August 2010

The National Cable & Telecommunications Association says the Federal Communications Commission should adopt a sort of Hippocratic oath for broadband -- above all, do no arm -- and that applying common carrier regulations to Internet access would definitely violate it. NCTA says that if there is one conclusion that should be drawn from initial comments on the FCC's proposed "third way" title II reclassification of Internet access service, it is that it would be a "very bad idea" to impose the full force of those regulations. But even the FCC's proposal to apply on some of that force, while forbearing most of the Title II regulations, is not the way to go, said NCTA -- sticking with Title I ancillary authority or targeted legislation are both preferable.

Wireless advocacy group Mobile Future (AT&T, T-Mobile, among others) told the Federal Communications Commission that it needs to take the "unique challenges" of wireless broadband in mind when it considers a legal framework for broadband Internet access service.

If it does, says the group, it will recognize that reclassification would ignore that uniqueness and "thwart innovation and investment in the wireless space. Among the distinctions between wired and wireless broadband, they say, are the spectrum constraints of wireless and the need for sophisticated traffic management that hinges on a number of moving pieces, including proximity to the cell site, topography, cell site capacity, weather and the device accessing the network.

Tea Party groups are staking out an anti-regulatory position in the fight over network neutrality rules for phone and cable companies. A coalition that included 35 Tea Party groups sent a letter to the Federal Communications Commission on August 11 urging the agency not to boost its authority over broadband providers through a controversial process known as reclassification. The Virginia Tea Party Patriot Federation was among the groups that signed the letter. Jamie Radtke, the group's chairman, said interest in net neutrality is rising in the Tea Party movement. The free-speech argument holds that, by interfering with how phone and cable companies deliver Internet traffic, the government would be thwarting the free-speech rights of providers such as AT&T, Verizon and Comcast.

A top Australian telecommunications official waded into the heated political debate over the nation's digital future August 12, saying a government plan to invest tens of billions of dollars into a new national fiber-optic network would offer homes and business vastly faster connection speeds than originally promised.

The debate concerns plans by the ruling Labor party to spend as much as 43 billion Australian dollars (US$38.6 billion) to make Australia's data and mobile-phone connections among the world's fastest, transforming the country from a relative technology backwater to high-tech modern economy. The plan has been targeted by the opposition Liberal-National coalition, which has said it favors a less-costly alternative that would give the private sector a greater role if the coalition takes power in an Aug. 21 election. Mike Quigley, chief executive of state-owned NBN Co., which will oversee the network buildout, said the network will now be able to offer speeds of one gigabit per second. That is 10 times faster than the previously announced top speed of 100 megabits per second, and well above the baseline 12 Mbps pledged by the opposition. Quigley said Thursday that NBN has always maintained that the network had the potential to offer faster speeds. He disputed suggestions that NBN's announcement was politically motivated. He also told a business lunch that offering such speeds won't have any impact on the cost of building the network, which he said "certainly won't cost over A$43 billion."