Tag: broadband

Hardening the Oligopoly in Wireless Broadband

Art Brodsky of Public Knowledge has some incredibly insightful analysis on the proposed purchase of T-Mobile by of AT&T.
The $39 billion deal would effectively reduce the number of national wireless broadband service providers to three (AT&T, Verizon, and Sprint – and as a Sprint customer, why do I have a feeling this development will f*ck me, too?).
Brodsky’s piece catalogs the immense amount of backstage preparation AT&T accomplished to sow the seeds of government approval for the buyout. However, he also touches on one implication of this deal that deserves more attention: it’s “the one issue that never seems to go away – Net Neutrality.” Continue reading “Hardening the Oligopoly in Wireless Broadband”

Net Neutrality's Nebulous Future

Just before the end of the year, the Federal Communications Commission made a second try at preserving principles of openness on the Internet – often clumsily called “net neutrality,” but better contextualized as an effort to prevent data discrimination.
There’s been loads of coverage of the decision and predictions of its ultimate success as a regulatory tool. Advocates and critics alike are correct when they say that the issue is more than just one thing – it’s multiple attributes of Internet freedom that are on the line here. Continue reading “Net Neutrality's Nebulous Future”

Dear Santa: Please Bring Sanity

I’m not a big fan of the consumptive nature of the “holiday season,” though I do love me some reading. One of the latest on my wish list is Tim Wu’s new tome, The Master Switch. The book itself examines the rise of “information empires” within U.S. communications history, ranging from radio to the Internet.
Wu occupies an interesting place in the media policymaking world: he’s not been afraid to speak his mind, and he’s also remained independent enough to look at our information environment from a strategic perspective, instead of getting embroiled in tactical distractions. Continue reading “Dear Santa: Please Bring Sanity”

Politics-Based Policy, or Policy-Based Politics?

If you haven’t yet read Harold Feld’s humorous critique on the handling of network neutrality as a “political issue” during the recent elections, it’s worth the time.
Harold calls out two functional weaknesses in what constitutes the public interest constituency in D.C.: the desire to score quick political points with no long-term value and the penchant to react in a knee-jerk fashion when the drive to score backfires. Continue reading “Politics-Based Policy, or Policy-Based Politics?”

Faster Facebook or Accurate Forecasts?

The Obama administration’s hunger for wireless broadband spectrum reminds me of a junkie seeking their next fix – they’ll do anything to get more.
In addition to freezing applications for rural low-power DTV stations and threatening to appropriate spectrum from the General Mobile Radio Service (think two-way radio applications, such as those used by industry and public safety agencies), a new proposal would trim the spectrum allocated to weather satellites.
Those of you living east of the Rockies this week got a taste of a “megastorm” which swept the country; the pressure-center of this continental weather-maker was “one of the deepest…ever observed in the continental U.S., outside of a hurricane.” Fortunately, it transited a land mass; if it were over water, this weather system would have qualified as a Category 3 storm. Continue reading “Faster Facebook or Accurate Forecasts?”

Net Neutrality Now Sliding Down Tubes

After the clusterf*ck circus, near-“deal”-breaking, and back-channel discussions sparked by a judicial ruling stripping the FCC from preventing data discrimination online, and nothing (substantive) doing from the agency itself as a result, the ball has been tossed to Congress. Where it landed with a thud.
Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) was poised to introduce a bill that would have effectively been a “compromise” – on an issue in which “compromise” would have meant throttling the FCC’s regulatory authority and leaving lots of loopholes for data discrimination. Bad, bad news. Continue reading “Net Neutrality Now Sliding Down Tubes”

Snookered

A week ago, media reformistas were supposedly “celebrating” the near-avoidance of the death of network neutrality when the FCC declared discussions between it, Google, and Verizon had fallen through.
After a weekend of deep breaths, guess what? Google and Verizon announce a “policy framework” for network neutrality going forward. So much for salvation.
The plan would place the FCC in an “oversight” role to make sure content is not discriminated against online simply for the sake of what it is. Notable, however, is the FCC’s secondary position in the regulation of network neutrality; companies will work out their own deals, and then hand them over to the FCC for rubber-stampage. Continue reading “Snookered”

The Slow Death of Network Neutrality

Many people soiled their suits this week when it was revealed that Google and Verizon – with the apparent oversight of the Federal Communications Commission – began negotiations about how to implement a tiered Internet. If solidified, and officially endorsed, it would have marked the beginning of the end of the principle of network neutrality on the Internet.
The parties involved have denied this activity, to their chagrin. Continue reading “The Slow Death of Network Neutrality”

Net Neutrality: Thanks For The Memories?

The heads of policy peeps just about exploded last month after the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the FCC’s authority to stop internet service providers from conducting data discrimination (violating the informal principle popularly known as “network neutrality“). A couple of weeks of hand-wringing later, and FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski releases a statement outlining his plans to re-empower the agency to regulate the way by which ISPs manage their network traffic.
It’s a somewhat arcane policy principle, but in plain English it breaks down like this: the FCC classifies network service providers in one of two ways – telecommunications providers and information service providers. Telecommunications providers (like old-skool telephony) are subject to “common carriage” rules – this means the networks must not refuse interconnection, cannot discriminate against other carriers and customers, and cannot refuse the use of non-destructive applications on their networks. Information service providers, on the other hand, do not fall under the common carriage paradigm. Continue reading “Net Neutrality: Thanks For The Memories?”