New Republic

Every once in a while, a bipartisan group of lawmakers comes together to support a popular policy that fulfills the interests of industry leaders and everyday Americans alike. These instances are supposed to be the slam dunks of legislating, a time for lawmakers to prove they are interested in governing to the advantage of their constituents. It’s all easier said than done.

New Orleans (LA) is making an ambitious bid to deliver WiFi to the homes of its poorest residents. Using “smart,” electronic streetlights as nodes, it wants to establish a new citywide internet service, one that will compete with existing carriers like Cox and AT&T. The city intends to include a free tier for everyone who needs it, a group amounting to at least 16 percent of the population. But the plan is being met with skepticism from the left.

Republican and Democratic data firms are hard at work on the next generation of digital tools—driven by the idea that political campaigns can identify and influence voters by gathering as much data about them as possible. “To be a technology president used to be a very cool thing,” said Zac Moffatt, who ran Mitt Romney’s 2012 digital campaign. “And now it’s a very dangerous thing.” The manipulation of personal data to advance a political cause undermines a fundamental aspect of American democracy: the idea of a free and fair election.

Abdul El-Sayed, who is running for governor of Michigan, just laid out an ambitious program that could serve as a model for states across the country. “MI-Fi” is a a public-public partnership in which the state would provide cities and municipalities with funding to share the cost of constructing their own high-speed broadband networks. These networks would then be run by the cities themselves—in some cases, in competition with private companies.

The New York Times has flourished under President Donald Trump, witnessing a surge in digital subscriptions and regularly breaking major news about the administration and the Russia inquiry (not to mention #MeToo). Yet liberal criticism of the Times has also intensified, especially on social media. Not a day passes, it seems, without a prominent Twitter user complaining that the Times is biased against the left, too friendly to President Trump and his supporters, or engaging in false equivalences between Democrats and Republicans.

[Commentary] When Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler initially proposed rules to allow telecoms to charge Internet companies for access to a “fast lane” to speed content to their users, plenty of people sounded the death rattle for the principle of net neutrality.

A few weeks later, despite the passage of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on a party-line vote similar to Chairman Wheeler’s original plan, the tenor of the debate has shifted. Under massive public pressure, the FCC has shown itself more responsive than Congress, opening up a legitimate debate over the rules.

Tech firms have linked arms with the public against the Chairman Wheeler proposal. And what activists consider the only path to true net neutrality -- reclassifying broadband Internet under Title II of the Communications Act as a common carrier service, allowing the FCC to regulate it like phone lines -- has moved from an impossible dream to a more viable alternative.

People power did this -- that allegedly outdated work of targeted mass organizing that isn’t supposed to make a difference in our increasingly oligarchical society. Over 3.4 million Internet users took action in some form against the FCC’s proposed rules, according to Free Press President and CEO Craig Aaron. Dozens of protesters “occupied” the FCC, camping out for a week in tents, joined by hundreds in a mass rally outside the meeting room.

The grassroots pressure got tech firms off the sidelines. The effect of all this work could be seen in the actions of Democratic FCC Commissioners Jessica Rosenworcel and Mignon Clyburn, who heard plenty of personal appeals for serious protections.