Editorial

Here are 10 questions about broadband we hope to find answers to in 2019:

In a year-end report, the Committee to Protect Journalists counted 53 journalists killed between Jan 1 and Dec 14, including 34 targeted in reprisal for their work — nearly double the 18 such murders it recorded in 2017. The growing number of journalists jailed or attacked on that pretext [of dissemintating "false" or "fake" news] is one illustration of the deleterious influence that President Donald Trump has had on press freedom globally. His labeling of the US media as the “enemy of the people” and charges of “fake news” have been imitated by regimes around the world.

Members of the conservative majority on the House Judiciary Committee spent much of their time hammering [Google CEO Sundar] Pichai with baseless accusations that Google rigs its search results to censor conservative content. The bias obsession has distracted from the more important subjects that Congress has failed to address these past two years. That seems likely to change when Democrats take control of the House in January.

The power of communication and the exchange of ideas were starkly brought home recently as news of bombs being delivered to Americans’ homes and businesses, and the murder of worshipers in Pittsburgh dominated headlines everywhere. President Donald Trump and some of his Republican allies appear to be actively engaged in a feedback loop with extremists who participate in the darkest online forums.

The Benton Foundation is joining 40 civil and human rights organizations that believe that online companies need to do more to combat hateful conduct on their platforms. We are asking that these companies adopt corporate policies to prohibit hateful activities on their platforms. They should make it clear what type of conduct is and is not permitted on their platform and remove any U.S. clients that violate those corporate policies. Although Benton has always championed free speech, today we draw a line.

The received wisdom was once that a unified, unbounded web promoted democracy through the free flow of information. Things don’t seem quite so simple anymore. All signs point to a future with three internets: one internet led by China, one internet led by the United States, and one internet led by the European Union. All three regions are generating sets of rules, regulations and norms that are beginning to rub up against one another.

Trying to protect an open internet state by state, rather than by federal law, is a daunting and unwieldy goal. Unfortunately, it’s also entirely necessary, given that the Trump administration and Congress are more than happy to let internet providers restrict what we — the American people — can see and access online. As much as the internet has been abused by bogus web and social media sites, an independent internet is an important part of maintaining an informed citizenry. Getting rid of net neutrality means you might pay more for such things as streaming movies from particular sites.

We all know Michael J. Copps as a person and a public official. But I want to speak to Michael’s values. As an FCC Commissioner, Michael Copps brought the FCC to the public and the public to the FCC. He engaged broad constituencies in policy discussions. Among these, he valued input and participation from groups he termed “non-traditional stakeholders" like civil rights groups, Native Americans, people with disabilities, and other marginalized communities.

The fight over net neutrality today can be reduced to a single sentence: Everyone is suing everyone else. Congress should step in. The Federal Communications Commission abdicated its responsibility on net neutrality when it repealed the old rules with no adequate replacement. Now, without setting forth its own rules, the federal government is seeking to block states from creating their own. That may be frustrating to Americans who want an Internet where providers do not dictate what information reaches them and how fast.