“Broadband” on The Daily Caller

Broadband Internet access is critical to improving virtually every aspect of a consumer’s life.  From improving economic status, access to health care, education, personal finance, purchasing, connections to family and friends, and civic and community involvement, broadband is the great enabling technology of our generation.  Broadband has the power to enhance quality of life for all Americans, so it is vitally important that consumer interests are examined and fully represented in any discussions by the government concerning the regulation of broadband services.  The litmus test for all regulatory measures should be, “Does it benefit consumers?”  So will the Federal Communications Commission’s proposed regulations of broadband services ultimately benefit consumers?  That’s a question well worth pondering. (more)

Washington, D.C., can get hot and muggy in August, which is why lawmakers leave for most of the month, and many staffers, lobbyists and other industry-types also clear out of town in search of cooler climes. (more)

The advocacy group Free Press is inviting Twin Cities residents to turn out on Thursday for what it calls a public hearing on the “future of the Internet.”  But Free Press won’t be talking about how to bring you a faster connection, or how to bring high-speed Internet to the rural and urban communities that it doesn’t reach today.  Instead, the event is going to be a pep rally for imposing new, and to say the least, peculiar, regulations on the broadband Internet, under the name “net neutrality.” (more)

Two days after The Daily Caller requested comment from Free Press for a story about the group’s violation of the Lobbying Disclosure Act, the pro-net neutrality nonprofit that has repeatedly criticized the FCC for its opaque dealings with the telecommunications industry finally decided to respond. (more)

Free Press, the public face of the net neutrality movement, is a moral see-saw when it comes to transparency. (more)

When Australia goes to the polls on August 21st, citizens will vote for more than men and the traditional issues they represent — the ballots cast will directly impact the country’s national broadband plan. Where Australia’s ruling Labor party had pledged A$43 billion for an up-to-100Mbps fiber optic network fed directly to 99 percent of homes (and agreed to pay A$11 billion to Telstra) over the next seven to eight years, the opposing Liberal-National coalition says if elected, it will scrap that notion in favor of a cheaper A$6.3 billion plan. (more)

WASHINGTON — Google and Verizon, two leading players in Internet service and content, are nearing an agreement that could allow Verizon to speed some online content to Internet users more quickly if the content’s creators are willing to pay for the privilege. (more)

WASHINGTON (AP) — Two years ago, the Federal Communications Commission stumbled as it tried to create a nationwide wireless broadband network for police officers, firefighters and emergency medical workers, delaying the construction of what everyone agrees is an urgently needed system. (more)

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)

The last great free-market regulatory decision of the 20^th century was engineered by a Democrat, former FCC Chairman William Kennard, when he refused to drag the new and promising consumer broadband market into what he called the “whole morass” of telephone style regulation. (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)

Earlier this year, the unveiling of the FCC’s National Broadband Plan took a giant step towards addressing a long-overdue problem – ensuring that our emergency workers and first responders have nationwide access to dependable wireless broadband communications.  This effort is commendable in its own right, but is also a continuation of national efforts to upgrade our public safety communications infrastructure that gained urgency in the aftermath of 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina. (more)

The Federal Communications Commission voted Thursday to take another step toward reclassifying the way it regulates Internet service providers, releasing a plan for public comment that would give the federal agency vast new powers over companies that distribute Web access. (more)

A lot has changed since that not-so-halcyon year 1934. (more)

Federal Communications Commission chairman Julius Genachowski gave a head-fake when rumor started floating out of Washington that he would back off of pursuing net neutrality requirements. Instead of backing off from pursuing net neutrality, Genachowski appears to have put a new coat of paint on an old jalopy and wants us to believe that the car will run just fine. (more)

Al Burrows of Las Cruces, New Mexico, sued Verizon Wireless in Santa Fe’s 1st Judicial District Court on April 20, claiming violations of state and federal debt collections laws, as well as “negligent infliction of emotional distress”–for which he wants the telecom giant to pay punitive damages. As of May 25, Verizon had yet to respond to a summons. (more)

Since 2005, the Federal Communications Commission classified broadband Internet access as an “information service,” and effectively deregulated it; your phone company via DSL, your wireless provider via whatever generation of network speed that it offered, and your cable provider via cable modems, could offer access without regulation as a telecommunications service provider under what is known as “Title II” of the Communications Act. Instead, the FCC declared it would regulate only as necessary under its Title I “ancillary authority.” In a Policy Statement the FCC espoused principles of good sportsmanship it would expect of market participants. (more)

House Republicans swept the Congressional Management Office’s 2010 Mouse Awards honoring the best member, committee and leadership Websites last month, but—with at least 2 government agencies bringing complex Web issues 2 Congress’ doorstep and the GOP ill-prepared 2 handle them—their arrogance is more naive than letting Mark Foley host a boy scout camping trip. (more)

In the loud echoing outcry for net neutrality regulation over the years, there has always remained some voice of reason even if it was a low murmur. That voice has remained constant and consistent in its concerns regarding the infrastructure market. As the drum beats have grown louder in the recent months for regulation, examples of concerns over stifled investment in broadband infrastructure have increased: (more)

If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again — and with a more “diplomatic” approach. That’s the strategy the Federal Communications Commission, which detailed its plans to regulate the Internet via a “third way.” (more)