“Verizon is displaying maps of the United States that purport to show each carrier’s ‘3G’ coverage. The maps use color to depict the areas of the country in which each carrier has ‘3G’ coverage and blank or white space in the areas of the country where ‘3G’ coverage is not available. Consumers are interpreting the white or blank space on the maps to mean that AT&T customers who are not in an AT&T ‘3G’ coverage area have no wireless coverage whatsoever, and therefore have no ability to use their wireless devices for any purposes in vast areas of the country. This interpretation is not surprising as Verizon, in its own coverage maps, uses white space to inform customers that no coverage of any kind exists. Contrary to the misleading message conveyed by Verizon’s advertisements, AT&T customers can fully use their wireless devices outside of a ‘3G’ coverage area and undisputedly have coverage in areas depicted by the white or blank spaces on the maps used in Verizon’s advertisements.”

– Excerpt from AT&T’s complaint against Verizon

If AT&T’s lawsuit over Verizon’s allegedly misleading “there’s a map for that” wasn’t a public relations mistake to begin with, it will be by the time Verizon gets through with it. Responding to the suit today, Verizon (VZ) rep Jeffrey Nelson used it to stoke public perception that AT&T’s (T) network is inferior to Verizon’s.

“This is a junk lawsuit. It has no merit,” Nelson told Adweek. “It’s surprising that rather than defend the ‘blue’ hot spots on their 3G map, our competitor instead focuses on their white spaces. The maps clearly note that the comparisons are of 3G service, and further note that voice and data services are available in other places.”

Way to draw attention away from Verizon’s claim of a superior network coverage, AT&T.

With V-Block, clients can build “private clouds” from which to draw computing resources. It’s an ambitious effort designed to capture a bigger piece of the IT infrastructure market by offering large unified systems designed to handle most of a business’s computing needs. As Cisco CEO John Chambers noted earlier today, the goal here is to more effectively target the market for cloud infrastructure and services, a market that could be worth as much as $350 billion.

It’s also a market loaded with with fierce competitors, IBM (IBM) and Hewlett-Packard (HPQ) among them. Not that this worries Chambers much. “Will this change the industry?” he asked during a conference call today. “Time will tell. I believe that it will be the partnership that people will look back on and say it changed the data center and clouds forever.”

Earlier this year, Cisco (CSCO) acquired Pure Digital, developer of the Flip video camera, for $590 million. Two weeks ago, the company spent $3 billion on videoconferencing system maker Tandberg. And now it’s purchasing wireless infrastructure outfit Starent Networks (STAR) for $2.9 billion, or $35 a share. That’s a 21 percent premium over Starent’s closing price on Monday of $29.03, but it’s likely money well spent for Cisco.

Starent makes hardware and software to support wireless multimedia services, an obvious sweet spot in the data services market right now. Indeed, Cisco expects global mobile data traffic to more than double every year through 2013. Which makes Starent a pretty good growth bet, from on acquisition standpoint.

“The Internet is an extraordinary platform for innovation, job creation, investment, and opportunity,” Genachowski said during an event at the Brookings Institute. “It has unleashed the potential of entrepreneurs and enabled the launch and growth of small businesses across America. It is vital that we safeguard the free and open Internet.”

To that end, Genachowski proposed that the FCC formalize its four principles of network openness. To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled:

• to access the lawful Internet content of their choice.
• to run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement.
• to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network.
• to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.

To these, Genachowski proposed adding two more: The first would prevent Internet access providers from discriminating against particular Internet content or applications, while allowing for reasonable network management. The second would ensure that Internet access providers are transparent about the network management practices they implement.

Under Genachowski’s proposal, all six principles would apple to all platforms that access the Internet, something that will likely prove controversial with the likes of AT&T (T) and Verizon (VZ), whose wireless operations haven’t yet been subjected to the same kind of scrutiny as, say, Comcast (CMCSA), which ran afoul of the FCC last year when it was caught throttling Bit Torrent traffic.

These companies will no doubt argue that the FCC is overstepping its bounds in working to implement such principles. But Genachowski says that’s not the case. “This is not about government regulation of the Internet,” he said. “It’s about fair rules of the road for companies that control access to the Internet.”

