Editorial staff

Dozens of journalists were murdered in 2018. This is a crisis of press freedom.

In a year-end report, the Committee to Protect Journalists counted 53 journalists killed between Jan 1 and Dec 14, including 34 targeted in reprisal for their work — nearly double the 18 such murders it recorded in 2017. The growing number of journalists jailed or attacked on that pretext [of dissemintating "false" or "fake" news] is one illustration of the deleterious influence that President Donald Trump has had on press freedom globally. His labeling of the US media as the “enemy of the people” and charges of “fake news” have been imitated by regimes around the world.

Google needs regulation. Republicans are too busy screaming about bias.

Members of the conservative majority on the House Judiciary Committee spent much of their time hammering [Google CEO Sundar] Pichai with baseless accusations that Google rigs its search results to censor conservative content. The bias obsession has distracted from the more important subjects that Congress has failed to address these past two years. That seems likely to change when Democrats take control of the House in January.

As the Internet Splinters, the World Suffers

The received wisdom was once that a unified, unbounded web promoted democracy through the free flow of information. Things don’t seem quite so simple anymore. All signs point to a future with three internets: one internet led by China, one internet led by the United States, and one internet led by the European Union. All three regions are generating sets of rules, regulations and norms that are beginning to rub up against one another.

If the feds won’t fight for your internet freedom, every state should

Trying to protect an open internet state by state, rather than by federal law, is a daunting and unwieldy goal. Unfortunately, it’s also entirely necessary, given that the Trump administration and Congress are more than happy to let internet providers restrict what we — the American people — can see and access online. As much as the internet has been abused by bogus web and social media sites, an independent internet is an important part of maintaining an informed citizenry. Getting rid of net neutrality means you might pay more for such things as streaming movies from particular sites.

Everyone is suing everyone over net neutrality. Congress should step in.

The fight over net neutrality today can be reduced to a single sentence: Everyone is suing everyone else. Congress should step in. The Federal Communications Commission abdicated its responsibility on net neutrality when it repealed the old rules with no adequate replacement. Now, without setting forth its own rules, the federal government is seeking to block states from creating their own. That may be frustrating to Americans who want an Internet where providers do not dictate what information reaches them and how fast.

The White House shows its contempt for the free press

[Commentary] Of all the mind-dizzying hypocrisies that have emanated from President Donald Trump’s communications office, it is hard to find any more outlandish than claiming to “support a free press” while barring a reporter from an open White House event simply because it didn’t like her questions. Outlandish, but not laughable; there’s nothing amusing about the administration’s retaliation against CNN correspondent Kaitlan Collins.

Maintaining diversity in broadcasting

[Commentary]  The Federal Communications Commission’s sudden halt to Sinclair Broadcasting’s effort to dominate local television is far from an example of an overbearing regulatory state. The FCC and its Chairman, Ajit Pai, are deeply conservative and pro-business. That Pai has expressed “serious concerns” about Sinclair’s $3.9 billion acquisition of Tribune Co.’s local television stations, after leading the charge to give private companies control over internet access and pricing, indicates just how the bad the merger would be for local broadcasting.

Widespread broadband access needs to be more than campaign photo-op

[Editorial] Lt. Gov. Dan Forest (R-NC) hosted a made-for-a-campaign-commercial media event with Federal Communications Chairman Ajit Pai and a bevy of Republican state legislators at Graham High School in Alamance County to boast about North Carolina being the first state to connect every classroom to high-speed broadband. It is no small achievement. However, it’s not quite his to brag about. If Forest’s fellow Republicans had their way, there would be nothing to celebrate. In 2007 only one Republican, former state Sen.

As vultures circle, The Denver Post must be saved

[Editorial] Consider this a plea to Alden — owner of Digital First Media, one of the largest newspaper chains in the country — to rethink its business strategy across all its newspaper holdings. Consider this also a signal to our community and civic leaders that they ought to demand better. Denver deserves a newspaper owner who supports its newsroom.

The True Damage of Trump’s ‘Fake News’

[Commentary] Many people, including many Republican lawmakers, dismiss President Trump’s attacks on The Washington Post, CNN and other news organizations as just one of those crazy — but ultimately harmless — things he does to blow off steam.

