President Biden’s bid to inject government deeper into the private sector is getting its first big test in the broadband industry. The $1 trillion infrastructure bill would wire communities across the country that companies haven’t reached and subsidize bills for low-income households. Private companies would be required to publish details about their products, much like nutrition labels, and offer low-cost service plans if they take federal funds to help build networks. For the broadband industry, which has flourished for decades without strict governmental oversight, the initiative set off alarm bells. Some aspects of the legislation have drawn industry complaints, at least privately, including provisions that empower federal and state officials to direct how new subsidies are spent, regulate pricing disclosures and authorize new rules preventing “digital discrimination.” The legislation stops short of turning broadband into a public utility. In the short run, it will funnel cash to cable and fiber-optic companies that will help them build networks and acquire new customers. It also boosts Washington’s involvement, including through greater subsidies for both providers and customers, and a variety of new rules. At the same time, President Biden is separately directing agencies to write a plan to boost oversight of internet service providers.

Some of the Senate infrastructure bill's staunchest supporters say they are frustrated by what wasn’t included in the bill: provisions to encourage municipal broadband — Internet service that is partially or fully owned by local governments. Consumer advocacy and anti-monopoly groups say helping cities build their own Internet services is crucial for expanding connectivity nationwide, and they say it could also dramatically increase competition in areas where only a few major telecommunications companies dominate the market. Locally owned networks, proponents contend, aren’t driven by profit margins but rather a desire to serve their communities, and thus could serve as an important alternative to private companies. However, municipal broadband networks won’t be prioritized when the new money is dolled out, and the legislation won’t preempt state measures that restrict those networks. More than a dozen states also had laws on the books restricting municipal broadband networks as of early 2021. Municipal broadband proponents aren’t holding their breath for an about-face on the issue, due in no small part to the strong opposition the push has faced from the telecommunications industry and its allies on Capitol Hill. 

Media that were once free or easily accessible — including news websites, podcasts, TV shows and games — rushed to get behind paywalls during the pandemic. This accelerating trend is carving the internet into many niche audiences, Balkanizing our collective media diets. News publisher paywalls took off in 2020 and have seen sustained gains since; users are running into paywalls across a range of media, discovering they must now pay for content that was once free. Even podcasts, traditionally the most open and freely available media via RSS feeds, are moving behind paywalls. There's no clear consensus among experts about whether this fragmentation is a net good or bad for society, but some argue polarization will accelerate as like-minded consumers pay to read their favorite writers and it will be harder for content to escape that ecosystem. All things free remain hugely popular online, and many paywalled products offer some free portions. And online advertising, which supports free services, shows no sign of stopping its growth.  The creation of the internet's paid layer may never crowd out free alternatives, but it threatens to leave society with even fewer shared reference points.

Federal Trade Commission Chairwoman Lina Khan has begun a fundamental revamp of the FTC by rescinding policies designed to limit its legal powers, changing the way it makes decisions, and promising to rewrite the statements which underpin antitrust enforcement in the US. Supporters say she is putting in the foundations for a new trustbusting age by challenging decades of bipartisan consensus on competition policy, which holds that companies should be allowed to become as large and powerful as they want as long as consumers are not harmed. Khan’s first major actions were to undo policies put in place by the two previous Democratic administrations, which were designed to give businesses more certainty about when the FTC might act but which they believe have tied the regulator’s hands.

Even if Khan does win some of the landmark cases she is likely to bring, some worry the FTC will not have the capacity to write new competition rules and rewrite merger guidelines at the same time; for years the FTC's budget and staffing levels have been chipped away and the agency faces an uphill battle to retain talent. At some point in the next few weeks, the FTC will make a decision on whether to refile that case with a new explanation of Facebook’s monopoly power, which could yet result in the break-up of the social media company. For many observers, this will be the first external test of Khan’s leadership. Success would be seen as vindication for her theories of antitrust and her criticism of Big Tech. Defeat could demoralise the staff around her just as her project is taking shape. For others, however, the proof of her leadership will not be so much in the cases she brings but the institution she leaves behind.