Below, Genachowski’s speech in full:

Preserving a Free and Open Internet: A Platform for Innovation, Opportunity, and Prosperity
Prepared Remarks of Chairman Julius Genachowski Federal Communications Commission
The Brookings Institution
Washington, DC
September 21, 2009

I’d like to thank Brookings for hosting me and this discussion about the future of broadband and the Internet.

We’ve just finished a summer of big-ticket commemorations, celebrating the 40th anniversaries of the Apollo landing and of Woodstock; 1969 was also a good year to be a kid in New York, with Joe Namath calling the Super Bowl, and the Knicks’ season that ended with the legendary Willis Reed in Game 7. I grew up a long fly ball from Shea Stadium and soaked up every minute of the Miracle Mets’ season. Maybe that’s why I tend to believe in miracles.

But perhaps the most momentous birthday from that famous summer of 1969 went by just a couple of weeks ago with little mention. Just over forty years ago, a handful of engineers in a UCLA lab connected two computers with a 15-foot gray cable and transferred little pieces of data back and forth. It was the first successful test of the ARPANET, the U.S.-government-funded project that became the Internet–the most transformational communications breakthrough since the printing press.

Today, we can’t imagine what our lives would be like without the Internet–any more than we can imagine life without running water or the light bulb. Millions of us depend upon it every day: at home, at work, in school–and everywhere in between. The Internet has unleashed the creative genius of countless entrepreneurs and has enabled the creation of jobs–and the launch of small businesses and the expansion of large ones–all across America.

That’s why Congress and the President have charged the FCC with developing a National Broadband Plan to ensure that every American has access to open and robust broadband. The fact is that we face great challenges as a nation right now, including health care, education, energy, and public safety. While the Internet alone will not provide a complete solution to any of them, it can and must play a critical role in solving each one.

Why has the Internet proved to be such a powerful engine for creativity, innovation, and economic growth? A big part of the answer traces back to one key decision by the Internet’s original architects: to make the Internet an open system.

Historian John Naughton describes the Internet as an attempt to answer the following question: How do you design a network that is “future proof”–that can support the applications that today’s inventors have not yet dreamed of? The solution was to devise a network of networks that would not be biased in favor of any particular application. The Internet’s creators didn’t want the network architecture–or any single entity–to pick winners and losers. Because it might pick the wrong ones. Instead, the Internet’s open architecture pushes decision-making and intelligence to the edge of the network–to end users, to the cloud, to businesses of every size and in every sector of the economy, to creators and speakers across the country and around the globe. In the words of Tim Berners-Lee, the Internet is a “blank canvas”–allowing anyone to contribute and to innovate without permission.

It is easy to look at today’s Internet giants–and the tremendous benefits they have supplied to our economy and our culture–and forget that many were small businesses just a few years ago, founded on little more than a good idea and a no-frills connection to the Internet. Marc Andreessen was a graduate student when he created Mosaic, which led to Netscape, the first commercially successful Web browser. Mark Zuckerberg was a college student in 2004 when he started Facebook, which just announced that it added its 300 millionth member. Pierre Omidyar originally launched eBay on his own personal website. Today more than 600,000 Americans earn part of their living by operating small businesses on eBay’s auction platform, bringing jobs and opportunity to Danvers, Massachusetts, Durham, North Carolina and Lincoln, Nebraska, and many other communities in both rural and urban America. This is the power of the Internet: distributed innovation and ubiquitous entrepreneurship, the potential for jobs and opportunity everywhere there is broadband.

And let us not forget that the open Internet enables much more than commerce. It is also an unprecedented platform for speech, democratic engagement, and a culture that prizes creative new ways of approaching old problems. In 2000, Jimmy Wales started a project to create a free online encyclopedia. He originally commissioned experts to write the entries, but the project only succeeded after moving to volunteers to write them collaboratively. The result is Wikipedia, one of the top 10 most visited websites in the world and one of the most comprehensive aggregations of human knowledge in our history. The potential of collaboration and social media continues to grow. It is changing and accelerating innovation. And we’ve seen new media tools like Twitter and YouTube used by democratic movements around the globe.

Even now, the Internet is beginning to transform health care, education, and energy usage for the better. Health-related applications, distributed over a widely connected Internet, can help bring down health care costs and improve medical service. Four out of five Americans who are online have accessed medical information over the Internet, and most say this information affected their decision-making. Nearly four million college students took at least one online course in 2007, and the Internet can potentially connect kids anywhere to the best information and teachers everywhere. And the Internet is helping enable smart grid technologies, which promise to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by hundreds of millions of metric tons.

