Medium

Making the most of wireless Internet access

[Commentary] Barely a week goes by without some headline-grabbing announcement about super fast mobile Internet connectivity. A bevy of acronyms promise faster data speeds. And, on the horizon, wireless broadband technologies promise blazing fast connections without cable clutter. Next Century Cities, a membership organization of more than 150 mayors and city leaders, is “solutions agnostic” — we help cities find the broadband solution that fits their needs and helps deliver next-generation broadband to more Americans. Our member communities have adopted a range of solutions: some create their own networks while others partner with private providers and some even have a mixture of both.

Many of our members have approached Next Century Cities with questions about how wireless technology fits in their broadband plans. Is a brave new wireless wonderland around the corner, they ask. Not exactly. Not yet anyway. Should cities ditch their wired broadband strategies on a dime and embrace all things wireless? In reality, deploying fiber is as important as ever. Advanced wireless technologies should be welcomed, but for mobile connectivity to offer consumers real choice, policymakers must take steps to promote deployment.

[Todd O’Boyle serves as Deputy Director of Next Century Cities and is the program director for Common Cause's Media and Democracy Reform Initiative]

Gaping holes, confusion mar FCC’s data on political ad buys

[Commentary] Four years after it began requiring TV stations to upload their records of political ad sales to a central government website, the Federal Communications Commission maintains a recordkeeping system that makes finding out who an ad’s sponsor is feel like a treasure hunt. In 2012, the FCC approved a rule requiring broadcast stations in the largest markets to upload the files showing who bought time for political ads, how much they paid and other details, saving journalists and others from having to visit to individual TV stations to get the info. The directive was gradually expanded and now includes most broadcast, cable, satellite and radio outlets. But the victory for open government turned out to be a website that is searchable only by station call letters, channel number, facility ID number and similar data — not by sponsoring group, candidate mentioned and other terms that would make it easier to track who is running ads in particular federal races, and how much they’re spending.

The current filing system is “pretty useless” for the public, said Meredith McGehee, policy director at the Campaign Legal Center, which put out a report on the system’s shortcomings. The political ad purchase records, also known as political files, were basically an unorganized pile of mostly non-machine readable documents with no uniform filing system. Earlier in Sept, the Center for Responsive Politics launched an ad data tracking tool searchable by state and zip code (and soon, by other terms) to continue efforts started by watchdog groups and news outlets such as Sunlight Foundation and ProPublica when the data first came out. But the federal agency responsible for the data still maintains only a vague “due diligence” standard when it comes to stations’ responsibility for ensuring the forms contain complete and accurate information.

[Soo Rin Kim is a reporting intern with the Center for Responsive Politics]
[The Benton Foundation filed complaints recently against several broadcasers on this issue.]

Donald Trump Doubles Down on Internet Ignorance

[Commentary] Donald Trump wants to make the Internet great again. Problem is, the GOP nominee doesn’t know enough about the Internet to understand what, if anything, that means.

On Sept 21, Trump’s campaign came out against an Obama Administration plan to relinquish US control of one important aspect of the Internet: the supervision of domain names. The plan is to remove the US government control of that function and transfer it more fully to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or ICANN, a global body. Trump’s sometime-nemesis Sen Ted Cruz (R-TX) is threatening to hold the government-spending bill hostage unless Congress rejects President Barack Obama’s plan. Sen Cruz wrongly states that the ICANN transition would “empower countries like Russia, China and Iran to be able to censor speech on the Internet, your speech." On this Trump agrees. “The Republicans in Congress are admirably leading a fight to save the Internet this week, and need all the help the American people can give them to be successful,” a Trump campaign spokesman said in a statement. “Congress needs to act, or Internet freedom will be lost for good, since there will be no way to make it great again once it is lost.”

But Trump and Sen Cruz are wrong. And it’s Trump who has repeatedly threatened to shut down the Internet to keep Americans safe from terrorists. He’s offered few specifics about how this might be achieved.

