Op-Ed

Antitrust has two main theories of competition. One is to try to ensure that lots of rivals compete in open markets to create better products and services. Call this the democratic theory. The other is to allow a few giants to control everything, then use antitrust only to make sure there are enough giants to create some competition, here and there. Call this the Godzilla versus Rodan theory. Godzilla is, of course, the Japanese irradiated sea monster and Rodan is a flying beast strong enough to fight Godzilla.

How do you Google a question you do not know the specific vocabulary to phrase? How do you sort through all the answers that come up, and avoid the ads that provide false or misleading information? Many people that we work with do not find high-quality, web-based resources to be accessible, even though the resources are technically available. While accessibility is near impossible without availability, availability without accessibility is perhaps even more disappointing.

[Commentary] I support a free and open internet. The internet should be an open platform where you are free to go where you want, and say and do what you want, without having to ask anyone's permission. And under the Federal Communications Commission's Restoring Internet Freedom Order, which takes effect June 11, the internet will be just such an open platform. Our framework will protect consumers and promote better, faster internet access and more competition.

You can be sure that Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai and his cronies in the phone and cable lobby will declare victory on June 11, but the expiration of the 2015 net neutrality rules will be only a temporary hiccup. The fight is far from over in Congress, in the courts, and across the country. That’s because people everywhere understand what’s at stake. Without net neutrality, large phone and cable companies will control the future of communications, deciding who gets a voice and who doesn’t. No one thinks that letting Comcast manage our clicks is a good idea.

The user agreement has become a potent symbol of our asymmetric relationship with technology firms. For most of us, it’s our first interaction with a given company. We sign up and are asked to read the dreaded user agreement — a process that we know signifies some complex and inconveniently detrimental implications of using the service, but one that we choose to ignore. Our privacy hangs in the balance, yet we skim to the end of those tedious terms and conditions just so we can share that photo, or send a group message, or update our operating system… It’s not our fault.

When the National Network to End Domestic Violence polled nearly 300 domestic violence prevention programs, it found that 77 percent of domestic violence prevention programs distributed phones. These phones included devices from a program run by the Federal Communications Commission: Lifeline. But the FCC has proposed dramatically cutting the Lifeline program. It has announced plans to gut the service for 70 percent of current users. To justify these cuts, the agency says that because some phone companies abused the program by enrolling ineligible consumers, the program doesn’t work.

A response to FCC Emails Show Agency Spread Lies to Bolster Dubious DDoS Attack Claims.

[Commentary] Maps that accurately illustrate broadband coverage are needed to help direct both public and private sector efforts to areas without sufficient access.

[Commentary] At the moment, 36 states and Washington (DC) have introduced efforts to keep network neutrality. These efforts range from introducing legislation to filing lawsuits. At the moment, it’s too early to tell if these suits will be successful and if states will be allowed to implement their own rules for broadband. Now, let’s say these suits were to fail, and the repeal of net neutrality continued to move forward as planned. What impact would this have on consumers? 

[Commentary] A federal push to expand access to high-speed internet is incongruous with and state and local governments increasing their taxes on that service. Our federal government does not think this is desirable and is prepared to make a sizeable expenditure to increase access to high-speed broadband. To turn around and have another government entity tax the service it is subsidizing--and to use the money not to fund internet access in its community but treat it as general revenue, as Eugene (OR) does--defeats a rare bipartisan goal.