The dual crises of changing census guidelines and the COVID-19 pandemic have shined a “great spotlight” on the impact that lack of access to broadband has in rural communities. “Access to education, access to jobs, it’s one of those areas where the whole partnership between business and government needs to happen, because it’s not going to be cheap,” said Lynden Schuyler, a director for census outreach at the Illinois Public Health Association. The state awarded $50 million in broadband expansion grants through the Connect Illinois program in June. Due to the requirements set for obtaining Connect Illinois grants, that first batch of funding was matched by $65 million in nonstate funds for a total investment exceeding $115 million. Another $50 is slated for release later in 2020. The focus of Connect Illinois has been on scalable, fiber optic cables to provide broadband, rather than wireless networks such as 5G, which is used for internet in some cities. That means while each household on Connect Illinois broadband can receive internet at speeds of at least 25 mbps, once the lines are down to provide internet, they can be affordably scaled up to provide a gigabit. Matt Schmit, director of the Office of Broadband in the Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity, said access to broadband is just “one leg of the stool” when it comes to ensuring digital equity. The two other pillars of equity are broadband adoption – making sure people are using the internet once the groundwork is there – and broadband utilization – ensuring underserved communities can use it at the same level as their urban or higher-income peers. “In my mind, if you look at it the right way, those are the components of a holistic approach to digital equity – how are you able to target resources and programming in a way that levels the playing field and makes sure that everybody has an opportunity to engage in the 21^st century digital economy.”

For the millions of people behind bars in the US, the phone offers a vital connection to their families and the outside world. But placing a call comes at a cost — a steep one. But Federal Communications Chairman Ajit Pai is now asking states to impose price caps on intrastate prison phone calls, keeping the service affordable and accessible to inmates so that they can keep in touch with loved ones.

Research has repeatedly shown that more frequent contact with people outside of jail drastically reduces the rate of recidivism for inmates. So important is the issue that some states have considered bills that would make prison phone calls free. But until lawmakers can get behind such a proposal, regulators should take steps to at least control the cost of prison phone services. Regulators in states throughout the country should roll intrastate prison call rates down at least to the interstate maximum of $3.15. Lower rates — or, eventually, free calls — would allow inmates to communicate more frequently with loved ones on the outside and reintegrate more easily after release. Access to a basic resource that can have such positive effects should not be cost prohibitive.

On Sept 2, the Federal Communications Commission will take comments on NTIA’s petition on reforming Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a provision enacted in 1996 to address a narrow set of concerns involving nascent internet platforms that then played only a marginal role in American life.  The purpose of the provision made sense at that moment in internet history:  Section 230 sought to insulate the newly emerging technology companies from liability risks they might otherwise face if they were deemed a publisher or speaker in the traditional sense. 

AT&T will join the growing consensus of voices concluding that online platforms should be more accountable for, and more transparent about, the decisions they control that fundamentally shape how we communicate, learn, shop, and are informed and entertained.  We argue first that the dominant online platforms owe the public greater transparency about the choices made on their platforms.  Such transparency is considered table stakes in every discussion about broadband networks owned by ISPs. We also argue that Section 230 immunity should be modified to reduce the gross disparities in legal treatment that have emerged between the dominant online platforms and the traditional purveyors of third-party content, such as book publishers, newspapers, or radio AND television businesses.  There is no longer any reason that the nation’s most powerful online platforms should enjoy legal immunities unavailable to similarly-situated traditional companies.