Brian Fung

According the Pew Research Center, Internet usage and support for net freedom share a close relationship -- no matter where you live. The more of a country's population that's connected to the Web, the more likely it is that they'll support ending government controls.

This is truest in Latin American countries like Chile and Argentina, where a majority of people are online. Unsurprisingly, places that are still lacking in connectivity don't seem to care as much.

Support for Internet openness says nothing about the actual conditions in-country, which is arguably the more important metric. And the reality is somewhat depressing. Internet usage may be a factor in determining support for a free and open Internet. But its connection to actual Internet freedom is not so clear.

Researchers from the California Institute of Technology say they've come up with a new kind of laser that's capable of quadrupling the bandwidth on today's fastest fiber optic networks.

These networks make up what's known as the Internet "backbone," the behind-the-scenes network that delivers content to ISPs like Verizon -- who in turn make that content available to you. Today's best backbone technology is capable of staggering bandwidth -- in some cases up to 400 Gbps. For perspective, that's more than 40,000 times the speed of the average American's home connection. (Take that comparison with a grain of salt: Most Americans will never need the capacity of a backbone connection. Even the fastest consumer plans top out at 1 Gbps these days.) But the new laser technology, developed in part by National Medal of Science-winner Amnon Yariv, promises to quadruple bandwidth in the existing Internet backbone, if not more.

A team of former congressional investigators is calling for a new inquiry into the Central Intelligence Agency -- not unlike one they performed nearly four decades ago.

The officials -- who helped lead a months-long study in 1975 to assess allegations that the CIA had improperly spied on US citizens -- say Congress should convene a special panel to determine whether America's intelligence agencies have overstepped their bounds.

In a letter sent to the White House and top lawmakers, the officials drew parallels between recent allegations of overreach and their work on the Church committee, the investigative body chaired by the late Sen. Frank Church (D-IH) that resulted in a two-feet-thick report on the intelligence community's secret activities.

"There is a crisis of public confidence," they wrote. "Misleading statements by agency officials to Congress, the courts, and the public have undermined public trust in the intelligence community and in the capacity for the branches of government to provide meaningful oversight." Among those who signed the letter are the Church committee's chief counsel, Frederick AO Schwartz; top committee staffer and University of Georgia professor Loch Johnson; and more than a dozen others.

Federal regulators may have approved AT&T's bid to merge with Leap Wireless, aka Cricket -- a deal that will add 5 million customers to AT&T's rolls.

But fans of Cricket's service may have a reason to be wary of their new corporate overlords. That's because prepaid customers on AT&T are routinely being billed extra for minutes they don't appear to be using. If true, that means their available credit is being drained at unexpected rates -- often without their knowledge -- requiring that they buy more credit, more often.

Critics allege the practice amounts to a subtle program of consumer fraud that, in the aggregate, delivers big bucks to wireless carriers. According to a formal complaint lodged with federal regulators, wireless companies are reporting longer call times than what a customer's device will show. In the case of one AT&T subscriber, the network added as many as 33 seconds to his call after he hung up, allowing AT&T to bill him for an additional minute of usage.

[Commentary] Should people be banned from registering domain names that end in ".sucks"? It's easy to see how this could get out of hand.

A politician might take out his opponent's name and put .sucks at the end. Cyberbullies might use the suffix to torment teens and young children. In the wrong hands, a .sucks domain could do real damage. But maybe clamping down isn't the best move.

The .sucks domain isn't available yet; ICANN still needs to decide whether to approve the pending application. But that hasn't stopped three companies from asking for permission to sell the rights to .sucks domains.

In the case of one registrar, Vox Populi, trademark holders would have to pay as much as $25,000 a year just to hang onto their own domain. Most reasonable people would probably agree the .sucks domain doesn't "serve the public interest," as Sen Rockefeller put it. Yet at the same time, the case for banning the domain doesn't seem all that strong, either.

Microsoft is trying to persuade politicians to take out targeted ads on Xbox Live, Skype, MSN and other company platforms as midterm elections begin heating up around the country.

