Lauren Frayer

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.

[Commentary] Let’s set the record straight: First, despite hyperventilating headlines, Internet service providers have never planned to sell your individual browsing history to third parties. That’s simply not how online advertising works. And doing so would violate ISPs’ privacy promises. Second, Congress’s decision last week didn’t remove existing privacy protections; it simply cleared the way for us to work together to reinstate a rational and effective system for protecting consumer privacy. We need to put the nation’s most experienced and expert privacy cop back on the beat, and we need to end the uncertainty and confusion that was created in 2015 when the Federal Communications Commission intruded in this space. The Obama Administration fractured our nation’s online privacy law, and it is our job to fix it. We pledge to the American people that we will do just that.

Network neutrality advocates are feeling emboldened by the outcry over the GOP’s repeal of internet privacy regulations, viewing it as an opportunity to harness grassroots support for their cause. “I think for Republicans and the ISPs who pushed them into this, this is a short-term victory,” said Matt Wood, policy director of the advocacy group Free Press. “But as they won this battle, they might have hurt their chances in the war, because they have reawakened people ... to how it really isn’t a partisan issue.”

“I suspect that net neutrality repeal is right around the corner, and I think that anger is going to continue to spin,” said Gigi Sohn, who was a counselor to former Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler and who had a hand in crafting the privacy rules. Sohn said that she sees parallels in the battles over net neutrality and broadband privacy, arguing that they’re both arguments about how much control telecom companies should have over users’ online experiences. She argued that eliminating the rules could lead to a greater public awareness about what Congress and even the FCC are doing about net neutrality. “It’s priming the pump of an enormous wave of grassroots activity on net neutrality,” Sohn said. “We’re not going to start on square one, we’re going to start on square 10.”

A Q&A with former Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler.

Asked, "Looking back on your time as chairman, what would you consider your highlights?" Tom Wheeler responded, "It was the most incredible privilege to be in that role as networks changed and thus changed the way we live our lives and do business. I’m proud that we brought the concept of agile software development to the FCC in the form of agile regulatory actions that respond to circumstances (e.g., the general conduct rule for the Open Internet, the “trust but verify” approach to cybersecurity, etc.). I’m proud of our efforts to expand access to networks (spectrum auctions, eRate, LifeLine, etc.); assure that those networks are fast, fair and open; to make the expectation of privacy a default for those who use networks; and to make network cybersecurity a major responsibility for the agency."

[Commentary] I like to say that leadership is a choice. As our leaders in Washington confront tough decisions about our budget priorities, I urge them to continue federal funding for public broadcasting. Public broadcasting makes our nation smarter, stronger and, yes, safer. It’s a small public investment that pays huge dividends for Americans. And it shouldn’t be pitted against spending more on improving our military. That’s a false choice.

This might seem like an unlikely position for me, a 34-year combat veteran. But it’s a view that has been shaped by my career leading brave men and women who thrive and win when they are both strong and smart. My experience has taught me that education, trusted institutions and civil discourse are the lifeblood of a great nation. We need public media that acts as our largest classroom. We need broadcasting that treats us as citizens, not simply as consumers. We need a strong civil society where the connection between different people and groups is firm and vibrant, not brittle and divided. We need to defend against weaknesses within and enemies without, using the tools of civil society and hard power. We don’t have to pick one over the other.

[Stanley McChrystal, a retired Army general, was in command of Joint Special Operations Command in the mid-2000s, and is the founder of the McChrystal Group, a consulting firm.]

The philanthropy established by eBay founder Pierre Omidyar will contribute $100 million to support investigative journalism, fight misinformation and counteract hate speech around the world. One of the first contributions, $4.5 million, will go to the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ), the Washington-based group behind 2016’s Panama Papers investigation, which revealed offshore businesses and shell corporations, some of which were used for purposes such as tax evasion. Other early recipients will include the Anti-Defamation League, the Washington organization devoted to fighting anti-Semitism worldwide. ADL will use the Omidyar money to build “a state-of-the-art command center” in Silicon Valley to combat the growing threat posed by hate online. Another will be the Latin American Alliance for Civic Technology, which promotes civic engagement and government accountability in Latin America. It will receive $2.9 million from the network. The newly announced funding is intended to address “a worrying resurgence of authoritarian politics that is undermining progress toward a more open and inclusive society,” said Omidyar Network managing partner Matt Bannick. The network is also concerned about the declining trust in democratic institutions around the world, including the news media, he said. “Increasingly, facts are being devalued, misinformation spread, accountability ignored and channels that give citizens a voice withdrawn,” he said. “These trends cannot become the norm.”

[Commentary] Not enough public media outsiders seem worried about the constituency that, in my personal experience and according to my reporting, actually does compromise editorial integrity: the organizations that hold stations’ Federal Communications Commission licenses. And there’s no better example of the cause for concern than the recent firing of Jacqui Helbert.

Helbert, a reporter at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga’s WUTC public radio station, angered some of the state legislators who hold the university’s purse strings. As Helbert pursues a lawsuit against the university, ShameOnUTC.org—a site launched after her termination—has provided jaw-dropping documentation of Helbert’s saga, including her surreptitious audio recordings of meetings with colleagues. The relationship between Helbert, WUTC and the University of Tennessee offers the public a laundry list of everything that can go wrong in a system where universities hold the licenses of—and therefore effectively own—47 percent of the public radio station organizations and 34 percent of the public television orgs. (Figures were provided to me by the Station Resource Group.) In the wake of Helbert’s firing, people across public media are reckoning with a serious ethical hazard that was built into their system—and that may be impossible to fully exorcise.

[Adam Ragusea is a journalist in residence and visiting assistant professor at Mercer University’s Center for Collaborative Journalism and hosts Current.org’s podcast The Pub.]

The Ford Foundation’s Board of Trustees has authorized the allocation of up to $1 billion of our endowment, to be phased in over 10 years, for mission-related investments (MRIs). While this field is still emerging, we are making this commitment because we believe MRIs are the next great tool for social transformation, in philanthropy and beyond.If philanthropy’s last half-century was about optimizing the five percent, its next half-century will be about beginning to harness the 95 percent as well, carefully and creatively.

On the one hand, there are some clear problems with how programmatic ads are placed. The industry is rife with complexity. This type of advertising is also quite new, so a lot of the machinery that runs the ad market is still in the works. But these problems are also fixable and should not obscure a larger truth:

Even though they are far from perfect, in many ways programmatic ads are creating a more efficient advertising market. And given that advertising pays for nearly the entirety of what we see and do online, the upside of all the hand-wringing is that we are now examining how all of that money gets spent — a process that should lead to better ads, and better media, too.

Next Century Cities released its 2017 Emerging Issues Policy Agenda, offering policy recommendations that support the expansion of high-quality, affordable broadband access to all. The agenda also explores some of the latest challenges to expanding next-generation internet access and innovations to tackle such barriers.

Next Century Cities communities are leading the way in implementing these policies and practices across the country. The policy agenda includes information and recommendations on issues such as local municipal authority, competition in multiple dwelling units, high-quality access for low-income households, small cell deployment, and One Touch Make Ready policies. For each policy issue, this new resource gives examples of local innovation and success, as well as policy recommendations to drive better competition and increased broadband access locally. The policy agenda also explores principles for government when developing legislation and undertaking broadband infrastructure investments, which is timely given the interest in Congress and at the state level for new investments in broadband.