We have incorporated the internet as a critical part of our personal and professional lives. This is not going to change. The COVID-19 crisis has sped us forward to a paradigm shift in which we rely on the internet to bring economic and social activity to us—rather than us going to them. Yet, tens of millions of Americans do not have access to or cannot afford quality internet service. The United States has an internet access problem, especially in rural areas. The existing program to extend broadband has become a corporate entitlement for incumbent telephone companies. At the same time, the United States has an internet affordability problem. Too many low-income Americans cannot afford broadband internet access. Here are five lessons we learned that should apply to any program to provide universal broadband for all Americans.

1. Regardless of technology, a condition of federal money should be delivery of at least 100 mbps in the new construction of internet infrastructure.
2. If we are to have universal access to high-speed broadband, we need to stop trying to reform a telephone-era program and focus directly on the goal of fiber everywhere.
3. Pay any qualified constructor: The goal should be fiber as far and wide as possible, regardless of who strings the cable.
4. Support state and local governments that want to step up
5.  Not only does the US need a program that brings broadband past every door, it also needs a plan to bring it behind those doors and into homes.

The digital divide was a problem before the pandemic. Now it’s an existential problem for students who can’t access live-streamed classes, for the ill who can’t virtually consult with a doctor, for isolated individuals who can’t find human connection on their laptop screens. The burden, as ever, disproportionately falls on the low-income, rural and nonwhite. There’s more the government can do today, and there’s an opportunity to lay the groundwork for the days to come.

Reps James Clyburn (D-SC) and Frank Pallone Jr. (D-NJ) have a massive proposal that aims to address the coverage issue from all angles. Their $80 billion bill recognizes that the coverage problem is actually two problems: deployment and affordability. Offering subsidies for broadband won’t do anything for communities that aren’t wired for access, and wiring the whole country won’t do anything for Americans who don’t have the money to spend on services. Sen Ed Markey (D-MA) has something different: a proposal that would require the Federal Communications Commission to form a national plan for broadband, updating a 10-year-old strategy based on the lessons we’re learning now. 

Congress should do whatever it can during this crisis to bring the Internet to those who don’t have it and to ensure that those who do have it don’t lose it. But it should also be working for a country after the crisis, forged by the crisis, with resilient, secure and universally available connection.

On May 7, 2020, several Members of Congress wrote to Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai to express deep concern about the FCC's approval of Ligado Networks request to modify licenses. "The national security community was unanimous in the judgement that approval of the use of certain portions of the L band spectrum could pose an unacceptable risk to the use of the Global Positioning System (GPS) in the United States. In addition, other federal and nonfederal users of this spectrum have raised serious concerns, including satellite communications providers and airlines," they wrote.

On May 26, Chairman Pai responded by answering specific questions from the Members of Congress, and writing "The bottom line is this: The fact that another agency does not like the end result in this proceeding says nothing whatsoever about the process the FCC followed-a process that was both completely consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act and far, far more generous (not to mention far, far more delayed; I recently observed my eighth anniversary at the Commission, and when I started, this matter even then had been pending for years) than in any other proceeding of which I am aware. And it certainly does not diminish the soundness of the technical analysis in the Ligado Order, which was the result of the years of work by the FCC's excellent career staff's evaluating test results, compiling information in the record, and ultimately writing a thorough order for the Commission's consideration." 

SpaceX and OneWeb have asked for US permission to launch tens of thousands of additional satellites into low Earth orbit. SpaceX's application to launch 30,000 satellites—in addition to the nearly 12,000 it already has permission for—is consistent with SpaceX's previously announced plans for Starlink. OneWeb's application to launch nearly 48,000 satellites is surprising because the satellite-broadband company filed for bankruptcy in March. OneWeb is highly unlikely to launch a significant percentage of these satellites under its current structure, as the company reportedly "axed most of its staff" when it filed for bankruptcy and says it intends to use bankruptcy proceedings "to pursue a sale of its business in order to maximize the value of the company." Getting Federal Communications Commission approval to launch more satellites could improve the value of OneWeb's assets and give more options to whoever buys the company.

Twitter's move to label two tweets by President Donald Trump as misinformation highlights a widening divide among big tech platforms on how they handle political speech, an increasingly contentious issue as the U.S. presidential election approaches. Twitter's decision contrasts sharply with the position of Facebook which reviewed the same claim from the president on its platform and found it complied with its rules. Both companies for years have been reluctant to restrain speech by politicians and leaders on their platforms, seeking to avoid becoming what Facebook Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg has described as the “arbiter of truth.” While Facebook has emphasized its commitment to a more hands-off approach stance, Twitter dropped political ads altogether and now is taking the unprecedented step of weighing in on the truth of statements by President Trump, its most powerful and controversial user. The perils of the approach were immediately apparent.