The Federal Communications Commission released updated data on fixed broadband deployment and mobile voice and broadband deployment as of June 30, 2017. These data were collected through FCC Form 477 and are available on the Commission’s website. Fixed Deployment Data are available at https://www.fcc.gov/general/broadbanddeployment-data-fcc-form-477 and Mobile Deployment Data are available at https://www.fcc.gov/mobile-deployment-form-477-data.

The June 30, 2017 fixed broadband and mobile deployment data includes any revisions made by filers through June 14, 2018. For data on fixed broadband deployment, users can download data on the census blocks where providers report offering fixed broadband services to at least part of the block. These data tables also indicate the technology used to offer the service and the maximum advertised download and upload speeds for both consumer and business fixed broadband services. The data are available in CSV (comma delimited) format for both the entire United States and for individual states. For data on mobile deployments, users can download coverage area shapefiles indicating mobile voice and broadband network deployment for each combination of provider and network technology, as well as separate CSV files depicting mobile coverage resulting from two different coverage analyses: centroid and actual area.

A court ruling that limits state regulation of cable company offerings was praised by Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai, who says the ruling supports his contention that the FCC can preempt state-level network neutrality rules. The new court ruling found that Minnesota's state government cannot regulate VoIP phone services offered by Charter and other cable companies because VoIP is an "information service" under federal law. Chairman Pai argues that the case is consistent with the FCC's attempt to preempt state-level net neutrality rules, in which the commission reclassified broadband as a Title I information service instead of a Title II telecommunications service.

The ruling won't necessarily have an impact on the net neutrality case, in which Chairman Pai is defending the repeal and preemption of state laws against dozens of litigants including more than 20 state attorneys general. The net neutrality case is being handled by the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, so it will be decided by different judges. The details are also different in the net neutrality case, said attorney Andrew Schwartzman, who represents the Benton Foundation in the case against the FCC. In the net neutrality case, "the Pai FCC definitively said that it has no jurisdiction under either Title I or Title II [of the Communications Act] to regulate broadband Internet access service," Schwartzman said. "As the governmental parties explained at pp. 39-56 their brief, when an agency lacks authority to regulate, it also lacks authority to preempt." The VoIP case also differs from the net neutrality case in that there was "no FCC decision at issue" because "the FCC has repeatedly refused to decide what regulatory classification... should be applied to VoIP," Schwartzman said. "Thus, it was left to the court to consider the question in a case between the state and Charter."

In what is likely a first in the industry, Vizio is on the verge of agreeing to display a class-action lawsuit message through its previously sold "Smart TV" televisions as part of a legal settlement. This message is meant to alert customers who bought the TV that they will be party to the forthcoming settlement and likely will get a small amount of money. The manufacturer has been under scrutiny since a 2015 revelation that it was snooping on its customers. The tracking started in February 2014 on both new TVs and previously sold devices that didn't originally ship with ACR software installed. The software periodically appended IP addresses to the collected data and also made it possible for more detailed personal information—including age, sex, income, marital status, household size, education level, home ownership, and home values—to be associated.

In a recent court filing, lawyers for both sides asked the judge to push back approval of the preliminary settlement to October 3. "The Parties are developing a class notice program with direct notification to the class through VIZIO Smart TV displays, which requires testing to make sure any TV notice can be properly displayed and functions as intended," they wrote. "The additional time requested will allow the parties to confirm that the notice program proposed in the motion for preliminary approval is workable and satisfies applicable legal standards."

President Donald Trump’s trustbusters don’t take no for an answer. After a federal judge rejected their lawsuit to stop AT&T from acquiring Time Warner, the Justice Department decided to appeal. Their efforts to stop the deal are a contrast to the administration’s generally friendly approach to big business; it is now preparing to approve tie-ups between CVS Health and Aetna, and between Cigna and Express Scripts Holding Co. Critics think the Justice Department is doing the bidding of President Trump by punishing Time Warner for the reporting of its news channel, CNN. A more generous theory is, it is testing the frontiers of consumer protection.

Which theory prevails will depend in part on how the Justice Department handles a different merger: the pending tie-up between T-Mobile and Sprint, the number three and four wireless carriers, respectively. Both mergers require tricky judgments about the evolution of technology and media consumption habits. Nonetheless, the legal and economic case against T-Mobile/Sprint is far stronger than against AT&T/Time Warner. If the Justice Department waves through the deal—which the companies hope to complete in the first half of 2019—the agency will raise questions about its political independence and fealty to antitrust principles. There is no guarantee that if the Trump Justice Department sues to block T-Mobile Sprint, it will succeed. But without even trying, the Justice Department would rightly raise questions about why it is so much more determined to undo AT&T/Time Warner.

About two-thirds of American adults (68%) say they at least occasionally get news on social media, about the same share as at this time in 2017, according to a new Pew Research Center survey. Many of these consumers, however, are skeptical of the information they see there: A majority (57%) say they expect the news they see on social media to be largely inaccurate. Still, most social media news consumers say getting news this way has made little difference in their understanding of current events, and more say it has helped than confused them (36% compared with 15%).

Republicans are more negative about the news they see on social media than Democrats. Among Republican social media news consumers, 72% say they expect the news they see there to be inaccurate, compared with 46% of Democrats and 52% of independents. And while 42% of those Democrats who get news on social media say it has helped their understanding of current events, fewer Republicans (24%) say the same. Even among those Americans who say they prefer to get news on social media over other platforms (such as print, TV or radio), a substantial portion (42%) express this skepticism. Asked what they like about the news experience on social media, more Americans mention ease of use than content. “Convenience” is by far the most commonly mentioned benefit, (21%), while 8% say they most enjoy the interactions with other people. Fewer social media news consumers say they most like the diversity of the sources available (3%), or the ability to tailor the content they see (2%).

Sara Spangelo is the CEO of a young start-up called Swarm Technologies. Swarm had secured a spot on an Indian rocket for its product: a set of four small satellites nicknamed Spacebees. The Spacebees are prototypes for Swarm’s ambitious plan to provide internet access to areas without it. When the satellites successfully made it into orbit, Spangelo felt “super relieved and excited,” she says. Two months later, Spangelo received a curt email from the Federal Communications Commission. The FCC, the message said, wouldn’t review any of Swarm’s applications for future satellite launches until officials figured out what had happened with this one. The agency, it turned out, had denied Swarm’s request to launch the Spacebees in 2017. Swarm did it anyway. As far as anyone can remember, the launch of the Spacebees marked the first time a US company had sent a commercial satellite into orbit without permission from federal regulators.

It’s not clear whether the inquiry will result in disciplinary action against Swarm, and it’s even less clear what the nature of that would be. The agency is in uncharted regulatory territory. A penalty would send a clear message to other commercial-satellite providers, and might result in more stringent application rules down the line. Not issuing a penalty could risk the rise of a nightmare scenario in low-Earth orbit, in which private companies disregard federal regulators.