A group of the nation's leading technology associations sent a joint letter to Congressional leadership urging the passage of two crucial pieces of legislation that will help connect families in unserved areas to high-speed broadband internet:

1. The Expanding Opportunities for Broadband Development Act (H.R. 7160), was introduced by Rep. G.K. Butterfield (D-NC). It would expedite broadband deployment by cutting outdated, exclusionary regulations. Written two decades ago in the days of dial-up modems, these regulations now invite abuse, slow deployment, and discourage competition. 
2. The bipartisan Rural Broadband Acceleration Act (H.R. 7022, S.4201) was introduced by House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-SC) and Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI) and Senators Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and Rob Portman (R-OH). The bill would accelerate the deployment of gigabit tier networks in the upcoming $20.4 billion Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF) for builders starting construction within six months of receiving funding. And it sets a bold goal of providing broadband service to target communities within a year. This could quickly move a number of shovel ready projects into full production.  This bill recognizes the urgency of closing broadband deployment gaps: the stakes are too high to wait any longer.

A three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit threw out an antitrust verdict against Qualcomm, overturning a ruling that had threatened the chip maker’s business model. The panel reversed a 2019 ruling by District Court Judge Lucy Koh, who found that Qualcomm had abused its monopoly position in wireless chips and overcharged mobile phone makers for its patents. Judge Koh's decision could have forced Qualcomm to renegotiate its licensing contracts with phone makers and license its technology to rival chipmakers. The panel concluded that Qualcomm had no duty under antitrust law to license its competitors. It also ruled that Qualcomm’s policy of not supplying chips to any handset maker that had not licensed its patents did not work like an illegal surcharge on chips sold by competitors. The Federal Trade Commission had sued Qualcomm in 2017 over the issue. Disagreements about Qualcomm prompted a split between the FTC and other government agencies, including the Department of Justice, which contended that the District Court ruling could undermine Qualcomm’s position in technologies, like 5G, that are essential for national security.

In 2016, the Federal Communications Commission issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL) to BellSouth Telecommunications (d/b/a AT&T Southeast) for apparently failing to charge two Florida school districts the lowest corresponding price for telecommunications services it provided under the E-Rate program. Specifically, the NAL proposed a forfeiture of $106,425 against AT&T for apparent violation of section 254(h)(1)(B) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act) and section 54.511(b) of the FCC’s rules. Because the Act requires the FCC to issue a notice of apparent liability within one year of a violation and these apparent violations occurred more than one year prior to the issuance of the NAL, the FCC cancels the NAL and proposed forfeiture.

FCC Commissioner Michael O'Rielly said, "I fully support the decision to cancel this Notice of Apparent Liability and proposed forfeiture. The previous Commission’s attempt to evade the applicable statute of limitations through its continuing violation theory was offensive to the rule of law and must be thoroughly rejected.... According to the facts in the record, the two school districts in question chose to purchase services on a month-to-month basis directly from AT&T, rather than through the statewide consortium’s multi-year contract. Requiring AT&T to charge those school districts the same rates charged to those buying services from the bulk consortium contract would be a misapplication of our “lowest corresponding price” rule, which prohibits service providers from charging E-Rate eligible entities a price above what they charge “similarly situated” non-residential customers for “similar services.”

"I respect my colleagues’ decision today to conclude that this prior effort was procedurally untimely," said FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel. "However, I supported the underlying NAL and continue to believe that there are merits to our earlier approach. In particular, I believe our initial decision would support greater accountability with respect to universal service funds than the course the agency adopts today."

FCC Commissioner Geoffrey Starks said, "I do not disagree with today’s outcome, but I want to emphasize how much more needs to be done to give the lowest corresponding price rule the teeth it needs. The rule requires E-Rate service providers to offer participating schools and libraries rates at or below what they charge similarly situated customers for the same services—protecting schools, libraries, and the Universal Service Fund from inflated prices.... Going forward, we may need to adjust our rules or enforcement practices to ensure we actually punish and deter violations of the lowest corresponding price rule. Detecting these violations is challenging, and the Universal Service Administrative Company is our first line of defense. Due to the timing of various steps in the E-Rate funding cycle, however, USAC may not learn about the price a service provider has charged an E-Rate beneficiary until weeks or months later. The Commission should consider how we can best promote timely detection of violations to avoid future problems with the statute of limitations. If we don’t, schools and libraries will not get the full benefit of the lowest corresponding price rule."

TikTok skirted a privacy safeguard in Google’s Android operating system to collect unique identifiers from millions of mobile devices, data that allows the app to track users online without allowing them to opt out. The tactic, which experts in mobile-phone security said was concealed through an unusual added layer of encryption, appears to have violated Google policies limiting how apps track people and wasn’t disclosed to TikTok users. TikTok ended the practice in November 2019. The identifiers collected by TikTok, called MAC addresses, are most commonly used for advertising purposes.