As schools now explore virtual education and hospitals expand to digital platforms as viable and safe options during the time of COVID-19, the focus on adequate internet access has moved to center stage. In 2018, rural North Dakota residents had access to better internet service than residents of Englewood in Chicago. A recent report showed that in some parts of Chicago, as many as half of children lack the necessary access to broadband needed to engage in the online educational activities expected of them during the COVID-19 academic disruption.

In general, communities of color are less likely to have access to broadband than predominantly white communities and instead rely on smartphones or library computers for access to online services. Smartphones are an option, but libraries may be inaccessible due to travel limitations and do not provide individuals with the privacy needed for some sensitive online interactions, such as medical consultations. On top of that, many libraries have been closed during the pandemic. We have seen some of the consequences of these disparities; communities that lack broadband internet are also less likely to use telemedicine services. After COVID-19, the number of telemedicine visits for Medicare enrollees surged from 13,000 to 1.7 million patients. However, lower income individuals are less likely to use video telemedicine service as compared to others.

It is important that high-speed internet be available to communities in households regardless of age across the city. The elderly rely on it to connect with the outside world for their safety, security and general well-being. This is a problem now as has been since the emergence of broadband in the city. Communities of color should not have to sit by idly and “wait our turn.” Our turn is now. Our quality of life depends on it.

[Janice Blanchard, M.D., Ph.D., is a professor of emergency medicine at the George Washington University. Anita Blanchard, M.D., is a professor in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology and associate dean of Graduate Medical Education at the University of Chicago.]

Reps Anna G. Eshoo (D-CA) and Don Young (R-AK), along with Sens Brian Schatz (D-HI) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), wrote to the Federal Communications Commission about its COVID-19 Telehealth Program. The lawmakers raised concerns about the FCC’s lack of transparency related to the program and asked several questions about its implementation. They asked FCC Chairman Ajit Pai to answer the following questions no later than July 30:

1. How many applications did the FCC receive for COVID-19 Telehealth Program?
2. How many applications did the FCC receive that were not awarded support? Please provide the scoring metrics for all applicants, including those that did not receive support. If no scoring metrics are available, please explain the mechanism by which the FCC evaluated applications to ensure consistency and fairness.
3. Of those applications that did not receive support, how many were determined to be ineligible? Please provide the criteria against which applications were deemed ineligible.
4. In total, how much COVID-19 Telehealth Program support did applicants request?
5. How much support, in total, has the COVID-19 Telehealth Program disbursed to applicants thus far?
6. After a health care provider’s application has been granted, how long, on average, does it take for the FCC to disburse funds to the applicant? When does the FCC expect to disburse all $200 million from the COVID-19 Telehealth Program?
7. What steps did the FCC take to ensure health care providers were aware of the COVID-19 Telehealth program?
8. How did the FCC inform providers that serve rural and Native American communities about the COVID-19 Telehealth Program?
9. What federal, state, or local agencies did the FCC proactively engage to spread awareness of the program among health care providers?
10. How has the FCC increased its capacity to oversee the COVID-19 Telehealth Program to ensure against waste, fraud and abuse?
11. How does the FCC intend to track, oversee, and evaluate the impact of the disbursed funds?

The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) respectfully requests that the Federal Communications Commission initiate a rulemaking to clarify the provisions of section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934. Specifically, per President Donald Trump's Executive Order No. 13925: Preventing Online Censorship (EO 13925), NTIA requests that the FCC propose rules to clarify:

• the interaction between subparagraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of section 230, in particular to clarify and determine the circumstances under which a provider of an interactive computer service that restricts access to content in a manner not specifically protected by subparagraph (c)(2)(a) may also not be able to claim protection under subparagraph (c)(1);
• the conditions under which an action restricting access to or availability of material is not “taken in good faith” within the meaning of subparagraph (c)(2)(A) of section 230, particularly whether actions can be “taken in good faith” if they are (A) deceptive, pretextual, or inconsistent with a provider’s terms of service; or (B) taken after failing to provide adequate notice, reasoned explanation, or a meaningful opportunity to be heard; and 
• any another proposed regulation that NTIA concludes may be appropriate to advance the policy described in subsection (a) of E.O. 13925, to impose disclosure requirements similar those imposed on other internet companies, such as major broadband service providers, to promote free and open debate on the internet.

NTIA urges the FCC to promulgate rules addressing the following points:

1. Clarify the relationship between subsections (c)(1) and (c)(2), lest they be read and applied in a manner that renders (c)(2) superfluous as some courts appear to be doing.
2. Specify that Section 230(c)(1) has no application to any interactive computer service’s decision, agreement, or action to restrict access to or availability of material provided by another information content provider or to bar any information content provider from using an interactive computer service.
3. Provide clearer guidance to courts, platforms, and users, on what content falls within (c)(2) immunity, particularly section 230(c)(2)’s “otherwise objectionable” language and its requirement that all removals be done in “good faith.”
4. Specify that “responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information” in the definition of “information content provider,” 47 U.S.C. § 230(f)(3), includes editorial decisions that modify or alter content, including but not limited to substantively contributing to, commenting upon, editorializing about, or presenting with a discernible viewpoint content provided by another information content provider.
5. Mandate disclosure for internet transparency similar to that required of other internet companies, such as broadband service providers.

On May 28, the President of the United States signed an Executive Order. Under this order—at the direction of the President—the National Telecommunications and Information Administration is filing a petition July 27 with the Federal Communications Commission. In it, the Administration is asking the FCC to come up with rules moderating online content. We are told to do so using a law known as Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996.

While social media can be frustrating, turning the FCC into the President’s speech police is not the answer. The FCC needs to reject this effort to deploy the federal government against free expression online. In fact, if we honor the Constitution, we will do so immediately.

Do we hold Big Tech accountable or do we sit on our hands and do nothing? In many ways, this discussion is a microcosm for a broader debate taking place within the conservative movement—one that reflects shifting views about the role of government on issues as varied as trade and the economy to national security. As to Big Tech, there are some on the Right who see no problems worth addressing or believe that any form of government-imposed accountability would do more harm than good. We must accept the status quo, they say, or reject the limited government, free market principles that conservatives stand for. This is a false choice, of course. And this framing ignores the ways in which Big Tech has accumulated and now wields its power. A handful of corporations with state-like influence now shape everything from the information we consume to the places where we shop. These corporate behemoths are not merely exercising market power; they are abusing dominant positions. They are not simply prevailing in the free market; they are taking advantage of a landscape that has been skewed—by the government—to favor their business models over those of their competitors. Crony capitalism is not free enterprise. Conservatives should work towards change in three main areas: transparency, accountability and user empowerment.

The rapid growth of large platforms has caused some activists, scholars, and political officials to worry about their impact on competition. Concern seems to be aimed at two issues. First, certain companies, such as Amazon, sell directly to customers but also run a platform that connects third-party suppliers to customers. Some people are concerned that platforms could compete unfairly by using data about sales by third-party sellers to decide whether to develop and sell competing products. Second, because of network effects, many platform markets have one or two dominant players. Some advocates claim this harms consumer welfare and innovation. On top of that, some worry this position becomes self-sustaining because the data the platforms collect gives the companies an advantage their rivals cannot overcome. This report shows that these concerns are largely misplaced. Platforms create significant economic value. Far from being lazy monopolists that try to increase profits by artificially reducing supply, these companies seek to grow rapidly. They are constantly innovating to attract new users and retain the ones they have. To do this, they invest enormous amounts of money in research and development (R&D).