CA just passed the toughest state-level network neutrality law in the nation, and within hours, the Department of Justice sued the state to block the law from going into effect.
US customers pay some of the highest prices for broadband in the developed world, and broadband availability is sketchy at best for millions of Americans.
Mill Valley (CA), a city just outside of San Francisco, has unanimously voted to ban fifth-generation (5G) cellular towers, claiming that they pose a significant threat to public health.
With the Federal Communications Commission preparing its latest report of the state of broadband in the States, the focus has shifted once again to whether the current definition of broadband is currently fast enough.
Back in 2011 the Obama Federal Communications Commission announced the creation of a $300 million broadband map using the Form 477 data Internet service providers provide the agency.
[Commentary] A large reason for the nation’s lack of competition at faster broadband speeds is the country’s phone companies, for whom residential broadband isn’t profitable enough, quickly enough for investors’ liking.
[Commentary] Even among folks that support network neutrality, there's pretty clearly a contingent that still believes the damage caused by the repeal of the rules will somehow be subtle.
Internet users have been justly outraged by the Federal Communications Commission’s decision to ignore the public and repeal net neutrality rules.
Even if the Federal Communications Commission wins in court, large Internet serivce providers still need to find a way to prevent any future FCCs from simply reinstating the network neutrality rules.
A popular claim by [telecom industry lobbyists, policy vessels, and loyal lawmakers] is that network neutrality rules are somehow preventing people who are sick or disabled from gaining access to essential medical services they need to survive.