Recently, California passed its own network neutrality laws, to ban blocking and throttling of the internet, as a stand-in for the federal net neutrality rules abandoned by the Trump administration in June. California has obvious reasons to want to protect an open internet: It is the land of the internet’s origin, and a place where tech entrepreneurship has thrived. If the Republican Party actually believed in economic decentralization, it might well accept the premise of state rules where the federal government explicitly disclaims any authority to act. But Attorney General Jeff Sessions, a self-declared states’ rights champion, declared within hours of the law’s passage that the Department of Justice will sue California for infringing corporate prerogatives — that is, interfering with the right of cable and phone companies to block or slow internet content. This attack on state net neutrality is no outlier but one of a series of similar invasions of states’ rights undertaken in the name of corporate sovereignty, which, in the age of a new nationalism, has been elevated above state law.

[Tim Wu is a law professor at Columbia]

I was at the White House for a summit on 5G. Notably, this summit was spearheaded by the National Economic Council. NEC’s ownership of this event tells us that the White House sees wireless innovation as an issue of economic competitiveness, first and foremost. And I think that’s exactly right. 

The breakout session on the possible use cases and applications of 5G at the summit reminds us why all of this matters. It matters because of the businesses that will be able to grow and the new jobs that will create. It matters because it can unleash smart transportation networks that can reduce traffic, prevent deadly accidents, and limit pollution. It matters because of the lives that can be saved and the many more that can be improved with telemedicine. It matters because of the yet-to-be imagined innovations that will enrich our lives. That’s why we aim to build consensus around smart spectrum management practices for the future. Because this isn’t just about policy; it’s about unlocking possibilities for a better future.

The buzz over “5G,” the next generation of wireless technology, has been heating up, but most of the hype fails to account for the fact that a robust, innovative, and affordable 5G wireless ecosystem for all Americans will not result from empowering and allocating the best public airwaves to the four nationwide mobile carriers alone. America’s wireless future depends on enabling the development of a diverse set of network providers, empowering smaller providers to supplement the coverage of the major carriers, and strengthening unlicensed technologies such as Wi-Fi. The mobile industry has pressured the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to enact policies to help them dominate the deployment of 5G domestically, allegedly because that will help the United States win the “race to 5G” globally. The FCC’s latest response, with respect to allocating critical mid-band spectrum, is a mixed decision: In a draft decision released October 2, the agency proposes giving the mobile industry a big win over smaller competitors and a wide range of industries, while also taking an important step to expand the availability of unlicensed spectrum needed for gigabit-fast Wi-Fi. At its October 23 meeting, the FCC is set to vote on two items.

In the past, Wi-Fi versions were identified by a letter or a pair of letters that referred to a wireless standard. The current version is 802.11ac, but before that, we had 802.11n, 802.11g, 802.11a, and 802.11b. It was not comprehensible, so the Wi-Fi Alliance — the group that stewards the implementation of Wi-Fi — is changing it. All of those convoluted codenames are being changed. So instead of the current Wi-Fi being called 802.11ac, it’ll be called Wi-Fi 5 (because it’s the fifth version). 

Now, instead of wondering whether “ac” is better than “n” or if the two versions even work together, you’ll just look at the number. In the future when you connect to a Wi-Fi network on your phone or laptop, your device will tell you what Wi-Fi version you’re connected to. That way, if two networks are available — one showing “4” and the other showing “5” — you’d be able to choose the newer, faster option. The next generation of Wi-Fi is on the horizon, with the promise of faster speeds and better performance when handling a multitude of devices. It was supposed to be called 802.11ax, but now it’ll go by a simpler name: Wi-Fi 6.

In testimony before the Senate Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights, Federal Trade Commission Chairman Joseph Simons described the agency's enforcement of antitrust laws, advocacy work, and the public hearings it is hosting on a variety of competition and consumer protection issues. And he outlined a series of notable victories in stopping anticompetitive mergers and conduct. The widespread use of technology and data often offer consumer benefits, but may also raise new competition issues, according to the testimony. When appropriate, the Commission will take action to counter the harmful effects of coordinated or unilateral conduct by technology firms. As part of the agency’s commitment to efficient merger review, the Bureau of Competition is developing a more robust system of tracking key developments in the merger review process to determine whether reviews are taking longer. Armed with better information, the Bureau will assess what can be done to make the merger review process more efficient and less burdensome while still getting to the right outcome for consumers.

Facebook officials have begun briefing lawmakers about its massive security breach as the social-media company tries to quell a potential backlash in Washington over its latest setback involving user data. Facebook briefed Department of Homeland Security officials the week of Sept 24 and some individual lawmakers the following week, apparently. The company is expected to meet with other congressional committees, including the Senate Intelligence Committee, about the breach as early as the week of Oct 1. It isn’t clear whether Facebook provided information pointing to possible perpetrators or about how the hackers exploited the security flaws. 

Online advertising systems regularly put mainstream ads alongside content from the political fringes — and dollars in the pockets of those producing polarizing and politically charged headlines. This mismatch of online content and ads, which digital advertising companies have been working to fix, goes to the heart of how the Internet economy works. Tens of billions of dollars are at stake in the promises of online ad systems to match advertising pitches with receptive targets. But the automated systems that place many of these ads are driven by sophisticated, proprietary algorithms that are hard for advertisers to understand or control, many complain. These systems, which have powered the rise of Google, Facebook and dozens of lesser-known technology companies, also can have the unintended effect of fueling the creation and spread of extreme content online — on both the political left and the right — independent researchers and industry experts say. Sensationalized headlines bring clicks. Clicks bring ads. Ads bring revenue. And the advertisers often have limited options for avoiding potentially objectionable websites.

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. By approaching these groups, Michael sought to expand the pool of legitimate stakeholders and participants in media policy decisions, with the assumption that this would also ultimately broaden the range of voices and views represented within our media and improve newsroom diversity. This is as important today as it was during his tenure.  The fight for media democracy—to which Michael has dedicated much of his professional life—is ongoing. Michael continues to advocate passionately for the policy positions that he championed as FCC commissioner. He has done so by partnering with Common Cause, Free Press, Public Knowledge, and the Benton Foundation. His fight is our fight. 

The Irish Data Protection Commission has opened a formal investigation into a data breach that affected nearly 50 million Facebook accounts, which could result in a fine of up to $1.63 billion. The breach, which was discovered by Facebook engineers on Sept 24, gave hackers the ability to take over users’ accounts. It was patched on Sept 27, the company said. “The investigation will examine Facebook’s compliance with its obligation under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) to implement appropriate technical and organisational measures to ensure the security and safeguarding of the personal data it processes,” the commission said. The commission noted that Facebook had informed the commission that its internal investigation was continuing and that the company continued “to take remedial actions to mitigate the potential risk to users”.