February 2013

[Commentary] If Dwight Eisenhower had General Motors and George W. Bush had Halliburton, Barack Obama arguably has Comcast. US presidents are often linked to one or two corporations that donate a lot of money to them and then benefit from their actions.

Comcast, which is America’s largest cable television and internet provider and is a near monopoly in most of its largest cities, is no exception. The company’s meteoric rise in the past decade parallels the relative decline of internet service in the US. The Federal Communications Commission has been a good friend to Comcast and Time Warner Cable, the two largest cable providers that dominate US broadband. In contrast to the spread of electricity and telephones, where the US was far ahead of the rest of the world, Washington has abjured the same regulatory promotion for the internet. Through brilliantly effective lobbying, US cable companies have escaped the universal access and affordability clauses that were imposed on telecoms and electricity companies in earlier eras. Will Washington continue to tolerate America’s internet mediocrity (which afflicts both businesses and consumers)? Or will Mr Obama belatedly decide that it merits the kind of zealous priority his 20th-century predecessors brought to the critical technologies of their day?

[Commentary] As shopping has moved online, brick-and-mortar shops have been reduced to virtual showrooms. Customers view the products showcased in artful displays, ask questions of the ever-helpful proprietor and then buy an item online to escape the sales tax or otherwise save a few bucks. A House bill aims to restore fairness to the marketplace by helping Main Street stores compete with Internet retailers and to communities by creating a means to collect needed tax revenues. Small shops (and large) are disappearing from our downtowns, affecting livelihoods, livability and public services. A bill that addresses the unfair competitive advantage online retailers have over brick-and-mortar stores - and the debilitating effects on our communities - is long overdue.

As politicians and academics debate the future of higher education, it is already happening -- in dorm rooms, off-campus apartments and living rooms around the world. For years, online classes existed on the margins of higher education. Then Silicon Valley startups devised slick platforms delivering elite university courses, free, to students everywhere. Suddenly, online studies have become central to discussions about the future.

"I think this is the single most transformational thing that could occur in higher education in decades," said Ron Galatolo, chancellor of the San Mateo County Community College District. Proponents see online courses containing university costs, making college more affordable and instruction more engaging, raising completion rates, enrolling more students, graduating them faster, easing crowding and better preparing high-schoolers for college. No one knows how effectively this experimental wonder drug can deliver a college education to the masses, though. Can virtual professors lecturing across the globe really be sure their students grasp everything from Camus to chemistry?

In today’s digitally connected world, data is everywhere: in our phones, search queries, friendships, dating profiles, cars, food, reading habits. Almost everything we touch is part of a larger data set. But the people and companies that interpret the data may fail to apply background and outside conditions to the numbers they capture. “Data inherently has all of the foibles of being human,” said Mark Hansen, director of the David and Helen Gurley Brown Institute for Media Innovation at Columbia University. “Data is not a magic force in society; it’s an extension of us.”