The Federal Communications Commission has finally published new broadband maps after a protracted development process. The "pre-production draft" release, as the FCC describes it, promises much more accurate representations of fixed internet coverage across the US. Earlier maps would only show service at the census block level, sometimes ignoring large gaps in real-world connectivity. The new maps are accurate enough that you can search by address to see which carriers are available, including the maximum claimed speeds.

The updated maps could help would-be subscribers make more informed choices about broadband service, the FCC says. They'll also theoretically add "market pressures" to internet providers who may have considered an area served if just one home in a census block was connected. Now, they may be compelled to flesh out coverage in a town or neighborhood.

The data could also prove crucial to the federal government's funding strategy. The US has yet to portion out the $42.5 billion in broadband spending from President Biden's $1 trillion Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. With more accurate maps, officials can now make better-informed decisions about where that money goes. It may be particularly important for upgrading rural broadband, which has historically been inconsistently available and slow.

The FCC cautions that there's more work to be done. The draft status indicates that the mapping work is "far from over," according to the regulator. The agency warns that this may only be effective if there's constant input from everyone involved, ranging from customers through to local governments and companies. Poor updates will render the maps ineffective, in other words.

There are also questions surrounding long-term funding and policy. While the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law may help, there are no guarantees of further commitments in the years ahead. The broadband maps only promise to show where coverage falls short — it's up to politicians, regulators and companies to address any shortcomings.

Following two weeks of negotiations that felt doomed to go nowhere, the COP27 climate conference delivered a breakthrough deal to help developing nations cope with the often catastrophic effects of climate change. The Washington Post reports dignitaries agreed to create a “loss and damage fund” in the early hours of Sunday morning after two extra days of negotiations. The Alliance of Small Island States, an organization that includes countries whose very existence is threatened by climate change, called the agreement “historic.” However, as with the Glasgow Climate Pact that came out of last year’s COP26 conference, the consensus is that COP27 failed to deliver the action that is desperately needed to meet the demands of the current moment.

For one, the conference failed to see nations agree to new and stronger commitments to reduce their carbon emissions. According to The Post, China and Saudi Arabia were strongly against language calling for a phaseout of all fossil fuels, as were many African nations. Alok Sharma, the chair of COP26, said (via Phys.org) a clause on energy was "weakened, in the final minutes.”

The conference also left many of the most important details related to the loss and damage fund to be sorted out by a committee that will need to answer some difficult questions in the coming months. Among the issues that need to be decided on is how much the United States, historically the greatest emitter of greenhouse emissions globally, should pay out to vulnerable countries. The conference also ended without a clear commitment from China to pay into the fund.

The committee now has a year to draft recommendations for next year’s climate meeting in Dubai. UN Secretary-General António Guterres said governments took “an important step towards justice,” but fell short in pushing for the commitments that would ultimately protect the world’s most vulnerable people from the worst effects of climate change. "Our planet is still in the emergency room," Guterres said. "We need to drastically reduce emissions now and this is an issue this COP did not address."

A few weeks after he took over Twitter, Elon Musk has fulfilled one of his early promises for the platform by reinstating Donald Trump’s account. The former president, who is running for the White House for a third time, will once again be allowed to tweet. On Friday night, Musk tweeted a poll asking people to vote on whether Twitter should reinstate the former President, who recently just revealed that he's running for the country's highest office again in 2024. "Vox Populi, Vox Dei," the website's new owner said in a follow-up tweet. Twenty-four later, Musk has closed the poll and has announced that Trump will indeed be reinstated based on the results.

The option to reinstate the former President won with 51.8 percent of the 15,085,458 votes. While the poll was ongoing, Musk said that it was getting one million votes per hour.

Soon after Musk assumed control, he pledged to form a moderation council before reversing any permanent Twitter account bans. On November 18th, Musk reinstated a few accounts, including those belonging to Kathy Griffin and Jordan Peterson. At the time, he said no decision had been made about Trump.

Twitter booted Trump off the platform in early 2021 after he broke rules against inciting violence. He violated Twitter's civic integrity policy by expressing support for the mob that stormed the Capitol on January 6th last year. His account was initially suspendedfor 12 hours. A couple of days later, in his final days in office, Twitter permanently suspended Trump's personal account. Trump has been unable to use the platform since, despite his attempts to skirt the ban and a failed lawsuit that sought to have his access restored. It took Elon Musk to buy Twitter for Trump to get his account back.

