Blair Levin

What should the social contract be between the communications sector, the government, and the public in the next two decades? Its terms should reflect that the purpose of communications policy is to ensure that all Americans can fully participate in the economy and civic life of their communities. In 1996, there was a bipartisan consensus that policy should drive competition that, in turn, would drive the communications sector to continually deliver faster, better and cheaper communications for all.

I recently co-authored a Harvard Business Review note about the impact of Trump vs Slaughter—the case in which the Court allowed the President to fire independent regulators without cause—on businesses generally.

In a blockbuster case, Trump v. Slaughter, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the president could, at will, dismiss appointees to independent regulatory agencies who had already been confirmed by Congress, overturning a nearly 100-year-old precedent that held the opposite.

Just as the ’96 Act benefitted from years of work in Congress and at the Federal Communications Commission focused on the economics and technologies of the then-upcoming transition to digital networks prior to the passage of the legislation, the FCC needs to be forward-looking and contemplate the FCC’s role in the AI transition. Further, as the ’96 Act was the last time the federal government overhauled how it regulated a critical sector with a different approach and multiple rule changes, it is the most important example to examine as we contemplate how best to respond to the AI transition

AT&T CEO John Stankey recently said, “I’ve never seen federal policy this supportive of market-based investment in advanced networks.” That statement raises multiple interesting investor related questions about what does, and does not, support investment in advanced networks, including the relative importance of those policies that drive supply and those that drive demand, and how government is treating advanced networks versus networks that have lower cost structures but also involve lower performance metrics.

Stephen Colbert, the CBS late-night talk show host, was unequivocal in his assessment of Paramount Global’s $16 million settlement with President Donald Trump. “I believe this kind of complicated financial settlement with a sitting government official has a technical name in legal circles,” he said.

While we have been intensively focused on such things as a Presidential intervention to prevent a Chapter 11, we admit that our mind occasionally drifts to thoughts of summer. So to help others who may have similar thoughts, we thought, in honor of summer beginning, we should provide our thoughts as to which alcohols pair best with the purchase of the stocks we cover (actually, we just asked ChatGPT and, given its attitude about intellectual property, we have no fears about just cutting and pasting what it wrote). 

Agentic AI has quickly become one of the most active areas of artificial intelligence development. AI agents are a level of programming on top of large language models that allow them to work towards specific goals. Perhaps the most exciting future for agentic AI will come in the form of personal agents, which can take self-directed action on your behalf.

President Donald Trump and his allies’ constantly blame diversity, equity, and inclusion, without evidence, for tragic events––such as plane crashes, wildfires, and bridge collapses.

Why is the government risking a return to a healthcare regulatory regime that results in worse outcomes, less access to care and higher costs? The motives are unclear, but that would be the outcome if Congress lets the current regulatory framework for telehealth and hospital-at-home lapse, which it will if not renewed in 2025. The arguments to extend the waivers, as laid out in a letter from more than 350 healthcare organizations, are powerful.  Extensions will: