Editorial staff

[Commentary] During the campaign, Donald Trump railed against powerful corporations and promised to prevent blockbuster mergers like the proposed $85.4 billion deal between AT&T and Time Warner. That was then. Since the election, President-elect Trump has been decidedly less interested in constraining the power of big companies, especially those in the telecommunications industry.

Investors and financial analysts are already betting that the Department of Justice and the Federal Communications Commission under Trump will be more likely to approve mergers in this industry, including perhaps a deal between Sprint and T-Mobile. Trump appears ready to do away with regulations on this oligopolistic industry. As it is, a lack of competition for some services is driving up prices. Public interest groups, Democratic lawmakers and sensible Republicans in Congress ought to vigorously oppose Trump’s deregulatory agenda. This won’t be easy, but they could, for example, try to challenge policy changes by filing lawsuits against the FCC, a tactic the telecom industry has used countless times over the years to stymie or delay regulations they opposed.

When Senate Democrats pick a new FCC commissioner, they ought to pick a strong consumer advocate who will use the position to speak out forcefully for more competition in the industry and common-sense approaches like net neutrality rules. Susan Crawford, of Harvard Law School, and Tim Wu, of Columbia Law School, are two experts who specialize in telecommunication issues and fit that bill.

[Commentary] For three years Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler rammed through his agenda on partisan lines, including classifying the internet as a public utility. He took orders from the White House, Google and the nonprofit Public Knowledge, to the extent there’s any difference among the three. Wheeler refused to pass around draft rules and sandbagged his colleagues with surprise votes and deals, the details of which were often altered later. Republicans are eager to roll out a reform agenda, and with Chairman Wheeler gone they’ll have a chance to do it, no Senate parliamentary tricks required. As for Tom Wheeler, he’s about to see that his legacy can be reversed in months because it was rooted in partisan self-interest rather than the national interest.

[Commentary] For years, members of Congress have fumed about what they regard as ineffective US public diplomacy, including the failure of broadcasting operations such as the Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty to match the reach and apparent influence of networks such as Russia’s RT and Qatar’s al Jazeera. A frequent and arguably fair focus of criticism has been the Broadcasting Board of Governors, the body created to supervise government-funded media outlets while serving as a firewall between them and the political administration of the day.

A radical change to that system is now coming — and it looks like one that Vladi­mir Putin and Qatar’s emir might well admire. An amendment quietly inserted into the annual National Defense Authorization Act by Republican House leaders would abolish the broadcasting board and place VOA, RFE/RL and other international news and information operations under the direct control of a chief executive appointed by the president. The new executive would hire and fire senior media personnel and manage their budgets. The damage to US interests could be considerable.

[Commentary] Not all of the government nomination negotiations these days are taking place at Trump Tower in Manhattan. Some are happening in Congress, and one is a potential Senate deal over nominees to the Federal Communications Commission that could leave Democrats in control of one of the most economically destructive agencies in Washington.

We hear Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) are negotiating for an FCC transition in which Chairman Tom Wheeler would leave in January. GOP leaders would then reconfirm two commissioners: Democrat Jessica Rosenworcel, whose five-year term has expired; and Republican Ajit Pai, who is not up until 2017 and is in the mix to be the next chairman. The question is why run the risk of a Democratic majority that could stymie GOP progress for several months? Traditionally chairmen resign from the five-member commission when a new President of the other party is elected. But Chairman Wheeler has shown more than once that his word isn’t worth very much. Even if he isn’t chairman, Chairman Wheeler is free to hang out as a commissioner until his term expires in mid-2017. Our advice is to give up this commissioner confirmation swap and let the normal change of power take place in Washington.

[Commentary] One of the biggest problems facing America’s economy is waning competition. In the home of free enterprise two-thirds of industries have become more concentrated since the 1990s, partly owing to lots of mergers. Fat, cosy incumbents hoard cash, invest less, smother new firms that create jobs and keep prices high. They are rotten for the economy. Boosting competition should be a priority for whoever occupies the White House in 2017, and for Congress. Now a test case is waiting in the in-tray. AT&T, America’s fifth-biggest firm by profits, wants to buy Time Warner, the second-biggest media firm.

The $109 billion megadeal isn’t a simple antitrust case, because it involves a firm buying a supplier, not a competitor. But there is a strong case that it will limit consumer choice in a part of the economy that is rife with rent-seeking and extend a worrying concentration of corporate power. It should be stopped. Precedent suggests that the trustbusters in the Department of Justice (under the auspices of the president), and not the Federal Trade Commission (a creature of Congress), will have the biggest say on the tie-up. This means the deal is being struck just as there is a change of leadership at the top. Those advising on the merger may be gambling that this makes the authorities unlikely to initiate a strong line on vertical mergers. That is all the more reason to be bold. Politicians and regulators may eventually resolve to open up the industry more, for example through “unbundling”, which lets upstart firms use others’ pipes. Until then they should block the AT&T-Time Warner deal and make clear that competition, not consolidation, is the way to get America’s economy working better.

