Ford takes a look at the information gathered by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration after the goals set by 2009′s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.  Ford says that the data gathered will allow for the quantification of socio-economic factors and broadband availability across the nation.

Even though he feels that the NTIA should be praised in their efforts, there is concern that the mapping data carries with it errors, and there is more concern that there even exists errors yet to be discovered.  Ford feels that mapping data “should be viewed with skepticism” until some of the problems can be discovered and remedied over time.

Ford concludes that until measurement errors and sample selection errors can be worked out by researchers over the coming months and years, that it would be wise for the time being that the NTIA data was not used as hard and fast evidence in directing policy goals.

You can read the full paper here.

Glassman hosts Downes and Manne who discuss the Internet over the next decade.  Both have contributed to the book The Next Digital Decade, published by Tech Freedom.  A major point of conversation is whether or not the Internet needs government regulation and oversight, or should the Internet continue to evolve on its own.

You can find the accompanying information from Ideas in Action here.

P.J. Crowley moderates a discussion between Michael Posner and Leslie Harris on strategies for Internet Freedom.  The conversation surrounds standards and procedures for policy, accountability, oversight, security, and privacy.

The original video can be found here.

The authors assess the costs and benefits of the possibilities of either assigning D Block spectrum to public safety or auctioning the spectrum for commercial use.  They suggest that analysis purports that the 10 MHz spectrum, if used for public safety, would provide somewhere in the neighborhood of $3.4 billion in “social benefits”.  Social benefits being any positive outcome for a community in the case of an emergency.

The cost in allocated this spectrum will be the loss of auction monies.  The authors believe their analysis shows that the loss of revenue will be “offset by the gain of higher auction revenues and lower public safety network deployment cost in the future.”

The authors believe that ultimately, moving public safety forces over to D Block will reduce budget expenses.  However, if public safety is forced to use other 700MHz spectrum it could result in resource scarcity and it is believed that the overall value of 700MHz spectrum could be reduced in value as high as 86%.

You can read the full paper here.

Wallsten examines the state of the Universal Service Fund.  The USF is a program that collects taxes for telecommunications services in the neighborhood of about $7.5 billion a year.  The funds are intended to be used to provide telephone lines and subsidize telephone service in rural areas to low-income individuals.

Wallsten’s research reveals that for every dollar spent from the fund $0.59 is being used to “general and administrative expenses” which he says includes:

• planning
• government relations
• personnel

Wallsten states that this is another reason in a long list of inefficiencies in the USF program and says that it is adding to the argument for the program to be reformed and the money put towards broadband expansion.  Additionally he calls for reforms that would include focusing on helping low-income individuals rather than spending money in high-cost areas.

The full paper can be found here.

Harris and Wong comment on “Internet Freedom” and believe the government should be doing more to promote solutions to ongoing issues that threaten the existing state of the Net.  The two comment that circumvention tools that were used in Egypt to get around blocking attempts and censorship were not enough and were not a solution to Internet blackouts.

The authors contend that the United States, China, and Iran are not the beginning and end of Internet freedom, and point to concerning situations in several other countries including:

• India – National security agenda may threaten privacy and “user trust”.
• Brazil – Child protection policy may create gate keepers to content.
• Thailand – Online defamation prevention policy may hinder freedom of expression.

Harris and Wong call for “global constituencies” with a focus on “civil society, industry, and government” who will work together to ensure Internet freedom.

You can read the article in full here.

In Bennett’s latest white paper, he focuses his attention on the notion in which many believe the Internet has always worked at a “dumb pipe” system, or a network consisting of no management.  This is a misnomer that he desires to confront and clarify.

As is the case in many of Bennett’s papers, he lays out the history of the issue for the user.  This is always beneficial because it allows the reader to gain insight and context into the issue being addressed.

Bennett looks at dumb pipes, and network management, the needs of various types of applications, and even provides an explanation of how various parts of the Internet operate.

Finally, Bennett addresses functionality of the Internet that he believes should be changed in the future, he takes a look at Net Neutrality regulations potential affects on the Internet, and technologies that may be negatively affected by that regulation like Content Delivery Networks and the coming age of Telepresence.

You can read the paper in full here.

Spiwak contemplates the notion of States Rights as applied to the Open Internet order in his latest Perspectives piece for the Phoenix Center.

According to Spiwak, Section 706 of the Telecom Act was not only the impetus for the regulatory maneuvering of the Open Internet order, but he also says that this section applies equally to the states.  Based on this notion that states have an equal responsibility in carrying out Section 706, which states that, “the Commission …shall encourage the deployment of advanced telecommunications capability to all Americans,” and may use “regulatory methods that remove barriers to infrastructure,” Spiwak believes there are two items with which the FCC failed to consider.

1. States may decide that the regulatory efforts of the FCC actually have a negative impact on telecom investment in their state and may choose to join an appeal of the Open Internet Order.
2. States may feel that they now have a right to regulate and have jurisdiction over Title I Information Services.

You can find the full paper here.

Schulz comments on the implementation of Net Neutrality rules and the appointment of Tim Wu to the FTC as further evidence that Washington does not understand technology.  He believes these two gentlemen see the “health and vigor” of the tech sector and destructive.

Schulz takes a look at several tech sector areas and comments on their health, including:

• Mobile
• Search
• Operating Systems
• Media and News
• Broadband
• Tablets
• eCommerce
• Gaming
• Browser
• Cloud

Additionally he points to companies like Microsoft that were thought to be unstoppable.  Then along came a reinvented Apple, and several years later Google was born.  And now due to cloud computing, Microsoft again can emerge on top as it attempts to move to cloud based software solutions with Office and other products.

Schulz argues that “the rules that govern the technology sector are being rewritten by the industry’s participants every six months or so. No other industrial sector comes close to that kind of dynamism.”  He questions whether DC needs to be involved in something that moves so quickly with hard and fast rules.

You can find the original post here.

Harris takes questions about mobile apps privacy and provides answers based on the CDT privacy perspective.  Some of the questions are ones that are important to ask and will likely be discussed in the tech community for some time.  The questions asked in the video included:

• What responsibilities do Apple and Google have to police data collection through their mobile operating systems?
• Why does a music app need to access your address book and phone calls?
• For unique device identifiers (UDIDs), many argue privacy isn’t an issue because UDIDs are anonymous and not personal data – what are your thoughts?

You can watch the video in full below to see how Harris answered the questions.