This past week may have been a week unlike any other for the technology industry, with Apple, Google and Hewlett-Packard each making news with respective CEO and boardroom changes, among news regarding net neutrality and Facebook investors.

For the executive changes, some are said to be temporary, such as Apple Chief Executive Steve Jobs taking a medical leave but remaining CEO despite handing his daily responsibilities to Chief Operating Officer Tim Cook.

Others could be the start of large changes -- such as the moves made at Google and HP.

The Times, on the Technology blog and with stories in the Times Business section,  covered the action with multiple stories from multiple angles all week.

Here, the Technology Blog has collected a rundown of the major news items as well of some of the most-read stories in Tech this past week.

Apple, Steve Jobs and Tim Cook

Apple's Steve Jobs to take medical leave

Steve Jobs no-show at Verizon iPhone event, the Daily delayed, due to health?

Steve Jobs medical leave: experts speculate but Apple quiet

Apple quarterly profit surges 78% to $6 billion

Apple falls but its rivals gain, pushing Nasdaq index to 3-year high

Steve Jobs and Apple probably picked the best day to announce medical leave

Steve Jobs: The perspective of Apple analyst Tim Bajarin

Apple's App Store hits 10-billion downloads mark

Google, Eric Schmidt and Larry Page

Google CEO Eric Schmidt to step down, co-founder Larry Page to take over

Google's Larry Page will try to recapture original energy as CEO

Google's quarterly profits jump 29% to $2.54 billion

Eric Schmidt, Google's outgoing CEO, to cash out shares worth $335 million

Google to give Eric Schmidt $100-million equity award, report says

Google Offers: Google's Groupon challenger is being tested

Hewlett-Packard and Meg Whitman

4 on HP board to step down

Verizon, net neutrality and the iPhone 4

Verizon files court appeal to stop FCC's net neutrality rules

Verizon offers $200 gift cards for customers to switch to iPhone

Verizon says iPhone will pause Web for calls: 'a phone is only as good as the network'

Facebook, more privacy issues, raises $1.5 billion

Goldman Sachs cuts U.S. investors out of Facebook deal

Facebook grants developers access to user addresses, phone numbers

Facebook temporarily disables developers access to user addresses, phone numbers 

Facebook raises $1.5 billion, $1 billion of it overseas, will share financials by April 2012

-- Nathan Olivarez-Giles

twitter.com/nateog

Verizon Communications went to federal court Thursday to try to stop the Federal Communications Commission's new rules to guarantee open Internet access.

In a widely expected move, the telecommunications giant told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia that the FCC exceeded its authority when it enacted regulations last month to forbid owners of high-speed lines and airwaves from favoring their services over those of competitors.

"We are deeply concerned by the FCC’s assertion of broad authority for sweeping new regulation of broadband networks and the Internet itself," said Michael E. Glover, Verizon's deputy general counsel. "We believe this assertion of authority goes well beyond any authority provided by Congress, and creates uncertainty for the communications industry, innovators, investors and consumers.”

The FCC voted 3 to 2 along party lines last month to enact the regulations to ensure so-called net neutrality, a top priority of President Obama and FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski. The rules prohibit phone and cable companies that provide high-speed Internet service from blocking their customers' access to any legal content, applications or services.

The rules are tougher on wired service than on the still-developing market for wireless Internet service. And after years of debate, the regulations did not go as far as some Democrats and many digital rights advocates had wanted. That led to qualified support from some telecommunications companies, such as AT&T Inc.

But many congressional Republicans were outraged by the FCC's move and have pledged to try to stop it. Verizon, which said it is committed to an open Internet, has been outspoken in arguing the new regulations are not needed.

Genachowski's office did not immediately comment on the Verizon appeal.

RELATED:

FCC prepares to vote on Net neutrality rules for an 'open' Internet

Filling in the blanks on the FCC's Net neutrality proposal

-- Jim Puzzanghera

Photo: Consumer Electronics Association president and Chief Executive Officer Gary Shapiro, left, greets Verizon Communications Inc., chairman and Chief Executive Officer Ivan Seidenberg, right, and president and Chief Operating Officer Lowell McAdam during the Consumer Electronics Show, in Las Vegas on Jan. 6, 2011. Credit: Julie Jacobson/AP Photo

The Federal Communications Commission isn't releasing details of Chairman Julius Genachowski's latest proposal for Net neutrality rules, but staffers provided a couple of revealing clues Wednesday. 

First, the proposal doesn't back away from any of the six principles Genachowski laid out in his first Net neutrality speech in September 2009: the "four freedoms" endorsed by the FCC under the two previous Republican chairmen, plus requirements that broadband providers manage their networks transparently and without discriminating unreasonably among the various content sources, service providers and applications.