To plug the idea, Microsoft officials handed out promotional materials at the Conservative Political Action Conference, or CPAC. It's the latest move by tech companies to seize a piece of the lucrative political ad market. The ads, which would appear on the Xbox Live dashboard and other Microsoft products, combine Microsoft user IDs and other public data to build a profile of Xbox users. Campaigns can then blast ads to selected demographic categories, or to specific congressional districts. And if the campaign brings its own list of voter e-mail addresses, Microsoft can match the additional data with individual customer accounts for even more accurate voter targeting.

[March 10]

[Commentary] Remember the Great CBS Blackout of 2013? The Federal Communications Commission signaled that it wants to end TV stations' ability to jointly negotiate content fees with cable companies, a tactic that the FCC says has helped drive up the rates that Comcast, Time Warner Cable and other providers must pay broadcasters in exchange for their programming.

Known as "retransmission consent," the arrangement has been an incredibly lucrative one for TV stations. Broadcasters stand to lose some of their leverage as a result of the proposed ban on joint bargaining, said Brent Skorup, a policy analyst at George Mason University's Mercatus Center.

"Blackouts will never totally disappear, but retrans payments make them more frequent," he said. Taking the sting out of retransmission fees -- by forcing TV stations to negotiate individually with cable companies -- could help ward off the worst disputes between networks and cable companies. And that could mean fewer events like the CBS blackout.

[March 7]

The Republican National Committee recently issued a major rebuke of the National Security Agency, condemning the spy agency's collection of bulk telephone records from American citizens. The party's resolution roundly criticized the program as "an intrusion on basic human rights" and set conservatives on a path to draw civil libertarians into the fold. But surprisingly, at the largest conservative confab of the year, the issue of NSA surveillance is nowhere to be found.

The agenda for this year's Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) doesn't once mention President Barack Obama's signals intelligence program. Nor are there any booths on the convention floor blasting the secret FISA court, attempts to break into tech companies' server links or the sharing of NSA data with domestic law enforcement agencies like the Drug Enforcement Administration.

[March 7]

[Commentary] Comcast is extending its $10-a-month broadband program for low-income Americans.

The discounted service, known as Internet Essentials, was set to expire three years after Comcast's merger with NBC-Universal in 2011. But now the cable company says it's making the program available to eligible people "indefinitely." The Comcast-Time Warner Cable merger must still be approved by the Justice Department and the Federal Communications Commission, and analysts say Comcast's latest moves are part of a charm offensive designed to win over skeptical regulators.

Comcast's motives aside, giving poorer Americans the same access to broadband that wealthier people enjoy has been a longtime goal of the Obama Administration. Internet Essentials makes a dent by connecting some 300,000 households to broadband -- the equivalent of 1.2 million individuals, according to Comcast.

Other cable providers have since followed suit, working with the FCC in a program called Connect to Compete that also aims to provide a similar discount. Making sure everyone, rich or poor, gets adequate access to the Web is something businesses should be doing of their own volition -- which brings us back to Comcast. Industry watchers say Comcast's compliance with the FCC's previous requirements, along with the changes that would result from a merger with Time Warner Cable, might encourage regulators to ask for more concessions this time around. Thing is, it probably shouldn't take a merger to produce them.

[Commentary] Google's choice to enter new broadband markets depends on a few factors.

One is the state of the existing infrastructure. Another factor involves getting the necessary permits and other paperwork to build fiber where it doesn't yet exist. Laying fiber below ground, or stringing it on poles above it, requires Google to negotiate deals with cities and utilities for rights of way.

These agreements can come at a cost, though as we'll see, Google has in some cases managed to skirt these issues.

The third factor is the real kicker, and it's how badly a mayor might want Google Fiber for his town. To help assess a city's commitment, Google provides it with a checklist of things it has to complete in order to qualify for Fiber. Any smart mayor who wants the service is going to do everything he can to appease the search giant in hopes of attracting it to town -- and then some.

While smaller cities may find it necessary to attract investment by wooing influential companies, denser metropolitan aren't likely to prostrate themselves in quite the same way. They probably couldn't, even if they wanted to; there are so many moving parts to a New York or a Chicago that giving Google free rein would be an extremely complex endeavor.