Washington Post

A federal appeals court has said it will not rehear a landmark case looking to overturn the government’s rules on network neutrality. May 1's decision by the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit allows its previous ruling upholding the regulations to stand — and paves the way for opponents of the rules to appeal to the Supreme Court.

“I'm super excited,” said Daniel Berninger, one of the critics who in 2015 sued the Federal Communications Commission, which wrote the rules. “When we get to the Supreme Court, we want to be saying [to a largely conservative bench] this is a severe case of government overreach.” If the Supreme Court agrees to take the case, it could hear oral arguments spring 2018, said Berninger, who intends to file his appeal within 90 days.

For President Donald Trump, it is critical that Alex Jones and other backers in the conservative media continue to look on the bright side — and continue to tell the president's base to do the same.

Despite these reversals and shortcomings, Trump's base is standing by him. No single factor can fully explain loyalty, but positive spin in the conservative press is surely a big one. The message Trump voters have heard over and over is that their man deserves a long leash. So far, they seem willing to give him one. But things could change if commentators like Jones, Limbaugh and Hannity were to turn on Trump. The White House seems to understand the stakes.

An advocacy group known for challenging the tech industry on privacy called on the Federal Trade Commission Thursday to investigate media reports that Uber could identify specific iPhone devices even after users deleted the ride-hailing app. California-based Consumer Watchdog alleged that Uber’s practice would be considered “unfair or deceptive” to its users and therefore violates a statute in the Federal Trade Commission Act designed to protect consumers from substantial and avoidable harm.

The nonpartisan group also asked Acting Chairman Maureen Ohlhausen and Commissioner Terrell McSweeny to determine whether Uber engaged in similar tactics on Android devices and scrutinize whether the company is abiding by its own privacy policies. “They have a track record of not paying any attention to the rules. That’s why it’s important, no matter what they’ve done with Apple, for the FTC to act,” said John M. Simpson, Consumer Watchdog’s privacy project director.

[Commentary] For as long as the Internet has existed, it has been grounded on the principle of net neutrality — that what you read, see or watch online shouldn’t be favored, blocked or slowed down based on where that content is coming from.

Net neutrality means that cable companies can’t reserve the fastest Internet speeds for the biggest companies and leave everyone else in the slow lane. That’s what ensures a website for a local pizza place in rural Oregon or Minnesota loads as quickly as the website for Pizza Hut or Domino’s. Or why a social network built in a garage is available to the same people as Instagram or Twitter. That’s why it’s so alarming to see that the Federal Communications Commission, a federal agency that’s expected to help protect the Internet, is planning to roll back net neutrality rules. It’s amazing that President Donald Trump, having promised to stand up to the powerful on behalf of ordinary Americans, now has an FCC that gives the powerful what they ask for — even if it hurts consumers.

[Ron Wyden, a Democrat from Oregon, and Al Franken, a Democrat from Minnesota, are members of the U.S. Senate. Tom Wheeler was FCC chairman from 2013 to January.]

They've raised prices. They've slowed speeds. But despite their best efforts, the country's biggest cellphone carriers have been unable to kill off the unlimited data plan. Now they're discovering something else: Unlimited data is extremely popular. And it might just be the thing that saves them in an increasingly cutthroat market for wireless services.

After years of trying to shift customers to plans with monthly data caps, companies such as AT&T and Verizon have begun heaping praise on their newest unlimited data plans as consumers have flocked to them. The plans were once common in the industry. But telecom giants stopped selling them as consumer demand for data grew. Many unlimited customers found themselves signing onto metered plans when prices rose, or abandoning their unlimited plans after running into speed limits. Eventually, the number of those on grandfathered unlimited plans dwindled to a handful. In 2015, just 1 percent of Verizon's customers were on unlimited plans.

In his first public appearance since leaving the White House in January, former president Barack Obama told young leaders that "special interests dominate the debates in Washington" and that he had failed to realize his "aspirational" goal of uniting Americans in red and blue states. "That was an aspirational comment," the former president said of his famous 2004 Democratic National Convention speech, prompting laughter from the audience at the University of Chicago.

He added that when talking to individual Americans from different political backgrounds, you learn that "there’s a lot more that people have in common" than it would appear. "But, obviously, it’s not true when it comes to our politics and our civic life." Obama, who has kept a relatively low public profile since the end of his second term, did not mention President Trump once during the 90-minute event. But he said he was determined to galvanize younger Americans to do more politically because they were the ones best positioned to bridge the current political divide.

Verizon has launched a faster version of its FiOS Internet service that can reach download speeds of up to 940 Mbps per second. By taking the leap into “gigabit” service, Verizon is becoming the latest company to compete with Comcast, Google Fiber and others at that speed tier.

The product, known as FiOS Gigabit Connection, is available now in eight US markets on the east coast, including New York, New Jersey, Philadelphia (PA), Richmond (VA), Hampton Roads (VA), Boston (MA), Providence (RI), and Washington (DC). It costs $70 a month as a stand-alone product or $80 if purchased as part of a triple-play bundle, according to the company. Those prices are comparable to that of Google Fiber.

For President Donald Trump — a reality TV star who parlayed his blustery-yet-knowing on-air persona into a winning political brand — television is often the guiding force of his day, both weapon and scalpel, megaphone and news feed. And the president’s obsession with the tube — as a governing tool, a metric for staff evaluation, and a two-way conduit with lawmakers and aides — has upended the traditional rhythms of the White House, influencing many spheres, including policy, his burgeoning relationship with Congress, and whether he taps out a late-night or early-morning tweet. Those Trump tweet-storms, which contain some of his most controversial utterances, are usually prompted by something he has seen on television just moments before.

The president, advisers said, also uses details gleaned from cable news as a starting point for policy discussions or a request for more information, and appears on TV himself when he wants to appeal directly to the public.

[Commentary] For March 2017, we tallied 585 protests, demonstrations, marches, sit-ins and rallies in the United States, with at least one in every state and the District. Our conservative guess is that 79,389 to 89,585 people showed up at these political gatherings, although it is likely that there were far more participants. Because mainstream media often neglect to report nonviolent actions — especially small ones — it is probable that we did not record every event that occurred. This is particularly true of the “A Day Without a Woman” strikes on March 8. It’s virtually impossible to record an accurate tally of participants for strikes, in part because many people deliberately conceal their motivations for skipping out on work or school when they participate.

Nevertheless, we think our tally gives us a useful pool of information to better understand political mobilization in the United States — particularly how reports of crowds change from month to month. In this case, we note that March 2017 saw fewer people protesting than February 2017, during which we observed 233,021 to 373,089 people participating in crowds.

[Erica Chenoweth is a professor at the Josef Korbel School of International Studies at the University of Denver. David Prater is a program manager at the War Prevention Initiative. Jeremy Pressman is an associate professor of political science and director of Middle East Studies at the University of Connecticut. Ches Thurber is assistant professor of political science at Northern Illinois University. Stephen Zunes is a professor of politics and international studies at the University of San Francisco.]

Nathaniel Persily, a law professor at Stanford University, is among the many — academics, political practitioners, journalists, law enforcement officials and others — who are attempting to understand better the consequences of conducting campaigns and governance here and around the world in the Internet age.

He has written about this in a forthcoming issue of the Journal of Democracy in an article with a title that sums up his concerns: “Can Democracy Survive the Internet?” The provocative title isn’t simply the result of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, though that is obviously a front-and-center issue. “I think it’s the shiny object that everyone understandably pays attention to right now, but the problem is bigger than that,” Persily said. The campaign of 2016 highlighted the degree to which elections are carried out on terrain far different from when television and traditional print organizations were the dominant media.