Lauren Frayer

March 30, the Federal Communications Commission circulated a drastically different vision for the Business Data Services marketplace [than what was seen during the Wheeler FCC]. On the heels of the largest data collection in the history of the FCC, the order proposes a data- and economics-driven regulatory approach that best reflects the level of competition that exists today (though the market is likely significantly more competitive than even this data – from four years ago – reflects).

The proposal appears to eliminate outdated regulations that hinder competitive markets, and proposes a rational regulatory framework where competition has yet to take hold. Reforming outdated regulations is not only a key component of economic growth, but some economists argue that it is the most powerful tool for incenting investment and increasing productivity. The BDS rules will finally evolve to reflect the increased level of competition and will encourage incremental fiber investment as the Pai FCC begins the process of delivering on regulatory reform promises made by the Trump Administration.

Today’s signing ceremony is the capstone to many years of hard work by the public safety community. So I’d like to thank them as well, and especially Chief Harlan McEwen, for helping get us to this point. I’d also like to thank all of those in Congress who acted on a bipartisan basis to get this project off of the ground. And finally, I’d like to congratulate AT&T for being selected as the entity that will build out the network.

The FCC remains committed to supporting FirstNet and the public safety community. We’ve given FirstNet a license for 20 MHz of broadband spectrum in the 700 MHz band. We transmitted basic technical requirements to FirstNet for the network. And our spectrum auctions have produced billions of dollars that will be used to fund construction of the public safety network. Going forward, we look forward to working with FirstNet and doing what we can to help ensure the success of this project.

Can the president change libel laws? No. Libel law is a state-law tort, meaning that state courts and state legislatures have defined its contours. Since the Supreme Court’s 1964 decision in New York Times v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court has placed constitutional limits on how states can define libel, notably by requiring public officials and, later, public figures to prove actual malice. That protection was needed, Justice William J. Brennan Jr. wrote, to vindicate a “profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust and wide-open.” Such debate, Justice Brennan wrote, “may well include vehement, caustic and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.” Changing New York Times v. Sullivan would require either the Supreme Court to overrule it or a constitutional amendment. Neither is remotely likely, though President Trump could try to appoint Supreme Court justices who would vote to overturn the precedent.

[Commentary] As cloud computing has become an integral part of the lives of students at public schools, it has increased the importance of a place generations of students have turned to for much more analog learning needs—the library. Both public and school libraries have always been a source of information for students. And while the Internet has undoubtedly changed the way students do research, cloud-based tools have actually evolved the library's role rather than diminished it.

Public computers at libraries have become an extension of the classroom, and they're an important resource for children who don’t have unfettered access to broadband Internet at home. The cloud has only made those public computers more effective.

[Phil Shapiro is the Public Geek at the Takoma Park Maryland Library, a small public library in the Washington DC-area]

Two high-profile Republican members of Congress may have been targets of Russian social-media campaigns to discredit them as recently as this past week, an expert in Kremlin influence-peddling told the Senate Intelligence Committee on March 30. “This past week we observed social-media accounts discrediting US Speaker of the House Paul Ryan,” Clint Watts told the committee in a rare open hearing with cybersecurity, intelligence and Russian-history experts that leaders billed as a “primer” on Russian influence-peddling.

Watts, an expert in terrorism forecasting and Russian influence operations from the Foreign Policy Research Institute, also said that in his opinion, Sen Marco Rubio (R-FL) “anecdotally suffered” from Russian social-media campaigns against him during his presidential bid. Speaker Ryan’s office was not aware of the report about an effort against him, according to a spokeswoman. The revelations widen the scope of politicians who have become the subject of Russian smear campaigns carried out on social media, a central part of the Kremlin’s alleged strategy of spreading propaganda in the United States and undermining its democratic institutions.

Silicon Valley’s newest congressional representative is bringing the idea of basic income to Washington, to the tune of $1 trillion. Rep Ro Khanna (D-CA) - who's district is home to companies like Apple and Intel—would seem to have little chance of persuading the most conservative Congress in memory to blithely give away so much money. But there’s a wrinkle: The biggest beneficiaries wouldn’t be Rep Khanna’s well-heeled constituents in Cupertino or Santa Clara. It’s President Donald Trump’s core supporters in rural America who would have the most to gain.

Rep Khanna is preparing to introduce a bill that he calls “the biggest move in orders of magnitude” toward providing a basic income in the US. Specifically, it proposes a $1 trillion expansion of the earned income tax credit, which would roughly double the amount of money going into low-income families’ pockets. The main difference between Rep Khanna’s plan and the Silicon Valley utopianists’ version of basic income is that for now recipients would still have to have a job to qualify. Think of it more as a basic income warm-up.

Democratic Sens are pushing President Donald Trump to reject legislation that would repeal the Obama-era Federal Communications Commission's broadband privacy rules. Forty-six Democrats sent a letter to President Trump on March 30 to veto the bill, which passed Congress along a pair of party-line votes. The White House said that the president would sign the bill, but Democrats warn that getting rid of the Obama-era rules would negatively impact privacy.

"This legislation will seriously undermine the privacy protections of the overwhelming majority of Americans who believe that their private information should be just that — private — and not for sale without their knowledge," the senators wrote. The letter was signed by all Senate Democrats with the exception of Sens Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Mark Warner (D-VA).

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai said that broadband is the infrastructure challenge of our time, and he sees cable operators not as an enemy of that effort but as partners in better enabling citizens to reap the benefits of the digital revolution. Former Chairman Tom Wheeler often framed Internet service providers as gatekeepers and potential snakes in the virtuous garden in need of minding.

American Cable Association president Matthew Polka, who interviewed the chairman at the American Cable Association annual summit, called Pai's a "refreshing take"—to applause from members. Chairman Pai was speaking in advance of their visits around Washington (DC) to make the case on Capitol Hill and elsewhere for the important role of small and medium sized telecoms/cable operators and the need to recognize their particular challenges. Polka pointed to the active agenda of the new chairman, and that came even before he had announced a busy meeting agenda for April that includes a revamp of business data services (BDS) that is not expected to include potential new price regs on cable operators ISPs, as his predecessor had proposed. Chairman Pai said that his short-term goals include promoting infrastructure investment and whether any regulations currently on the books are impeding that—the April agenda includes some proposals to speed that deployment by removing regulatory barriers.

On March 28, the US House of Representatives voted to revoke rules created by the Federal Communications Commission that would have required broadband providers to receive permission before collecting data on subscribers’ online activities. In a 215-to-205 vote largely along party lines and which mirrored an earlier vote in the Senate, Republican Representatives delivered a massive victory for broadband providers while offering flimsy justification. The move is sparking a backlash from consumers who value their online privacy. But while the plan to remove privacy protections may harm consumers, some GOP leaders have something else in their sights: the repeal of network neutrality.

A pair of White House officials played a role in providing House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-CA) with the intelligence reports that showed that President Donald Trump and his associates were incidentally swept up in foreign surveillance by American spy agencies. The revelation that White House officials assisted in the disclosure of the intelligence reports — which Chairman Nunes then discussed with President Trump — is likely to fuel criticism that the intelligence chairman has been too eager to do the bidding of the Trump administration while his committee is supposed to be conducting an independent investigation of Russia’s meddling in the last presidential election.

Chairman Nunes has also been faulted by his congressional colleagues for sharing the information with President Trump before consulting with other members of the intelligence committee. The congressman has refused to identify his sources, saying he needed to protect them so others would feel safe coming to the committee with sensitive information. He disclosed the existence of the intelligence reports on March 22, and in his public comments he has described his sources as whistle-blowers trying to expose wrongdoing at great risk to themselves.