At the same time, we have also seen great strides in the center of the network. Most Americans’ early exposure to the Internet was through analog modems, which allowed a trickle of data through the phone lines to support early electronic bulletin boards and basic email. Over the last two decades, thanks to substantial investment and technological ingenuity, companies devised ways to retrofit networks initially designed for phones and one-way video to support two-way broadband data streams connecting homes and businesses across the country. And a revolution in wireless technologies–using licensed and unlicensed spectrum–and the creation of path-breaking devices like the Blackberry and iPhone have enabled millions of us to carry the Internet in our pockets and purses.

The lesson of each of these stories, and innumerable others like them, is that we cannot know what tomorrow holds on the Internet, except that it will be unexpected; that the genius of American innovators is unlimited; and that the fewer obstacles these innovators face in bringing their work to the world, the greater our opportunity as citizens and as a nation.

Notwithstanding its unparalleled record of success, today the free and open Internet faces emerging and substantial challenges. We’ve already seen some clear examples of deviations from the Internet’s historic openness. We have witnessed certain broadband providers unilaterally block access to VoIP applications (phone calls delivered over data networks) and implement technical measures that degrade the performance of peer-to-peer software distributing lawful content. We have even seen at least one service provider deny users access to political content. And as many members of the Internet community and key Congressional leaders have noted, there are compelling reasons to be concerned about the future of openness.

One reason has to do with limited competition among service providers. As American consumers make the shift from dial-up to broadband, their choice of providers has narrowed substantially. I don’t intend that remark as a policy conclusion or criticism–it is simply a fact about today’s marketplace that we must acknowledge and incorporate into our policymaking.

A second reason involves the economic incentives of broadband providers. The great majority of companies that operate our nation’s broadband pipes rely upon revenue from selling phone service, cable TV subscriptions, or both. These services increasingly compete with voice and video products provided over the Internet. The net result is that broadband providers’ rational bottom-line interests may diverge from the broad interests of consumers in competition and choice.

The third reason involves the explosion of traffic on the Internet. With the growing popularity of high-bandwidth applications, Internet traffic is roughly doubling every two years. Technologies for managing broadband networks have become more sophisticated and widely deployed. But these technologies are just tools. They cannot by themselves determine the right answers to difficult policy questions–and they raise their own set of new questions.

In acknowledging the existence of challenging competitive, economic, and technological realities for today’s Internet, I want to underscore that this debate, as I see it, isn’t about white hats or black hats among companies in and around the network. Rather, there are inevitable tensions built into our system; important and difficult questions that we have an obligation to ask and to answer correctly for our country.

When I worked in the private sector I was fortunate to work with some of the greatest innovators of our time. That taught me some lessons about the importance of innovation and investment. It also taught me the importance of developing clear goals and then being focused and practical in achieving them, making sure to have the best input and ideas from the broadest group possible.

I am convinced that there are few goals more essential in the communications landscape than preserving and maintaining an open and robust Internet. I also know that achieving this goal will take an approach that is smart about technology, smart about markets, smart about law and policy, and smart about the lessons of history.

The rise of serious challenges to the free and open Internet puts us at a crossroads. We could see the Internet’s doors shut to entrepreneurs, the spirit of innovation stifled, a full and free flow of information compromised. Or we could take steps to preserve Internet openness, helping ensure a future of opportunity, innovation, and a vibrant marketplace of ideas.
I understand the Internet is a dynamic network and that technology continues to grow and evolve. I recognize that if we were to create unduly detailed rules that attempted to address every possible assault on openness, such rules would become outdated quickly. But the fact that the Internet is evolving rapidly does not mean we can, or should, abandon the underlying values fostered by an open network, or the important goal of setting rules of the road to protect the free and open Internet.

Saying nothing–and doing nothing–would impose its own form of unacceptable cost. It would deprive innovators and investors of confidence that the free and open Internet we depend upon today will still be here tomorrow. It would deny the benefits of predictable rules of the road to all players in the Internet ecosystem. And it would be a dangerous retreat from the core principle of openness–the freedom to innovate without permission–that has been a hallmark of the Internet since its inception, and has made it so stunningly successful as a platform for innovation, opportunity, and prosperity.