[Tim Karr is the senior director of strategy for Free Press]

Let’s Talk About Free Speech

[Commentary] What is the state of the First Amendment on college campuses? In the past year, this question has been one of significant interest to Knight Foundation, and to observers around the country. As a private foundation with its roots in the newspaper business, we have a longstanding commitment to the First Amendment. For this reason, we took note last fall when protests on college campuses over myriad issues spurred a surprising paradox: Protesters — exercising their right to free speech — simultaneously seemed to limit the speech of others through the creation of “safe spaces.” This trend came to a head most dramatically at the University of Missouri last October, when students briefly attempted to ban the press from covering their protest in a public space, before quickly recanting and permitting press access.

What we found was a portrait as complicated as what we imagined, although not in the ways we expected. Among the key findings:
Disagreement on the security of First Amendment freedoms
Principles and practice don’t match up: When it comes to the principles undergirding the First Amendment, college students are generally more ardent than US adults that colleges should expose students to all types of expression and points of view rather than prohibiting biased or offensive speech (78 percent among college students versus 66 percent among US adults).
Social media seen as positive and negative force for expression.

[Sam Gill is vice president for learning and impact at Knight Foundation.]

Candidate Survivor: When Push Comes to Pull on the Campaign Trail

[Commentary] Most current analyses of media and the election go to the nature of press coverage of the candidates. But this election has a more transformative nature: the emergence of push versus pull candidacies that reflect the changing nature of media itself.

In this election, the results may very well depend on how citizen-sovereigns view their role. Will they passively receive the messages pushed through the din of information overload? Or will they actively pull in the information they need to make knowledgeable decisions? The new media are indeed the message.

[Charlie Firestone is the Executive Director of the Aspen Institute’s Communications and Society Program]

When Judges Pull the Plug on Rural America

[Commentary] Lincoln made sure we had railroads; FDR made sure we had electricity; Eisenhower made sure we had highways. What US president will make sure we make a national upgrade to competitive, last-mile-fiber-plus-advanced-wireless connections? The question has become even more vital after a disappointing recent court decision that gave the thumbs up to a tactic of big communications companies who, for business reasons, refuse to extend service to rural communities: they can continue to lobby for laws that prevent those communities from setting up their own networks.

The fine-print interpretation by those Sixth Circuit judges has consequences. And some have already happened: Wilson (NC) turned off access for Pinetops (NC) right after the decision came down. The real need here is for national leadership. We need infrastructure banks writing loan guarantees that will lower the cost of accessing capital to build last-mile fiber across the land. We need to set our standards high in defining a basic Internet connection that’s essential for thriving lives — and those standards will need to involve a lot of fiber. To do all this, someone needs to step up, and soon. We need to take the burden off local heroes. It isn’t really their job to fix America’s competitive standing in the world. It’s the job of Congress and it’s the job of the president—but it’s mostly the latter. The president has to see that this isn’t a partisan issue, and that just as Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Eisenhower rose to the occasion, whoever is in the White House in 2017 must also do so, to serve the nation and its people. We can’t afford another administration that doesn’t get this job done.

[Susan Crawford is the John A. Reilly Clinical Professor of Law at Harvard Law School and a co-director of the Berkman Center.]

How Censoring Facebook Affects the Fight for Black Lives

[Commentary] Black Lives Matter may have harnessed the power of social media, but it has yet to control it. For many, Facebook has come to represent a public square — a place where we can assemble with others, share information and speak our minds. But it isn’t public. It’s a private platform where everyone’s rights to connect and communicate are subject to Facebook’s often arbitrary terms and conditions.

