Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai said that the controversy over the dismantling of federal network neutrality rules is distracting from "the issue of our time" - universal internet access. Chairman Pai dubbed criticism of the administration's position on net neutrality as politically charged "apocalyptic rhetoric." "That kind of misinformation is very pernicious and damaging to a core understanding of what's actually going on here," Chairman Pai said. "It's a complete distraction from the issue of our time."

Chairman Pai said that "we weren't living in an internet hellscape" prior to the Obama administration's net neutrality rules. He argued some implementations of prioritizing one website over another is not a bad thing, using an emergency scenario or telemedicine operations as examples.  "We can't say for all time in the abstract that every single one of these arrangements is bad," he said. Chairman Pai said he is more concerned with "leaving millions of Americans on the wrong side of the digital divide" when it comes to broadband access, particularly in rural areas.  "Everyone who wants it should have internet," he said. "I wish we could focus on what we could all agree on." 

Common Cause and Public Knowledge have told the Federal Communications Commission that its shift to a progress-based assessment of broadband deployment is wrong and needs correcting ASAP. The degree to which the FCC concludes it is not being deployed per a congressional mandate is the degree to which it can regulate Internet service providers to ensure that happens. Under previous chiefly Democratic FCCs, Congress' mandate that the FCC ensure that advanced telecom be deployed to "all Americans" in a reasonable and timely fashion was found not to have been met because all Americans did not have access to it. Under current FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, that mandate was interpreted to be ensuring that progress toward that goal was reasonable and timely, not that the goal was unmet while any American did not currently have the service.

Common Cause and Public Knowledge in a joint filing, said the FCC had it right under former FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, and that the new interpretation "is incorrect and misguided, and the Commission must not continue to base broadband measurements off of it."  "The Commission’s interpretation is circular reasoning," they argue, because "it measures the adequacy of deployment based on existing uses, which are the product of existing deployment, therefore deployment is always timely, since consumers are always using it." They also said Congress has made it clear that deployment to all Americans means just that, all Americans. The groups also argue that the FCC overstates deployment based on incomplete and inaccurate data, that mobile broadband and fixed satellite service should not be counted as advanced broadband deployment, and that the FCC's current 25 Mbps downstream benchmark definition for advanced telecom should be upped to 100 Mbps. "Rather than pat itself on the back again by using a flawed methodology to wrongly conclude broadband is being deployed timely, the FCC should conduct an open and honest assessment on who has access to broadband," said Michael Copps, special advisor to Common Cause and former FCC chairman.

The Federal Communications Commission is failing to, in a reasonable and timely manner, account for the extent to which unserved areas are getting broadband. That was a key takeaway from NCTA-The Internet & Television Association's comments to the FCC on whether advanced telecommunications is being provided in a reasonable and timely manner, as Congress has directed it to ensure. If the FCC concludes that advanced telecom is not being deployed in a reasonable and timely fashion, it allows the FCC to regulate to make that happen.

NCTA says that undercounting is because of the "significant lag time" between data collection and release, and the "resulting understatement" of deployment levels. For example, the FCC recently released data from June 2017, it points out, while providers have already reported data as of June 2018. Then there is the issue of areas the FCC still views as unserved but where it has already allotted federal funding. The trade group also said the FCC should retain its 25 Mbps downstream/3 Mbps upstream benchmark for advanced telecommunications, but not rule out lower speeds, which can provide "important" capabilities including doing homework, applying for jobs and streaming video. The lower the acceptable speed, the higher the deployment figure. NCTA also put in a plug for including mobile broadband availability in making the determination.

As the Communications Workers of America’s representative on the Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee’s Model Code for Municipalities Working Group, I filed a letter on September 18, 2018, to express concern with the Federal Communications Commission’s draft order on streamlining wireless infrastructure deployment, which will be considered at the FCC's September 26, 2018 Open Meeting. The draft order is inconsistent with recommendations from the Model Code for Municipalities Working Group and is an overreach of federal authority. The draft order restricts the power and authority of local governments, curbs the efforts of local governments to close the digital divide and undercuts the BDAC process by ignoring the views of critical stakeholders.

Consumer privacy advocates are less than thrilled that Senate Commerce Committee leaders declined to invite them to an upcoming hearing on data privacy. 28 privacy groups wrote to Commerce Commerce Chairman John Thune (R-SD) and Ranking Member Bill Nelson (D-FL) that they "do not understand why the Committee has chosen to exclude the voice of consumers." They called on the senators to invite them or hold additional hearings with them. “We don’t believe the country will hear the ‘real story’ on how companies like Google are working to further erode privacy in the US and what should be done about it,” said Center for Digital Democracy Executive Director Jeff Chester. “A second hearing would be far less impactful than have privacy groups at the same table,” said Nathan White, senior legislative manager for AccessNow. In a separate letter, AccessNow issued its own privacy recommendations. While the group calls for some of the same guidelines tech trade groups favor — data breach notification, data portability between platforms — it also seeks more aggressive measures, such as “pursuing the development of an independent data protection commission with authority over implementation of the law as well as ability to conduct investigations and issue sanctions.”

AT&T asked an appeals court to reject the Justice Department’s challenge of a federal judge’s decision approving its $85 billion merger with Time Warner. The telecom company, which closed the merger in June, responded to the Justice Department’s appeal, arguing that prosecutors failed to prove during trial that the deal would hurt competition and raise prices for consumers. “In the crucible of litigation, DOJ’s claims were exposed as both narrow and fragile,” AT&T wrote in its filing on Sept 20.  "We were pleased to respond to the government's opening brief and look forward to oral argument,” said David McAtee, AT&T’s general counsel. 

In the opening paragraphs of the brief, AT&T reminded the court that Donald Trump said during his campaign that he would block the merger and that he didn't like one of its networks -- CNN. AT&T wrote, "[M]any press outlets [questioned] whether the White House had improperly influenced DOJ's decision to bring the case," and that by throwing out discovery on that question, Judge Leon limited "the trial to the fundamental question of whether DOJ had met its burden to prove that the proposed combination violated" antitrust rules. A footnote in that section of the brief includes a press release from Trump's campaign that said "AT&T ... is now trying to buy Time Warner and thus the wildly anti-Trump CNN. Donald Trump would never approve such a deal."

The White House has “authorized offensive cyber operations” against US adversaries, in line with a new policy that eases the rules on the use of digital weapons to protect the nation, said National Security Adviser John Bolton. “Our hands are not tied as they were in the Obama administration,” Bolton said when unveiling a new national cyber strategy. He did not elaborate on the nature of the offensive operations or what specific malign behavior they were intended to counter. The Trump administration remains focused on foreign governments’ attempts to target US networks as well as potentially interfere in Nov’s election. The strategy incorporates a new presidential directive that replaced one from the Obama administration, said Bolton. The new national security presidential memorandum, NSPM 13, allows the military and other agencies to undertake cyber operations to protect their systems and the nation’s critical networks from attacks from hostile foreign adversaries. Bolton said the Administration was committed to preserving "the long-term openness, interoperability and security and reliability of the internet."