Trump's return may be as much of a business decision on Musk's part as much as anything. Earlier this week, a Reuters report suggested that many of Twitter's heaviest users have moved away from the platform to the likes of Instagram and TikTok. Musk himself has noted that many of the most-followed Twitter accounts don't tweet often.

For better or worse, Trump is a prominent figure and his tweets commanded attention. Whether advertisers will be glad to see Trump back remains to be seen. Just ahead of officially assuming control of Twitter, Musk sought to soothe any concerns by stating that "Twitter obviously cannot become a free-for-all hellscape, where anything can be said with no consequences!”

In the wake of his actions surrounding January 6th, Meta blocked Trump's Facebook and Instagram accounts. As things stand, that suspension is set to expire on January 7th, 2023 — just as the 2024 election cycle gets into full swing. 

Since being deplatformed from major services, Trump has turned his attention to smaller social networks, including his own app, Truth Social. Trump had pledged that he wouldn't return to Twitter, but with 88 million followers there, he commanded an audience almost 22 times the size of the one he has on Truth Social (a platform that, for what it's worth, Musk has described as "essentially a right-wing echo chamber").

Twitter has gone through enormous changes since Musk took over the company. He has slashed the headcount by turfing out thousands of employees and contractors, as well as some dissenters. Several top executives are among those who've departed. Around 1,200 more are said to have left after refusing to commit to Musk's vision of a "hardcore" Twitter 2.0 that would require working "long hours at high intensity." Trump's return won't exactly help to steady the ship.

Mariella Moon contributed to this post.

Internet service providers (ISP) will soon have to be a lot more transparent with what their plans come with and how much they truly cost. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has introduced new rules that will require ISPs to display easy-to-read-and-understand labels that show key facts about their products at the point of sale. These labels will resemble the nutrition labels at the back of food products and should include, among other things, the price, speed, data allowances and other aspects of a company's wired and wireless internet services.

FCC

In a statement, FCC Chairperson Jessica Rosenworcel said that by requiring the companies to display their rates clearly, the agency is "seeking to end the kind of unexpected fees and junk costs that can get buried in long and mind-numbingly confusing statements of terms and conditions." As you can see in the FCC's example above, providers will have to itemize each one-time and monthly fee you'll have to pay.

The FCC will require providers to prominently display these labels on their main purchasing pages, and in close proximity to an associated plan advertisement. They can't be hidden behind multiple clicks and can't be camouflaged by other elements in the page that they'll likely be missed. The labels also need to be accessible from your customer account portal, and the provider must give you a copy when you ask. Further, the FCC is requiring the broadband companies to make the labels machine readable, so that third-party developers can easily create tools that would make it easier to compare ISPs.

The commission proposed rules for broadband labels back in January in response to the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act that President Biden signed into law last year. After the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act reviews and approves the FCC's requirements, ISPs will have six months (or a year, if they're a smaller company) to comply. 

President Joe Biden says that Elon Musk’s dealings with countries outside of the United States are “worthy of being looked at.” Speaking to reporters, Biden didn’t elaborate on if some kind of of investigation was underway, but suggested the Tesla and Twitter CEO deserved further scrutiny.

“I think that Elon musk’s cooperation and/or technical relationships with other countries is worthy of being looked at,” Biden said. “Whether or not he is doing anything inappropriate – I’m not suggesting that. I’m suggesting it’s worth being looked at, and that’s all I’ll say.”

It’s unclear exactly which of Musk’s relationships Biden was referring to, but he’s not the first official to raise Musk’s ties to other countries as a potential concern. Senator Chris Murphy has said the Committee on Foreign Investment in the US (CFIUS) should investigate the “national security implications” of Musk’s deal to buy the company. Murphy and others have pointed to major investments from Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

Other critics have noted that Tesla’s business dealings in China could make it difficult for Musk to make content decisions that affect the country, or that government officials could pressure him to turn over data. The Washington Postreported in June that “some U.S. intelligence analysts and White House officials are among those concerned about the potential for arm-twisting by China if Musk gets hold of Twitter.”

Musk was also widely criticized for tweets suggesting that “the will of the people” should decide whether parts of Ukraine taken over by Russia should become part of Russia. He later threatened to stop paying for Starlink internet for the Ukrainian government, but later walked back the comments.

As recently as October 24th, Ukraine’s military suffered a partial internet outage after 1,300 Starlink terminals went offline due to a funding shortage, reports CNN. The blackout occurred amid ongoing talks between SpaceX and the Department of Defense that continue despite Elon Musk having said his company would continue to foot the bill for the country’s Starlink usage.

