Wall Street Journal

Jared Kushner, President Donald Trump’s son-in-law and close adviser, met with a senior Time Warner executive in recent weeks and expressed the administration’s deep concerns about CNN’s news coverage, apparently. In a meeting at the White House, Kushner complained to Gary Ginsberg, executive vice president of corporate marketing and communications at CNN’s parent Time Warner, about what Kushner feels is unfair coverage slanted against the president.

The Trump administration’s hostile posture toward the news media, especially CNN, has been evident in the president’s own statements and those of his press secretary and top aides. While the administration is battling a large swath of the media, the fight with CNN has special intrigue because its parent company has a massive piece of business awaiting government approval: a proposed $85.4 billion sale to AT&T. Kushner and Ginsberg, who have been friends for a decade and whose discussion covered a variety of issues including Israel and the economy, didn’t discuss the merger in their recent meeting, apparently.

The eSight 3—which weighs less than a quarter of a pound and is operated by hand-held remote—captures the world through a camera system and then displays it on OLED screens that sit very close to the eyes. Legally blind people have some limited vision, and eSight’s displays are tuned to make use of it. By dialing up contrast and allowing users to zoom in, it can dramatically amplify sight without a surgical procedure.

Amazon and Alphabet’s Google are considering a new use for their popular home speakers: becoming the home phone. Amazon’s Echo or the Google Home could be used to make or receive calls, apparently, a functionality that would give them further control over consumers’ digital lives at home. The tech giants could launch the feature in 2017, but the effort is hung up over concerns about privacy, telecom regulations and emergency services. And they are aware of the inherent awkwardness of having phone conversations on a speaker. One concern is potential consumer anxiety over speaking on a device that has the ability to record conversations, according to one of the people. People consider phone conversations to be the third most sensitive data category, after social security numbers and health conditions, according to a study by Pew Research Center.

Wall Street Journal Editor in Chief Gerard Baker aggressively defended the newspaper against criticism that its reporting on President Donald Trump has been soft, saying the coverage has aimed to hold the new administration accountable without becoming “oppositional.” Baker said he has found it “irritating” to read critiques of the Journal’s coverage of President Trump. He rattled off a string of Journal exclusives and in-depth articles as evidence of the paper’s aggressive coverage, including reporting on the president’s business conflicts and foreign dealings and the recent controversy surrounding Michael Flynn, his national security adviser.

Addressing an internal forum of over 100 newsroom employees—with others listening by phone around the world—Baker also spoke about the state of the business. He said a “very adverse” advertising environment forced 200 job cuts through layoffs and buyouts, but pointed to substantial gains in digital subscriptions. The event came after multiple media reports, citing unnamed news employees, described internal rancor at the Journal over its approach to covering the Trump administration under Baker’s leadership.

President Donald Trump has shown a readiness to take on the tech industry, clashing with Silicon Valley in ways that his tech-friendly predecessor hardly ever did.

The president’s executive order on immigration, which generated an outcry from the industry, was only the beginning. Trump-appointed regulators have begun scaling back network neutrality regulations that marked one of the tech industry’s most significant victories during the Obama era. That rule requires that internet service providers don't give priority to some traffic—a policy that companies like Facebook and Netflix like, because it assures them the same basic treatment that rivals would get. Regulators also are likely to undo customer-privacy restrictions imposed under the Obama administration that critics say disadvantaged cable and wireless firms such as Charter Communications and AT&T in their competition with internet firms.

The new Attorney General Jeff Sessions, like President Trump, has been a critic of the tech industry’s ability to keep customers’ communications and data from the government. Many tech and privacy policy experts believe the new administration will be aggressive in its efforts to broaden the government’s authority, particularly where national security is involved. Moreover, given some past comments by President Trump and his aides, many companies worry that the administration plans new restrictions on visas for high-skilled workers from abroad, among other potential changes to the immigration system that could be unwelcome to Silicon Valley.

[Commentary] In the near term it looks like advocates of network neutrality will be dealt a major blow. That’s because consumers are going to love the Trump administration’s potential first steps at dismantling net neutrality. It starts with an ever-widening array of services that are “zero-rated.” Zero-rating involves internet service providers giving customers free data services, such as unlimited video streaming.

