bungled its $36 billion high-speed internet rollout” but that he could actually explain how it had managed to do so. Now it is fair to say that I am not one of the greatest fans of the extremely costly Australian government-financed and -operated nationwide fast broadband policy. The National Broadband Network (NBN) as originally conceived to deliver fiber-to-the-home (FTTH) to nearly 94 percent of households was, at the original price tag of A$43 billion, the most expensive infrastructure project ever embarked on by the Australian government. In only a few years, the price tag had blown out to A$72.6 billion, and the scheme was running far behind the original deployment targets. Following a change of government in 2013, a review of the project was commissioned, which led to downscaling to a more modest “Mixed Technology Model” (MTM), estimated to incur a net loss to the economy of only A$620 per household, as opposed to the fiber-only A$2,220. Not surprisingly, given the headline, I was expecting to see something along these lines.
“fact sheet” that purports to show how FCC Chairman Ajit Pai has reversed his positions on the Open Internet Order between 2014 and today. Clyburn’s fact sheet is misleading, giving a false impression that the chairman’s views have changed in ways that they have not.
the DC Circuit denied a petition to rehear en banc its 2016 decision upholding the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) Open Internet Order. The brief one-paragraph denial was accompanied by two lengthy dissents (together comprising 84 pages) explaining why, in the dissenting judges’ views, the court should have reheard the case, as well as a 23-page concurrence by the original panelists defending their earlier decision. In recent years, circuit judges have skillfully used dissents from en banc denials to signal to the Supreme Court that a case might be worthy of consideration. And indeed, it appears that both the dissenting and concurring opinions are speaking to the justices at One First Street. But it is unclear if they are listening: The Supreme Court takes only a small percentage of available cases each year and is unlikely to be interested in interpreting an order that the agency seems poised to vacate.