Editorial staff

[Commentary] Republicans all too often focus on limiting or denying government’s contributions to bolstering US innovation and competitiveness, while Democrats often seem more interested in shackling rather than harnessing the power of American enterprise. Each side argues that if the country would just pursue the menu items in their respective agendas, then US competitiveness and innovation will be restored and all will be well. But there are two major problems with these perspectives.

First, because neither side wants the other to receive credit for their items, little gets done. Second, even if one side would acquiesce to the other to get some things done, it would not be enough. We need a wide array of policy reforms. Each side ultimately must bend if we are to restore or maintain US economic greatness. In general, the left needs to accept the fact that successful companies that innovate and compete globally are not the enemy, and that public policy should help companies succeed in creating new products, services, and jobs domestically. For its part, the right should abandon its opposition to government’s role in promoting competitiveness. All the tax cuts and regulatory relief in the world will not enable the United States and its enterprises to succeed in global competition if the country lacks a robust national innovation policy that includes partnerships with the private sector.

[Commentary] The 21st-century equivalent of Herbert Hoover’s chicken-in-every-pot promise is a faster Internet connection in every home. It’s a laudable but, for now, elusive goal. While working to reach it, however, the next president -- whether that’s Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, both of whom have promised far greater investment in public infrastructure -- must attain a more immediate objective: finishing the Obama Administration’s work of connecting so-called anchor institutions across the nation.

Stories of public school students congregating outside schools or libraries so they can use their public Wi-Fi networks to do homework are stirring evidence of the digital divide. Addressing this inequity will require a broader definition of “anchor institutions,” which include not just libraries but public-transit systems and parks. Public Wi-Fi needn’t be confined by roofs or walls. Under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the Federal Communications Commission must conduct yearly reviews of whether advanced telecommunications capability “is being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion,” and take “immediate action” if it is not. When it comes to anchor institutions, and consumers who have nowhere else to turn for vital access, “immediate action” remains overdue.

[Commentary] The phone in your pocket gives you powers that were hard to imagine even five years ago. It can talk to you, listen, and give sensible answers to questions. It knows your fingerprint and recognises your face and those of all your friends. It can buy almost anything, sell almost anything, bring you all the news you want, as well as almost all the books, films and music you might want to look at. What’s more, it will even allow you to talk to your friends and to communicate with almost anyone. The problem is that these powers are not yours – at least they don’t belong to you alone. They belong to whoever controls the phone and can be used to serve their purposes as well as yours. Repressive governments and criminal gangs are all contending to break into phones today, and this kind of hacking will increasingly become the preferred route into all of the computer networks that we use – the ones we don’t call “phones”.

Beyond rogue nation states there is an unpleasant and insufficiently regulated market of legal firms that specialise in finding security vulnerabilities and selling them to the highest legal bidder, which normally means oppressive regimes; then there is a second tier of entirely illegal operators who sell tools to criminal gangs. Little of this is used for spying (though there is a market among jealous and abusive men for software that will enable to them to track their partners, one reason why some women’s shelters are reluctant to allow smartphones inside). Much more damage is done by “ransomware”, which encrypts and in effect steals all of a user’s data, to be released only on payment. Such assaults are becoming increasingly common. This is a global problem now. Since almost every country will want these powers for its own security services, if for no one else, what is developing is something like an international arms trade. International efforts to police it are urgently needed and the companies that sell us these powerful phones must also be pressed to live up to their responsibilities to keep them safe so that their power is not easily turned against their owners.

[Commentary] Mark Twain deliciously mocked James Fenimore Cooper for creating characters that appeared not to be able to jump onto a boat one foot from the river bank, and moving at a snail’s pace. The Federal Communications Commission has similarly, and indefensibly, missed the boat with its proposal to retain and even toughen outdated media ownership rules. These are the same broadcasters being moved to smaller spectrum quarters, which for some means giving up spectrum that could be used for digital multicasting and other services that would provide more programming in the marketplace.

The FCC appears to see—through a “glass eye darkly,” we would add—a marketplace filled with thriving newspapers and a powerful broadcasting industry that lacks video competition. Fifty years ago, maybe, but today? That’s like calling myopia “focus.” Instead of finally getting rid of the newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership rules, or abandoning the plan to tighten joint sales agreements remanded by the courts, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler has doubled down on regulation. “Our analysis indicates that the ownership restrictions remain necessary in the public interest,” the Chairman said in an overdue ownership review that came in both late and way off the mark. That is even more reason for the FCC to give broadcasters some purchase on the future via ATSC 3.0.

