Long the epicenter of the global tech industry, California is taking more action to shield its children, communities and workers from the threats posed by the very industry that’s become central to the state’s identity and enviable economy. State lawmakers passed new safeguards around social media, artificial intelligence and data centers at a time when technology has become intertwined with people’s daily lives. Efforts to rein in the power of Big Tech extend beyond concerns that TikTok, Instagram and other social media platforms are harming young children. Unions and workers worry that AI will take their jobs, and lawmakers are trying to tackle privacy and safety issues as AI features get added into smart glasses and toys. Californians are concerned that the proliferation of data centers will increase their electricity bills and strain water supplies. One of the bills, Assembly Bill 1709, would bar certain online platforms from providing an “addictive feature” to users under 16 years old and add ways to verify users’ ages. Under the bill, prohibited addictive features include autoplay and feeds that display recommended content.  Under Assembly Bill 2, social media companies could face fines of up to $1 million per child for negligent harm. California lawmakers also attempted to tackle two other perils of the technological world — the rapid development and implementation of artificial intelligence and the proliferation of the massive data centers that are essential to sustaining the AI universe.  The state Legislature approved Senate Bill 947, which would bar employers from “solely” using automated decision-making systems to discipline or fire employees. If an employer primarily relies upon this system, a human must verify the decision. Lawmakers also approved Senate Bill 951, introduced by Sen. Eloise Gomez Reyes (D-Colton), which would require employers to provide a 60-day advance notice to workers and local and state governments before AI-related layoffs. Lawmakers also approved Assembly Bill 1609, which requires large private businesses that serve customers to provide access to human customer service representatives and to disclose to use of chatbots. They passed another bill by Sen. Steve Padilla (D-Chula Vista) that enacts a four-year moratorium on the sale and manufacturing of AI-chatbot powered toys over concerns that the technology can harm children.

A recurrent theme from US cellular industry commentary in recent years has been complaints about supposedly unused or underused spectrum that could be put to "better" use. Yet there is surprisingly little focus on the major carriers' own fallow and underused spectrum assets, which deserve similar scrutiny. We have heard repeated claims that Citizens Broadband Radio Service spectrum is not used sufficiently or that dynamic sharing mechanisms are allegedly inefficient. The benefits of technology innovation and new deployment models are downplayed. Recently, the industry has tried to suggest that the Federal Communications Commission's relatively recent groundbreaking and internationally emulated release of unlicensed 6GHz spectrum should be partly reversed in order to emulate some countries'—notably China's—choices for 6G. The message from organizations such as CTIA and its favorite consultancies is familiar: if spectrum is not used in the way CTIA's members prefer—by large mobile operators, under exclusive, high-power licenses—then it is somehow badly allocated or even wasted. But that argument now looks increasingly selective, if not outright hypocritical.

[Dean Bubley is the Founder and Director of Disruptive Analysis]

AT&T has filed a lawsuit claiming that Charter Communications misleads consumers with its “fiber-powered” advertising. In the lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, AT&T points out that the advertising says Charter’s Spectrum brand is “fiber-powered” and delivered over the “Spectrum Broadband Network.” Though Charter has added some disclaimers to its advertising, AT&T’s lawsuit says that such advertising misleads consumers into thinking Charter’s Spectrum brand brings end-to-end fiber delivered to the home. However, “the vast majority of Spectrum Internet runs over a hybrid fiber-coaxial network, where the critical ‘last mile’ connection to the customer’s home uses copper coaxial cable, not fiber,” the lawsuit states.