Shira Ovide

People have been predicting the death of cable TV for a long time, but this really might be it.

Amazon, Boeing and a bunch of other companies may soon join Elon Musk’s SpaceX in beaming internet service from space. Yes, it is cool, but the companies involved and people excited about satellite internet tend to overstate how much good it can realistically do. There are limits to the technology, and structural barriers to internet access cannot be solved by technology alone. Nearly all policy experts and technologists whom I’ve spoken to about satellite internet services say the same thing: Satellite internet won’t be realistic for most people and places.

The White House’s new infrastructure plan includes a proposal to spend $100 billion to extend fast internet access to every home. Its central premise is a powerful one: To achieve the internet that we all deserve, the federal government must be more involved — but not too much. The White House plan could be the shakeout we need.

A Q&A with New York Times reporter Cecilia Kang. Why does the net neutrality fight matter? Many Americans have only one or possibly two options for home internet providers. Those companies can in theory decide whether we can view Netflix or YouTube crystal clear or if we see the pinwheel of death as those sites stutter.

Each country has its own car safety regulations and tax codes. But should every country also decide its own bounds for appropriate online expression? We probably don’t want internet companies deciding on the freedoms of billions of people, but we may not want governments to have unquestioned authority, either. Regulating online expression in any single country — let alone in the world — is a messy set of trade offs with no easy solutions. Let us lay out some of the issues:

President Biden is inheriting tricky tech questions including how to rein in powerful digital superstars, what to do about Chinese technology and how to bring more Americans online. Here’s a glimpse at opportunities and challenges in technology policy for the new Biden administration:

Small-scale internet projects are far from perfect. They can struggle for lack of money, technology problems, or failures to get residents involved. But some people who are pushing for better and more fair online access in the United States say that small-scale internet networks, in combination with savvier government funding and policies, are part of the solution to America’s digital divide.

It is helpful to look for the profit motives behind what’s happening in our shopping lives. So why does it feel as if every other commercial you see on TV or online is a phone company blaring “5G! 5G! 5G!” into your earholes? Because each once-in-a-decade changeover in wireless technology is a shot for companies like Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile to pad our cellphone bills without us going nuts and to steal customers from one another.

Apjit Walia, the global head of technology strategy at Deutsche Bank, has a free market suggestion for ending the digital divide: Big technology companies should pay for millions of lower-income Americans to get what they need to go online. And not out of the goodness of their heart. In Walia’s view, it would be a smart business decision to reach new customers and repair Big Tech’s reputation.

Technology is part of the tug of war between the United States and China. But let me offer some advice: When you hear an American technology executive mention China, put on your hmmmm face. Ditto when you hear a US government official talk about China in the context of technology. US tech companies love to suggest that anything that hurts them somehow opens the door to China’s technology dominance.