Second, the proposal mirrors a draft bill that Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Rick Boucher (D-Va.) tried to push through the House Energy and Commerce Committee earlier this year, only to be blocked by a senior Republican. That measure -- which was backed by at least one key Republican on the committee, some broadband providers, tech industry players and advocacy groups -- would have been less intrusive than the FCC's original rulemaking proposal. More important, it would have barred the FCC from reclassifying broadband as a telecommunications service, which could have made it subject to price regulation and a host of other potential rules.

In particular ...

This month, U.S. regulators will look -– again –- at how to hammer out so-called open Internet traffic rules that have been hotly contested by both broadband service providers and consumer groups.

Regulations set up by the five-member Federal Communications Commission at its Dec. 21 meeting could determine whether companies such as Verizon Communications Inc. or AT&T Inc. could block or slow Internet traffic.

The standards, known as Net neutrality rules, could also have implications on the protections for wireless Internet users.

“The fact is that no outcome will please every stakeholder,” said Dean Garfield, chief executive of the Informationa Technology Industry Council. “At the same time, prolonging the Net neutrality policy limbo benefits no one -– especially consumers.”

Chairman Julius Genachowski has previously tried to draw broadband companies under strict regulations usually seen in the telecommunications industry, but was stymied by court challenges.

Web companies such as Google Inc. and Amazon.com Inc. weighed in as phone and cable companies lobbied hard for free rein to manage their networks in the name of innovation and competition.

But a proposal floated by Genachowski could ban a practice known as “paid prioritization,” in which carriers charge companies to speed up access to their content while slowing traffic to competitors.

Public advocacy groups have said that creating such a “fast lane” could create a discriminatory, uneven playing field for users while providers and some lawmakers argue that prohibiting it would stall investment.

Read on for industry reactions:

Looks like the Net neutrality ball is back in the Federal Communications Commission's court.

A draft proposal by Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Beverly Hills) and Rick Boucher (D-Va.) to give the FCC temporary authority to enforce limited neutrality protections surfaced last week, drawing favorable comments from telcom-industry allies and neutral ones from some tech advocates. But despite early support from a key Republican -- Rep. Cliff Stearns of Florida, the ranking member on the Communications, Technology and the Internet subcommittee -- Waxman pulled the plug on the bill Wednesday.

The measure could conceivably resurface during the planned lame-duck session. But Waxman said he wouldn't move forward without "full bipartisan support" on his panel, and the committee's top Republican, Joe Barton of Texas, isn't on board.

Barton released a statement too, saying ...

There's nothing like an obscure regulatory issue to expose a rift in Hollywood's ranks.

The issue in question is Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski's proposed "Third Way" -- reclassifying broadband Internet access as a "communications service," which would subject it to greater federal regulation. The point is to give the FCC authority to issue Net neutrality rules, among other guidelines for broadband.

On one side of the debate -- the side generally taken by DSL and cable-modem providers -- are the Motion Picture Assn. of America and four talent unions: the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, the Directors Guild Of America, the International Alliance of Theatrical and Stage Employees and the Screen Actors Guild. They argue that reclassifying broadband would be a terrible idea because it would discourage ISPs from "detecting and impeding" piracy.

On the other side is the Writers Guild of America West, which argues that reclassifying broadband is essential to preserving Net neutrality and not inconsistent with protecting copyrights. To the Writers Guild, Net neutrality is crucial because it protects small content creators from being squeezed out by, well, the MPAA's members.

The two sides filed new comments with the FCC on Thursday, and it's worth reading both just for the contrast in their focuses. (You can download the MPAA/union filing here and the Writers Guild filing here.) The main point for the MPAA and its allies is stopping online piracy and imposing the lightest regulatory burden possible on broadband providers. For the Writers Guild, concerns about piracy are balanced against a desire for maximizing outlets for their work. While the major studios in the MPAA may like the idea of paying broadband providers for superior access to Internet users, the Writers Guild sees such online toll lanes as a threat to their ability to compete online.

-- Jon Healey

Healey writes editorials for The Times' Opinion Manufacturing Division.

Like kids picking sides in a schoolyard quarrel, big Internet businesses are beginning to throw their weight around in response to Google's and Verizon Wireless' proposal on net neutrality.

Unsurprisingly, AT&T seems to be siding with the suggested plan. Ralph de la Vega, the company's wireless chief, called it a "reasonable framework" in response to a question about excluding mobile services from the proposal.

The plan would allow telecoms such as AT&T and Verizon to manage how data flows to new Internet services, which some say could harm innovation, and to interfere with customers' online activities in order to thwart illegal file sharing.

The plan excludes wireless Internet, as accessed by smart phones, from net neutrality regulation. That Verizon and AT&T, the two largest U.S. wireless carriers, would want unmitigated control over their networks is not unexpected.

