Vecima announced that their its American-made broadband electronics for use in anticipated Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program networks are now available. Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information and NTIA Administrator Alan Davidson said, "The Biden-Harris Administration is determined to create good jobs in the U.S.—and keep them here. In support of our major infrastructure investments, companies like Vecima and MARA Technologies have answered the call to build the network equipment needed to connect everyone in America to affordable, reliable high-speed Internet service. The Biden-Harris Administration is committed to delivering Internet for All with materials, like the network electronics rolling off the line today, manufactured by workers in America.”

Governor Tate Reeves announced that the Office of Broadband Expansion and Accessibility of Mississippi (BEAM) recently approved nine broadband expansion projects to be funded by the Capital Projects Fund (CPF). These nine projects will provide $21.6 million of grant funding to expand internet service to approximately 12,300 households in communities across the state. Approved projects by provider are as follows:

• ACE Fiber – Blue Springs/SE Union County
• ACE Fiber – Blue Mountain to New Albany
• ACE Fiber – Potts Camp to Myrtle
• AT&T – Leake County: Sebastapol/Conway/Bertice areas
• AT&T – Marshall County: Mahon/Waites/Laws Hill areas
• CSpire – Southwest MS: Columbia/Summit/Osyka/Liberty/Gloster
• CSpire – Central MS: Puckett/Magee/Mendenhall/Madison
• Comcast – Statewide Line Extension: Jackson area/Laurel/Hattiesburg areas
• TVEPA – NE Yalobusha County/Water Valley

This announcement is in addition to $70.1 million awarded for 24 other CPF projects approved in June of this year to serve approximately 27,000 households. In total, Mississippi was allocated $162 million through CPF.

At roughly the mid-point of the 5G cycle (assuming 10-year generational upgrade cycles), there’s seemingly widespread criticism that it hasn’t delivered on the promises it made. That’s largely related to the massive capital spend operators undertook to acquire new spectrum and put it into service, but without attendant major new lines of revenue based off of services only 5G could deliver. The fact of the matter is, though, that 5G is a technology that lacks the agency to do, or not do, anything. At a technical level, the current generation of cellular embodies very material system-level performance and efficiency gains, and delivers new and otherwise enhanced network-enabled features. The problem is more around that operators’ business models didn’t evolve in tandem with the technology—they’re still largely selling connectivity as a commodity rather than selling industry-specific business outcomes that leverage 5G capabilities. 

In July, the U.S. Department of Education proposed regulations that would require colleges to provide more detailed data on students in online education programs. Given the rise of online education, including hybrid learning, it’s critical to understand how students' modes of attending college impact their success. The department’s proposed rule would require institutions to report student-level data on the modality of instruction for students receiving federal financial aid. The second proposal would create a “virtual location” for a college for federal reporting purposes, differentiating program-level data for students in fully online programs from those in in-person or hybrid programs. It’s hard to imagine someone arguing against better data for students, taxpayers, and policymakers, but one prominent advocate for online learning has just done that. WCET, the WICHE Cooperative for Educational Technologies opposes both of these proposals. WCET’s most mind-boggling complaint is that the Education Department would use the data elsewhere, such as for program oversight audits or to include in College Scorecard program-level data. WCET said in a public statement it “can see where collecting some of this information might make sense, but others make us worry about the possibility of seeking reasons to defund distance education programs.”

The Philadelphia-based Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a mother’s lawsuit could proceed against TikTok over the “blackout challenge,” raising questions about Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, a federal law that offers broad protections to tech companies that host user-generated content. The appeals court said TikTok could potentially be responsible because it exercised editorial judgment, and wasn’t merely acting as a content host, when its algorithm recommended blackout-challenge content on the girl’s “For You Page.” Social-media companies are legally protected from lawsuits over content. The Communications Decency Act was originally created to protect children from accessing sexually explicit content online. Section 230 was intended to be a “Good Samaritan” provision encouraging internet companies to proactively curate online activity and give them immunity from lawsuits if they chose to block content. The law has stood despite challenges to it. The Supreme Court essentially upheld Section 230 when it ruled last month that social-media companies were allowed to moderate content under the First Amendment. Changes to Section 230 could limit protections social-media platforms currently have.

For years, internet company executives rarely faced personal liability in Western democracies for what took place on their platforms. But as law enforcement agencies, regulators and policymakers ramp up scrutiny of online platforms and exchanges, they are increasingly considering when to hold company leaders directly responsible. That shift was punctuated by recent charges against Telegram founder Pavel Durov. For now, tech executives have little to fear, with cases like Mr. Durov’s likely to be outliers, experts said. Historically, companies have been held responsible for a platform’s transgressions, rather than individuals. And legally, the bar is high in the United States and Europe to prosecute individuals for activities at their companies. But the threshold for holding executives liable for what takes place on their sites is lowering in specific areas, particularly child safety, said TJ McIntyre⁩, an associate professor at University College Dublin’s School of Law.

On the surface, the apologetic letter Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg sent to congressional Republicans on Monday looks like a capitulation in the long-simmering political wars over social media. But tech observers on both sides of the aisle say that in the wake of this summer’s Supreme Court decisions on speech and social platforms, it also represents a shrewd political calculation—a surprise move by a CEO who wants to spend the next four years out of the political winds. Nu Wexler, a former Democratic congressional staffer and ex-spokesperson for several top tech firms in Washington, including Meta, sees Zuckerberg’s letter as an attempt to tamp down longstanding Republican ire over Meta’s perceived anti-conservative bias ahead of November—which could see Trump return to office and exact revenge on tech platforms that purportedly wronged him. "Like most other large companies before a toss-up election, Meta is probably hedging its bets here,” he said.