In view of these challenges and opportunities, and because it is vital that the Internet continue to be an engine of innovation, economic growth, competition and democratic engagement, I believe the FCC must be a smart cop on the beat preserving a free and open Internet.

This is how I propose we move forward: To date, the Federal Communications Commission has addressed these issues by announcing four Internet principles that guide our case-by-case enforcement of the communications laws. These principles can be summarized as: Network operators cannot prevent users from accessing the lawful Internet content, applications, and services of their choice, nor can they prohibit users from attaching non-harmful devices to the network.

The principles were initially articulated by Chairman Michael Powell in 2004 as the “Four Freedoms,” and later endorsed in a unanimous 2005 policy statement issued by the Commission under Chairman Kevin Martin and with the forceful support of Commissioner Michael Copps, who of course remains on the Commission today. In the years since 2005, the Internet has continued to evolve and the FCC has issued a number of important decisions involving openness. Today, I propose that the FCC adopt the existing principles as Commission rules, along with two additional principles that reflect the evolution of the Internet and that are essential to ensuring its continued openness.

The fifth principle is one of non-discrimination–stating that broadband providers cannot discriminate against particular Internet content or applications. This means they cannot block or degrade lawful traffic over their networks, or pick winners by favoring some content or applications over others in the connection to subscribers’ homes. Nor can they disfavor an Internet service just because it competes with a similar service offered by that broadband provider. The Internet must continue to allow users to decide what content and applications succeed.

This principle will not prevent broadband providers from reasonably managing their networks. During periods of network congestion, for example, it may be appropriate for providers to ensure that very heavy users do not crowd out everyone else. And this principle will not constrain efforts to ensure a safe, secure, and spam-free Internet experience, or to enforce the law. It is vital that illegal conduct be curtailed on the Internet. As I said in my Senate confirmation hearing, open Internet principles apply only to lawful content, services and applications–not to activities like unlawful distribution of copyrighted works, which has serious economic consequences. The enforcement of copyright and other laws and the obligations of network openness can and must co-exist.

I also recognize that there may be benefits to innovation and investment of broadband providers offering managed services in limited circumstances. These services are different than traditional broadband Internet access, and some have argued they should be analyzed under a different framework. I believe such services can supplement–but must not supplant–free and open Internet access, and that we must ensure that ample bandwidth exists for all Internet users and innovators. In the rulemaking process I will discuss in a moment, we will carefully consider how to approach the question of managed services in a way that maximizes the innovation and investment necessary for a robust and thriving Internet.

I will propose that the FCC evaluate alleged violations of the non-discrimination principle as they arise, on a case-by-case basis, recognizing that the Internet is an extraordinarily complex and dynamic system. This approach, within the framework I am proposing today, will allow the Commission to make reasoned, fact-based determinations based on the Internet before it–not based on the Internet of years past or guesses about how the Internet will evolve.

The sixth principle is a transparency principle–stating that providers of broadband Internet access must be transparent about their network management practices. Why does the FCC need to adopt this principle? The Internet evolved through open standards. It was conceived as a tool whose user manual would be free and available to all. But new network management practices and technologies challenge this original understanding. Today, broadband providers have the technical ability to change how the Internet works for millions of users–with profound consequences for those users and content, application, and service providers around the world.

To take one example, last year the FCC ruled on the blocking of peer-to-peer transmissions by a cable broadband provider. The blocking was initially implemented with no notice to subscribers or the public. It was discovered only after an engineer and hobbyist living in Oregon realized that his attempts to share public domain recordings of old barbershop quartet songs over a home Internet connection were being frustrated. It was not until he brought the problem to the attention of the media and Internet community, which then brought it to the attention of the FCC, that the improper network management practice became known and was stopped.

We cannot afford to rely on happenstance for consumers, businesses, and policymakers to learn about changes to the basic functioning of the Internet. Greater transparency will give consumers the confidence of knowing that they’re getting the service they’ve paid for, enable innovators to make their offerings work effectively over the Internet, and allow policymakers to ensure that broadband providers are preserving the Internet as a level playing field. It will also help facilitate discussion among all the participants in the Internet ecosystem, which can reduce the need for government involvement in network management disagreements.

To be clear, the transparency principle will not require broadband providers to disclose personal information about subscribers or information that might compromise the security of the network, and there will be a mechanism to protect competitively sensitive data.

