Brian Fung

Comcast leapt into the cutthroat market for cellphone service by unveiling Xfinity Mobile, a move that other cable companies are expected to follow as consumers' rising Internet consumption increasingly pits providers of home and mobile broadband against each other. The company will offer its Xfinity customers two wireless options: one for unlimited data that costs from $45 to $65 per line a month, and a pay-as-you-go plan for $12 per gigabyte. The service will be available to customers starting in the second quarter, Comcast said.

The new offering is aimed at helping Comcast compete outside the home as Americans' Internet usage increasingly shifts to mobile devices. The cable company's service relies primarily on Comcast's network of 16 million public Wi-Fi hotspots for connectivity, allowing users to surf the Web, watch video and listen to streaming music on their phones without paying for cellular data. Where the company's WiFi signals are unavailable, Xfinity Mobile will connect to the traditional cellular network owned by Verizon, which Comcast is using as a result of an airwaves agreement signed several years ago.

Now that President donald Trump has signed legislation repealing landmark federal privacy protections for Internet users, many in Washington are trying to decipher what the move could mean for network neutrality.

President Trump's role in repealing the rules is likely to be small; the real center of gravity lies outside the White House. Congress could intervene on net neutrality by writing a bill that repeals and replaces the FCC policy. But a legislative deal does not appear imminent. Republicans, lacking a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, need some Democratic support for any such bill. And Democrats have declined to play ball unless the legislation preserves the FCC's ability to regulate Internet providers like legacy telephone companies, something Republicans have strongly resisted. Despite a federal court ruling upholding the FCC rules in the summer of 2016, industry advocates are still pushing to have the regulations overturned by a fresh judicial hearing. If the US Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit agrees to rehear the net neutrality case — a decision that could be announced this spring — Internet providers will have another shot at knocking down the rules. FCC Chairman Ajit Pai could make things even easier for the industry by not defending the suit, something he has already done in at least one separate case involving low-cost broadband access. If the court rules against the FCC, the regulations are as good as dead.

An interview with Tim Berners-Lee, inventor of the World Wide Web.

Asked, "What's your reaction to last week's vote? Is it consistent with your vision for the Web?" Berners-Lee said, "We do things on the Web that are very intimate, like look up cancers we're worried other people might have or that we're having. We have intimate conversations with people in a way that we would have only in the very close quarters of a security-locked room. Just by the things that we do on the Web — we betray completely the most intimate details of our lives and hopes and fears and weaknesses that can be exploited. Maybe the ISPs don't go in this direction; maybe they realize it would be inappropriate. If they do [go in that direction] I think there'll be a massive outcry." When asked, "Google and Facebook already collect and share our data for advertising purposes. Are Internet providers that different?" Berners-Lee replied, "Absolutely those industries are completely different. The business of supplying bits is a really important business. It's like water; it's a lower part of the infrastructure on which everything else depends. The fact that [your provider] doesn't have an attitude about what you use it for is why it's been successful. It's why the Internet has taken over the world. A social network is different — it's not got much to do with moving bits from place to place. You have a choice, and even if you're a member of one of these social networks, you don't have to do everything there."

When politicians talk about infrastructure, they typically mean the basics: Roads, bridges, ports. The electric grid. Maybe rail, if it's lucky. But Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai wants the government to expand that thinking by including a type of network that 3 out of 4 Americans use on a daily basis, but doesn't often make it on the politicians' lists: high-speed Internet.

“If Congress moves forward with a major infrastructure package, broadband should be included,” said Chairman Pai. He is proposing an ambitious program whereby the FCC could expand corporate subsidies for building networks while scaling back regulations that, he said, deter private investment. In addition, Chairman Pai is asking that Congress offer tax credits to Internet service providers and entrepreneurs who agree to set up shop in “gigabit opportunity zones” that could be as large as a county or as small as a city block.

At an industry conference in Barcelona, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai said he plans to use key policy decisions made in the 1990s and early 2000s as a guide for his own agenda. Those early decisions include, he said, a bipartisan consensus to not require Internet providers to obey “outdated rules crafted in the 1930s for a telephone monopoly.” He also cited a Bush-era commitment to give Internet providers sole control over broadband networks that they built, rather than adopt a European-style system permitting other companies to use those same cables to sell competing Internet service.

