“broadband network” on The Daily Caller

Starting today, the Federal Communications Commission begins reviewing comments from the public on what the regulatory future of the Internet should be.  Should the FCC impose 19^th century-style monopoly “common carriage” rules on 21^st century broadband network providers?  Or should the agency continue its four-decade approach to rely on the light-touch regulation that has delivered an explosion of innovation and choices to consumers while also imposing marketplace discipline on the providers of those networks?  Although the regulatory issues may strike most observers as arcane, the real-world stakes are enormous. (more)

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is backing a plan to nearly double the space available on the airwaves for wireless high-speed Internet traffic to keep up with ever-growing demand for video and other cutting-edge applications on laptops and mobile devices. (more)

Internet freedom got a reprieve Tuesday when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia slapped down a brazen attempt by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to ignore the rule of law and begin imposing onerous regulations on broadband network operators. The decision, Comcast v. FCC, deals with arcane matters of regulatory agency jurisdiction, but the stakes were profound and the ramifications for the future of the Internet will reverberate for years to come. (more)

Free Press is asking the FCC to consider a number of changes to the NPRM Net Neutrality regulations which they claim will “promote investment”. But once we examine their proposal in detail, we find that it will produce just the opposite and devastate the U.S. economy. Not only would Free Press preclude broadband providers from innovative new business models and economic opportunities, they would substantially undermine their existing business models and revenue streams. Yet despite all this, Free Press insists that their proposals would not deter broadband companies from investing money but that it would spur new dotcom investments at the edges of the network. (more)

We’ve all heard the old adage, “Lead, follow or get out of the way.” (more)

Google is certainly getting a lot of media attention over their plans for an experimental gigabit broadband network.  The main argument for this type of a network is to give high bandwidth applications a home to be tested because the theory was that broadband networks in the US were constricting applications to very low bandwidth.  But does broadband really lag applications, or is it really the other way around? (more)

Something unfortunate happened in the search for Net Neutrality and an “open Internet”. We have essentially been asked to suspend economic reason and accept the premise that the commodity of Internet server bandwidth is not a free market but a low-cost fixed rate service. We are told by proponents of Net Neutrality that the Internet is a place where the smallest websites that might pay tens of dollars per month for Internet connectivity have the same capability as the largest websites that pay millions per month for Internet connectivity. “Equal access for equal payment” has been replaced with “equal access for any payment”. By trying to “preserve” a vision of the Internet that never even existed, Net Neutrality would eliminate the existing open and competitive Internet server bandwidth market. (more)