In considering the openness of the Internet, it is also important to recognize that our choice of technologies and devices for accessing the Internet continues to expand at a dizzying pace. New mobile and satellite broadband networks are getting faster every day, and extraordinary devices like smartphones and wireless data cards are making it easier to stay connected while on the go. And I note the beginnings of a trend towards openness among several participants in the mobile marketplace.

Even though each form of Internet access has unique technical characteristics, they are all are different roads to the same place. It is essential that the Internet itself remain open, however users reach it. The principles I’ve been speaking about apply to the Internet however accessed, and I will ask my fellow Commissioners to join me in confirming this.

Of course, how the principles apply may differ depending on the access platform or technology. The rulemaking process will enable the Commission to analyze fully the implications of the principles for mobile network architectures and practices–and how, as a practical matter, they can be fairly and appropriately implemented. As we tackle these complex questions involving different technologies used for Internet access, let me be clear that we will be focused on formulating policies that will maximize innovation and investment, consumer choice, and greater competition.

I’ve talked about what we need to do; now I’d like to talk about how we should do it. I will soon circulate to my fellow Commissioners proposed rules prepared by Commission staff embodying the principles I’ve discussed, and I will ask for their support in issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking. This notice will provide the public with a detailed explanation of what we propose to do and why.

Equally importantly, the notice will ask for input and feedback on the proposed rules and their application, such as how to determine whether network management practices are reasonable, and what information broadband providers should disclose about their network management practices and in what form. And–as I indicated earlier–it will pose a series of detailed questions on how the Internet openness principles should apply to mobile broadband.

While my goals are clear–to ensure the Internet remains a free and open platform that promotes innovation, investment, competition, and users’ interests — our path to implementing them is not pre-determined. I will ensure that the rulemaking process will be fair, transparent, fact-based, and data-driven. Anyone will be able to participate in this process, and I hope everyone will. We will hold a number of public workshops and, of course, use the Internet and other new media tools to facilitate participation. Today we’ve launched a new website, www.openinternet.gov, to kick off discussion of the issues I’ve been talking about. We encourage everyone to visit the site and contribute to the process.

Some have argued that the FCC should not take affirmative steps to protect the Internet’s openness. Let me be clear about what this is about, and what it isn’t.

The fundamental goal of what I’ve outlined today is preserving the openness and freedom of the Internet. We have an obligation to ensure that the Internet is an enduring engine for U.S. economic growth, and a foundation for democracy in the 21st century. We have an obligation to ensure that the Internet remains a vast landscape of innovation and opportunity.

This is not about government regulation of the Internet. It’s about fair rules of the road for companies that control access to the Internet. We will do as much as we need to do, and no more, to ensure that the Internet remains an unfettered platform for competition, creativity, and entrepreneurial activity.

This is not about protecting the Internet against imaginary dangers. We’re seeing the breaks and cracks emerge, and they threaten to change the Internet’s fundamental architecture of openness. This would shrink opportunities for innovators, content creators, and small businesses around the country, and limit the full and free expression the Internet promises. This is about preserving and maintaining something profoundly successful and ensuring that it’s not distorted or undermined. If we wait too long to preserve a free and open Internet, it will be too late.

Some will seek to invoke innovation and investment as reasons not to adopt open Internet rules. But history’s lesson is clear: Ensuring a robust and open Internet is the best thing we can do to promote investment and innovation. And while there are some who see every policy decision as either pro-business or pro-consumer, I reject that approach; it’s not the right way to see technology’s role in America.

An open Internet will benefit both consumers and businesses. The principles that will protect the open Internet are an essential step to maximize investment and innovation in the network and on the edge of it–by establishing rules of the road that incentivize competition, empower entrepreneurs, and grow the economic pie to the benefit of all.

I believe we share a common purpose–we want the Internet to continue flourishing as a platform for innovation and communication, with continued investment and increasing deployment of broadband to all Americans. I believe my fellow Commissioners share this purpose, and I look forward to working collaboratively with them in this endeavor.

In closing, we are here because 40 years ago, a bunch of researchers in a lab changed the way computers interact and, as a result, changed the world. We are here because those Internet pioneers had unique insights about the power of open networks to transform lives for the better, and they did something about it. Our work now is to preserve the brilliance of what they contributed to our country and the world. It’s to make sure that, in the 21st century, the garage, the basement, and the dorm room remain places where innovators can not only dream but bring their dreams to life. And no one should be neutral about that.

