As a whole, the cable industry's upstream held up well during the Covid-19 pandemic, but with the increased use of video conferencing and other tools associated with work-from-home and online learning, cable operators need to accelerate their efforts on expanding the upstream according to CommScope CTO Tom Cloonan. "In the upstream, we've seen that it's grown by about 25% over what it was in February," Cloonan said. "So that's a big jump. That's just a massive, sudden, big jump that nobody had anticipated." Overall, most cable operators were able to adjust their configurations, node splits, and node segmentations during the March-to-April timeframe, but Cloonan said Covid-19 accelerated their plans to do mid-splits at 85MHz and high-splits to 204MHz for their upstreams. Currently, most cable operators have a return band of 5 MHz to 42 MHz on the upstream.

When the telecommunications industry was liberalised in Europe and North America in the 1980s and 1990s, it inherited a legacy of monopoly providers whose footprint was national or multi-regional in its character. The regulatory framework, particularly that adopted in EU member states, reflected this pattern of relatively homogeneous deployment achieved, in part, by decades of cross-subsidised pricing and universal service goals. Perhaps because of this legacy, telecommunications regulators have often adopted the presumption that relevant markets are national in character, unless proven otherwise Although geographically-variegated regulatory remedies have been permitted (even in the face of allegedly national relevant markets) and adopted in many member states, many regulators have never done so, and overly cautious thresholds for permitting geographically based forbearance suggest a continued bias towards presuming national markets and remedies. We find that this presumption of uniformity and the tendency to aggregate geographic markets together is not supported by first principles of antitrust analysis, although there may have been strong practical reasons to apply this presumption in the past circumstances of the telecommunications and broadband industries. On the ground, however, there has arguably never been as much heterogeneity across geographies and across technological solutions that provide effective ultra-fast broadband speeds.

House Commerce Committee Chairman Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ) and Communications Subcommittee Chairman Mike Doyle (D-PA) launched an inquiry into the Department of Defense’s (DoD) apparent moves to own and operate a national 5G network and lease federal spectrum for commercial purposes. The inquiry comes after DoD released a Request for Information (RFI) that seeks input from industry on these topics, and multiple press reports that the timing of the RFI could be politically motivated. The lawmakers wrote to both the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) expressing their concern and requesting information.

In their letter to the NTIA, the two Committee leaders wrote that they fear DoD’s RFI represents an attempt to usurp NTIA’s authority. They also point out that two of the questions DoD asks in its RFI – how DoD can “own and operate 5G networks for its domestic operations,” and whether DoD “should consider spectrum leasing as an alternative to reallocation” – demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of the law. The Chairmen wrote that no government agency owns spectrum, and they question the Trump Administration’s political motives for making such inquiries. In their letter to GAO, the lawmakers express similar concerns, writing that any attempt by DoD to construct, operate or maintain a commercial communications network or lease government spectrum to commercial entities without the express permission of Congress could be unlawful. They have requested that GAO conduct a complete legal analysis.

The Federal Communications Commission has so far approved over 230 COVID-19 related Special Temporary Authorities (STAs). What has been the result? During the pandemic, we’ve been very pleased by the performance of our nation’s wireless networks. For example, according to Ookla, notwithstanding increased demand, in April average mobile broadband download speeds in the United States were actually faster than they were in February, before the pandemic hit, and they’ve gotten faster since. I believe that much of this success is due to the policies that we put in place well before the pandemic, market-based policies that encouraged investment in broadband networks and made it easier to deploy infrastructure. But making more spectrum available during the pandemic has also made a positive impact.

Millions of children are encountering all sorts of inconveniences that come with digital instruction during the coronavirus pandemic. But many students are facing a more basic challenge: They don’t have computers and can’t attend classes held online. A surge in worldwide demand by educators for low-cost laptops and Chromebooks — up to 41 percent higher than last year — has created monthslong shipment delays and pitted desperate schools against one another. Districts with deep pockets often win out, leaving poorer ones to give out printed assignments and wait until winter for new computers to arrive. That has frustrated students around the country, especially in rural areas and communities of color, which also often lack high-speed internet access and are most likely to be on the losing end of the digital divide. 

Microsoft adopted a whole slew of "fairness principles" for its Windows app store. The list of principles does look like a decent set of guidelines for both consumers and developers—but it also looks a whole lot like Microsoft is taking the metaphorical ball, throwing it at Apple's face, and daring their iCompetitor to make the next move. The principles essentially promise that Windows will keep on doing what it already does with regard to app distribution, interoperability, payment systems, and everything else. Microsoft said explicitly that its principles draw on work by the Coalition for App Fairness, a trade group that came together in September to push for changes to the App Store policies. That coalition's founding members include companies such as Basecamp, Spotify, and Epic, all of whom have had extremely public fights with Apple over its policies in recent months. he developers who have challenged Apple argue that the company is doing the exact opposite of what Microsoft just promised to keep doing. 

The Federal Communications upcoming new address is:

45 L Street NE

Washington, DC 20554