Want a 5G wireless box in front of your house?

[Commentary] The Federal Communications Commission is expected to vote on a measure which would exempt 5G infrastructure from environmental and historic reviews. And more than a dozen states have passed laws stripping their local governments of any meaningful say on issues relating to where to put the 5G boxes. A smarter approach would bar localities from turning the permitting process into a cash cow, but would give them input on where 5G boxes go and what they should look like. This kind of buy-in might seem burdensome.

Approving the Sinclair-Tribune deal would be indefensible

[Commentary] In 2004, Congress delivered what seemed to be an unmistakable message about ownership limits in the TV broadcasting industry. It ordered the Federal Communications Commission to institute a new cap: No company could own stations that collectively broadcast into more than 39% of US homes. So why hasn't the FCC summarily rejected Sinclair Broadcast Group's proposed purchase of Tribune Media, which would allow Sinclair-owned stations to beam their programs to more than 70% of U.S. TV viewers?

Trump’s ‘Best People’ and Their Dubious Ethics

[Commentary] President Donald Trump’s White House has been so scandal-plagued that controversies involving cabinet members and other high-level officials that would have been front-page news in any other administration have barely registered in the public consciousness.

Here’s an idea for infrastructure week: Bring 911 into the 21st century

[Commentary] Even as an estimated 240 million 911 calls continue to be placed annually, the systems that service them have grown obsolete, unable to handle photos, video, downloads, precise geo-locating and even, in most places, simple text messages. That’s a threat not just to public safety but also to national security. Worryingly, no one seems quite sure how to pay for a modernization to what’s known as Next Generation 911 (“NG911” in industry parlance), whose cost could exceed $20 billion.

When the city is your internet provider, the real cost may be hidden

[Commentary] In 2010, Highland (IL) leaders and residents decided they were not getting the broadband service they deserved, so they built their own fiber optic network. The city’s fiber optic company was just cited in a Harvard University study as fifth for value out of 27 public utilities compared to private competitors. A resident will pay Highland $383 a year compared to $679 a year for Charter, the study said.

Editorial: It's up to Congress to save the internet

[Commentary] The Restoring Internet Freedom order was a triumph of ideology over sense, sacrificing the interests of internet users and innovators on the altar of deregulatory purity. Some leading broadband providers, recognizing that they got more from the FCC than they’d bargained for, pledged never to use their newfound freedom to interfere online. But that’s not enough. Ideally, Congress would do something it should have done a decade ago: update federal communications law to give the FCC a mandate and clear authority to protect net neutrality.

Lobbyists are winning fight against restoring net neutrality

[Commentary] Anyone doubting the power lobbyists still hold in Washington need only look at the ongoing, shameful net neutrality travesty.  It was bad enough that Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai, a former Verizon lawyer, engineered the repeal of President Barack Obama’s landmark rules prohibiting Internet Service Providers from blocking or slowing down the internet or giving preference for certain online content.

A corrupted public comment process should lead the FCC to delay its upcoming net neutrality vote

[Commentary] Net neutrality shouldn't be a controversial issue. Pipelines and power grids, telephones and railroads, all must comply with common carrier regulations that prohibit discrimination and special treatment. There's little reason for the internet to be any different. The promise of the internet exists in its open, unrestricted nature. Nevertheless, the Federal Communications Commission is scheduled to vote on rolling back its net neutrality regulations on Thursday, Dec. 14.  The tech trade group Internet Association is pushing for the FCC to delay its vote.

Why deregulating internet service makes sense

[Commentary] Like all major government efforts to deregulate industries, from telephones to airlines, the Federal Communications Commission’s move to do away with net neutrality is destined to have a major impact. We think consumers will benefit because increased competition is a greater spur to technological innovation than government fiat.

The FCC Wants to Let Telecoms Cash In on the Internet

[Commentary] The chairman of the Federal Communications Commission wants to let Comcast, Verizon and other broadband companies turn the internet into a latter-day version of cable TV, in which they decide what customers can watch and how much they pay for that content. That might sound like a far-fetched scenario. But there is reason to fear that some version of that awful vision could become a reality, because most Americans have just one or two choices for broadband access at home.

