Doug Dawson

A recent Harris-Guardian poll shows that the public’s perception of the economy is different than economic reality. Most things that the majority of Americans believe about the economy are wrong. I have to say this surprised me more than it probably should have. 

It is becoming clear that the broadband market is reaching maturity. This is already causing havoc in the industry for internet service providers that relied on year-over-year customer growth to prop up stock prices. New Street Research, a company that specializes in research in the telecommunications and technology sectors, said that it estimated that new broadband customers would grow by about 1 million this year. That’s roughly equal to the number of new households expected to be created during the year.

Cable companies often make it sound like DOCSIS 4.0 is right around the corner.

Network consolidation and centralization of networks is putting our broadband and voice networks in increased jeopardy. It’s easy to understand why carriers are in favor of the savings that come from consolidation, but it’s vital that we recognize and acknowledge the increased risk that comes as a consequence of choosing efficiency over other factors. One area of particular concern is 911 network consolidation.

Everywhere I look I see Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) grant rules that are doing what I call regulating by grant. State Broadband Offices are creating grant rules that go far beyond adhering to National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) guidelines. They are insisting on grant rules which are intended to achieve social policies. I’m highlighting two such items buried inside Iowa's BEAD rules. The first requirement is in paragraph 1.3.18 of the Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) and concerns having a low-price option for low-income subscribers.

Federal Communications Commission Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel proposed a highly controversial rule change that would ban bulk billing practices in MDUs (multi-dwelling units). The justification for the proposed ban is that residents are required to pay for broadband or cable TV service even if they don’t want to buy the service or would prefer to buy from somebody else.

I have been complaining for years about the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) mapping rule that allow internet service providers (ISPs) to claim marketing speeds instead of something closer to actual speeds. That allows ISPs to report speeds that benefit them in some manner rather than being truthful to the public. There have been big consequences as a result of this FCC decision. Historically, the maps didn't mean much, as they were only used for the FCC's reports to Congress.

The press is suddenly full of articles talking about how some internet service providers (ISPs) are offering affordable rates to low-income homes now that the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) monthly subsidy has died. Some ISPs are extending the $30 discount for a limited time, while others are offering more affordable broadband plans than in the past. Other ISPs are only making a nod towards affordable broadband and some aren’t giving any discounts to low-income households.

The Federal Communications Commission made some changes to the recent Net Neutrality Order between the version that got approved on April 25 and the final version that was released to the Congressional record. One of the most interesting changes was to clarify rules pertaining to carriers creating fast lanes. The original order included language that prohibited paid prioritization, which is generically referred to as fast lanes.

I always find it interesting when old regulations bubble up into the news. As reported by Jon Brodkin in Ars Technica, an administrative law judge at the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) rejected a petition by AT&T to walk away from its carrier of last resort obligations for voice service.