Universal Broadband

On some evenings, after the Cleveland Public Library branch on Woodland Avenue closes, people linger near the low-slung entrance or sit in cars in the parking lot. Heads down, their eyes locked on a phone or small computer tablet, they come to do what most of us do without much thought or the need to leave the living room couch -- connect to the internet. For the people who live just across the street in the apartments that make up the King Kennedy public housing complex, access to the internet is not so easy. Broadband networks are available, but many can't afford the service.

The Federal Communications Commission took steps to transform its Lifeline program. A Fourth Report and Order, Order on Reconsideration, and Memorandum Opinion and Order changes FCC rules to:

[Commentary] Under the guise of promoting network investment and deployment and enhancing consumer choice, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai’s attack on the Lifeline program does the complete opposite. His plan proposes to kick all non-facilities-based service providers out of the Lifeline program, which includes wireless carriers like Tracfone’s Safelink Wireless or Virgin Mobile’s Assurance Wireless, that don’t have their own networks but lease capacity from facilities-based providers (e.g., AT&T, Sprint) and serve approximately 70 percent of Lifeline subscribers.

Rep Doris Matsui (D-CA), along with 22 members of the House Commerce Committee, sent a letter to Chairman Ajit Pai urging the Federal Communications Commission to reconsider proposed changes to the Lifeline program. “Now more than ever, the wake of this year’s natural disasters has shown the critical importance that a mobile connection – a literal lifeline – can play in getting Americans back on their feet. We are concerned that proposed changes to the Lifeline program could potentially strand millions of struggling families with no way to connect.

[Commentary] Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai is setting a record pace for deregulating the communications industries. Believe it or not, things are about to get worse in Nov. Starting with the FCC’s open meeting on Nov 16, the agency is poised to approve or propose no fewer than four decisions that will deregulate consolidated industries, remove consumer protections, and widen the digital divide:

[Commentary] Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai contends his proposed reforms to the Lifeline program will “more effectively and efficiently help close the digital divide by directing Lifeline funds to the areas where they are most needed.” Opponents, however, believe the proposed changes “will gut the program and continue to widen the digital divide.” The likely outcome, if the proposal is enacted as currently written, will be somewhere in between. Some of these proposed reforms are important, positive steps that will improve the Lifeline program’s efficiency.

The City of New York's Mayor’s Office of the Chief Technology Officer released a Request for Information (RFI) to gather input from industry experts to inform the City's implementation plan for universal broadband. Universal broadband refers to the City’s goal to connect every resident and business with affordable, reliable, high speed internet service by 2025, as stated in One New York: The Plan for a Strong and Just City.  The results of the RFI can be used to shape a more formal request for proposals or other measures to help the City achieve its goal.

The National Grange, which advocates for rural and agricultural interests, has joined with Consumer Action and the former chair of the Oglala Sioux Tribe Utility commission to oppose Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai's proposal to revamp the FCC's Lifeline low income advanced communications subsidy program, called Lifeline. They used words highly charged words like "knock out," "cripple," "kill" and "destroy" to characterize the proposal. The Grange et al.

[Commentary] Few stories in tech have been more breathlessly hyped on the way up and gleefully eulogized on the way down than Google Fiber. Since Google announced last fall that it was pausing Google Fiber’s expansion into new markets, Access, the Google subsidiary that houses Google Fiber, has laid off more than 20% of its workforce, faced continued delays in Fiber’s existing markets and gone through three chief executives (or four, depending on how you’re counting). By any traditional yardstick of success, Google Fiber has been a failure.