“This significantly expands Dell’s enterprise-solutions capabilities and makes Perot Systems’ strengths available to even more customers around the world,” Dell CEO Michael Dell said in a statement. “There will be efficiencies from combining the companies, but the acquisition makes such great sense because of the obvious ways our businesses complement each other.”

The deal is expected to close some time in January and when it does, Perot will become Dell’s services unit.

An interesting move. While there had been speculation that Dell was looking to acquire a handset company like Palm (PALM), it seems Dell was far more interested in boosting its enterprise business by acquiring an outsourcer like Perot.

“Speculation is rife that Apple will end its exclusive U.S. iPhone service deal with AT&T when the current contract expires in June 2010 and begin to offer phones that work with the Verizon network,” iSuppli analyst Francis Sideco said in a research note today. “However, iSuppli doesn’t believe this will be the case. The main reason Apple is likely to stick with AT&T beyond 2010 is the relatively wide usage and growth expected for the HSPA air standard used by the carrier for 3G data.”

As Sideco explains, “Cumulative global subscribers of HSPA wireless services, consisting of High-Speed Downlink Packet Access (HSDPA) and High-Speed Uplink Packet Access (HSUPA), are set to rise to 1.4 billion in 2012, up from 269.1 million in 2009. In contrast, cumulative subscribers for the EVDO standard used by Verizon will amount to 304.6 million in 2013, up from 145.2 million in 2009.”

A point worth noting, though it’s hard to imagine that Apple (AAPL) doesn’t harbor some resentment toward AT&T (T), which has undermined its carefully crafted iPhone experience. And if that’s the case, wouldn’t it make more sense for the company to extend its deal with AT&T, but not as an exclusive? That would allow Apple to hammer out a second deal with Verizon (VZ), which, according to some analysts, would more than double U.S. iPhone sales in the near term.

As Bernstein Research analyst Toni Sacconaghi noted this summer, “Verizon’s postpaid subscriber base is not only larger than AT&T’s, but more importantly, is untapped whereas we estimate more than 10 percent of AT&T’s postpaid users already have an iPhone.”

Dell (DELL) earned $472 million, or 24 cents a share, on revenue of $12.76 billion. Analysts surveyed by FactSet Research had expected it to earn 22 cents a share on $12.6 billion in revenue. Dell shares spiked nearly seven percent when the news was released, oddly, at 3:57–three minutes before the close of trading Thursday (click on the image below).

Lousy afternoon for someone in Dell Investor Relations. Anyway….

In a statement, CEO Michael Dell said demand for the company’s products appears to have stabilized and, believe it or not, things are starting to look up.

“If current demand trends continue, we expect revenue for the second half of the year to be stronger than the first half,” Dell said in a statement. “We are expanding our capabilities in enterprise technology and services and investing in our core business to distinguish Dell both with customers and in operating performance.”

Answer: probably not all that bad. As Yankee Group analyst Joshua Martin notes, Chrome is hardly a Windows killer. “The Chrome OS isn’t the final bullet in the war between Google and Microsoft, rather it’s merely a shot across the bow,” Martin wrote in a note to clients. “Google’s targeting of netbooks will reduce Window’s market share of this high growth category, but the effect will only be slightly greater than the introduction of Linux-based netbooks.”

In other words, Chrome will prove more a nagging irritant to Microsoft (MSFT) than anything else–at least initially. And while it will presumably increase the use of Google’s (GOOG) Web services and applications, it’s not going to be unseating Windows, the darling of enterprise, anytime soon.

Writes Bernstein analyst Jeffrey Lindsay: “Although the Chrome OS will initially be released for netbooks, Google indicated that it could eventually be used to power full-size desktop systems. However, it is unclear how much traction Google could gain in this market, as the Chrome OS would presumably not be compatible with Windows based programs. Instead, Google would need to rely on people to more fully adopt web-based services (a long-dated proposition), or for software developers to port their applications over to Chrome OS.”

And if that’s the case, it’s going to be a long time before we see Windows application compatibility, which is key to this particular battle. Until then, Chrome OS will perform about as well as Linux has in the netbook market, which is to say, not well at all. “It will take quite a long time for Google to become a competitor to Microsoft,” said Gartner analyst Michael Silver. “In the enterprise, for example, over 70% of the applications used require Windows. And even at home, things like personal finance still require Windows. So, while I think this is a longer-term threat to Microsoft, it’s definitely not in the short term.”

