Bartlett Cleland

Government often seems quite adept at solving yesterday’s problems, building or protecting systems that are irrelevant today.

In the early 1990s cable television began to reach more households and become a true alternative to broadcast.

The fundamental problem of defining privacy is the same as defining obscenity. What is an outrage to one person is no big deal to another.

Yesterday the FCC held an open commission meeting

Next week, the Senate Commerce Committee is scheduled to move forward on the ”STREAMLINE Small Cell Deployment Act.”

A Supreme Court case to be decided by the end of June could require California residents to pay taxes to a variety states, counties, cities and even mosquito abatement districts across the country.

Despite coughing up reams of information about themselves in exchange for often minimal benefits, consumers are now suddenly concerned about their privacy. 

For years, perhaps decades, or perhaps forever, Washington D.C. has been the butt of jokes with punchlines about how the political class talks and talks and talks while little gets solved.

The government industrial policy efforts around automated vehicles should end, for the sake of our safety, security and privacy.

Almost like clockwork after a tragedy of gun violence, special interests begin pointing fingers.

There must have been a time, a moment, in each instance when freedom and liberty triumphed that the people exclaimed “Finally!” Today is such a day for internet freedom.

The Federal Communications Commission just released its plan to restore internet freedom, which will bring back the historical light-touch framework that instilled regulatory certainty and propelled over a trillion dollars in investments in better broadband services.

Net neutrality, once a concept only discussed in arcane telecommunications legal policy settings has become a quite popular topic