Judge Timothy Kelly ruled in favor of CNN and reporter Jim Acosta in a dispute with President Donald Trump, ordering the White House to temporarily restore the press credentials that the Trump administration had taken away from Acosta. Judge Kelly granted CNN’s motion for a temporary restraining order that will prevent the administration from keeping Acosta off White House grounds. Judge Kelly ruled that Acosta’s First Amendment rights overruled the White House’s right to have orderly news conferences. Judge Kelly, appointed to the federal bench by President Trump in 2017, said he agreed with the government’s argument that there was no First Amendment right to come onto the White House grounds. But, he said, once the White House opened up the grounds to reporters, the First Amendment applied. He also agreed with CNN’s argument that the White House did not provide due process. He said the White House’s decisionmaking was “so shrouded in mystery that the government could not tell me . . . who made the decision.” The White House’s later written arguments for banning Acosta were belated and weren’t sufficient to satisfy due process, Judge Kelly said.

CNN said: “We are gratified with this result and we look forward to a full resolution in the coming days. Our sincere thanks to all who have supported not just CNN, but a free, strong and independent American press.”

Acosta added: “I just want to thank all my colleagues in the press who supported me this week. I want to thank the judge [for this ruling]. And let’s go back to work.”

The s Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau is seeking public comment to better inform its understanding and awareness of stakeholders’ readiness, preparation, and response with respect to Hurricane Michael. The bureau has a number of questions concerning: 1) Service Provider Preparation and Response, 2) Improvements to FCC Response, and 3) Communications Service User Experience. Comments are due December 17, 2018. (PS Docket No. 18-339)

Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) led a letter with Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Chris Coons (D-DE), and Mazie Hirono (D-HI) to the Department of Justice urging Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to expand any investigation into Facebook and Cambridge Analytica to include whether Facebook—or any other entity affiliated with or hired by Facebook—hid information and retaliated against critics or public officials seeking to regulate the platform. Recent reports allege that Facebook has taken significant steps to undermine critics, including hiring partisan political consultants to retaliate and spread disinformation about people who have criticized Facebook, which, if not properly disclosed, may have campaign finance implications.

We introduced bipartisan legislation to encourage investment in high-speed internet and protect and expand access to broadband in our rural communities. The Access to Capital Creates Economic Strength and Supports (ACCESS) Rural America Act would provide regulatory relief to rural telecommunications service providers by allowing them to submit streamlined financial reports to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). These small companies—many of which are the sole service providers in their region—could be put out of business by looming regulatory costs. Specifically, this bipartisan legislation would increase the number of investors that triggers SEC public reporting requirements for rural telecommunications companies. This will save these small companies from costly SEC reporting requirements that were never intended for them.

In related news, the Congressional Budget Office scored H.R. 6745, the House version of the bill approved by the House Committee on Financial Services on September 13, 2018. That bill is awaiting floor action. [more at benton.org]

If new rules are adopted by the Federal Communications Commission, local public-access cable stations such as CTSB (a station in MA) could go out of business, leaving local residents without options for keeping a close eye on their town governments or school districts. Under existing FCC rules, towns and cities nationwide are allowed to negotiate franchise agreements with cable television providers. Those municipalities can require in the agreements that the cable companies meet certain community needs such as setting aside channels for public, educational or governmental (PEG) channels. These needs are funded by a franchise fee in the cable bill customers receive each month. However, the FCC’s proposal would permit cable companies to assign a value to these channels, deem them in-kind contributions and then subtract that amount, and the value they place on any other in-kind contributions, from the franchise fees the cable company pays the local community, known legally as the local franchising authority. These in-kind contributions could include free or reduced cable connections to town halls, backhaul of signals, interactive program guides, or perhaps channel spectrums allotted to the PEGs themselves, according to the northeast region of the Alliance for Community Media, a trade organization. “The result would be to charge these ‘expenses’ back against the franchise fee and essentially undermine the intent of the Cable Act,” said Mike Wassenaar, spokesman for the alliance. “The national impact on PEG Access and local municipalities could be devastating.”

We have tried to rein in the power of telecommunications, media and cable giants for more than 30 years. In these important industries, strong antitrust has only worked when paired with equally strong pro-competition market-opening regulations. Antitrust alone cannot expand the diversity of media and content ownership that relies upon internet distribution. Antitrust alone cannot protect the integrity of individual speech rights that are essential to democratic discourse. And antitrust alone cannot foster innovation and entrepreneurship. We need new tech sector-specific guardrails to open the door to new competition, ensure diversity of ownership and viewpoints in our public discourse and prevent dominant companies from abusing their power — both economic and political. In markets dependent upon digital platforms, where the platform also owns services riding on the platform, we may need non-discrimination requirements, rules against exclusive dealing, and obligations to carry independent content to combat integrated firms’ gatekeeper power and harms to small start-ups and innovators.

[Gene Kimmelman, President of Public Knowledge and former Chief Counsel in the Antitrust Division; and Charlotte Slaiman, Public Knowledge Policy Counsel]