Level of Government

The importance of the multistakeholder system of Internet governance was on full display in June in Kigali, Rwanda during the ICANN80 High Level Government Meeting (HLGM) and Policy Forum. I was delighted to lead the U.S. Delegation to the HLGM, participate in ICANN’s forum, and meet with leaders from around the world in support of that multistakeholder system. The multistakeholder system of Internet governance is the consensus-based decision making that takes place in those technical entities which, together, constitute the decentralized infrastructure of the Internet.

In the second installment of the Information Technology and Information Foundation’s Access America series, Jess Dine discusses the challenges and opportunities of the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program for the state of Michigan with Jessica Randall of Michigan’s broadband office. They talk about the way that Michigan intertwined BEAD's deployment mandate with broader inclusion and equity concerns in the Michigan State Digital Equity Plan.

It’s now clear that State Broadband Offices are going to put a lot of pressure on Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) winners to spend grant awards and build networks as quickly as possible. Internet service providers (ISP) generally have the same goal, because getting customers quickly is the best way to make sure an ISP can pay for the network. However, there are numerous reasons why BEAD fiber construction might be delayed:

The Supreme Court avoided a definitive resolution of challenges to laws in Florida and Texas that curb the power of social media companies to moderate content, leaving in limbo an effort by Republicans who have promoted such legislation to remedy what they say is a bias against conservatives. Instead, the justices unanimously agreed to return the cases to lower courts for analysis. The laws were prompted in part by the decisions of some platforms to bar President Donald J. Trump after the Jan.

On June 28, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed a bedrock principle of administrative law called the Chevron doctrine. The vehicle was an opinion for two cases, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce.

Federal Communications Commission Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel has shared with her fellow commissioners draft final rules that, if adopted, would strengthen the security of the nation’s public alert and warning systems—the Emergency Alert System and Wireless Emergency Alerts—against emerging cybersecurity threats. The Emergency Alert System delivers warnings to the public thorough radio and television. Wireless Emergency Alerts deliver warnings to consumers’ wireless phones.

The Federal Communications Commission has proposed new rules to reduce phone and video call rates for incarcerated people, a move that could dramatically reshape the business of prison telecom providers such as ViaPath Technologies and Avent

The US Supreme Court just overturned Chevron v. The Natural Resources Defense Council, a 40 year old precedent for how government works. This is big news for anyone interested in the way technology (and Big Tech) shape public policy, and vice versa. Why does Chevron matter? As ordained by our political system, Congress is supposed to set rules and regulations that protect our rights. In today’s world, no elected representative can be an expert on every topic where they are called to make a decision.

On May 20, Rep Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick (D-FL) wrote to Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel to express concerns regarding the Chairwoman's proposal to prohibit bulk-billing arrangements in multi-dwelling units. On June 10, Chairwoman Rosenworcel responded, explaining that the proposed rulemaking has the potential to "empower consumer choice and boost competition." "As you note in your letter, the last time the Commission revisited this issue was in 2010, when it found that these arrangements can predominately offer benefits to consumers.

There are a lot of regulations other than the ones created by or enforced by the Federal Communications Council. Anybody who builds fiber networks can describe the litany of state and local regulations involved in constructing fiber. Following are some of the primary kinds of such regulations—and there are others in some places: