CNN and the network’s chief White House correspondent Jim Acosta have asked a federal judge for an emergency hearing after the White House sent Acosta a letter saying it planned to suspend Acosta’s press pass again, just hours after the same judge ordered the White House to temporarily restore Acosta’s credentials Nov 16. Unless the judge extends that 14-day order, it will expire at the end of November. In light of the White House’s unexpected action, the network’s lawyer requested an expedited schedule which would allow the judge to enter a more lasting preliminary injunction against the White House. 

For much of the 20th century, market forces had reduced job, wage, investment, and business formation disparities between more- and less-developed regions. By closing the divides between regions, the economy ensured a welcome convergence among the nation’s communities. However, in the 1980s, that long-standing trend began to break down as the spread of digital technology increasingly rewarded the most talent-laden clusters of skills and firms. As the economy changed, convergence gave way to divergence, as a fortunate upper tier of big, dense metropolitan areas (the top 2 percent of US communities based on measures of growth and wages) began to consistently grow faster than the median and least-prosperous cities. What might place-sensitive distributed development look like in practice? To give a sense, we suggest five examples of the kinds of strategies that would help—three that focus on ensuring more regions have the assets and capabilities to flourish, and two more that suggest what specific regional development initiatives might look like. Here’s a look:

• Boost the digital skills of left behind places. The workers, industries, and places that possess strong digital skills have enjoyed distinct economic rewards. To push back against this winner-take-all dynamic of today’s tech economy, every region’s workforce should be prepared to participate in the digital economy.

• Ensure businesses in lagging regions have access to capital. The pullback in small business lending following the financial crisis has hit less densely populated parts of the country particularly hard. Efforts to improve data on small business performance can help banks lower the transaction costs of extending small loans while innovations in financial technology can help create a secondary market for them and reduce risk. Boosting alternative, non-bank sources of capital, such as venture capital funding, can also help support regional economic growth.

• Reduce gaps in broadband. Large gaps in broadband service and subscriptions have put businesses and workers in less densely populated areas at a huge disadvantage. Policy proposals should focus on connecting more people and encouraging greater subscription rates in places already endowed with broadband.

• Identify “growth poles” that can support regional growth. While it may be inefficient to “save” every left-behind small city or rural community in the U.S., targeted federal policy aimed at strengthening 10 or so promising mid-sized centers of advanced industry activity would bring more growth to some communities adjacent to many more lagging towns and rural areas. Federal investment in these “growth poles” will put more communities on a path toward self-sustaining economic growth.

• Help Americans move to opportunity. The federal government should expand the availability of financial support for individuals who want to make long-distance moves to places promising greater economic opportunity. At the same time, federal policy should encourage states and localities to relax zoning restrictions and construct new housing units to increase the supply of affordable housing. For those who wish to stay in their communities to live but not necessarily to work, state and local governments could provide a subsidy for workers commuting to adjacent communities.

I want to give your readers an update on the latest move by AT&T to push people off the traditional home phone service they have relied upon for decades. This past Sept, we began to field calls from worried landline customers, including seniors on fixed incomes, who were among an estimated 5,300 customers to receive a letter from AT&T with the blunt headline: “Your Lifeline discount ends November 20, 2018.” The letter referred to the federal Lifeline program, which offers a monthly credit of up to $11.75 for qualifying low-income customers.

In 2017, the Illinois General Assembly voted, over opposition by the Citizens Utility Board, to give AT&T the right to end landline phone service in the state. But first, the company needs Federal Communications Commission approval. AT&T has not yet sought that approval and said in 2017 it could be years before landline service ends. “Traditional landline phone service from AT&T is not going away anytime soon,” the phone giant said. “No one will be left behind. We value our customers, and we want to keep them.” So if AT&T is obligated to offer landline service and it truly does value its customers, then why is it kicking customers who need that service most off its network?

The AT&T letter outlines the choices for customers: Stay with AT&T landline service, but without the credit, or seek another carrier that participates in Lifeline. The problem is, most of those carriers are wireless companies. Cellphones are not a perfect substitute for landlines, until 911 systems are fully upgraded across Illinois. Currently, 911 operators can’t always pinpoint the location of an emergency call from a cellphone, as they can a call from a landline. CUB will do everything it can to challenge AT&T whenever it goes before the FCC to end landline service. In the meantime, we call on AT&T to reinstate the Lifeline discount immediately.  Kicking low-income consumers off its network is not a good look for AT&T.

[Bryan McDaniel is director of governmental affairs at Citizens Utility Board]

A three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld a California District Court ruling that Byron Allen's Entertainment Studios Networks (ESN) was not barred from suing Charter over its allegation the cable operator's decision not to carry his programming was racially motivated. The panel rejected Charter's motion to dismiss the suit and remanded it back to the US District Court for the Central District of California for further proceedings, which likely means a trial on its merits unless the parties settle. The court did not conclude Charter's conduct was racially motivated, only that it plausibly could have been and that the First Amendment did not bar the suit.