Bloomberg

[Commentary] Eliminating net neutrality is, in the best and worst case scenarios, either necessary to keep the internet up and running, or will lead to a dystopian future where a few major corporations control our thoughts. The more prosaic reality, however, is that a world without net neutrality will work just fine. I am therefore not incensed (or very excited) about the Federal Communications Commission proposal. Proponents of net neutrality are typically worried about the monopoly and pricing power held by cable companies and other internet service providers.

The Federal Communications Commission is planning a vote in December to kill Obama-era rules demanding fair treatment of web traffic and may decide to vacate the regulations altogether, according to people familiar with the plans. FCC Chairman Pai may call for vacating the rules except for portions that mandate internet service providers inform customers about their practices -- one of the more severe options that would please broadband providers.

The Justice Department is encouraging AT&T to address antitrust officials’ concerns about the $85.4 billion acquisition of Time Warner before the Nov. 23 Thanksgiving holiday or face a lawsuit to block the deal. The Justice Department wants to keep AT&T, the biggest US satellite-TV provider, from gaining Time Warner cable networks like TNT and CNN and then withholding their programming from competitors such as Comcast. AT&T has said it has no incentive to do that.

Targeted ads that seem to follow you everywhere online may soon be doing the same on your TV.  The Federal Communications Commission is poised to approve a new broadcast standard that will let broadcasters do something cable TV companies already do: harvest data about what you watch so advertisers can customize pitches. The prospect alarms privacy advocates, who say there are no rules setting boundaries for how broadcasters handle personal information. The FCC doesn’t mention privacy in the 109-page proposed rule that is scheduled for a vote by commissioners Nov 16.

Apparently, AT&T will try to dig into whether the White House influenced the Justice Department’s review of the company’s planned takeover of Time Warner if the government sues to block the deal.  In the event of a trial over the $85.4 billion deal, AT&T intends to seek court permission for access to communications between the White House and the Justice Department about the takeover, apparently. The Justice Department’s antitrust division is poised to file a lawsuit to stop the deal if it can’t reach an agreement with the companies.

Tim Berners-Lee's concerns during the web’s first 25 years focused on expanding access to more people. But now he thinks the web has become as complex and intricate as a human brain—so the tech industry requires a multi-disciplinary approach to “look out for unintended consequences” and study the impact of services as they are introduced to the world.

[Commentary] In a few weeks, it is widely expected that the Federal Communications Commission will release a draft order reversing the Obama Administration’s controversial 2015 decision to reclassify broadband internet access from a lightly-regulated “information” service under Title I of the Communications Act to a heavily-regulated common carrier “telecommunications” service under Title II of that same Act. As with the original 2015 decision, a court appeal of this policy change is a virtual certainty. Yet, even though the DC Circuit in USTelecom v.

US cable operator Altice USA will sell mobile service on wireless carrier Sprint Corp’s network under a new multi-year agreement announced on Nov 5, becoming the latest firm to enter the wireless market in a bid to retain customers.  The companies announced the agreement a day after Sprint and T-Mobile US Inc ended merger talks. Under the terms of the agreement, Altice, the fourth-largest U.S. cable operator, will use Sprint’s network to provide voice and data services in the United States. It gave no time line on when it will introduce such services.