Tali Arbel

Schools were working well before the pandemic to address the challenges presented by the digital divide, which disproportionately affects Black, Latino, and Native American students and those in low-income households. The shift to distance learning dramatically raised the stakes. Schools had to take a lead because the federal government has failed to make internet available and affordable, said Blair Levin, an Obama-era Federal Communications Commission official.“The schools were so stressed,” Levin said. “It was not easy. It was a big burden.”

Messages by a Sprint executive revealed in federal court suggested he thought an acquisition by T-Mobile might push up mobile-service prices for consumers, undercutting T-Mobile’s argument that its deal will benefit Americans. The text messages, presented by attorneys for a coalition of states suing to block the deal on antitrust grounds, were sent in October 2017 by Roger Sole, Sprint’s chief marketing officer, to Sprint’s then-CEO Marcelo Claure. Sole wrote that customer prices could rise an average $5 per user if a deal went through.

More than a dozen companies have asked US regulators for permission to operate constellations of satellites that provide internet service. Not all are aimed at connecting consumers, but some have grand and global ambitions. It’s a huge potential market. And there’s the obvious benefit on the ground: Not having internet access makes it difficult or impossible to apply for many jobs, for kids to do homework, for people in remote areas to get medical care, and to participate in the global economy. But this new wave of spaced-based internet faces hurdles.

Now that the Federal Communications Commission has repealed net neutrality, it may be time to brace for the arrival of internet "fast lanes" and "slow lanes." Queried about their post-net-neutrality plans, seven major internet providers equivocated when asked if they might establish fast and slow lanes. None of the seven companies — Verizon, AT&T, Comcast, Charter, Cox, Sprint and T-Mobile — would rule out the possibility.

Since the Federal Communications Commission announced just before Thanksgiving that it was planning to gut the rules, there have been about 750,000 calls to Congress made through Battle for the Net, a website run by groups that advocate for net neutrality. By contrast, there were fewer than 30,000 calls in the first two weeks of November.

Trumpism is slowly taking hold on your phone and computer, as the Federal Communications Commission starts chipping away at hard-fought protections on privacy and competition. These measures, put in place before President Donald Trump took office, had upset the phone and cable industries.

The new regime says consumers win if businesses face less regulation and have more incentives to invest. But consumer advocates worry these changes give broadband providers that own media businesses more power to favor their own services, among other things. The changes are small and easily overlooked. But they're the first shots in what could turn into a full-fledged war over Obama-era "network neutrality" rules, which were designed to keep phone and cable giants from favoring their own internet services and apps. Overturning these rules would also likely reverse a privacy measure meant to keep broadband providers from using and selling customer data without permission. "Death by a thousand cuts is a constantly overused cliche, but that's sort of what they're aiming for right now," said Matt Wood, the policy director of consumer group Free Press, referring to the Republicans now in power at the FCC.

Republicans who generally oppose regulation seem likely to take charge at the Federal Communications Commission. That alone could mean the end of rules designed to protect privacy and individual choice on the Internet. Those rules were enacted over the past several years under the Obama Administration.

AT&T and Time Warner are playing up how their $85.4 billion merger will lead to innovative new experiences for customers. But analysts, public-interest groups and some politicians are far from convinced. Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said it should be killed. Sen Tim Kaine (D-VA), the Democratic vice presidential nominee, said less concentration in media "is generally helpful." And the Republican chairman and Democratic ranking member of the Senate's antitrust subcommittee said that the deal would "potentially raise significant antitrust issues."

The potential harm to consumers from this deal could be subtle — far more so than if AT&T were simply acquiring a direct competitor like a big wireless or home broadband company. Time Warner makes TV shows and movies; AT&T gets that video to customers' computers, phones and TVs. But the concern is that anything AT&T might do to make its broadband service stand out by tying it to Time Warner's programs and films could hurt consumers overall. The company certainly wants to do that. "With great content we believe you can build a truly differentiated service," said AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson. "In particular, mobile." There's another way AT&T could favor its own media offerings. The company currently lets many of its wireless customers stream from the DirecTV app on their phones without counting it against their data caps, a practice known as "zero rating." AT&T has suggested it may also zero-rate its upcoming live-streaming DirecTV Now service, which doesn't require customers to install a dish on their homes.