While Supreme Court justice nominee Brett Kavanaugh‘s views on network neutrality were not brought up much during his televised confirmation hearings, several senators asked him about the internet protections in follow-up questions that he responded to in writing. Sen Kamala Harris (D-CA) asked Kavanaugh if he would recuse himself from a hypothetical he may preside over in the future surrounding net neutrality and the First Amendment. The question follows Kavanaugh’s dissent he wrote as a judge in the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit in a case that upheld the 2015 Open Internet Order, a rule that enshrined net neutrality protections and was rescinded by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in 2017. “Given that you have already staked out such a clear position on the unconstitutionality of net neutrality, will you commit to recusing yourself from a case if the Supreme Court were to consider a future First Amendment challenge to net neutrality?” she asked. The nominee declined to say he would recuse himself. “As I discussed at the hearing, and in keeping with the nominee precedent of previous nominees, it would be improper for me as a sitting judge and a nominee to comment on cases or issues that might come before me, including a possible recusal,” he responded. “Litigants in future cases are entitled to a fair and impartial judge who has an open mind and has not committed to rule on their cases in a particular way. Likewise, judicial independence requires that nominees refrain from making commitments to members of the political branches. In keeping with those principles and the precedent of prior nominees, I therefore cannot provide my views on a potential recusal.”

Sept 10-14 is National Telephone Discount Lifeline Awareness Week. The Federal Communications Commission, the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, and the National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates mark this week to highlight the critical role of the he federal Lifeline program. Despite the tangible benefits of Lifeline, in 2017 the FCC proposed substantial changes to Lifeline that would severely damage the program and harm the low-income and vulnerable families that rely on Lifeline for basic connectivity. And while the FCC’s proposals would inflict significant harm on the poorest US households, they would essentially do nothing to achieve FCC Chairman Ajit Pai’s stated goals of promoting broadband deployment and reducing waste, fraud, and abuse in Lifeline.

Under the FCC’s 2017 Lifeline proposals, marginalized and vulnerable individuals and families would be most severely harmed. Two in five homeless youth identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender – 650,000 homeless LGBT teenagers on the streets who face a special risk of bullying, discrimination, and assault. Lifeline provides access to connectivity necessary for homeless, at-risk youth to find a safe place to live, and find the support they need.  Furthermore, roughly 20,000 women, men, and children in the U.S. call a domestic violence hotline on any given day. Seventy-seven percent of domestic violence prevention programs distribute phones that are subsidized by Lifeline, and the current proposal would eviscerate the support system available to domestic violence victims. For domestic violence survivors, access to basic communications service may be their only tool to contact law enforcement and legal advice, seek medical assistance, secure alternative housing, and access financial services. Many other communities are at risk.

As we celebrate Lifeline Awareness Week, we recognize the value of Lifeline in our society, acknowledge how it is under attack, and resolve to protect and preserve the benefits the program provides to the most vulnerable among us.

Millions of Americans will soon encounter new poles or notice antennas sprouting on existing structures, like utility poles, street lamps and traffic lights, all over their neighborhoods. All four national cellphone companies are pushing to build out their networks with a profusion of small, local cells to keep their data-hungry customers satisfied and lay the groundwork for fifth-generation, or 5G, service. Those plans face pushback in many places, and not just from residents. Officials in some cities say they don’t have enough staff to process applications for dozens or even hundreds of new installations. In some smaller towns, officials say they lack the expertise to review the new technology, though they’re working fast to get up to speed.

State and federal policy makers are mostly backing the wireless carriers. Federal Communications Commission rules passed in March exempt small-cell deployments from certain historic-preservation and environmental reviews. Another FCC rule slated for a vote in Sept, seeks to lower local fees and would set 60-day or 90-day limits for local governments act on permit applications. A bill in Congress would deem small-cell applications granted if local governments fail to act on a request within 31 days. Dozens of state laws also restrict local governments’ control over small-cell projects. "It’s all gamesmanship right now,” says Angela Stacy, vice president at consultant SmartWorks Partners LLC, who advises local governments on telecommunications policy. “The carriers have basically launched a three-pronged attack” with the support of regulators and federal and state legislators.

Officials in San Jose (CA) have tried to parry that offensive by fast-tracking installations for carriers that have agreed to help fund a local internet-access initiative. At the same time, though, San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo says the city and its allies are “battling the industry mightily” on the federal and state level, lobbying to block policies they consider a handout to cellphone companies because they would limit the fees the carriers can be charged to install and operate small cells. “These poles are increasingly becoming valuable real estate. If cities can’t manage their own infrastructure—that their taxpayers paid to install—it puts them at a considerable disadvantage.”

Charter Communications Chairman and CEO Tom Rutledge explained why 5G isn’t an existential threat to cable’s connectivity business. “We have a better platform to deploy [5G] technology, I think, than the cellular industry does because we are fully distributed from a high-capacity wireline perspective,” said Rutledge. “If you think about what 5G is, it is small cells,” Rutledge added. “Small cells mean you needs lots of wired line connectivity to make the small cells work. We think we are actually in a better position to do that than traditional cellular companies. Yes, 5G can be used to compete against us. It is very capital intensive. It requires essentially a wireline network like Fios to support the small cells. If you look at [Verizon’s] forecast, they will build 30 million homes over a 10-year period. Ten years from now, there will be 140 million homes in the United States. They will have 20% of the homes. Our footprint would represent 8% of the homes.” In 10 years, Rutledge predicted, the cable company will have widely deployed 10 Gbps symmetrical internet service.

Two days after saying an “invite will be on its way” to Google to respond to allegations of bias against conservatives, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) said the plan is still in progress. “Well, I gotta sit down and talk to them about it, but there’s a number of committees that have jurisdiction, there’s three off the top of my head, and they could come and we could make it three committees, or one committee, but they need to come and testify,” he said. According to Rep McCarthy, his office has been “in communications” with Google. And he made clear that he’s looking for a top company executive, citing the willingness of Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg to testify recently.

The debate over the right approach to privacy took center stage during the Federal Trade Commission’s inaugural hearing on competition. David Vladeck and Howard Beales, both former directors of the agency’s consumer protection bureau, clashed over whether the FTC requires a bigger stick when it comes to privacy enforcement. Vladeck argued the agency needs the power to impose civil penalties from the get-go. “I think that a civil penalty, for example, against Google or Facebook initially would have had a deterrent value,” Vladeck said. “Facebook is currently under investigation again. Google it took only two years before it violated the [2011 consumer privacy] consent decree. I do think there ought to be additional fine authority.” But Beales disagreed, saying that while civil penalties could make sense in data security cases, they are not the right fit for privacy. “Civil penalties presume a really clear standard, I think, of what’s a violation and what’s not, and that’s not so clear in a lot of the privacy areas,” Beales said. There was some agreement that privacy regulations are a mess in the US, with Europe’s GDPR and California’s privacy law increasing the pressure for a national framework. Daniel Solove, a Georgetown Law professor, said the US is like the Rodney Dangerfield of privacy in that “we get often no respect from the rest of the world.” But he said he has little faith in Congress’ ability to pass a law.