Think immoveable force meets immovable object. The core conundrum of stateless Bitcoin and other virtual currencies is how to somehow gain legal acceptance by sovereign states. The central idea behind[...]
Author: Scott Cleland
The fact that U.S. senators and representatives imagine that a billing dispute among companies could be considered a net neutrality violation illustrates how arbitrary and capricious net neutrality politics and the FCC’s Open Internet order have become.
We should all expect users to be able to access the content, apps, and devices of their choice on the Internet, and recognize that most essential enabler of that choice on the Internet is sound economics and market forces.
Much of the federal government’s communications core management and operations hasn’t changed since the General Services Administration created the Federal Telecommunications Service in 1960.
Google has more capabilities, to spy on more people, in more ways, more intimately, than any other entity. This makes Google the spy tool of choice, the one stop-shop for spying, and the spymaster’s dream. Meet Google-Spy.
Since the EU is already pushing net neutrality regulation of broadband and set on banning mobile roaming charges in the EU, it would not be surprising for the EU to propose that the U.S. also adopt net neutrality and broadband pricing restrictions in order to “harmonize” the EU-U.S. communications market as part of the upcoming U.S.-EU Free Trade Agreement.
The FCC and DOJ do not want to look ridiculous applying a spectrum cap to Verizon and AT&T and not Sprint when the FCC’s own Wireless Competition report shows that Sprint controls roughly twice as many MHz per population as either Verizon or AT&T.
It’s hard to be a “public interest” group when private interests better serve the public. Free Press, which effectively defines the “public interest” as being against private interests in media, communications[...]
The CTIA just released its semi-annual statistics on the wireless industry’s performance, and its bad news for all those supposed data-driven, pro-regulation proponents who are in search of evidence or data to justify regulating wireless or wireless spectrum holdings.