But some consumer advocates say that Pai's historical references are misleading. Although the World Wide Web's own early history was marked by a free-for-all in which online businesses competed on mostly equal footing, it is not the case that the government played no role, said Gene Kimmelman, president of the advocacy group Public Knowledge. Policymakers at the time “were setting up an entire regulatory framework for opening [a] telephone monopoly to a broader competitive environment,” said Kimmelman, referring to a time when telephone lines — and thus Internet connections — were controlled by just a few large players. “And it required substantial government intervention.”

Google is taking the plunge into live television with a new streaming service that's designed to compete with Sling TV, DirecTV Now and PlayStation Vue. Google revealed YouTube TV — a $35-a-month service that allows for up to six user profiles. The plan, which like other streaming services does not require a contract or long-term commitment, comes with many of the same key channels available on other platforms, such as Comcast SportsNet, ESPN, Syfy and the Disney Channel. YouTube TV also comes with a strong array of broadcast network channels, such as ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC and the CW, though Viacom appears to be absent from the lineup. Local news programming from network affiliates will also be included, according to Robert Kyncl, YouTube's chief business officer, at the event. Still, YouTube TV lacks some notable cable channels — CNN, HBO and Cartoon Network are not on the list featured in YouTube's blog post, for example.

Only rarely is the Web recognized for helping advance the cause of civic education and government transparency. But for a little over an hour on Feb 7, it did an amazing thing.

The Internet brought an enormous number of people together to hear a federal appeals court deliberate over President Trump's entry ban. We're talking about oral argument. In a federal court. Where there wasn't much to see besides a black background and the court's logo. Considering how complex the discussion quickly became, it's all the more stunning how the feed kept attracting new viewers rather than losing them as time went on. At its peak, more than 135,000 people had tuned in to the audio-only proceeding on YouTube — and that's before you count those who were watching the court's live stream from other sources, such as cable TV and Facebook. That's pretty extraordinary — and another sign that in today's digitally connected world, the best technologies make accessible what was previously inaccessible.

Mark Zuckerberg should give up some of his control over Facebook by relinquishing his position as chairman of the board, according to a new proposal by a consumer watchdog group and a few shareholders. The proposal, led by SumOfUs, claims that Facebook's future success requires “a balance of power between the CEO and the board,” and that without a chairman who is independent of the company, Facebook could act without repercussions against investors. “An independent board chair is a necessary first step to put Facebook’s board on the path to effective representation of the interests of all shareholders,” reads the proposal, which goes on to highlight the need for greater accountability amid controversies over fake news, harassment and hate speech. The proposal was received by Facebook on Feb 3.

The Federal Communications Commission is telling nine companies they won't be allowed to participate in a federal program meant to help them provide affordable Internet access to low-income consumers — weeks after those companies had been given the green light.

The move undercuts the companies' ability to provide low-cost Internet access to poorer Americans. For Kajeet Inc., one of the companies that was initially granted permission to provide service through Lifeline, the news comes as a blow. “I’m most concerned about the children we serve,” said Kajeet founder Daniel Neal. “We partner with school districts — 41 states and the District of Columbia — to provide educational broadband so that poor kids can do their homework.” FCC Chairman Ajit Pai had indicated that closing the digital divide is one of the signature issues he hopes to address. But the Feb 3 move cuts against those remarks.

"The most obvious fact in our society is that high-speed Internet is astronomically expensive for the middle-class and down," said Gene Kimmelman, president of the consumer advocacy group Public Knowledge. "So in any way limiting the Lifeline program, at this moment in time, exacerbates the digital divide. It doesn't address it in any positive way."

Is Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai for or against network neutrality? In plain English, Chairman Pai is saying he's in favor of the idea of net neutrality; he just doesn't like the FCC's policy of regulating the Internet providers with Title II of the Communications Act. But, how can you be for net neutrality but against the FCC's rules? Aren't the rules "net neutrality"? The FCC regulations are aimed at preserving a free and open Internet, but they aren't technically synonymous with net neutrality. The regulations are simply the government's attempt to defend net neutrality, which is a broader idea about how the Internet should work.

Chairman Pai said he was supportive of a number of so-called freedoms identified by former FCC chairman Michael Powell. Now that he's chairman, Pai isn't saying much about net neutrality beyond that. But we can look to other Title II opponents for clues as to possible alternatives to the current policy. There are several main paths forward, it seems, and any mixture of them seems possible. The FCC could choose not to enforce the net neutrality rules. It could actively seek to roll them back by reversing Wheeler's reclassification. And Congress could seek to legislate.