Facebook needs clear guidelines and processes that are transparent to users on how it determines whether to block someone’s stream or deactivate an account. It shouldn’t allow police to demand takedown requests to avoid scrutiny or cover up abuse. We need to know when and why Facebook and other social media platforms have granted these requests, with clear standards for the future. The fight for racial equity in the media is often a fight against media monopoly, especially when these companies are white-owned and operated. And Facebook is a face of monopoly in the age of social media. New gatekeepers like Facebook must make confronting racism a priority. Yes, Zuckerberg has been outspoken in his support for racial justice — even hanging a Black Lives Matter sign outside company headquarters. But we must urge him to ensure that his company’s actions match his words. Providing clarity and accountability on Facebook’s policy for suspending accounts and blocking images of police encounters is a start.

[Tim Karr is the senior director of strategy for Free Press]

Connecting America’s Classrooms

Launched in 2013, the ConnectED initiative set a goal of connecting 99 percent of students to high-speed broadband by the year 2018; called on the private sector and other partners to develop quality, low-cost digital devices and content for teachers and students; and aimed to increase investments in professional development for teachers and school leaders so they can lead the transition to digital learning. Since 2013, 20 million more students have gained access to high-speed broadband in their schools and the ConnectED initiative is on track to connect 99 percent of students to the internet by 2018. After the President’s call, the Federal Communications Commission modernized E-Rate — the federal government’s largest education technology program — to make billions of dollars available to expand access to high-speed internet services. Before E-Rate was modernized, just 30 percent of school districts serving 4 million students offered access to high-speed internet. Today, 77 percent of school districts that serve more than 24 million students do so. Improvements to E-Rate also helped rural and disadvantaged communities build the infrastructure needed to increase their access to broadband.

Longtime Listener, First-Time Candidate

[Commentary] We are now just 20 days away from what may turn out to be the most watched political event in history: the first presidential debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. In one corner stands Clinton, surrounded by the type of advisers who have prepared candidates of both parties for decades: debate coaches, policy wonks, pollsters, researchers, wordsmiths, and all the rest (she’s also reportedly getting help from Art of the Deal ghostwriter Tony Schwartz and a few psychologists playing the role of Clarice Starling to Hillary’s Jack Crawford). In the other corner is Trump, flanked by the de facto leaders of today’s Republican Party, a cult of media personalities whose power and influence over the GOP base is unmatched by any conservative politician or intellectual: former Fox News chairman Roger Ailes (net worth: $75 million; audience: no. 1 cable network in America), Breitbart News chairman Steve Bannon ($41 million; 31 million unique monthly visitors), Fox News/talk radio host Sean Hannity ($35 million; 2-plus million viewers, 12.5 million listeners), and talk radio host/author Laura Ingraham ($45 million; 6 million listeners). Others advise and actively support the nominee’s candidacy through their media platforms, from Rush Limbaugh ($350 million; 13-plus million listeners) to Ann Coulter ($8.5 million; 3-plus million books sold) to Alex Jones ($8 million; 7 million unique monthly visitors).

Elections are a contest between the stories the candidates tell about the country they hope to lead, and that’s especially true at a time when the line between media and politics has almost disappeared. The entertainers who are running Trump’s campaign know their story well. The Democrats and Republicans who want him defeated know they have a better one — we just can’t forget to tell it.

[Jon Favreau was President Barack Obama’s head Speechwriter from 2005–2013.]

Free Speech is Now a Brutal War on the Internet

[Commentary] The Internet has ruined the business model for journalism. And trolls are ruining the public debate on the open Internet. And Facebook is swallowing all of it into its walled gardens.

[Anders Emil Møller is the managing director and founder of trouble_co.]

What is 5G and why should I care?

[Commentary] Depending on who you talk to, the term 5G can mean everything from blocks of spectrum at 24 gigahertz or above to a dedicated cellular standard managed by the International Telecommunications Union. The differing definitions are a nightmare for anyone trying to make sense of what is purportedly the next big thing in communications. This is profoundly different from 4G, which was tied to a specific standard in telecommunications set by the 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), a group of telecommunications standards bodies. But unlike 4G, 5G isn’t just for carriers. It’s for everyone, so everyone wants to play a part in saying what it means. Thus the term 5G is all inclusive.

