While there are those who care about editorial issues and what will happen to Huff Po, Techcrunch and Engadget if Verizon takes over, as a telecom analyst, I have different concerns.
How did the largest phone companies end up saving billions from discounts on wireless spectrum licenses that were supposed to be reserved for 'very small companies'?
The laws are in place, but it continues to be an uphill battle to make major video content providers value their diverse audiences.
Given the realignment of power in the world -- from nations to cities to individuals -- what the city does or does not do can determine their community's success and survival, or its demise; and as such, will determine the nation's success or failure.
Unlike abortion and health care, the new battle in the culture wars features a topic on which potential candidates from both sides of the political aisle are likely to agree: indecency is bad and parents today need all the help they can get from the government.
I would argue that it is time for more lawsuits, but right now they are going in the wrong direction. The FCC should be taking the companies to court and starting the process of separating the companies from their control over critical infrastructure -- that we paid extra for, over and over.
Industry-written policy has brought us higher broadband bills, limited choice among providers and efforts to stifle the creativity of entrepreneurs and the broader public.
When Finland and Hungry beat out the United States of America in download speeds and the Republic of Seychelles and Bangladesh beat us in 'upload' speeds, you know something is wrong with broadband in America today.
For those who say, well, the new net neutrality order will fix everything, (assuming it makes it through various, expected court battles), I'll detail a few of the good things about the order as it relates to these charges, then give you the reality -- it doesn't fix most things.
Republicans are screaming like someone stole the champagne from the RNC refrigerator. Verizon and its fellow broadband providers, like Comcast, are screaming, too. They threaten to sue the FCC... again. But as I wrote here many months ago, such threats ring empty.
The FCC's decision is one of the most pro-business policies ever enacted by an agency under the Obama administration. Yet the so-called defenders of business refuse to see it.
Chattanooga has proven to everyone else that having a public option for internet, cable, and phone service is better for consumers. And though the big companies would never admit it, the competition that socialist local broadband networks provide is the heart of the free-market capitalism they claim to espouse.
By now, if the telecom companies had kept their promises we might well have a national broadband network that would be the envy of the world. Instead many consider the United States a laggard in high speed, affordable broadband.
The Internet is not black and white, and it is most certainly not sacred. We seem to have merely added more complexity to its already nuanced nature.
The battle continues. The history of media reform tells us that if we ignore core systemic problems like the power of monopolies and the lack of structural diversity, important protections like net neutrality can be short-lived.
While it is great that Net Neutrality principles, which means that they can't screw with your Internet service, may be put into effect, it belies the more pervasive problems -- you may not be able to afford (or want to pay for) that service or get that service or have a choice about who offers you that service.