Originally published: August 8, 2014
Last updated: August 8, 2014 - 6:23pm
[Commentary] The House Commerce Committee concludes another round of public commenting on its effort to update the Communications Act of 1934. The focus of this round was what role Congress and the Federal Communications Commission should play in the market for interconnection of networks.
Daniel Lyons and Gus Hurwitz joined scholars from the Free State Foundation in their comments, highlighting the importance of flexibility and responsiveness in interconnection markets. They argue that interconnection among IP networks is very different and more technical than the interconnection between ILECs that are governed by the 1996 Act.
In my submission, I provide two stories of deregulation from Denmark.
[Layton is a researcher at the University of Aalborg, Denmark]
- The #CommActUpdate is facilitating much needed improvement to spectrum policy
- A 21st century celebration of the Communications Act
- House Commerce Committee CommActUpdate Efforts Continue With Interconnection White Paper
- Realizing the digital future means letting go of the past
- A #CommActUpdate To Promote Innovation and Economic Growth
- The double standard in regulation for managed services and OTT
- FCC and Verizon: There is a technical solution
- Obama’s Internet plan plays favorites, and Netflix is one of the darlings
- Netflix double standard: Free for me if everybody else pays
- Writing network neutrality rules in the dark: Why is the FCC shying away from official reports?
- House Commerce Committee Focuses on Competition Policy in Latest #CommActUpdate White Paper
- Three key takeaways from Europe’s new net neutrality guidelines
- Work Continues Toward the #CommActUpdate
- #CommActUpdate: Universal Service Subsidies Should Be Targeted and Explicit.
- #CommActUpdate: The IP interconnection model has been a huge success