Internet/Broadband

There is a great deal of excitement, but also a great deal of misunderstanding, about the effort to “repeal the repeal” of network neutrality using the Congressional Review Act (CRA). On the one hand, we have folks who are confused by the enormous progress made so far and think that we are just one vote shy of repealing the repeal. On the other extreme, we have the folks declaring the effort totally doomed and impossible from the start. I discuss the details of a CRA, and why I think we can win this (and even if we don’t, why it still works in our favor overall), below. 

As citizens increasingly use digital tools to engage with government, federal agencies should weed out fake comments to create a more robust public comment system. If agencies are required to solicit public input, it should take on a form that the agency can easy incorporate into new rules. The Administrative Procedures Act could not have anticipated the digital communications tools available to citizens seven decades later. An updated method of collecting feedback would require commenters to verify their identity, or at least verify they are human.

Cable operators want to make sure that the Federal Communications Commission makes rules allowing "overlashing" part of its overall plan to speed the deployment of broadband to all Americans. That is the practice of piggybacking new plant on utility poles (say fiber) on existing plant (fiber) that has already been approved by the pole owner.

With a great amount of fanfare, Google picked Kansas City as its first Google Fiber city in July 2012. But the community’s commitment to full digital inclusion predates and runs much deeper than Google Fiber. Connecting for Good is one of Kansas City’s key digital inclusion partners. Michael Liimatta and Rick Deane knew each other through different community activities when, in 2011, they brainstormed the idea of Connecting for Good and found in it a mission they could share.

Over the last decade, California’s urban centers have become technology hubs, cities where free Wi-Fi and fiber optic lines are ubiquitous. But in low-income neighborhoods, across the state’s inland regions and in rural communities — often home to large migrant populations — families struggle to connect at all. Some elected officials see that reality as proof that a digital divide is leaving many people behind. And they’ve set out to remedy it. In 2007, the state established the California Advanced Services Fund to offer companies incentive to help bridge the gap.

A second round of broadband infrastructure bills have been introduced by members of the House Communications Subcommittee. The bills focus on supporting innovation and advancing broadband infrastructure in rural communities. 

[Commentary] The Federal Communications Commission estimated in 2017 that to deploy high-speed broadband to 98 percent of American homes, it would cost $40 billion. For 100 percent, the cost doubles. Which is why greater broadband infrastructure funding — both public and private — is urgently needed in remote areas, where the cost of connectivity infrastructure remains extreme.

In a letter to President Donald Trump, Sens Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), Angus King (I-ME), John Boozman (R-AR), and Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND)—the co-chairs of the bipartisan Senate Broadband Caucus—call for the prioritization of direct funding support for broadband deployment in an infrastructure package that will help close the digital divide and ensure our country maintains its global competitiveness. Stand-alone funding for broadband will ensure that telecommunications infrastructure is advanced alongside needed upgrades to our roads, rail, bridges, ports and waterways

[Commentary] With each congressional office getting thousands of calls for Network Neutrality and close to zero supporting Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai — and with Net Neutrality looking like a real issue in the 2018 elections — we’ve got a shot at passing the resolution. If you haven’t yet called your members of Congress, please do it now. And, yes, the president would need to sign this bill. I don’t want to get too far ahead of myself, so I’ll just say we welcome that fight.

[Commentary] Communities across the United States are considering strategies to protect residents’ access to information and their right to privacy.