“Negotiations are very much underway. Everyone in our building knows we’re going to pay them,” a senior Pentagon official told the network, adding that the Defense Department wants to get something in writing “because we worry he’ll change his mind.”

In September, SpaceX sent a letter to the Pentagon, asking the Defense Department to take over paying expenses related to Ukraine’s usage of its Starlink internet service. On October 15th, following public outcry, Musk appeared to backtrack on the decision to ask the US government for assistance. “To hell with it… we’ll just keep funding Ukraine govt for free,” Musk tweeted, later telling The Financial Times the company would do so “indefinitely.”

According to CNN, last month’s outage was a “huge problem” for Ukraine’s military. In March, the country purchased the 1,300 terminals from a British company. SpaceX reportedly charged Ukraine $2,500 per month to keep each unit operational. The country eventually couldn’t afford to pay the $3.25 million monthly bill anymore and asked for financial aid from the British Ministry of Defence. After some discussion, the two agreed to prioritize other military expenses.

“We support a number of terminals that have a direct tactical utility for Ukraine’s military in repelling Russia’s invasion,” a British official told CNN. “We consider and prioritize all new requests in terms of the impact contributions would have in supporting Ukraine to defend its people against Putin’s deplorable invasion.”

Should SpaceX and the US Department of Defense eventually sign an agreement, it’s unclear if the Pentagon will have greater control over Starlink service in Ukraine. The company currently decides where Ukrainian troops can use the terminals.

Twitter’s top safety executive says election integrity is a “top priority” for the company even as the company has shed half of its staff in the last 24 hours. Yoel Roth, Twitter’s head of safety and one of the company leaders to survive mass layoffs, took to Twitter to downplay moderation concerns raised by activists and advertisers in recent days.

“Yesterday’s reduction in force affected approximately 15% of our Trust & Safety organization (as opposed to approximately 50% cuts company-wide), with our front-line moderation staff experiencing the least impact,” Roth tweeted. “With early voting underway in the US, our efforts on election integrity — including harmful misinformation that can suppress the vote and combatting state-backed information operations — remain a top priority.”

Roth’s comments come hours after the NAACP joined a coalition of activists and civil rights organizations to call for advertisers to suspend spending with Twitter. While Musk met with civil rights leaders earlier this week, those calling for a boycott said the company’s deep staff cuts undermined his promise to maintain Twitter’s election protection policies and its hate speech rules.

Roth, who is so far the only Twitter executive besides Musk to publicly weigh in on the company’s policies following Musk’s takeover, also tried to address reports about the impact staff cuts would have on safety.

“Last week, for security reasons, we restricted access to our internal tools for some users, including some members of my team,” he said. “Most of the 2,000+ content moderators working on front-line review were not impacted, and access will be fully restored in the coming days.” But while much of Roth’s Trust and Safety team may have been spared, numerous other teams whose work touches on safety issues were not.

As NBC News reported, Twitter’s curation team, which worked to counter misinformation on the platform, was axed entirely. Many engineering roles that deal with safety issues were also cut, as were numerous workers in policy and communications.

On Friday, Musk said that the layoffs were necessary. “Regarding Twitter’s reduction in force, unfortunately there is no choice when the company is losing over $4M/day,” he tweeted, adding that employees were offered three months of severance. “Again, to be crystal clear, Twitter’s strong commitment to content moderation remains absolutely unchanged.”

As Elon Musk looks for new ways to make money from Twitter’s he’s facing a much more urgent problem: advertisers are fleeing the platform. Musk said Friday that “Twitter has had a massive drop in revenue” due to advertisers’ concerns about content moderation and other issues raised by activists.

A number of major companies have paused ads in recent days, including GM, Audi, Pfizer, General Mills, Volkswagen and other big names who are wary of potential changes to Twitter’s policies as well as the departure of top executives. Industry groups have also expressed concern about brand safety under Musk, and The New York Times reported this week that “IPG, one of the world’s largest advertising companies, issued a recommendation … for clients to temporarily pause their spending on Twitter.”

On Friday, the NAACP joined other civil rights groups in calling for an advertiser boycott of the platform. “It is immoral, dangerous, and highly destructive to our democracy for any advertiser to fund a platform that fuels hate speech, election denialism and conspiracy theories,” NAACP President Derrick Johnson said in a statement.

Advertisers' pullback amid calls for an ad boycott show just how quickly Twitter’s ad business has deteriorated under Musk. It also comes barely a week after Musk tried to reassure the industry he didn’t want to turn the platform into a “free-for-all hellscape.” Twitter saw a significant spike in hate speech and racial slurs immediately following the news of Musk’s take over of the company. Twitter’s head of safety later blamed the activity on a coordinated trolling campaign. But the activity further fueled the concerns of civil rights groups, prompting Musk to meet with civil rights leaders this week.

