Google is on the long list of things I took for granted prior to prison. Before I was incarcerated in 2014, I used Google often, relying on the search engine to satisfy my random curiosities. When that access was suddenly cut off, I began depending on others to answer my burning questions. Prison is isolating by design, and even things like obituaries are cruelly out of reach. Prisoners' Google requests reflect the whole spectrum of ups and downs you live through in prison. I’ve asked people to Google how to handle grief, how to train for a half-marathon, and how to crochet a stuffed unicorn. I’ve asked for help finding pen pals, and for lists of motivational quotes to help me keep going. At the end of nine and a half years in prison, I’ve worn out my Google requests. About a year ago, my friend Ashley, who I’ve known for more than a decade, got so annoyed with my constant stream of questions that she told me I couldn’t come to her with any more “one-minute asks.” For a while after she put up her boundary, there was a noticeable rift in our relationship. She felt I had started treating her differently, but really I just felt guilty. It reminded me of how much of a burden I had become on those I love.When I ask people on the outside what I should be ready for as I prepare to go out into a world filled with new technology that’s hard for me to even grasp, the only thing they can think to say is “Everything is different.” Just as suddenly as I was forced to disconnect, I’ll be forced to reconnect. When I do, I know I’ll turn to the search engine to figure out how to build a successful writing career, how to not self-sabotage, and how to apply all the knowledge I’ve gained in prison in my new life.

[Heather C. Jarvis is a system-impacted writer, speaker, and advocate. Recently released from prison, she is currently rebuilding her life from the ground up.]

Growth, equity, education, workforce opportunities, access to government services, and sustainability. Each of these values—and many of the actions that can be taken to achieve them—can be enhanced by equitable access to high-speed internet, and a population equipped with the digital skills to productively use computers and the internet. With these values in mind, the District of Columbia's State Broadband and Digital Equity Office released its draft State Digital Equity Plan for public comment. The DC State Broadband and Digital Equity Office (SBDEO) is working toward a vision for DC in which every resident, every business, in every corner of DC can live, work, and thrive in the digital age—without bias or barriers. To realize this vision, the DC SBDEO works to ensure that every DC resident and business has access to affordable, high-speed internet in their homes, and in their local community anchor institutions (CAIs). SBDEO also works to ensure that every DC resident has the skills to effectively use internet access devices, and to be both productive and safe online. SBDEO works to enable residents to gain this connectivity and these skills, both in their daily life journeys, and in their journeys over time.

The Federal Communications Commission's Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (Bureau) granted eight 900 MHz broadband segment license applications to PDV Spectrum Holding Company in Polk County (GA), Racine and Eau Claire Counties (WI), and Dakota, Scott, Sherburne, Wright, and Anoka Counties (MN). PDV is a wholly owned subsidiary of Anterix, the largest holder of 900 MHz spectrum nationwide, has been courting utilities that are interested in the spectrum for private LTE as they look to modernize and future-proof critical power grid infrastructure. On May 13, 2020, the FCC realigned the 900 MHz band to make available six megahertz of low-band spectrum for the development of critical wireless broadband technologies and services, while reserving the remaining four megahertz of spectrum for continued narrowband operations. The Bureau now finds these 900 MHz broadband segment applications to be complete and in conformance with the FCC’s rules. The Bureau finds that granting the applications for the 900 MHz broadband segment licenses serves the public interest, convenience, and necessity. 

These Merger Guidelines identify the procedures and enforcement practices the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission most often use to investigate whether mergers violate the antitrust laws. The Merger Guidelines set forth several different analytical frameworks to assist the Agencies in assessing whether a merger presents sufficient risk to warrant an enforcement action. These frameworks account for industry-specific market realities and use a variety of indicators and tools, ranging from market structure to direct evidence of the effect on competition, to examine whether the proposed merger may harm competition. 

• Guideline 1: Mergers Raise a Presumption of Illegality When They Significantly Increase Concentration in a Highly Concentrated Market.
• Guideline 2: Mergers Can Violate the Law When They Eliminate Substantial Competition Between Firms. 
• Guideline 3: Mergers Can Violate the Law When They Increase the Risk of Coordination. 
• Guideline 4: Mergers Can Violate the Law When They Eliminate a Potential Entrant in a Concentrated Market.
• Guideline 5: Mergers Can Violate the Law When They Create a Firm That May Limit Access to Products or Services That Its Rivals Use to Compete. 
• Guideline 6: Mergers Can Violate the Law When They Entrench or Extend a Dominant Position. 
• Guideline 7: When an Industry Undergoes a Trend Toward Consolidation, the Agencies Consider Whether It Increases the Risk a Merger May Substantially Lessen Competition or Tend to Create a Monopoly. 
• Guideline 8: When a Merger is Part of a Series of Multiple Acquisitions, the Agencies May Examine the Whole Series.
• Guideline 9: When a Merger Involves a Multi-Sided Platform, the Agencies Examine Competition Between Platforms, on a Platform, or to Displace a Platform. 
• Guideline 10: When a Merger Involves Competing Buyers, the Agencies Examine Whether It May Substantially Lessen Competition for Workers, Creators, Suppliers, or Other Providers. 
• Guideline 11: When an Acquisition Involves Partial Ownership or Minority Interests, the Agencies Examine Its Impact on Competition. 

A middle road for AI adoption is taking shape, routing around the debate between those who fear humanity could lose control of AI and those who favor a full-speed-ahead plan to seize the technology's benefits. Those who think trust in AI will remain low without a cautious and practical approach to AI development now include America's biggest banks and philanthropists, the White House, labor unions and a new class of niche venture capitalists. Advocates who see a middle ground with AI are moving more pragmatically and methodically than those at the extremes of the AI debate. They're focused on building evidence for their vision and raising funds from outside the biggest tech companies and venture capital firms — which takes more time than writing an open letter or blog post, or tapping existing investors for another round of funding.

Masheika Allgood and Alexander Tsado left their 2020 meeting with Nvidia Corp. Chief Executive Officer Jensen Huang feeling frustrated. The pair had spent a year working with colleagues from across the company on a presentation meant to warn Huang of the potential dangers that artificial intelligence technology posed, especially to minorities. The 22-slide deck and other documents pointed to Nvidia’s growing role in shaping the future of AI and warned that increased regulatory scrutiny was inevitable. The discussion included instances of bias in facial-recognition technologies used by the industry to power self-driving cars. Their aim was to find a way to confront the potentially perilous unintended consequences of AI head-on — ramifications that would likely be first felt by marginalized communities. Both employees left the company shortly after the meeting, with Allgood referring to the meeting as “the single most devastating 45 minutes of my professional life” in a LinkedIn post. While Allgood and Tsado have departed, the concerns they raised about making AI safe and inclusive still hang over the company, and the AI industry at large. Nvidia has one of the poorest records among big tech companies when it comes to Black and Hispanic representation in its workforce, and one of its generative AI products came under criticism for its failure to account for people of color.

Consolidated Communications filed a letter to shareholders, asking them to vote for the company’s proposed acquisition by Searchlight Capital Partners and British Columbia Investment Management Corporation (BCI). The letter, written by Consolidated’s board of directors, warned that if Consolidated remains a standalone company, it will be unable to fund its future fiber builds at “the pace necessary to remain competitive and continue to grow.” Specifically, Consolidated “will be forced to significantly slow the pace of [its] upgrade to roughly 45,000-75,000 passings per year,” compared to its average of more than 300,000 annual passings from 2021 to 2023. Searchlight and BCI first proposed to acquire the company in April 2023. In October, Consolidated announced it will move forward with the transaction, which is valued at $3.1 billion and includes assumption of the company’s debt.