The real risk isn’t that deep-pocketed internet giants would be unable to pay for telecom play. Rather, it’s that any would-be next big thing will instead be smothered in the cradle. Even most opponents of net neutrality don’t believe we should do away with it completely. The consumer impact is difficult to predict. We’ve never really lived in a world without net neutrality. Doing away with the FCC’s current power to enforce net neutrality is like lawmakers tossing away an umbrella just because it’s not raining outside, forgetting that big carriers have every incentive to make it rain—for themselves.

[Commentary] Senate Democrats found time for a press conference haranguing Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai for the high sin of opposing “net neutrality,” which is their euphemism for government regulation of the internet. Less noticed is that Chairman Pai is restoring bipartisanship and political accountability to an agency that desperately needs it.

Most headlines on the FCC have accused Chairman Pai of confiscating phones from poor people in a program called Lifeline. The reality is that the commission is reconsidering marginal changes to the program that the Obama Administration tried to ram through on its way out the door. Pai’s alleged net neutrality violation is closing an investigation on telecoms that offer free data plans, which are popular with consumers. The Obama Administration ran the FCC as an extension of the White House, even ordering the agency in a YouTube video to classify the internet as a public utility. For all the invented panic over Republican rule in Washington, note that Chairman Pai is divesting himself of authority and making the agency more responsive to the consumers who pay his salary.

The Trump administration has pledged to boost economic growth by cutting two regulations for every new one created. Investors have responded by bidding up stocks in the hope that profits will surge.

In the past companies would have been off to the races, building belching smokestacks and cutting back on worker safety, though, all in the name of profits. Today, businesses will rejoice at reduced red tape and might invest in areas they have avoided, but few will pollute more or risk damaging their reputations as good corporate citizens. The extent to which businesses will take advantage of the easier regulations will determine whether the economy gets the boost the administration is seeking. Business that sell to consumers are especially sensitive to their reputations. But all U.S. companies are increasingly wary of how their shareholders might respond to their behavior. Investors that incorporate businesses’ records on the environment, social factors such as diversity and good governance characteristics into their decisions account for $9 trillion in investment assets in the US.

The Federal Communications Commission stopped its review of wireless carriers that exclude their own video-streaming services from customers’ usage caps, closing an inquiry that began under the previous administration.

The FCC previously raised concerns about the so-called zero-rating practices by AT&T and Verizon, in which those carriers didn’t apply data used on their streaming services toward customers’ data-usage charges. The agency warned that zero-rating could harm competition by deterring consumers from using services, such as those from Netflix, that aren’t connected with a carrier. The carriers have argued that the practice complies with existing rules and benefits consumers. On Feb 3, however, the acting head of the FCC’s wireless bureau, Nese Guendelsberger, sent letters to AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile US notifying them that no further action would be taken. The action also “sets aside and rescinds” an earlier FCC report raising concerns about zero-rating, along with “any and all guidance, determinations, and conclusions contained therein.” That report will have “no legal or other effect or meaning going forward.” The FCC’s newly appointed chairman, Ajit Pai, has criticized the zero-rating investigation in the past, calling it “sad—and pointless,” and noting that any action “can quickly be undone.” On Feb 3 he said, “Going forward, the Federal Communications Commission will not focus on denying Americans free data. Instead, we will concentrate on expanding broadband deployment and encouraging innovative service offerings.”

[Commentary] Todd Gaziano, a former House staffer who helped craft the Congressional Review Act, told a meeting of free-market attorneys, think tankers and Republican congressional staff that the law could be used to overturn any Obama administration rules – if the agency responsible did not submit a report to Congress.

The accepted wisdom in Washington is that the CRA can be used only against new regulations, those finalized in the past 60 legislative days. That gets Republicans back to June, teeing up 180 rules or so for override. The CRA also would allow the GOP to dismantle these regulations quickly, and to ensure those rules can’t come back, even under a future Democratic president. “There was always intended to be consequences if agencies didn’t deliver these reports,” Mr. Gaziano tells me. “And while some Obama agencies may have been better at sending reports, others, through incompetence or spite, likely didn’t.” Bottom line: There are rules for which there are no reports. And if the Trump administration were now to submit those reports—for rules implemented long ago—Congress would be free to vote the regulations down. There’s more. It turns out the CRA has a expansive definition of what counts as a “rule”—and it isn’t limited to those published in the Federal Register. The CRA also applies to “guidance” that agencies issue. Republicans in both chambers—particularly in the Senate—worry that a great use of the CRA could eat up valuable floor time, as Democrats drag out the review process. But Gaziano points out another hidden gem: The law allows a simple majority to limit debate time. Republicans could easily whip through a regulation an hour.