Some, But Not All, BIP/BTOP Deadlines Extended
New BIP deadline: March 29; New BTOP deadline for CCI projects: March 26
NTIA and RUS have announced extensions of the deadlines for some, but not all, submissions in response to the Second Notice of Funds Availability (NOFA) issued as part of the Big Money Hand-out made possible by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Applications for Broadband Initiatives Program (BIP) funding will now be due at RUS by 5:00 p.m. (ET) on March 29, 2010. Applications for Comprehensive Community Infrastructure (CCI) projects under the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP) will now be due at NTIA by 5:00 p.m. (EDT) on March 26, 2010.
It’s not clear why one agency opted for March 26 while the other opted for March 29, but would-be applicants should be sure to note that the deadlines for NTIA and RUS applications responsive to the Second NOFA are no longer identical.
Also, the extensions do NOT apply to requests for NTIA/BTOP funds for Public Computer Center projects or Sustainable Broadband Adoption projects. The deadline for applications for such projects remains 5:00 p.m. (EDT) on March 15. Check out our blog post about the Second NOFA for further details about the different types of projects.
For several months now the question on many TV broadcasters’ minds has been:
Attention NONcommercial webcasters. January 31, 2010 brings deadlines for you just as it does for your
Maybe now the FCC will look at requests for extensions of deadlines more sympathetically.
As part of its ongoing efforts to get a handle on All Things Broadband before the FCC’s homework (i.e., the National Broadband Plan, a/k/a the NBP) is due in February, the Commission has released yet another
Regular readers of the CommLawBlog who know a lot about Network Neutrality (see, e.g., recent posts
An innocuous-looking letter from the FCC to Google marks the beginning of the end of the telephone system we have known for the past 130 years.
Here is one of those little coincidences that make Washington such an interesting place to work.
Net Neutrality, a long-simmering issue, has exploded into the foreground of public debate as the future of broadband takes shape. (If you have any doubt about that, check out our posts
In a speech this morning, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski announced his intention to initiate a proceeding looking to the adoption of new rules designed to preserve and enhance the “openness” of the Internet, in accordance with the principles of “network neutrality.” (You can read the speech
Should Internet service providers (ISPs) be allowed to give faster service to certain content, in exchange for a fee? That question started the debate over network neutrality. It has no clear answer, as yet, and other questions have sprung up in the meantime. But now we have the original question in reverse – with the money flowing in the opposite direction.
Back on January 20, we
Comcast just can’t get the hang of this network neutrality thing..jpg)
Last year Google thrust itself into the network neutrality debate by promoting open-platform wireless
Once upon a time, boys and girls, there were no big Internet sites like Google and Ebay, and no big Internet service providers (ISPs) like Comcast and Verizon. People accessed the Internet through thousands of small ISPs operating out of dorm rooms and coat closets. The sites they reached were mostly small and home-grown. Users formed networks serving all kinds of interesting and off-beat interests. Pornography, the universal early adopter for every new communications technology, flourished as well.
The Internet has long been described as the "Wild West" with regard to the application of law. We disagree with this characterization in that many laws applying to traditional media are generally applicable to the Internet as well, but for the sake of a good analogy, we'll note that one of the most notorious "virtual" outlaws in recent years is one Jeremy Jaynes. On September 12, 2008, Mr. Jaynes's conviction for violating Virginia's Anti-Spam law was overturned by that state's Supreme Court, thereby saving him from nine years in a very real jail.