The Federal Communications Commission is "soft" launching its national Lifeline eligibility verifier in another 11 states on June 25: Arizona, Connecticut, Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, Nevada, New York, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia. Eligible telecommunications carriers (ETCs) in those states who are eligible for the Lifeline subsidies will not be able to begin any subscriber recertifications after June 25 and should wrap up any current certifications under the existing rules by Aug 30. Certification consists of verifying that the subscribers it is serving with subsidies ($9.25 per month) qualify for the program, which is targeted at low-income residents and tied to qualifying for various other government subsidy programs.  ETCs will be able to test the new verifier before the FCC mandates its use so their employees can be ready on day one. During the "soft" launch, the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) will start recertifying subscribers using the national verifier. Anyone who can't be certified will be excluded from the program.

Public libraries have historically positioned themselves as pillars of information and inclusion in society. Free, available to all, with materials in multiple languages and formats, libraries are possibly the most inclusive public institution. However, as more materials migrate to the internet, and as preferences for how people access information and how culture changes, libraries are challenged to also incorporate the internet and new information-seeking behaviours into their operations and philosophy. To examine libraries’ roles in expanding internet access and digital literacy, we discuss the ways that libraries expanded their repertoire and how they approach remediating local digital divides in a North American context, focusing specifically on results associated with their loaning of hotspot devices. We investigate the decisions and controversies across different digital information strategies, and examine the library’s emerging role in digital divide efforts.

 Our results suggest that hotspot programmes may have important roles for the constituencies lacking reliable access and the opportunity to spend more time learning the skills useful to navigating and exploiting the internet. The hotspot programmes’ core contribution, however, alters how we might think about libraries’ role in supporting and enabling lively public spheres. There may be missed opportunities for library hotspot programmes around cultivating better use of the libraries’ electronic resources. Nonetheless, the contribution that hotspots from the New York libraries made to the abilities of lower income populations in the NYPL and BPL programmes to access and manoeuvre key and essential services, to obtain information genuinely useful to them, and to ameliorate travel difficulties among older populations, is undeniable and an important component of creating conditions for digital inclusion.

A proliferation of antitrust investigations into the tech giants is offering competitors a chance to sound off on claims that their larger rivals are playing dirty. If the Department of Justice or Federal Trade Commission pursue formal investigations into Google, Facebook, Amazon or Apple, they’ll need all the evidence they can get. The companies that compete with them could provide that by the ton. But, speaking up can come at a cost to smaller companies, including angering the powerful corporate giants and signaling to investors that you might go under without government intervention. That’s why investigators often give competitors a venue to press their case in secret. Public complaints about Big Tech that arise if investigations ramp up — whether in congressional hearings or the press — may only be the tip of the iceberg.

Sen Josh Hawley (R-MO) is poised to announce new legislation on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. The measure is expected to focus on enforcement of Section 230, the legal liability shield that immunizes tech platforms from lawsuits over user-posted content. It would open the possibility of treating certain tech companies as publishers and therefore more liable for the content that shows up on their sites. The office has been discussing this with a number of outside entities and experts in other Senate offices, according to the source, but it’s not yet clear whether the bill would have co-sponsors from the outset.

The tech industry says Section 230 has been indispensable, protecting it from company-crushing mountains of litigation. A major rethink would be panic-inducing for tech and would guarantee a fierce battle between Washington and Silicon Valley. That threat feels a little more real these days, as 230 has come under fire from lawmakers ranging from Sen Hawley to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) who have argued that it’s time to re-examine the statute, possibly tweaking, weakening or eliminating its protections altogether. Democrats tend to focus on tech’s failure to curb hate speech and misinformation, while Republicans focus on allegations of anti-conservative bias. 

The Department of Justice has reached settlements with CBS, Cox, EW Scripps, Fox, and TEGNA Inc. to resolve a Department lawsuit brought as part of its ongoing investigation into exchanges of competitively sensitive information in the broadcast television industry. All five companies are alleged to have engaged in unlawful information sharing among their owned broadcast television stations. Cox also owns Cox Reps, one of two large “Rep Firms” in the industry that assist broadcast stations in sales to national advertisers. The Rep Firms are alleged to have participated in the unlawful information sharing conduct. CBS, Cox, Scripps, Fox, and TEGNA agreed with other entities in many metropolitan areas across the United States to exchange revenue pacing information, and also engaged in the exchange of other forms of non-public sales information in certain metropolitan areas. The complaint further alleges that Cox Reps also facilitated and participated in this exchange of pacing information by its broadcast-station clients that operated in the same metropolitan areas. Pacing compares a broadcast station’s revenues booked for a certain time period to the revenues booked in the same point in the previous year. Pacing indicates how each station is performing versus the rest of the market and provides insight into each station’s remaining spot advertising for the period. By exchanging pacing information, the five new defendants and other broadcasters were better able to anticipate whether their competitors were likely to raise, maintain, or lower spot advertising prices, which in turn helped inform their stations’ own pricing strategies and negotiations with advertisers. As a result, the information exchanges harmed the competitive price-setting process in markets for the sale of spot advertisements.

The proposed settlements with CBS, Cox, Scripps, Fox, and TEGNA prohibit the direct or indirect sharing of such competitively sensitive information. Additionally, the Department’s proposed settlement with Cox requires that Cox Reps implements firewalls in markets where it represents more than one broadcast station. The Department has determined that these provisions would resolve the antitrust concerns raised as a result of the defendants’ alleged conduct. The proposed settlements further require these five defendants to adopt rigorous antitrust compliance and reporting measures to prevent similar anticompetitive conduct in the future. The settlements have a seven-year term, and they will continue to apply to stations currently owned by CBS, Cox, Scripps, Fox, and TEGNA even if those stations are acquired by another company. Finally, the settlements require that the five defendants cooperate in the Department’s ongoing investigation.

No industry should be free from antitrust scrutiny, including big tech. But the splitting of this tech antitrust review across two federal agencies (the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice's Antitrust Division), despite the many similar competition issues that will be investigated, illustrates the absurdity of having two federal agencies handling civil antitrust enforcement. It also shows why these investigations are likely to be less effective and coherent than they should be. Dividing review of the tech industry also invites conflicts between the agencies on how they analyze competition issues. Having two agencies police the same beat also invites bureaucratic pettiness as civil servants place their own agency’s interests over those of American consumers and taxpayers. Congress should focus on ensuring that antitrust enforcement efforts are backed by appropriate resources. One way to further that goal would be to reorganize civil antitrust enforcement so that it is done under one roof. Doing so would result in more coherent, efficient, and effective antitrust enforcement.