Network Neutrality

Next Friday, February 10, the Stanford Technology Law Review is holding its annual symposium, and this year's topic is an important one: First Amendm...

Louis C.K.'s "fun little experiment" illustrates the threat to the cable business model. Cable has long been the gatekeeper to content -- Comcast decides what channels I can choose from. But right now on the Internet, I choose what content I can choose from.

Smart communities invest in themselves rather than depending on big, absentee corporations. Requiring Comcast to provide affordable broadband connections is better than not, but continuing to let Comcast effectively decide who can afford access to the Internet is madness.

The "standard" legal theory for what the First Amendment means is becoming increasingly useless, considering that it does not really incorporate mass media, broadcasting, cable, and Internet laws.

We all know that as technology empowers us to do more, it carries with it all manner of problems. But one of our biggest pickles tends to slip right by us: We're not free.

If the ethos of America is about removing unfair barriers to individual opportunity and success, then it is un-American to give low-income communities substandard Internet service that creates barriers to economic opportunity.

Despite what some politicians and pundits are saying, the FCC's vote on net neutrality is neither a government takeover of the Internet nor a complete sell-out to the telecommunications industry.

The net neutrality rule, which will be voted in during Tuesday's FCC meeting, falls drastically short of earlier pledges by President Obama and the FCC Chairman to protect the free and open Internet.

The FCC has just a few days to decide an issue that could dramatically affect all of us all. Will they vote for strong open Internet protections that apply equally to the mobile web?

While there is a lot of good in the now-circulating FCC order on network neutrality, it still falls appreciably short of the kind of rules necessary to preserve an Internet we want and need.

The FCC's long December will either restore confidence in the Commission's ability to tackle difficult issues like Net Neutrality or leave us in a similar position where many feel the FCC has disclaimed responsibility.

This morning, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski announced that he will finally seek a vote on President Obama's top tech issue, "Net Neutrality." However, his proposal is nowhere close to what Obama promised the American people.

There are at least two competing regulatory models for the FCC to adopt. One that Comcast and Verizon want, and another that President Obama wants.

Now that the midterm elections are over I've been reading all the reactions from voters and have noticed a trend. A lot of people have openly admitted...

Whatever the final results of this election night, nothing will be more shocking or sad for Public Knowledge and me personally then the defeat of Rep....

This is the issue that should be commanding the attention, money, and energy of stakeholders across the sector: ensuring that as many people as possible are able to access, adopt and effectively use broadband.

To be a hero, Genachowski needs to reject the forthcoming "industry consensus" from ITI as wholly inadequate and announce he will call for a vote on his "Third Way" Proposal in September as the only way to protect consumers.

If you're interested in the Internet or economic innovation and entrepreneurship, you would love Barbara van Schewick's new book. If you consider yourself serious about these issues, you have to read this book.

Sure, Verizon and Google are very powerful companies but, last time I checked, they were not able to make national policy -- at least not yet.

Ensuring affordable broadband for all Americans is a critical component in achieving universal broadband. With 50 members of Congress now effectively working toward this goal, I am confident that we are on the right track.

A lot of people are discussing the FCC's meetings on net neutrality. Though some have discussed substance, I thought it might be helpful to lay out the likely points of contention and provide a guide for understanding.

Among many other similar claims, Robert McDowell's reference to a "four-decade bipartisan and international consensus to insulate computer-oriented communications from phone regulation" is hogwash.