Op-Ed

[Commentary] Republicans have been largely supportive of the [Sinclair Broadcast Group and Tribune Media mega-merger], not just because of the principle that the government should stay out of business decisions, but also for political reasons: Conservatives are excited about the prospect of a national broadcast giant with a distinct right-leaning perspective. In the short term, they’re right to be excited: The merged broadcaster would have 215 TV stations covering more than 72 percent of U.S. households, an unprecedented reach into Americans’ living rooms.

[Commentary] Where significant negative externalities are created, companies should be on the hook for the costs, just as an oil company is responsible for covering the costs of cleaning up a spill. The cost of the damage caused by election meddling is difficult to calculate. One possible solution is a two-strike rule: with the first strike, you fix the problem and, if possible, pay a fine; with the second strike, government regulators will change or remove the features that are being abused.

[Commentary] The battle over net neutrality is rightfully capturing headlines in Washington and worldwide. Far less attention is being paid, however, to a looming threat that could have an even greater impact on the future: The Internet has outstripped the ability of governments to keep up. On issues as diverse as hate speech, espionage and copyright infringement, governments fear a loss of sovereignty in a fast-moving digital world. On taxation and privacy rights, Government 1.0 can’t stay abreast of Technology 4.0.

[Commentary] When the outgoing Federal Communications Commission (FCC) cyber experts met with the Trump FCC and National Security Council (NSC) transition teams, they expressly informed them that a FCC retreat from ongoing cybersecurity activities would have dire consequences for 5G and the future of the nation’s critical communications infrastructure.

[Commentary] Many officials, from California’s US senators to state public safety representatives, believe that the system for sending emergency alerts to phones needs to be improved. I agree. That’s why, on Jan 30, the Federal Communications Commission will vote on making the wireless emergency alert system more effective. 

[Commentary] Network neutrality advocates have found some new allies in their efforts to combat the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) Restoring Internet Freedom Order: state governments. But ultimately, these initiatives are likely to be more symbolic than substantial. While the Communications Act gives states a significant role in telecommunications regulation, both the statute and broader constitutional doctrines limit the ability of a single state (or even a group of states) to dictate national policy.

[Commentary] [Democratic members of the House Commerce Committee's] infrastructure plan provides critical support for the next-generation communications networks. We are proposing to:

[Commentary] President Donald Trump is an odd man, and he may turn out to be a one-of-a-kind celebrity president. But his symbiosis with Twitter carries weight as a portent. Compulsive, manipulative and effective, the president’s tweeting heralds a politics of increasing fractiousness, irrationality and risk. You could blame it on one needy, attention-seeking leader. Or you could call it a step into a very unsettling future.

[Nicholas Carr is the author of The Shallows and The Glass Cage.]

The city of San Francisco should be lauded for showing how a major metropolitan area can implement two models of a ubiquitous, open, fiberto-the premises network. The dark fiber model has limitations but is far preferable to today’s model. The lit fiber model eliminates a barrier to entry and opens the broadband network to a wide array of new services. Yes, there are challenges, but the outcome for the community would be epic. 

[Greg Whelan is a principal of Greywale Advisors, broadband consultants specializing in broadband networks and neutral communications infrastructure]

[Commentary] Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai has a lot on his plate. On top of running a critical independent federal agency, he now must do so under a cloud of hate speech and death threats directed at him and his young children. This behavior is unacceptable in any circumstance, and it is an especially sad irony that it’s being directed at a public servant who has made it his No.