White House nuclear expert Gen. Robert S. Spalding II and Steve Bannon's guy Peter Navarro shocked D.C. with a serious plan to build a national 5G network in 400 MHz of 3.5 GHz spectrum.

Even "progressive" Democrats like Jessica Rosenworcel and Colin Crowell immediately asserted the government building a 5G would be a mistake. Conservatives like Pai were vehement in their objections. A government-built 5G network is politically impossible even if the plan were a good one. 

WTF is going on?  Spalding and Navarro are hardline Chinaphobes. The illustration of the knife through the United States is from Navarro's Death By China. I suspect these guys think Nixon made a mistake recognizing China in 1973.

5G higher frequencies don't have the same reach so it's probably right to build only one or two networks.

Mayor Ras Baraka vows to compete with powerful telecoms

The nearly 300,000 people in Newark will soon have gigabit fiber from the city, Baraka promises. Verizon for almost two decades has failed to honor a pledge to bring 45 megabit fiber to all New Jersey. They received a major rate increase in return for that pledge, then welshed. Bruce Kushnick has calculated what Verizon collected from the rate increase would have covered the fiber cost many times over.

Newark, once a great city, continues to struggle to overcome poverty. A great Internet, provided by the city at low cost, could be a powerful tool. They are targeting a price of under $50. Mark Kaufman in Mashable reports they have over 20 miles of city-owned fiber. That fiber is already being used for the city and commercial customers.

"The power is ours," Baraka says

Mark Zuckerberg is trying to be a mensch, a mutual friend tells me. He's deeply committed to connecting everyone.

Kevin Martin of Facebook met the Minister in Korea and agreed "to report revenue and pay taxes" in Korea. In addition, they will probably pay "network fees" to the three big Korean telcos. Korea has allowed their telcos to erect "toll barriers" on the net, what Net Neutrality was supposed to prevent in the U.S.

Korea is enormously proud of having probably the best Internet in the world. The Korean government, under pressure from the three big telcos, does not have a policy of neutrality. 

Tax avoidance is a huge issue around the world, especially as the Internet becomes a larger part of every economy. Facebook and Google are collecting tens of billions. often from poor countries, but neither paying taxes nor obeying local laws. Europe is the most visible resister, but the feelings are strong in Africa and Asia. "You Americans are so greedy," an African said to me at the WCIT in 2012.

News reports in December were that Facebook was changing its policies. They would now pay taxes where they earn income. Korea is the first official agreement.

Prices in the U.S. have about doubled since 2010, when the Stanford economist's paper predicted people want broadband so much doubling was possible.

Morgan Stanley found average prices of $66 in 2017, up 12%. Hidden fees often raise that. When Rosston wrote in 2010, most prices were $30-$45. An economist reading Greg's paper could predict prices likely would double if the companies could just signal each other to raise prices. The paper was written for the Broadband Plan where the staff could see large increases coming. Since costs of delivering broadband are down, regular price increases imply we only have weak competition.

Rosston found people were willing to pay ~$45 more for better broadband, which would increase if broadband became even more essential. (It has.) The only way to stop that was strong competition or regulation. Plan leader Blair Levin could see that, but he told me action for either was blocked at a higher level. I guessed that was Larry Summers in the White House, but never could confirm that.

The disease of monopoly-like price increases is spreading to Germany and Britain. Mike Fries and Liberty Global are doing regular price increases and Deutsche Telekom is following. In Britain, BT has just raised prices and I'm watching the others to see if they match. The strategy is like the Americans. Increases that aren't so high the regulator would step in but enough to lead to much higher prices in a few years.

Half the U.S. has only one choice at 25 megabits or better. Few of the rest have more than two.

"My love and reverence for this country comes from living in the house of Raj and Radha Pai. My parents know a little something about the American Dream. They came to this country 46 years ago with literally no assets other than $10, a transistor radio, and a desire to achieve that dream." Pai is a brilliant lawyer steeped in politics. He surely realized his job could disappear if Trump noticed the speech Pai gave in honor or Ronald Reagan.

Pai will go down in history as a man who killed Net Neutrality, or tried to. There's more to him than that, including the courage to stand up for his very strong beliefs.

He's wrong in many of those beliefs: AT&T has made clear that killing neutrality will not lead to the increase in investment Pai expects. T-Mobile & Verizon will build in 3.5 Ghz spectrum without the concessions Pai is about to give them; much, probably most, of the money he thinks will go to expanding broadband is wasted.

But he's right that immigrants should not be scapegoats.  

The question: how to arrange "robust interconnection" of the Internet without being dependent on ICANN. Vladimir Putin is creating an alternate root, with support from India and China. Columbia Professor Eli Noam convinced me a "network of networks" was possible and could be a good thing in theory. I doubt ICANN will actually shut out the Russians, but it's reasonable for Russia to protect itself.* My question here is technical. Thousands of people, especially at the IETF, have worked to build the Internet we have today. The principles are simple; the implementation is demanding. So I'm asking engineers, "What technical systems must be built to ensure robust interconnection, assuming everyone wants to work in good faith?"

     ICANN CEO Fadi Chehadi confirmed to me there was no technical reason the Chinese, Hebrews, Verizon or any other competent party couldn't set up independently. Vladimir Putin intends to test that, creating a new root that is not controlled by a California organization. The primary benefits of "The Internet" could be maintained so long as there was "robust interconnection." Fadi added the rub was how to ensure that robust interconnection. 

    I think Fadi was worried about censorship, a real issue.

In 2014, the ICANN CEO promised to make ICANN more truly global. China, now one-third of the Internet, has never been represented on the ICANN board and is bypassed on most issues.* No wonder they are creating alternatives. Since so many in "Internet Governance" seem not to know this, I'm reprinting the transcript from an event in the Manhattan Borough President's office. The video is at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhFk-fcuTEM

"Our danger really was that the Chinese were going to announce they will have their own Internet and run away with their own root and leave us kind of a second Internet. That was the biggest danger we were facing. (Audience question) What would happen if they did? (Fadi continued) If they did, and it's a good point, if the Chinese separated their Internet I think the Internet as we know it - as a single platform to share ideas, to share commerce, with a minimum of barriers, with a minimum friction - inevitably if they separate the root we will have friction between the networks. They'll put rules, they'll connect walls.

Kathy Brown has announced her coming resignation as CEO of the Internet Society. It's her decision. She has strong support, continues to be one of the ablest policy advocates in D.C., and has the energy to work very hard. I've known her for many years to be one of the most decent executives in D.C. For the Internet Society, she brought the Internet Governance Forum back from a near-death moment to be a vibrant forum for discussing Internet issues.  (See below for Ms. Brown's view.) 

Kudos are pouring in. Vint Cerf writes, "I would highlight Kathy's astute hiring of talent during her term as CEO and her expansion of the role of ISOC as a supplier of factual data and a defender of the Internet's openness. ISOC was very prominent in the WCIT controversies as a defender of the Internet and in the IANA transition that was by no means a slam dunk. There were real challenges to this change from extremely powerful interests in the US Congress and in international settings. Kathy's most recent contributions came at the IGF in Geneva where she was her usual candid self, laying out real challenges and real goals to guide attendees into the future. She brought to ISOC a pragmatic optimism which I hope will continue under new leadership."