Upcoming policy issue

Colorado's official broadband map does not paint an accurate picture of internet access for Tribal communities according to leaders.

A large coalition of industry groups and public interest lobbyists are pushing Congress to invest in “future-proof” high-speed fiber networks in a battle over how to divvy up the $65 billion proposed to expand broadband internet service. The spending is included in an infrastructure package tentatively agreed to by a bipartisan group of senators and President Joe Biden.

Although Republicans recoiled when President Biden unveiled his sweeping infrastructure plan in March, a bipartisan group of senators has thrown its support behind one of the less conventional ideas in the package: making a massive investment in broadband networks. But as crucial as these networks are to the 21st century economy, it’s not just the amount Congress spends that matters.

Nearly one-fourth of American households lack broadband access. A water main breaks every two minutes. With child-care costs soaring, more than 1 million workers—largely women—have been driven out of the economy, even as the economy reopens. Are Democrats ready to act? That is the critical question as Congress returns from its holiday break. While President Biden is selling the bipartisan infrastructure deal as a “generational investment,” the real effort will come from using the budget reconciliation process to pass vitally needed public investments with Democratic votes only.

Congress is about to make critical decisions about the future of internet access and speed in the United States. It has a potentially once-in-a-lifetime amount of funding to spend on broadband infrastructure, and at the heart of this debate is the minimum speed requirement for taxpayer-funded internet. It’s easy to get overwhelmed by the granularity of this debate, but ultimately it boils down to this: cable companies want a definition that requires them to do and give less, one that will not meet our needs in the future.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch on said the Supreme Court should revisit the breadth of the landmark First Amendment decision in New York Times v. Sullivan and explore how it applies to social media and technology companies.

Reps Elaine Luria (D-VA) and John Katko (R-NY) introduced the Ensuring Phone and Internet Access for SNAP Recipients Act of 2021 (H.R.4275). This bipartisan bill would lower the cost of phone and internet access for households that benefit from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). SNAP recipients automatically qualify for the Federal Communications Commission’s Lifeline Program, which offers discounted phone and internet service.

Over the past four or five years, scholars, politicians, and public advocates have begun to push a new idea of what antitrust policy should be, arguing that we need to move away from a narrow focus on consumer welfare—which in practice has usually meant a focus on prices—toward consideration of a much wider range of possible harms from companies’ exercise of market power: damage to suppliers, workers, competitors, customer choice, and even the political system as a whole.

Democratic members of the House of Representatives have attacked a package of measures being promoted by members of the House Antitrust Subcommittee, as opposition builds to radical proposals that some hope could lead to the break-up of Big Tech. The rift shows how difficult it will be to enact a big shake-up of US antitrust laws, even as President Joe Biden considers signing his own executive order to strengthen regulators’ powers to promote competition in their sectors.

Congress is poised to move forward with a series of sweeping bills meant to rein in big tech companies. In the process, it's creating new questions about the future of the digital economy. That massive tech companies should be regulated more heavily is a rare point of bipartisan agreement in Washington; the push comes as existing antitrust laws are also being tested against several of the biggest companies in ongoing court battles.