The Federal Communications Commission opposes the Google-Verizon deal. Duh.

Despite nearly a year's effort, negotiators for Google and Verizon have crafted a framework for net neutrality that fumbles one of the central issues involved in the debate: the principle of non-discrimination. That's why the proposal is more likely to be just another talking point than a major breakthrough in the debate among network operators, Web companies and consumer groups.

Proponents of net neutrality rules -- a category that ostensibly includes Google -- want to stop Internet service providers from picking winners and losers among content and service providers online. The theory is, there's not enough competition among broadband providers in many parts of the country to rely on market forces to prevent ISPs from abusing their position as potential gatekeepers.

The would-be rulemakers face a number of non-trivial challenges, including how to differentiate between "good" network-management activities (e.g. filtering out spam) and "bad" ones (e.g. blocking a competitor's Internet telephone service). Nor is it easy to craft rules that still allow ISPs to innovate and do not discourage Wall Street from investing in them.

The compromise struck by Google and Verizon ...

The Federal Communications Commission has come up with a new way to apply some network neutrality rules that would force Comcast Corp., AT&T Inc. and other broadband Internet service providers to handle all Web traffic the same, without imposing limits on users or blocking websites.

The proposal is aimed at blunting an April federal appeals court ruling involving Comcast that found that the agency had limited authority to regulate broadband Internet service.

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said the Comcast decision has created a “serious problem” and that his agency believes more regulation of broadband Internet service is needed, though not the heavier restrictions that apply to telephone companies.

Genachowski said existing law allows the agency to apply a “narrowly tailored broadband framework” to regulate Internet traffic.

Previously, the FCC had a nearly hands-off policy regarding Internet service in its effort to spur broadband development. It had introduced only principles for so-called net neutrality that were aimed at allowing customers to do what they wished with their Internet connections.

But last month, Comcast won a court ruling that the FCC had overstepped its authority in telling Comcast, the nation’s largest cable company and Internet service provider, that it had to give its customers equal access to all online content providers.

Genachowski’s effort now is to restore the agency’s direct authority over broadband service.

“Heavy-handed prescriptive regulation can chill investment and innovation, and a do-nothing approach can leave consumers unprotected and competition unpromoted,” Genachowski said.

The chairman also said the proposed approach would not change the range of obligations that broadband service providers faced before the ruling in Comcast vs. FCC.

The FCC’s position would help such companies as Google Inc., which owns video website YouTube, and online retailers of music and video such as Amazon.com Inc.

Both Google and Amazon have publicly supported net neutrality rules and don’t want Internet providers to be able to charge them a premium so their customers can have faster download speeds when visiting their websites.

Comcast, for instance, had blocked some of its customers from using the popular BitTorrent Inc. technology that allows users to more easily download videos, arguing that data hogs were clogging its network. And the appeals court decision upheld its right to do so.

-- Nathan Olivarez-Giles

It's one thing to argue that government regulations will hamstring the Internet, as many opponents of Net neutrality regulations argue. But a new coalition of economic and social conservatives also argues that the FCC's proposed rules would prevent the Net from being hamstrung in the right way.

In a letter sent Thursday to members of Congress, leaders of 30 groups called on lawmakers to oppose the Net neutrality proposal, saying "the great success of the Internet has been made possible because the government has stayed out."

They went on, however, to warn that the proposed rules "call into question how obscenity and other objectionable content on the Internet is treated." In particular, the letter contends, Net neutrality "prohibits" ISPs from "preventing peddlers of child pornography from having unblocked access to every home Internet connection." Parents and families must "continue to have access to the tools necessary to keep unwanted content out of the home."

Gee, where to start? As the FCC has made abundantly clear over the six years its leaders have been talking about Net neutrality, the concept doesn't apply to illegal content. Obscenity and child pornography are just that -- illegal.

But that's not the only false or misleading aspect of the letter....

Barack Obama may be the country's most tech-friendly president ever, as comfortable discussing Net neutrality as Swiss neutrality. But his administration is caught in at least three pitched battles over intellectual property that could leave tech advocates wondering why they were so optimistic about his presidency.

One fight stems from the secretive negotiations over the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, which began under President George W. Bush. Copyright holders have pressed for provisions that could force Internet Service Providers to do more to combat online piracy, such as cutting off broadband accounts that are used repeatedly for infringement. Such three-strikes provisions are anathema to tech advocacy groups, which also fear that the agreement would make it harder for them to bring some fair-use balance to the anticircumvention provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

A second battle concerns the Federal Communications Commission's proposed Net neutrality rules, which Obama's former Harvard Law School chum (and now FCC Chairman) Julius Genachowski has championed. Copyright holders and performing artists are pressing the commission to drop a proposed requirement that ISPs not discriminate against any type of traffic. They argue that content providers should be able to strike deals with ISPs that would help distinguish the flow of legitimate movies and music online from bootlegs. But such groups as the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Public Knowledge have argued forcefully against turning Net neutrality rules into tools for copyright enforcement.

