×
The war on ‘woke science’ comes for space researchThe Trump administration is waging a culture war on science, and the latest salvo is in the form of a dry, bureaucratic proposal from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) that could threaten the future of US science as we know it.The proposal would give political appointees unprecedented control over grant funding, the method through which scientists receive federal money to perform groundbreaking space research such as the search for evidence of organic compounds on Mars or the discovery of some of the earliest galaxies in the universe.A typical proposed rule from the OMB garners less than 100 public comments. This rule has netted over 500,000 comments, the large majority of which appear to be negative, including a response from respected nonprofit The Planetary Society, which has criticized everything from the proposal’s rules around publication to its move away from peer review to its chilling effect on scientists in every field.“Nearly every proposed aspect of these rule changes has some deleterious or negative consequence for the practice of science,” Casey Dreier, chief of space policy at The Planetary Society, tells The Verge.“There’s concrete harm, even if you’re not a scientist,” he points out. The biggest obstacle is the restrictions on the funding of open-access publication, which is the method through which space science papers are made freely available to the public.“There’s concrete harm, even if you’re not a scientist.”— Casey Dreier, chief of space policy at The Planetary SocietyFor more than a decade, NASA has prided itself on making public the data collected with NASA instruments, as well as the science papers that come from studying that data. The new changes reverse that trend, making science data more difficult for everyone to access. Forbidding the use of grant funding for open-access publication means it’ll be harder for the public to see the research that their tax money helped fund.“There’s no really good argument for that, unless you’re trying to use it as a means of control over the scientists themselves,” Dreier says.Then there’s the ability to terminate grants because of the associations or political leanings of the scientists themselves. Consider the data collected by the Mars rovers — precious data that cost billions of dollars and took decades of expertise to acquire — and a scientist, who doesn’t even work for NASA directly, who wants to study that data and has a novel idea for research that their fellow scientists think is worthwhile and important. Hypothetically, the new regulations would allow a partisan non-expert employed by the White House to nix that scientist’s funding because they posted an anti-Trump meme on X years ago.It gets worse. “You don’t even have to be in violation of a rule” to have your funding cut, Dreier says. Grants can be revoked at any time, for any reason, if they are deemed against the interests of the president’s whims: “There’s a capriciousness that is enabled by these changes, and an opacity of the decision process.”The problems with the regulations are not just ideological. They largely impose a bureaucratic burden: Is any scientist going to want to set up an international partnership, or attend a conference, or try to publish their data publicly and for free, when doing so requires time and paperwork applying for exemptions that may or may not be granted by a government body that has no expertise or interest in their work? Are they going to set up a potentially fruitful collaboration with other scientists in China, or Russia, or even Canada, when doing so introduces a risk to their own work, knowing their livelihood could be yanked away when the president decides he doesn’t like another nation tomorrow?“There’s no really good argument for that, unless you’re trying to use it as a means of control over the scientists themselves.”— Casey DreierThis is a separate, though perhaps even more dangerous, attack on science than the proposed cuts to NASA funding that are affecting programs like the operation of the Mars rovers. Under the proposed OMB rules, the contracts through which NASA builds spacecraft and collects data would remain, but the grants for scientists to analyze that data would be under political threat.“There’s a distinction between data collection and science,” Dreier says. Building amazing tools like the Mars rovers or the James Webb Space Telescope and using them to collect data is only the first step in making progress: “The science is what happens when you pay a scientist to sit down and look at the data, interpret it, model it, test it, and then present it and go through the process of arguing about it.”“What are we collecting data for, if we’re not going to support the scientists to study it?”Despite the significant public pushback against the move, including a Senate hearing with the director of the OMB, Russell Vought, in which Democratic senators described the effects of the rule as “absurdity” and “bias,” the OMB does not seem disposed to back down and withdraw its proposed rule. Instead, it will likely face a series of legal challenges, including from a group of 24 governors and attorneys general who argue that the rule is unconstitutional and a violation of the separation of powers.What is at stake here is bigger than slashed funds or a temporary refocusing on Earthly concerns over space research. “This is not a budget cut,” Dreier points out. Budget cuts are easy to understand and easy to argue against. What is happening here is more pernicious: “This is a surgical, scalpel-like attack on the actual process of science that is buried under procedural rules and boring-sounding language.”Update July 17th: The OMB proposal has received over 500,000 comments, not 50,000 as stated in a previous version of this story.Follow topics and authors from this story to see more like this in your personalized homepage feed and to receive email updates.Georgina TorbetCloseGeorgina TorbetPosts from this author will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All by Georgina TorbetNewsCloseNewsPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All NewsPolicyClosePolicyPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All PolicyPoliticsClosePoliticsPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All PoliticsScienceCloseSciencePosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All ScienceSpaceCloseSpacePosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All Space#war #woke #science #space #researchNews,Policy,Politics,Science,Space

The war on ‘woke science’ comes for space research

The Trump administration is waging a culture war on science, and the latest salvo is in the form of a dry, bureaucratic proposal from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) that could threaten the future of US science as we know it.

