Public Knowledge

Public Knowledge, along with the Benton Institute for Broadband and Society, the Center for Digital Democracy, and Free Press, filed an amicus brief urging the U.S.

A discussion about the need for a sector-specific digital regulator and suggests how to design that regulator to enhance competition and protect consumers.

In light of sweeping actions across the federal government, simply put—the vibes are off at the Federal Communications Commission.

The Commerce Department is considering changes to the distribution of the $42 billion Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment program that could significantly delay broadband deployment and redirect billions away from fiber and fixed wireless in favor of Low-Earth Orbit satellite services like Starlink’s. LEO satellites have distinct advantages in remote areas, but they also have technical & economic tradeoffs that would undermine BEAD’s long-term goals of reliable, scalable broadband access.

Public Knowledge joined 14 other public interest, consumer advocacy, and civil liberties groups—including the Benton Institute for Broadband & Society—in a letter urging Federal Communications Commission Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel to adopt the agency’s proposed cell phone unlocking requirement. The groups argue that doing so would increase consumer choice, lower costs, and improve competition in the wireless marketplace. 

A common restaurant principle—“Accuracy over speed”—should guide our country’s broadband funding initiatives, particularly the $42.45 billion Broadband Equity Access and Deployment (BEAD) program, both now and in the future. Recently, the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Communications and Technology held a hearing titled, “From Introduction to Implementation: A BEAD Program Progress Report,” and while some lines of questioning seemed to grasp at straws, there were important points that should be revisited in future hearings.

The process of creating effective, pro-consumer policies is often filled with opportunities, challenges, and ambiguity. The process has been no different for the Federal Communications Commission’s Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP), which allowed 23 million low-income households an opportunity to reliably connect to affordable high-speed internet.

Rural areas, low-income communities and individuals, and racial and ethnic minorities still often have less access to quality, affordable broadband.

The D.C. District court announced its decision in U.S. v.