[Commentary] The United States, home of Silicon Valley, remains the only major developed nation without fundamental online user protections, and that is appalling. Congress has to establish clear privacy protection of personal data, both from unwarranted government intrusion and from tech companies’ widespread sharing of personal data for profit.

President Barack Obama tried twice, in 2012 and 2015, to introduce a Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights, but each time tech companies argued that it would stifle innovation. That’s the politically acceptable buzzword. They also fear their profits will be affected if they can’t monetize customers’ private data at will.

Basic privacy protection of personal information should be a fundamental right of Americans. Can’t we just get it done?

[Commentary] Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler is still claiming that his 2015 internet takeover has encouraged innovation, investment and economic growth online. That’s not what the evidence shows. The US economy continues to create jobs, but there’s a big exception. Companies making computer and electronic products and in the telecommunications side of the information industry employed 29,000 fewer workers in August than they did a year earlier. Internet broadband networks have become a growth-free zone for investment and jobs. If this jewel of American technology and opportunity now becomes an innovation-free zone, consumers, investors and workers will have every right to blame Chairman Wheeler.

[Commentary] It’s curious to see lawmakers who are otherwise zealous promoters of deregulation and free markets argue against privatizing the world’s most important communications medium. More important, they’re wrong about the facts and wrong about the effect of stopping the planned transition.

Simply put, the US government doesn’t control any aspect of the Internet today, and it hasn’t for years. Yes, an entity it nominally supervises — the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority — manages the master online address list that organizes the virtual location of sites and services online. And that master list helps assure that the Internet remains an interconnected whole, not splintered into separate regional networks with incompatible addresses and protocols — a key factor in the Internet’s transformative power. But the federal government turned over management of the numbers authority long ago to a California not-for-profit organization, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers. Significantly, ICANN was created to transfer issues related to Internet addresses and traffic management from the U.S. government into the hands of Internet “stakeholders” — online service providers, data equipment vendors, user groups and the like.

Ted Cruz’s crusade to maintain the limited amount of supervision the federal government exercises over Internet addresses could yield the exact opposite of what he says he wants to accomplish. Repressive regimes already wield excessive but imperfect control over the Internet within their borders. To prevent them from gaining even more leverage over global data traffic, the best route is to limit all governments’ role in the management of Internet names and addresses. Congress should let the administration give up what little ministerial power it holds over the Internet’s technical functions and allow a more accountable ICANN to move forward.

[Commentary] Edward Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor who blew the cover off the federal government’s electronic surveillance programs three years ago, has his admirers. After the inevitably celebratory Oliver Stone film about him appears this weekend, he may have more. Whether Snowden deserves a presidential pardon, as human rights organizations are demanding in a new national campaign timed to coincide with the film, is a complicated question, however, to which President Barack Obama’s answer should continue to be “no.”

[Commentary] One of the most interesting applications of quantum mechanics is in computing. In theory, quantum computers could take advantage of odd subatomic interactions to solve certain problems far faster than a conventional machine could. Although a full-scale quantum computer is still years off, scientists have lately made a lot of progress on the materials, designs and methods needed to make one. Investment in the field is surging. IBM, Microsoft and Google are all building quantum research labs. Startups are gearing up. Banks are very interested indeed. Governments see applications for space exploration, medical research and intelligence-gathering. America's National Security Agency, in fact, has been quietly trying to build a quantum computer for years, in the hope that it would make an unstoppable code-breaker.

Businesses, in particular, should pay attention. Many have files that must be stored for years, for legal or commercial reasons. But woefully few have a long-term strategy for protecting them. That's especially worrisome because, without precautions, sensitive records -- medical files, financial data, trade secrets -- that are stored using today's encryption could potentially be exposed by quantum computers. Governments could also help. Quantum computing requires competence in physics, computer science and engineering, and that makes it hard to find qualified workers. Public investment in basic quantum-science research would help build a skilled workforce, boost technical know-how and generally lay the groundwork for a promising new field. It could also speed the development of stronger cryptography. More cooperation between Silicon Valley and the government, not on notable display recently, could be invaluable in this regard. In short, common sense isn't useless in approaching quantum computers; it may be the best way to prepare for an era of thrilling strangeness.