After unleashing widespread cyberattacks and disinformation warfare on the US during the 2016 presidential election, Russia’s trolls and hackers mostly appeared to have sat on the sidelines during the campaign ahead of the midterm elections. No one is sure why.  Several factors may have reduced Moscow’s impact. Clint Watts, a senior fellow with the Foreign Policy Research Institute, said the diffuse nature of congressional and state races makes them a harder target than a single presidential election. Others, including several Trump administration officials, said efforts to deter foreign hackers and send a message to Russia that election meddling wouldn’t be tolerated may have paid off. Still a third possibility, experts say: Russian President Vladimir Putin, figuring he had successfully inflamed political divides and undermined confidence in American democracy, may have been content to kick back and watch others do the work for him. Political discourse within the US has become increasingly polarized and filled with disinformation, much of it created by partisans

There is a new political reality in Washington. A Democratic Party takeover of the House of Representatives has created divided government again. We can only hope that the newly divided government can create the space for clear action to meet our challenges. Both parties are now truly responsible for governing, and although many of the moderates have retired or been defeated, the needs for protection-creating policymaking is felt equally in the most conservative and liberal districts. There’s also hope that the influx of new members brings a class of younger, tech-savvy legislators. Members of Congress are elected based on a broad range of issues and so while Congress must act, it cannot always act both quickly and in great detail. Delegation to expert agencies has traditionally assisted with this challenge and is essential to keep up with the pace of innovation. Perhaps the greatest challenge to seeing movement on these issues is the short legislative calendar and the pull of other priorities, from renewed fights around healthcare to investigations of the Trump Administration. To overcome this, everyday Americans will need to become more engaged in the details and the advocacy around tech and communications policy. Another two years of weakening protections and inactive legislators will only enable consumer ripoffs to flourish. Now is the time for Congress to revive consumer protection and marketplace fairness through legislation and FCC oversight.

The activities of the past week have reshaped the future of network neutrality and the strategy for protecting that future. On Nov 5, the Supreme Court declined to review the decision of the DC Circuit Court that twice upheld the 2015 Open Internet Rule. The second development was the Democrats taking control of the House of Representatives. 

On Feb 1, 2019 the DC Circuit will hear oral arguments on the lawsuit challenging the Trump Federal Communications Commission’s elimination of the Open Internet Rule. Here is where things start to get interesting in light of the recent Supreme Court decision. If the DC Circuit rules against the FCC and vacates the 2017 elimination of the rules, then the 2015 Open Internet Rule is reinstated—and the Supreme Court has declined to consider the matter for now. There is a strong case that the Trump FCC acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner when it repealed the 2015 Open Internet Rule and walked away from any responsibility over the most important network of the 21st century. If the DC Circuit makes such a finding, net neutrality would once again be the law of the land. Although the Trump FCC would probably spitefully ignore its enforcement and even force adoption of a new rule to free the broadband companies, that action would simply bolster the Democrats in the House.

In the meantime, the House Democrats can hold a series of hearings to bring forth into the public record the information the Trump FCC and the Republican-led Congress has chosen to ignore. Any push for meaningful legislation will probably meet the opposition of the companies and their Republican allies, but the recent Supreme Court decision and a Democratic House-led push for truth will keep net neutrality alive.

[Tom Wheeler served as the 31st chairman of the Federal Communications Commission from 2013-2017.]

At the start of 2018, a wide array of analysts predicted a dramatic upswing in the amount of money wireless network operators would spend improving their networks this year compared with spending in previous years. Indeed, the analysts at Deutsche Bank Research in February predicted nationwide carriers would increase their overall capex during 2018 by 14% over last year to $30.5 billion—which they pointed out would be the market’s biggest capex figure since 2014. And if anything, those forecasts seemed low in June, when the analysts at Oppenheimer raisedtheir capex figures for Verizon (by 2% to $18.2 billion) and AT&T (by 3% to $25 billion). 

Now, though, the capex situation in the US looks decidedly less rosy. Sprint, Verizon and AT&T have all reduced their overall capex numbers for 2018. The operators cite a variety of reasons, from timing issues to more efficient network technologies. But the ultimate result is the same: Where there was once excitement, now there’s a decided sense of pragmatism.

“Dare we say it: Capex intensity is declining,” wrote the analysts at Wall Street research firm Scotiabank in a recent note to investors. The analysts cited Verizon specifically, which last month said it now expects to spend a total of between $16.8 billion and $17 billion on its network during the course of 2018—a range that is down notably from the $17 billion to $17.8 billion the operator gave at the beginning of the year.

The Federal Communications Commission's Brendan Carr is taking off the gloves in a fight with San Jose (CA) Mayor Sam Liccardo. “We must do better than Mayor Liccardo’s failed broadband policies,” Commissioner Carr wrote on Twitter  in response to a Liccardo op-ed. “Under his 3+ year leadership, San Jose approved zero small cells-ZERO-depriving residents of broadband options. It fell behind peer cities & the digital divide there only widened.” San Jose is among cities suing the FCC over Carr’s recent 5G wireless order, which would set limits on how long municipalities can take to review carriers’ infrastructure applications and how much they can charge. Mayor Liccardo, however, touts what he calls a “landmark” deal San Jose negotiated with carriers earlier this year to facilitate deployment of thousands of these 5G small cells. Carr’s ideas “represent a triumph of corporate self-interest over principle,” Liccardo wrote in his op-ed. On Twitter, the mayor fired back at Carr to say San Jose has “approved 86 cells already, w/4,000 more to come from last month’s agreements.” San Jose, added Mayor Liccardo, has “corrected your spokesperson’s falsehoods on this point before, & would have hoped you’d actually seek facts before parroting Big Telecom’s claims.”

The American Cable Association called on the Justice Department to open an antitrust investigation into Comcast-NBCUniversal. It would be a way to keep Justice overseeing the company after the conditions DOJ imposed on the merger expired earlier in 2018. ACA is saying the government still needs a leash on the company.  Comcast-NBCU says the ACA's call is meritless and "constitutes an inappropriate attempt to gain leverage in the commercial marketplace." But President Donald Trump, who is no fan of NBC News or most big media companies with news operations that have reported critically on him, took note of the ACA letter in a tweet:

American Cable Association has big problems with Comcast. They say that Comcast routinely violates Antitrust Laws. “These guys are acting much worse, and have much more potential for damage to consumers, than anything AT&T-Time Warner would do.” Charlie Gasparino

The Internet Association (IA) and Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA) submitted filings with the National Telecommunications & Information Administration (NTIA), which sought comment on a framework for protecting privacy. The organizations are in agreement that federal privacy legislation currently being contemplated by the White House and Congress should preempt state efforts to regulate privacy. They also advise the Trump Administration and Congress not to be in too much of a hurry to give the FTC rulemaking authority. In its comments, CCIA said that "where appropriate" state laws on data privacy, breach notification and security should be preempted by an overarching federal baseline privacy protection. IA said: "A national privacy framework should be consistent throughout all states, preempting state consumer privacy and data security laws."