The newly minted White House Office of Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator triggered a third dust-up last month when it asked for public comments on its strategic plan for, well, intellectual property enforcement. Seven groups representing copyright owners and performers, including the RIAA, MPAA and the Screen Actors Guild, filed their wish list Wednesday (download your copy here), and it's a doozy.

As expected, the Federal Communications Commission agreed today to propose a set of Net neutrality rules based on the six principles that Chairman Julius Genachowski laid out in a speech last month. (For more background, see the FCC staff's presentation on the proposal.) Those principles would bar broadband providers from blocking customers from the content, applications or services of their choice; preventing them from connecting with the devices of their choice; discriminating unreasonably against any specific content, application or service; and concealing network management techniques in a way that prevents Web users from operating freely. There are at least four notable caveats, In a win for Hollywood, the protections would apply only to legal content and services, and Internet service providers would still be able to block the exchange of infringing material. ISPs would still be able to conduct "reasonable network management," including weeding out spam. The new rules wouldn't trump ISPs' obligations to cooperate with public safety officials. And the commission would permit ISPs to dedicate a portion of their bandwidth to "managed" services, such as pay TV channels or Internet phone calls. What services would qualify and how much bandwidth could be reserved remain to be determined, in what may be the most fiercely debated part of the new rules.

Some of the biggest broadband providers and their allies in Congress question whether the commission should adopt any rules, period -- and whether the FCC even has the authority to do so. For example, AT&T tried to derail the proposed rules in advance of the meeting, and its opposition isn't likely to diminish as the formal rule-making process goes forward. These opponents have found a sympathetic audience in the commission's two Republicans, Robert McDowell and Meredith Attwell Baker, who gave only partial support to the notice of proposed rule-making. McDowell and Baker said they welcomed the chance for a thorough public discourse on how best to maintain an open Internet but doubted that government regulations were the right course. They also questioned whether there is a problem here for the FCC to fix, noting that the commission has found only a handful of incidents of ISPs behaving in an anti-competitive way.

In McDowell's view, having more competition among broadband ISPs is the solution, and that competition is rapidly emerging. But the wireless providers he's counting on can't match the ever-increasing speeds deployed by cable TV operators and wired telephone companies. Given that there is virtually no competition within each market -- not many people have more than one cable provider or more than one local telco to choose from -- a duopoly will continue to reign over truly high-speed Internet services for years to come.

One other point emphasized by McDowell is that Internet users want ISPs to prioritize some bits (e.g., video streams) over others (e.g., e-mail). That gets to the question of what constitutes "reasonable" network management, and McDowell offers a useful way of thinking about this issue: what the commission should be concerned about is management techniques that are anti-competitive, rather than those that simply treat one type of traffic differently than another.

I think the commission should also be concerned about management techniques designed to make content, application or service providers pay more for the ability to reach their customers online. It's worth remembering that Web-based companies started lobbying for Net neutrality rules after executives at broadband companies complained about the bandwidth consumed by online video services. They warned that they would need to spend heavily to increase the capacity of their networks, and said that companies like YouTube (now a part of Google) should bear some of those costs. But YouTube isn't a "free rider" -- it has invested heavily in the servers and bandwidth needed to deliver its bits to its customers' ISPs. The problem for those ISPs is that their customers happen to demand a lot of bits from YouTube and other online content providers. In other words, the issue isn't what YouTube is supplying; it's what broadband customers are demanding. Is it really YouTube's or Netflix's or Sling's fault that ISPs are having trouble keeping their bandwidth promises to their customers?

The effect of these rules may very well be that ISPs look for solutions on the demand side of the equation, not the supply side. That could mean higher monthly fees or surcharges for those who are the heaviest users. And with so little competition among ISPs, it's reasonable to worry about gouging. On the other hand, having ISPs deploy a "fast lane" for content providers willing to pay extra for higher priority could be powerfully anti-competitive. Google can afford to pay extra, but can the start-up that wants to be the next YouTube? Universal Music Group could pay extra, but could an indie band? That's why focusing on the companies supplying bandwidth-intensive apps is more problematic than on the consumers demanding them. It's also why the commission's exploration of the "managed services" issue will be so contentious. These services are the ones that would be allowed into the fast lane, making them the exceptions that could swallow the rule.

Photo: FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, announcing his Net neutrality principles in September. Credit: Mark Wilson / Getty Images

-- Jon Healey

Healey writes editorials for The Times' Opinion Manufacturing Division.