and said "Dude, its the DEV channel. It's going to be crashy." Moving to Beta fixed it, and I haven't had a crash since. And there's a stable build as well, which ought to be even stabler. I think lots of us geeky folks want to dev channel to feel like we're on the cutting edge, but we have to realize that crashes and bugs are a daily part of life when involved in something like that.
by me4833 May 11, 2010 9:30 AM PDT
One thing I would REALLY like to see in FireFox is the option to
mark COOKIES with a SAVE flag.

This would allow you to KEEP cookies that are useful and DUMP
all others.... all at one time!
Reply to this comment
by Jyakotu May 11, 2010 10:07 AM PDT
Wow Firefox, way to copy Opera's design. Yes, Opera was the first web browser to have tabs on top, not Chrome.
Reply to this comment 1 person likes this comment
by DragonStab May 11, 2010 10:19 AM PDT
Yes I think Opera was the first to have tabs. But what I think they are saying is that Chrome, and soon FF, has the tabs over top of the address bar, hopefully in such a way as to save space.
1 person likes this comment
by Seaspray0 May 11, 2010 10:21 AM PDT
So what? You make it sound like it's a big deal or something.
2 people like this comment
by c-empty May 11, 2010 10:18 AM PDT
They should work on fixing the on-going CPU usage escalation - suddenly jumps to 50%+ and won't function properly without killing the process - and the accompanying horrendous memory leakage - both of which have been reported since 3.5 but never addressed at all. It doesn't matter how fancy you make the browser if you cannot competently handle the basics.
Reply to this comment 1 person likes this comment
by Joe_Wulf May 11, 2010 10:39 AM PDT
You are right. The memory leak problem is a horrible travesty on IT today.

@ Stephen Shankland -- can you please further elaborate on the memory leak fix efforts by Mozilla (if any)?

R,
-Joe Wulf
1 person likes this comment
by sparrowhyperion May 11, 2010 11:02 AM PDT
I really hope they offer some kind of classic mode, because the new interface looks like it's a pain in the butt to deal with. Why do designers always have to screw around with something that already works very well.. The current UI is perfect.
Reply to this comment
by Qtechbg May 11, 2010 11:28 AM PDT
"We created the performance story, and we've got to keep at it."
Complete bullsh*t!!! The only story Mozilla ever created was the resource hog story.
Sorry Mr Beltzner, but we DO remember the original Mozilla browser. Even the first Firefox (thou it was alot better). Just because you've made a release that does not consume the entire RAM and swap file for once - does not mean you can claim you've always been at the top.
As for the performance story - the browser that created it was: Opera. I will never forget how huge the difference was back then at the end of 90's...
Reply to this comment
by Silas0220 May 11, 2010 12:24 PM PDT
As of April, under 2% usage. Any comparisons to Opera are completely irrelevant. They are no longer, if they ever had been, a meaningful force in the browser marketplace. Speed, technology, innovation mean squat when no one is using you.

Internet Explorer (53.26%; Usage by version number)
Mozilla Firefox (31.60%; Usage by version number)
Google Chrome (8.00%)
Safari (5.40%)
Opera (1.82%)
Other (0.89%)
by FF2009 May 11, 2010 12:10 PM PDT
Awesome. Bring on the speed and reclaim your trophy as the best browser to ever Cyber-exist.


it looks good too.
Reply to this comment 1 person likes this comment
by mssoot May 11, 2010 12:49 PM PDT
Google is evil and IE is full of security holes
Reply to this comment 2 people like this comment
by Ferretkeeper May 11, 2010 2:17 PM PDT
Firefox (FF) = Functionality + Flexibility. I have had very few problems with crashes. I am currently running XP Pro 32 on a Phenom X4 9850 BE with 4GB of OCZ Reaper PC 8500 on an ASUS M3A mobo with the latest BIOS. Admittedly I had some problems when I was using 2GB of OCZ Platignum, but I tend to use a lot of apps simultaneously. I am in the process of building a new system based on a Phenom II X6 1090T 3.20GHz Black Edition , on which I will be running W7, and am looking forward to using FF4 on it. I sometimes use other browsers, generally in parallel with FF, but always keep it as my default browser. The fact that it is open source, with new and interesting add ons available on a daily basis(some better than others) is one of the main factors in making it my first choice. One that I particularly like is Personas,allowing me to customise the appearance, and the greatest - Fast Dial.
Reply to this comment
by Diamondz_R4_Ever May 11, 2010 2:25 PM PDT
Finally. The CPU usage of this is horrible which is why i stick with Chrome
Reply to this comment
by Angmarr May 11, 2010 4:32 PM PDT
"plug-ins such as Adobe Systems' Flash Player to their own separate memory area for better stability"

Might be one of the most important improvements in Firefox to come ... considering soo many users blame Firefox for all the flash crap that occurs.

btw make sure you clear your http://www.macromedia.com/support/documentation/en/flashplayer/help/index.html
or C:\Users\"username"\AppData\Roaming\Macromedia\Flash Player manually
Reply to this comment
(44 Comments)
  • prev
  • next
advertisement
Click Here
CNET River
advertisement

A crusader for critical infrastructure security

Q&A As the electrical infrastructure and other critical industries move toward the smart grid and Internet tech, control system expert Joe Weiss is the voice of caution.

FCC touts 'third way' for Net oversight

The federal commission details a plan to put itself on more solid legal footing for regulating broadband services.
• FCC on legal framework

About Deep Tech

Stephen Shankland, who's covered the computing industry since 1998 and was a science reporter before that, here delves into a wide range of technology trends and offers hands-on tests. His particular interests include Web browsers, cameras, standards, research, science, and start-ups.

Add this feed to your online news reader

Deep Tech topics

advertisement
advertisement

Inside CNET News

Scroll Left Scroll Right