The carriers and their equipment vendors tend to use the phrase to talk about delivering wireless connectivity using a combination of cellular and Wi-Fi services. Carriers will use small cells, Wi-Fi hotspots, cellular towers and anything else at their disposal to ensure a connection. (They used to call this “het net” or heterogeneous network.) The Federal Communications Commission and others have expanded the definition of 5G to cover the airwaves folks will use to deliver next-generation wireless services. So Google and Facebook’s plans to deliver gigabit wireless broadband using spectrum above 24 GHz also count. The FCC basically uses it to mean “future communications” and also spectrum. But slippery terminology aside, the key thing to think about when talking about 5G is that the goal of the transition is to handle more things on the network, as well as a huge variety of things.

[Stacey Higginbotham is a tech writer based in Austin, Texas]

The Information and Communications Technology Agenda for 2017 and Beyond

[Commentary] In order to push the economy out of secular stagnation and to increase average family income for all income quintiles, the next government — both the Executive and Legislative Branches — needs a plan for the information and communication technologies (ICT) platform. Before the technologists and economists set their teeth against this assertion, I hastily add that the plan might be consolidation of the wireless industry or abandonment of network neutrality. Or it could be the promotion of multiple licensees for 5G (next generation wireless) services in a single geography. In other words, the plan could be to allow incumbents to gain advantages or it might be to support new entrants. It could favor redundant networks, or shared facilities. In any case, as Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner famously said in Oval Office debates about rebuilding the balance sheets of the big banks, “Plan beats no plan.”

I can’t think of any way to describe Donald Trump’s ICT plan. However, Republican and Democratic leaders have limned some important parts of an ICT plan in various stalled bills over the last couple of years. And Hillary Clinton’s ICT goals are reasonably detailed, although perhaps purposely not presented as a plan per se. One legacy of the Cold War is the popular insistence on the market-trusting cluelessness of government, even while everyone expects extremely careful government thinking about monetary policy, medical research, national defense, tax and antitrust regimes, securities and drug regulation, and so forth. Whatever. My point is that the pieces of a plan are already out there. So here’s my crack at putting them together, adding in some suggestions of my own. There needs to be a three-part plan. Part one is about the economy; two, culture; three, government as an operations problem.

[Reed Hunt is CEO of CGC and former chairman of the FCC from 1993-1997.]

How Hillary Clinton Adopted the Wonkiest Tech Policy Ever

A Q&A with Sarah Solow, Hillary Clinton's domestic policy advisor.

Hillary Clinton wasn’t kidding around when she released her technology policy initiative in June. It was a gloriously wonky Gladstone bag of positions on issues batted around at think tanks, on digital democracy panels, and in Susan Crawford’s Backchannel columns—almost a K-Tel Records version of tech policy’s greatest hits. It was all there. Yes to high-speed access, international Internet governance, immigration reform, orphan works, online privacy, gig economy benefits, diversified workforce, STEM education, cybersecurity, network neutrality, and the United States Digital Service. No to Balkanization of the Internet, the digital divide, and venue shopping in patent litigation. Leading the team drawing the document was Sara Solow, the candidate’s domestic policy advisor. She agreed to provide us with some context on Hillary Clinton’s tech policy — and also wound up venting about the opponent’s apparent lack of a policy. Asked how they produced the tech policy, Salow said, "Last June or July (2015), we pulled together a working group with a whole bunch of outside experts and outside advisors, and a range of stakeholders, to start helping us collect policy proposals and thoughts about technology, innovation, and intellectual property. We had regular monthly meetings or phone calls, and I personally developed relationships with 30 outside experts, at least. It was a very collaborative, comprehensive process."

Government Agencies Make Funding and Investing in Broadband Infrastructure Easier for Communities in Need

[Commentary] Schools, hospitals, libraries, and emergency services all have a few things in common — they are vital as anchors within a community and depend on high-speed Internet access to provide their services. Unfortunately, many low or moderate-income areas lack the broadband access that could help them revitalize their neighborhoods and be competitive in the digital age.