On Friday he seemed to blame the drop in ad revenue on many of the same activists. “Twitter has had a massive drop in revenue, due to activist groups pressuring advertisers, even though nothing has changed with content moderation and we did everything we could to appease the activists,” he tweeted.

But a coalition of civil rights groups and activists rejected Musk’s characterization. During a call with reporters on Friday, they said that Musk’s mass layoffs of Twitter staff, including people who work in moderation and safety, undermine the commitments he made following their meeting.

“When you lay off almost 50% of your staff, including teams that are in charge of actually tracking, monitoring and enforcing content moderation rules, that necessarily means that content moderation has changed,” said Jessica González, co-CEO of Free Press.

The group also raised concerns about Musk's amplification of far-right conspiracies regarding the attack on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's husband; it also cited reports the now-CEO could chip away at current Twitter rules protecting trans users. "If Twitter does not take immediate concrete actions that illustrate a true commitment to maintaining best practices that protect users that companies then companies will not support with ad dollars and we're seeing it happen in real time,” said GLAAD CEO Sarah Ellis.

Twitter isn't about to rush into big content policy changes now that Elon Musk owns the company. Musk has announced that the social network will form a moderation council with members holding "widely diverse viewpoints." There won't be any "major" content decisions or ban reversals until that council meets, the entrepreneur says.

Musk hasn't named council members or provided a timeline for the council's creation. We've asked Twitter if it can comment on the strategy or provide additional details, and we'll let you know if we hear more.

The Tesla chief has vowed to make substantial changes to Twitter's moderation policy, such as relaxing the overall rules and limiting permanent bans on people like Donald Trump. However, the council plans suggest Musk could take some time to implement a new approach, and may delegate at least some of the responsibility. He recently tried to reassure advertisers that Twitter won't become a "free-for-all hellscape" where ads run alongside horrific posts.

This isn't to say Musk is avoiding all swift decisions. He has already fired multiple executives, including policy head Vijaya Gadde. Musk reportedly informed rank-and-file staff that he won't lay off as many people as feared, but he's still expected to cut jobs in relatively short order. Tesla engineers are believed to be helping with a code review that could lead to technical revisions.

If and when the council arrives, critics will be watching it closely. Conservatives have long accused Twitter of silencing right-wing viewpoints, and have gone so far as to enact state laws that force social networks to carry more content. Others, however, have rejected the claims and contended that strong moderation is necessary to prevent hate speech and misinformation from gaining traction. A moderation panel theoretically addresses both sides of the debate, but its effectiveness is far from established at this stage.

European lawmakers have gotten the EU's 27 member states to agree to a plan that effectively bans the sale of gas-powered cars and vans by 2035. They've come to an agreement to approve the Commission's revised reduction targets for passenger cars' and light vehicles' carbon dioxide emissions. The Commission's proposal, which European lawmakers had voted in favor of back in June, aims to reduce the emissions produced by new vehicles in those categories by 100 percent in 13 years' time. That wouldn't be achievable without stopping the sale of gas-powered vehicles and selling zero-emission models only. 

European Parliament's lead negotiator Jan Huitema said:

"[P]urchasing and driving zero-emission cars will become cheaper for consumers. I am pleased that today we reached an agreement with the Council on an ambitious revision of the targets for 2030 and supported a 100% target for 2035. This is crucial to reach climate neutrality by 2050 and make clean driving more affordable."

Under the deal, new cars from 2030 must also comply with a 55 percent cut on carbon dioxide emissions compared to 2021 levels. Vans must comply with a 50 percent cut. In addition, the agreement states that existing EU funding should be spent on transitioning to zero-emission vehicles and related technologies going forward. The Commission also vows to publish a report every two years detailing the region's progress towards zero-emission road mobility starting in 2025.

The European Parliament and Council will still have to approve the agreement before it becomes official, and changes could be introduced before then. According to Reuters, the EU intends to draft a proposal on how to sell cars running on carbon dioxide-neutral fuels after 2035. That said, automakers have been preparing for the shift to zero-emission vehicles for a while now, as governments around the world adopt laws to combat climate change. The list of carmakers pledging to go fully electric over the coming years continue to grow: Ford, for instance, announced last year that its consumer vehicles will be fully electric by 2030, while GM aims to eliminate emissions from all its new "light-duty vehicles" by 2035.