Lauren Frayer

T-Mobile announced its intentions to build the nation’s first mobile “5G” wireless network, and is planning to use its recent haul in the Federal Communications Commission spectrum auction to pull it off. “We’re going to run at it and run at it hard,” said T-Mobile chief technology officer Neville Ray, who expects the company’s 5G rollout to begin in 2019, with a target of 2020 for full nationwide coverage. Rivals Verizon Wireless and AT&T also have designs on building out the next generation of wireless. “But we’re saying that you’re going to see it at T-Mobile first,” Ray claims.

[Commentary] The internet in its halcyon days was lauded as a open space that could promote free speech in the US and worldwide, but it is now a realm that has settled into domination by a few companies. As we enter an age in which the internet is fully integrated into our daily lives, the main channel by which we access information, a reconsideration of the values of the First Amendment is required.

This was the motivation for a symposium on May 1 at Columbia University called Disrupted: Speech and Democracy in the Digital Age. Attended by a mix of legal professionals, academics, and journalists, the message was clear: Legal thinking around the First Amendment must renew itself in the new era.

[Nausicaa Renner is editor of the Tow Center for Digital Journalism’s vertical at Columbia Journalism Review. ]

President Donald Trump's campaign is accusing CNN of refusing to air its new television ad marking Trump's first 100 days in office. A May 2 press release from the Trump campaign chides the news network, which is a familiar target for the president's ire, arguing CNN is trying to stifle free speech and any positive news about the administration's successes in office.

“It is absolutely shameful to see the media blocking the positive message that President Trump is trying to share with the country. It's clear that CNN is trying to silence our voice and censor our free speech because it doesn't fit their narrative," said Michael Glassner, the Trump campaign's executive director. CNN said that it asked the campaign to remove a “false graphic that says the mainstream media is ‘fake news.’” “The mainstream media is not fake news, and therefore the ad is false,” CNN added in explaining its decision to reject the ad.

[Commentary] In the battle to deploy broadband, cooperatives (co-ops) can be a decisive force to cover the rural flanks in states with aggressive broadband adoption goals such as California, New York, and Minnesota. In the more rural states, or ones without stated commitments to broadband, co-ops may have to carry the lion’s share of responsibility if their rural communities are to have a hope for broadband.

Co-ops ultimately exist to meet members’ needs, and currently there’s a burning need for broadband within communities across the nation. There are two ways for co-ops to address the need for better, faster community-owned broadband networks: the problem-solving approach and the creation-orientation approach. Both can work. But the latter might give you more return on your investment.

[Craig Settles is an industry analyst and broadband strategist based in Oakland (CA).]

“The FCC has basically said: ‘Game on. We’re going to let you consolidate further than anyone had imagined.’”
- Richard Greenfield, a media analyst at BTIG.

Sen Mike Lee (R-UT) introduced a bill to nullify the Federal Communications Commission’s network neutrality rules and prohibit the FCC from issuing a similar rule in the future. Sens. John Cornyn (R-TX), Tom Cotton (R-AR), Ted Cruz (R-TX), Ron Johnson (R-WI), Rand Paul (R-KY), Thom Tillis (R-NC), Ben Sasse (R-NE), and James Inhofe (R-OK) co-sponsored Lee’s bill. The bill is unlikely to receive support from Democrats in the Senate.

Just days after the November election, top aides to Donald Trump huddled with congressional staff members in House Speaker Paul Ryan’s suite of offices at the Capitol. The objective: not to get things done, but to undo them — quickly.

For about three months after Inauguration Day, President Trump would have the power to wipe away some of his predecessor’s most significant regulations with simple-majority votes from his allies in Congress. But the clock was ticking. An obscure law known as the Congressional Review Act gives lawmakers 60 legislative days to overturn major new regulations issued by federal agencies. After that window closes, sometime in early May, the process gets much more difficult: Executive orders by the president can take years to unwind regulations — well beyond the important 100-day yardstick for new administrations. So in weekly meetings leading up to Jan. 20, the Trump aides and lawmakers worked from a shared Excel spreadsheet to develop a list of possible targets: rules enacted late in Barack Obama’s presidency that they viewed as a vast regulatory overreach that was stifling economic growth. The result was a historic reversal of government rules in record time.

“The [Federal Communications Commission] has basically said: ‘Game on. We’re going to let you consolidate further than anyone had imagined,’” said Richard Greenfield, a media analyst at BTIG.

Consolidation of local broadcast stations could lead to more expensive fees for consumers as providers pass on ever-higher fees from broadcasters and content creators to subscribers. But to media companies, the mantra of late has been that bigger is better. For broadcast station companies in particular — including Sinclair, Fox and the Nexstar Media Group — owning more stations increases their power over cable companies, which pay to retransmit the stations. Fox’s motive for pursuing Tribune, which has more Fox affiliates than any other station owner, largely appears to be blocking a deal with Sinclair. It plans to form a joint venture with the Blackstone Group, an investment giant, in which Blackstone would provide the cash for a deal while Fox would provide its own television stations. If successful, Fox would then reduce its direct exposure to local television stations, while still holding on to a piece — and while stymieing a rival.

Some of the biggest names on the internet are trying to stay out of the contentious, public fight over the future of the Obama-era network neutrality rules. Google and other household names encouraged the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to enact the rules in 2015. But now with the regulations on the chopping block, those companies believe the change will have little effect on their bottom line and are trying not to get dragged in.

They could face pressure, though, from consumer groups and net neutrality advocates, who see them as crucial allies to saving the rules. Officials at several major tech companies said net neutrality isn't a priority anymore. Many of the companies that were once forceful advocates of the rules no longer think they will be harmed under repeal. Facebook, Google and Microsoft boast market valuations in the hundreds of billions, giving them new power relative to broadband providers.

I disagreed with the Court’s 2016 split decision, and also disagree with the split decision not to reconsider the matter en banc. However, this issue is somewhat moot for now as the Commission is under new leadership and headed in a far better direction. Rehashing old history here makes little sense, except to highlight the questionable degree of deference the court afforded the Commission – which, in all fairness, should also apply in the event that any future Commission action on net neutrality is reviewed.