Editorial

Seventy-five years ago, in October 1944, my grandfather, William Benton, delivered a clarion call in the pages of Forbes magazine by articulating a forward-looking agenda on behalf of a coalition of business leaders (“the capitalists who cared enough about the system to save it”) to deliver a more peaceful and prosperous American future in the (then-expected) wake of winning World War II. William Benton recognized that American progress rested on the connection between economic opportunity and democracy.

Like their south side University of Chicago economists, the Editorial Board of the Tribune waxes poetic and snarky about the virtues of the marketplace and how it can solve any and all network neutrality ills. The Editorial Board dismisses a particularly egregious throttling episode as “humiliating customer service failure” for Verizon when the company’s software automatically slowed transmission speeds of California first responder handsets as they tackled life and property threatening fires.  Does deliberate slowing down of transmission speed and commensurate service degradation wa

The Federal Communications Commission voted to nix network neutrality, effective June 2018. A year-plus later, broadband download and upload speeds have quickened rather than slowed. Internet providers haven’t bifurcated service into different speeds for rich and poor households. Mobile networks, too, move data more swiftly than before. Broadband investment in better technology again has accelerated. Who knows, maybe the internet providers are lying in wait to pounce on their customers. Where’s the internet Cybergeddon the naysayers predicted, and predicted, and predicted?

For twenty years, the US’ approach to protecting privacy has relied primarily on notice and consent. As US policymakers work to develop legislation to protect users’ privacy, however, it is time to move away from that regime. Users want more control over the data they provide companies, and granting users certain rights over their data can facilitate increased control.

It's easy to say all Americans should be able to use the Internet in the 21st century, which is probably why several leading candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination have done just that. It’s much harder to say how to get there. Almost everyone, even on both sides of the aisle in Congress, seems able to agree on the need to fix the maps first. That’s because the Federal Communications Commission relies on coverage reports from industry, and carriers have incentive to exaggerate their reach.

People of color made up nearly 40 percent of the US population, according to 2018 Census Bureau figures. In comparison, only 16.55 percent of journalists in US newsrooms in 2017 were people of color — down from 16.94 percent in 2016, according to the American Society of News Editors’ newsroom census. Knight Foundation’s $1.2 million investment in the Robert C. Maynard Institute for Journalism Education is an attempt to help newsrooms rethink solutions to the diversity crisis.

By a 3-2 vote, the Federal Communications Commission has put limits on cable franchise fees, with the FCC's three Republicans voting in favor. FCC Chairman Ajit Pai's proposal appears to have come from Eugene's (OR) attempt to charge Comcast with a 7 percent franchise fee. It's unfortunate that Eugene opened this Pandora's Box but one community's misguided decision to break the agreement is not an excuse to end it. The FCC commissioner may have been waiting for an opportunity he could exploit to change the ground rules.

Under the new rule passed by the Federal Communications Commission, cable providers can now count “in-kind services” toward what they owe local communities. Such services include discounts for seniors and fiber-optic networks that link government buildings. That means two things: Cable companies will see their profits increase, and local community access television stations will see their budgets slashed.

The newspaper industry has crawled up Capitol Hill once again to beg for an antitrust exemption it believes would give the business needed in its fight with Google and Facebook for advertising dollars. Currently, Google and Facebook collect 73 percent of all digital advertising. Members of the news industry believe that the two tech giants have exploited their dominance of the Web to unfairly collect digital dollars that rightfully belong to them.

Sen Josh Hawley (R-MO), in his first term, has targeted large technology firms such as Google and Facebook with upcoming legislation. He has announced legislation in two areas, targeting software publishers that market loot boxes and pay-to-win microtransactions to kids, and calling for a "do not call list"-style option to bar companies from tracking personal data. While there's nothing inherently concerning about either of these bills, they don't strike us as urgent. But those two measures are small shots in this hunt.