America’s failure on internet competition

[Commentary] With a speed many American internet users can only envy, the Trump administration is re-writing the rules for US internet providers. The administration is quite right that the industry has a serious problem: lack of competition. But a regulatory rollback, paired with the administration’s apparently sanguine attitude towards industry consolidation, will do nothing to solve it, and could make matters worse. The root problem is lack of competition in network construction and improvement. If consumers had more options, fewer rules would be required. President Donald Trump likes to talk about infrastructure investment. Encouraging investment in digital infrastructure — a natural area for private-public partnership — should be part of that agenda. That would do much more good than rolling back sensible if imperfect rules and waving through deals in an industry that already has the upper hand on the consumer.

FCC Invokes Internet Freedom While Trying to Kill It

[Commentary] If the Federal Communications Commission, which has a 2-to-1 Republican majority, approves Chairman Ajit Pai’s proposal, there will be little stopping the broadband industry from squelching competition, limiting consumer choice and raising prices. The previous FCC chairman, Tom Wheeler, helped put the rules current Chairman Pai is attacking in place in 2015, and the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld them.

Large telecommunications companies have been raking in profits in recent years. And they have been making multibillion-dollar acquisitions — not something you see from an industry that is withering from senseless regulations. Charter spent more than $65 billion last year to buy Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks. AT&T bought DirecTV for $48.5 billion in 2015 and is trying to buy Time Warner, the media company, for $85 billion. Not only is Pai’s lament for the broadband industry based on alternative facts, it misses the bigger point. Net neutrality is meant to benefit the internet and the economy broadly, not just the broadband industry. That means the commission ought to consider the impact the regulations have on consumers and businesses. In particular, the commission has a responsibility to protect people with few or no choices; most Americans have access to just one or two companies for residential service and just four big operators for wireless.

Make the Net Neutral Again

[Commentary] Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai said he’ll advance his network neutrality proposal under a notice and comment procedure, instead of offloading the rules with a blunt agency tool known as a declaratory ruling. This is a welcome departure from his predecessor, Tom Wheeler, who ditched his own network neutrality proposal after President Barack Obama ordered the agency to invoke public-utility regulation.

Chairman Pai’s open process won’t prevent a synaptic breakdown by the lobbyists who want political control of the internet and are calling him a shill for cable companies and a fascist who wants to squelch speech on the web. No matter that Chairman Pai wants to divest government and himself of discretionary power. Pai deserves particular credit for calling out Free Press as a “spectacularly misnamed” group that deployed net neutrality as a pretext for government control. The Pai plan will take regulatory shape in stages over the next few months, and perhaps his actions will galvanize Congress to take the hint and codify his protections into law.

The relentless fighting over network neutrality rules needs to end, but how can it?

[Commentary] Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai’s latest target is the network neutrality rules the commission adopted in 2015 after a federal appeals court threw out the commission’s previous neutrality regulations. The 2015 rules try to preserve the openness that has been crucial to the Internet’s success by barring broadband providers from blocking or impeding legal sites and services, favoring some sites’ traffic in exchange for pay, or unreasonably interfering with the flow of data on their networks. These are all vitally important principles, as even opponents of the rules recognize.

The fight has largely been over how strictly they should be interpreted and enforced. In particular, the dispute has been over the FCC’s move to reclassify broadband providers as utilities, which a federal appeals court ruled the commission had to do before it could impose blanket prohibitions on blocking, throttling or prioritizing data. The reclassification also subjected providers to some of the same, decades-old rules as local phone monopolies. The process of undoing a rule usually requires another public notice and months of public comment on the proposed change. But Chairman Pai may take a procedural shortcut next month that undoes the utility classification right away. And instead of having neutrality rules that the FCC would enforce, Chairman Pai may call on broadband providers to pledge not to block, impede or prioritize traffic unreasonably — with the Federal Trade Commission available to slap the hands of any provider that goes back on its pledge. That’s a laughable idea.

Protecting net neutrality shouldn’t be a partisan issue, considering how widely shared that goal is. If Chairman Pai manages to kill the current rules, Congress shouldn’t wait for the courts to settle the matter. Instead, lawmakers should make clear once and for all that broadband providers mustn’t pick winners and losers online, and that the FCC has the power to make sure they don’t.