Households in the US making $25,000 or less have a broadband adoption rate of 47 percent, while those making more than $100,000 have an adoption rate of 92 percent. The Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas recently released a report on the importance of broadband access for community development. The report identifies how broadband can be transformative for a community in many ways. Digital skills are increasingly important in the workforce, students need the Internet to do research and complete their homework, access to financial services are more readily available with online banking, and telemedicine improves the health of people who otherwise wouldn’t have access to healthcare. Broadband also is increasingly essential for small businesses who can find resources online along with tools to modernize everything from payroll to marketing. Knowing how important broadband can be for communities, we’re excited to hear that the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC) has redefined the guidelines for the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) that will allow for loans towards broadband investments that can help bridge the digital divide. These new CRA guidelines will expand financing for the construction, expansion, improvement, maintenance or operation of essential infrastructure that help revitalize and modernize communities.

[FTTH Council is a non-profit association of companies and organizations involved in fiber to the home]

The Next Generation of Wireless — “5G” — Is All Hype

[Commentary] When it comes to hype, “5G” is this year’s “cold fusion.”

The meaning seems obvious — our current communications system is 4G, so of course we must already have the next generation in line. Telecom executives play on this perception. Lowell McAdam, the CEO of Verizon, says 5G is “wireless fiber.” (And I thought fiber was fiber.) SK Telecom says it will soon be able to transfer holograms and enable virtual reality over 5G networks that are 100 times faster than current 4G LTE connections. Noise about 5G is incessant and triumphant, a constant drumbeat of predictions crowing about the arrival any day now of seemingly costless, ubiquitous, instantaneous, unlimited connectivity. The “5G” story is far more complex, calculated, and contingent than anyone in the carriers’ PR departments wants you to know. There is no 5G standard — yet. This “wireless fiber” will never happen unless we have… more fiber. In order to work, 99% of any “5G” wireless deployment will have to be fiber running very close to every home and business.

[Crawford is the John A. Reilly Clinical Professor of Law at Harvard Law School and a co-director of the Berkman Center]

Saudi Millenials Don't Use Their Phones Like We Do

The Saudi Arabia project kicked off in the fall of 2014, when Jan Chipchase got an e-mail from Ash Banerjee. Banerjee had just been hired as chief brand officer at Jawwy, a startup within STC that endeavored to launch a new mobile brand for young digitally native Saudis. As a middle-aged Indian executive who lived mostly in Dubai, Banerjee needed to figure out what would appeal to Saudi youth.

They developed a report. The insights were broad: The report included things like the allowance the government paid university students ($264/month) and the local minimum wage ($1413/month for Saudis; $666/month for non-Saudis). It described their living situations; both men and women live at home until they are married. It included diagrams that explained what types of coverings women wore, and when they were appropriate, as well as what socials apps people preferred (Skype, Instagram and Path are popular; Facebook and BBM are fading out). Not surprisingly, it also revealed that while mobile devices were important to Saudi men, they were absolutely critical for women. Instead of hiring a full-time driver, which might be prohibitively expensive and require planning ahead, for example, they could use on-demand services like Careem, for which they paid roughly $650/month. In May of 2016, Jawwy finally launched its service, which lets customers customize their mobile plans as they go. It’s still too early to say whether it will succeed, but the company said early signs are positive.

Media ownership by people of color is on the brink of extinction

[Commentary] Right now, media ownership by people of color is on the brink of extinction. Of more than 1,500 full-powered television stations, only 42 remain under Latino ownership and 7 under African American ownership. Howard University Television, the nation’s first and only Black-owned public TV station, which has broadcast for more than 30 years, is auctioning off its airwaves. People of color cannot afford to lose any more of the platforms we speak from at such a critical moment in our national conversation — we must act now to tell the Federal Communications Commission to support current and future media owners of color.

