A few weeks ago, the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and the House Committee on the Judiciary both voted to move bills reauthorizing parts of STELAR (the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act Reauthorization) to the full House floor. You might be wondering: What is STELAR, how does it affect consumers, and what should […]

One of the first lessons I learned as an advocate at Public Knowledge? “Regulation” and “rulemaking authority” are dirty words in too many parts of Capitol Hill. This is perhaps unsurprising to people who have worked on tech and telecom policy longer than I have. Or, for that matter, to people who work on environmental policy or any number of other issues. Nonetheless, this is my case for why I am pro-agency rulemaking authority, and you should be too.

On April 17, the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Communications and Technology will hold a hearing on paid prioritization — an issue that is central to the net neutrality debate. While most internet service providers (ISPs) have claimed that they have no plans to block or degrade traffic once the Federal Communications Commission’s 2017 net neutrality repeal Order goes into effect (exactly when that will be remains TBD), commitments (or lack thereof) not to engage in paid prioritization have remained a moving target. These commitments are shifting with the political winds, and ISPs are including plenty of wiggle room to allow them to argue they haven’t misled consumers if they eventually choose to offer prioritization deals.

PK In The Know Podcast: Net Neutrality in the Appropriations Bill

This Valentine’s Day the best gift you can give your loved ones is a lasting, fair and open internet. Help us spread the love by sending a tweet to your representative using these e-cards.