[Commentary] The Federal Communications Commission and broadcasters have teamed up to set a high bar for clearing out all that broadcast TV spectrum being repurposed. The first-ever two-sided FCC spectrum auction resulted in an $88 billion price tag that could be tough to cover in the forward auction. The FCC is not releasing any information about bidders or markets until after the auction closes, but that figure is likely a combination of stations frozen at their opening bids—some estimates have been as high as $40 billion in initial freezes—and broadcasters refusing to bid themselves down to a bargain-basement price.

There remain more question marks than exclamation points in the auction. How much will wireless companies bid for the spectrum? Will the auction close after one round—which now seems unlikely—or extend to at least one further reverse round, followed by a second forward auction? How long will all that take? If there is one thing markets don’t like, it’s uncertainty. Having gotten this spectrum auction boulder rolling, the FCC cannot do much to change its path or timetable. But one thing the FCC can and should do to help broadcasters plan for their future is to give them the green light to start rolling out the new ATSC 3.0 transmission standard so they can make the most out of whatever spectrum is left post-auction. Broadcasters want an answer by Oct. 1. They should get it by then, and it should be ‘yes.’

[Commentary] The Federal Communications Commission, which could soon allow phone and cable companies to block or interfere with Internet content, has been deluged with more than a million comments. President Barack Obama offered some thoughts of his own by saying that the Internet should be left open “so that the next Google or the next Facebook can succeed.”

The FCC is trying to decide whether telecommunications companies should be able to strike deals with powerful firms like Netflix and Amazon for faster delivery of videos and other data to consumers. Obama’s statement about “the next Google” highlights one of the biggest problems with such agreements: Small and young businesses will not be able to compete against established companies if they have to pay fees to telephone and cable companies to get content to users in a timely manner.

President Obama is sending FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler and his fellow commissioners a message. They should pay attention.

[Aug 13]

[Commentary] Cellphones have provided humanity with many benefits. They have also enabled the most annoying among us to find new ways to disturb the peace in all sorts of public places, like trains, theaters and restaurants.

One shared space that has heretofore been protected from the chattering of cellphone users may soon join that list: airplanes.

The Federal Communications Commission, which has barred the use of cellphones in planes since 1991, is considering allowing airlines to decide whether their passengers can make calls.

Many frequent travelers and the unions representing flight attendants want a ban on all flights. We agree. There is no compelling reason to allow cellphone calls on planes other than to provide airlines with another source of revenue.

[Aug 8]

[Commentary] Senate Commerce Committee staffers are pitching what’s called the Local Choice plan for retransmission consent reform as “an evolution of the existing retransmission consent regime to a simpler approach, designed to put more power in the hands of the viewer.”

That sounds good, until we get to the line about controlling the cost of viewers’ pay-TV subscriptions. That’s when it sounds more like “retransmission consent trampling and eviscerating.”

Government-mandated à la carte is not the answer. The marketplace is already driving choice, taking the form of on-demand and over-the-top options.

[Commentary] Thankfully, due to a push-start from the Economic Development Subcommittee, the Missoula (MT) City Council is prepared to take the first steps toward getting a broadband system in place here.

Council members are looking at establishing a task force whose aim will be to help guide the city through the process. The proposed network would be brought online in phases, ultimately linking to 50 different entities in Missoula. According to the feasibility study, it would cost $10.5 million over five years, although the total price of the overall plan is pegged at closer to $17 million.

As we move forward, let’s take pains to ensure that each step is also taken carefully, with due consideration given to all concerns.

[Commentary] Many people spend a great deal of time thinking about their diets. They try to eat the right foods in the right quantities. Sometimes they may wish they’d made better choices.

Do news consumers spend as much time thinking about the news content they’re taking in via television, print, or, ever more likely, online? What is the quality and quantity of this news diet? Here are some questions a thoughtful news consumer could ask:

• Is this news nourishing me? Does it help me really understand what is happening or is it just intended to provoke an emotional response?
• How does this news report make me feel? Do I come away with thoughts that are angry or hopeless or discouraged?
• Do I go only to a few familiar places to consume news, especially news “flavors” that fulfill my expectations by always confirming what I “already know”? A more balanced news diet might include several thoughtful sources that leave one with thoughts such as “I hadn’t considered that viewpoint before” or “I hadn’t thought about that possible solution.”

With access to a flood of news from around the globe online, people can easily overindulge in stories stuffed with shock or sentimentality. But consuming the right kind of news can inspire better thinking.