[Aitza Haddad Nunez is a member of Howard Media Group at Howard University’s School of Communications]

Democrats, Republicans and the Internet

[Commentary] In 2016, for the first time, Internet policy is prominent in both major-party platforms. While there are distinct disagreements and differences in approach to tech policy, there are also areas of common ground — revealing potential openings for bipartisan action.

Access: When it comes to getting everyone connected there are some signs of accord. But neither party goes far enough to address the real obstacles to bridging the digital divide. The GOP seeks to “facilitate access to spectrum by paving the way for high-speed, next-generation broadband deployment and competition on the Internet and for internet services.” The Democrats want to deploy “next-generation wireless service that will… bring faster Internet connections to underserved areas.” The Republican platform encourages “public-private partnerships to provide predictable support for connecting rural areas so that every American can fully participate in the global economy.” The Democrats want government to take it one step further by working to “finish the job of connecting every household in America to high-speed broadband, increase Internet adoption, and help hook up anchor institutions so they can offer free Wi-Fi to the public.” While both platforms emphasize rural connections, they ignore the adoption gap in urban areas, as my colleague S. Derek Turner, research director at Free Press, explains. “The emphasis on rural is understandable, but the truth is we’ve made strides in rural areas,” Turner said, noting that there are both public and private initiatives to build out. “Rural areas have near-universal coverage; what they lack is multiple options at higher speeds. We’ve continued to ignore the competition problem, which impacts lower-income people and people of color the most.”

[Tim Karr advocates for universal access to open networks at Free Press and Free Press Action Fund]

The Limits of Net Neutrality

[Commentary] Network neutrality is about attempting to limit the power of Internet access network operators (like Charter or Comcast) to choose winners and losers among the services that have to use their wires — because, remember, competition is so limited — to reach consumers. It’s a kind of synthetic attempt to keep the operators from favoring their own commercial interests when sending Internet traffic from other people to you (or vice versa). But the problem is that where network operators don’t have to compete, and use their digital pipes for multiple purposes (like providing their own TV services that feel just like over-the-top video services), it’s so easy for them to act like media distribution companies, slicing and dicing and packaging, rather than transport providers. And ultimately, that kind of behavior is designed to serve their commercial interests. It’s only rational. But it’s harmful to new competitors and ultimately to consumers.

In the US, the net neutrality issue has been forced to bear too much weight. It stands in for a larger problem that a single law or regulation can’t address. It’s like a small white bird perched on the head of a hippo. The little bird is noticeable and interesting, but really just a side-effect of the reality of the hippo himself. And the hippo in this metaphor is the lack of competition for network access services, particularly higher-capacity services, in a fundamentally unregulated market.

[Susan Crawford is the John A. Reilly Clinical Professor of Law at Harvard Law School and a co-director of the Berkman Center]

Net Neutrality Win in the D.C. Circuit Court is a Win for the Arts

[Commentary] After more than six months of deliberation, the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit released its opinion affirming the Federal Communications Commission’s 2015 Open Internet Order. While the DC Circuit Court’s decision is important to all consumers, it is particularly relevant to the arts and culture sector. The creative community relies upon a free and open Internet in a number of ways. Artists turn to the Internet to display and distribute work, collaborate with other artists, seek inspiration, educate young artists, market events, fundraise, and access articles like this one. Here are three reasons the arts community should celebrate the network neutrality decision:

1) Artists harness the Internet to maximize audience reach.
2) The Internet is a tool for artists to promote their craft.
3) The open Internet enables the arts community to contribute to society.

Access to a free and open Internet is intrinsic to the liberation of artists. The arts community has very good reason to celebrate the court’s decision.

[Courtney Duffy is the Robert W. Deutsch Arts & Technology Policy Fellow at Public Knowledge]

There’s An Obvious Way to Create More Jobs.

[Commentary] With the highest percentage of fibered homes in the world, and fiber-connected cell towers everywhere, all kinds of digitally enhanced mobile wireless possibilities have emerged in Seoul, South Korea. 5G won’t be a panacea for South Korea. There are genuine structural issues in Seoul that won’t be solved by technology. Like other major cities, affordable housing is a huge problem. Traffic congestion is awful — worse than New York City — and inequality is growing. As the mayor of Seoul, Won Soon Park, put it earlier in 2016, “Low growth is becoming firmly entrenched, drawing a deep, dark shade over our entire economy.” But with innovation on its side — Bloomberg says South Korea ranks first in the world as an innovative economy — South Korea hopes to use the new wizardry of wireless/fiber to create whole new categories of occupations (not just new jobs) for its people.

[Susan Crawford is the John A. Reilly Clinical Professor at Harvard Law School and a co-director of the Berkman Center.]

An open letter from technology sector leaders on Donald Trump’s candidacy for President

We are inventors, entrepreneurs, engineers, investors, researchers, and business leaders working in the technology sector. We are proud that American innovation is the envy of the world, a source of widely-shared prosperity, and a hallmark of our global leadership. We believe in an inclusive country that fosters opportunity, creativity and a level playing field. Donald Trump does not. He campaigns on anger, bigotry, fear of new ideas and new people, and a fundamental belief that America is weak and in decline. We have listened to Donald Trump over the past year and we have concluded: Trump would be a disaster for innovation.

His vision stands against the open exchange of ideas, free movement of people, and productive engagement with the outside world that is critical to our economy — and that provide the foundation for innovation and growth. We also believe in the free and open exchange of ideas, including over the Internet, as a seed from which innovation springs. Donald Trump proposes “shutting down” parts of the Internet as a security strategy — demonstrating both poor judgment and ignorance about how technology works. His penchant to censor extends to revoking press credentials and threatening to punish media platforms that criticize him. We stand against Donald Trump’s divisive candidacy and want a candidate who embraces the ideals that built America’s technology industry: freedom of expression, openness to newcomers, equality of opportunity , public investments in research and infrastructure, and respect for the rule of law. We embrace an optimistic vision for a more inclusive country, where American innovation continues to fuel opportunity, prosperity and leadership.

Media diversity is non-negotiable

[Commentary] While the nation is increasingly diverse, broadcasting remains mostly the province of white males. The number of Black-owned radio companies has dropped by more than 50 percent since 1995 and just 12 television stations — mostly in small markets — are Black owned. How did we get here? Like almost every industry, broadcasting historically has been dominated by white men. The Federal Communications Commission was 38 years old before it got its first Black member, in 1972; it did not get a Black chairman until 1997. Its policies generally have amplified this legacy of discrimination by allowing sweeping consolidation of media companies, further entrenching the status quo. As a practical matter, consolidation means far-away corporate owners more focused on the bottom line than on quality local journalism. And as media consolidation grows, people of color and women become less significant players in the media ecosystem.

We are deeply troubled by reports that the agency is poised to approve yet another Quadrennial Review without commissioning this research. That would spark more litigation and lead the courts to conclude, as they have three times now, that the agency must root its decisions in good social science. America’s strength is its diversity; we need to take advantage of it. Consigning communities of color and women to the sidelines in media programming, jobs, and ownership not only closes doors of opportunity for them, it weakens our society. It’s precisely the wrong way to go. We hope the FCC will choose better this time.

[Michael Copps is a retired FCC Commissioner and a special adviser for the Media and Democracy Reform Initiative at Common Cause. Wade Henderson is the president and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights]

The Information Counter-Revolution

[Commentary] We have entered a new era -- one where our rights to connect and communicate are under constant siege by governments and corporations. It is the information counter-revolution.

The once democratic online world is giving way to a model where governments and powerful communications companies call the shots. In this new reality, Internet users have turned into data profiles and bargaining chips. A whole new surveillance industry has cropped up to provide governments with the tools to filter online content, break privacy-protecting encryption codes and aggregate and sort data on Internet users.

[Karr is Senior Director of Strategy, Free Press]