“Computer law” on The Daily Caller

Broadband and Web service companies are beefing up their lobbying forces in Washington as the multibillion-dollar battle over Internet regulations gathers momentum. (more)

Google has just announced that they will now begin factoring page speed in their search algorithm rankings.  That means the faster a website loads, the higher up they show up in Google searches.  Sluggish sites on the other hand will be knocked down the search rankings even if they have the most relevant information.  While I believe that Google’s latest actions are rational and that it serves consumer interests since no one wants a slow results, it does raise an interesting dilemma for “Network Neutrality” advocates who propagate the myth that all websites should operate at the same speed. (more)

On April 6, a three-judge panel in Washington, D.C., found that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) lacked the regulatory authority to impose “net neutrality” regulations. This is a critical decision—a very positive one—for entrepreneurs. (more)

Yesterday a federal appeals court dealt a blow to the FCC’s plans to expand its jurisdiction from traditional phone and media regulation onto the Internet. In response to this clear judicial ruling, proponents of so-called net neutrality regulation are scrambling to figure out how the FCC can expand its authority to regulate the Internet—either through some new regulatory contortion, or through the passage of legislation that would expand the FCC’s authority. (more)

The Internet works. Reliably, efficiently and economically. Yet Washington now wants to step in and “fix” what’s not broken, possibly subjecting the Internet to decades-old rules intended for the old Bell Telephone network. (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)

Inimai M. Chettiar and J. Scott Holladay from the Institute for Policy Integrity of the New York University School of Law has published the paper “Free to Invest: The Economic Benefits of Preserving Net Neutrality i” (henceforth referred to as “Free to Invest” in this article for expediency). Free to Invest argues that Net Neutrality is crucial to the economic health of the Internet and that without it; broadband providers would be free to extort content providers by double charging for network access. But the analysis is based almost exclusively on a misguided and flawed understanding of how the modern Internet actually works. (more)

With 16.5% of the nation “underemployed” and economists gloomily doubting next-generation job creation, Washington is considering a number of strategies, including the President’s “jobs bill.” “Jobs,” President Obama insisted in his state of the union address, “must be our number one focus in 2010.” (more)

The Washington, D.C., fight over “net neutrality” in some ways only scratches the surface of what’s really at stake in the question of government regulation of Internet service providers’ treatment of online content. The downside of permitting FCC and Congressional authority over cyberspace “neutrality” is hard to overstate. (more)

President Obama on Monday reiterated his commitment to net neutrality, and criticized companies that are trying to derail the FCC’s efforts on the issue. (more)

 (more)