Publications: Joe Kane

NextNav’s proposal for the FCC to unilaterally grant it greater rights at the expense of other users of the 900 MHz band is not in the public interest.

New York City’s broadband report cherry-picks outdated data to make the case for government-owned networks, but its own evidence shows competition is strong and affordability challenges require targeted support—not more infrastructure mandates.

Untangling and eliminating High-Cost Fund programs should be a central goal of the Federal Communications Commission’s efforts to reform and recalibrate USF to match technological and economic realities.

The Commission should continue its pattern of deregulation for consumer benefits in the video market, rather than punting modern consumer preference back into twentieth century regulatory frameworks.

Timing mismatches hamper otherwise mutually beneficial spectrum reallocation processes. Dominant assurance contracts can resolve these mismatches and enhance the overall productivity of spectrum resources.

Chairman Carr is refining his legal case for regulating broadcast content through license renewals, but even this more sophisticated approach runs headlong into serious First Amendment problems.

Maryland’s proposed broadband price controls for low-income households would undermine investment and fail to solve affordability, leaving vulnerable families worse off than a consumer-focused voucher approach would.

ITIF urges NTIA to use BEAD nondeployment funds to close the digital divide by targeting broadband adoption barriers while rejecting subsidies for profitable private ventures, overbuilding, regulatory inefficiencies, or clawing back funds contrary to the statute’s purpose.

California’s broadband affordability debate is being skewed by analysis that ignores real-world consumer use and competition, and risks misdirecting policymakers away from solutions that actually help low-income households.

The Commission should pursue the policy end of preventing contraband phones in a way that complies with the law and properly accounts for the costs and benefits of alternative solutions. Under both rubrics, jamming is unlikely to be the best solution.