That’s the word from Gartner, which back in March was claiming the decline would be just 3.8 percent. The research outfit said Tuesday that it expects tech spending to fall to $3.2 trillion this year, down from $3.4 trillion in 2008. And it sees all four major segments of IT–hardware, software, IT services and telecommunications–suffering revenue declines in 2009 (click on chart below).

“The forecast decline in spending growth for the hardware and software segments in 2009 has almost stabilized, and only minor downward revisions have been made to these forecasts this quarter,” said Gartner’s Richard Gordon. “However, the full impact of the global recession on the IT services and telecommunications sectors is still emerging, and forecast growth in these areas has been further reduced significantly.”

That said, the company sees a rebound of 2.3 percent in 2010.

Gartner (IT) is the latest research firm to temper its projections for information technology spending this year in light of the ever-souring economy. Last week Forrester (FORR) lowered its expectations for 2009, saying the first two quarters of the year were worse than expected and that the decline will carry out for the rest of the year. It did, however, say we can expect a rebound in 2010.

Sacconaghi believes that Dell (DELL) isn’t interested in a “transformational” acquisition, though its interest in the handset market might suggest otherwise. Rather, the company is mulling the acquisition of small- to medium-sized enterprise-related companies.

“While there has been speculation that Dell could look to acquire a handset company and we continue to believe that a consolidation play in the PC space could make sense for additional details, Dell appears focused on boosting its enterprise business by acquiring small to medium sized companies with strong margin profiles and higher levels of recurring revenues,” Sacconaghi writes.

Which companies? Software, services or storage and networking outfits, most likely, says Sacconaghi. Companies like Perot Systems (PER), Salesforce.com (CRM), Compellant (CML) and 3Com (COMS).

“We see Dell potentially looking to acquire a smaller remote infrastructure management company, or a smaller outsourcer–Perot fits the latter description, and is possible, but it is unclear that it is a willing seller, and its unique concentration (50 percent) in healthcare may be too narrow a platform for Dell’s offerings,” the analyst writes.

“…Dell’s software acquisitions to date have largely centered around systems management and we believe that similar types of companies could be acquired to further expand Dell’s capabilities. Also in software, we believe that [Salesforce.com] would be strategically consistent with Dell’s efforts to drive business at mid to large enterprises, but would be expensive ($4.8B current market cap) and would have a limited impact on revenues ($1.1B in their last FY)….

“Given that Dell’s biggest enterprise partnership is in storage, we believe the company could look to acquire additional IP for its own use. Compellent and CommVault (CVLT) could be appropriate targets. We think a networking deal is less likely, but purchasing someone such as 3COM and attempting to commoditize the networking space would not be inconsistent with Dell’s stated enterprise strategy.”

An interesting list of targets. Still, you’ve got to wonder why it doesn’t include Palm (PALM). After all, Dell really can’t afford to miss out on the handheld market completely. Can it?

Hewlett-Packard’s second-quarter financials may have been in line with forecasts, but they were troubling nonetheless. A number of analysts predicted that the company might report better-than-expected earnings. Sadly, it did not. HP’s net income for the period fell 17 percent to $1.7 billion, or 70 cents per share. Excluding one-time items, the company earned 86 cents a share, compared with a profit of 87 cents a share in the same period last year. The results include charges of 2 cents a share related to a patent dispute. Sales fell three percent to $27.4 billion. Every division of the company, save one, reported a decline in revenue. The lone highlight, Services, posted an increase, but that was due primarily to HP’s acquisition of EDS. The grim details:

Enterprise Storage and Servers: down 28 percent
Software: down 15 percent
Personal Systems Group: down 19 percent (though it claims the leading market position in PCs in every region)
Imaging and Printing Group: down 23 percent
Financial Services: down 6 percent
Services: up 99 percent

Clearly, the decline in consumer and business spending is weighing heavy on HP (HPQ) and will continue to do so. The company expects third-quarter revenue to be approximately flat to down two percent sequentially. And it says full-year revenue will slip approximately four to five percent from the prior-year period.

UPDATE: During a conference call to discuss earnings, HP’s leadership said the company will sack about two percent of the workforce in the months ahead as it looks to trim costs. 6,400 employees will lose their jobs as a result.