The proposal would give political appointees unprecedented control over grant funding, the method through which scientists receive federal money to perform groundbreaking space research such as the search for evidence of organic compounds on Mars or the discovery of some of the earliest galaxies in the universe.

A typical proposed rule from the OMB garners less than 100 public comments. This rule has netted over 500,000 comments, the large majority of which appear to be negative, including a response from respected nonprofit The Planetary Society, which has criticized everything from the proposal’s rules around publication to its move away from peer review to its chilling effect on scientists in every field.

“Nearly every proposed aspect of these rule changes has some deleterious or negative consequence for the practice of science,” Casey Dreier, chief of space policy at The Planetary Society, tells The Verge.

“There’s concrete harm, even if you’re not a scientist,” he points out. The biggest obstacle is the restrictions on the funding of open-access publication, which is the method through which space science papers are made freely available to the public.

“There’s concrete harm, even if you’re not a scientist.”

— Casey Dreier, chief of space policy at The Planetary Society

For more than a decade, NASA has prided itself on making public the data collected with NASA instruments, as well as the science papers that come from studying that data. The new changes reverse that trend, making science data more difficult for everyone to access. Forbidding the use of grant funding for open-access publication means it’ll be harder for the public to see the research that their tax money helped fund.

“There’s no really good argument for that, unless you’re trying to use it as a means of control over the scientists themselves,” Dreier says.

Then there’s the ability to terminate grants because of the associations or political leanings of the scientists themselves. Consider the data collected by the Mars rovers — precious data that cost billions of dollars and took decades of expertise to acquire — and a scientist, who doesn’t even work for NASA directly, who wants to study that data and has a novel idea for research that their fellow scientists think is worthwhile and important. Hypothetically, the new regulations would allow a partisan non-expert employed by the White House to nix that scientist’s funding because they posted an anti-Trump meme on X years ago.

It gets worse. “You don’t even have to be in violation of a rule” to have your funding cut, Dreier says. Grants can be revoked at any time, for any reason, if they are deemed against the interests of the president’s whims: “There’s a capriciousness that is enabled by these changes, and an opacity of the decision process.”

The problems with the regulations are not just ideological. They largely impose a bureaucratic burden: Is any scientist going to want to set up an international partnership, or attend a conference, or try to publish their data publicly and for free, when doing so requires time and paperwork applying for exemptions that may or may not be granted by a government body that has no expertise or interest in their work? Are they going to set up a potentially fruitful collaboration with other scientists in China, or Russia, or even Canada, when doing so introduces a risk to their own work, knowing their livelihood could be yanked away when the president decides he doesn’t like another nation tomorrow?

“There’s no really good argument for that, unless you’re trying to use it as a means of control over the scientists themselves.”

— Casey Dreier

This is a separate, though perhaps even more dangerous, attack on science than the proposed cuts to NASA funding that are affecting programs like the operation of the Mars rovers. Under the proposed OMB rules, the contracts through which NASA builds spacecraft and collects data would remain, but the grants for scientists to analyze that data would be under political threat.

“There’s a distinction between data collection and science,” Dreier says. Building amazing tools like the Mars rovers or the James Webb Space Telescope and using them to collect data is only the first step in making progress: “The science is what happens when you pay a scientist to sit down and look at the data, interpret it, model it, test it, and then present it and go through the process of arguing about it.”

“What are we collecting data for, if we’re not going to support the scientists to study it?”

Despite the significant public pushback against the move, including a Senate hearing with the director of the OMB, Russell Vought, in which Democratic senators described the effects of the rule as “absurdity” and “bias,” the OMB does not seem disposed to back down and withdraw its proposed rule. Instead, it will likely face a series of legal challenges, including from a group of 24 governors and attorneys general who argue that the rule is unconstitutional and a violation of the separation of powers.

What is at stake here is bigger than slashed funds or a temporary refocusing on Earthly concerns over space research. “This is not a budget cut,” Dreier points out. Budget cuts are easy to understand and easy to argue against. What is happening here is more pernicious: “This is a surgical, scalpel-like attack on the actual process of science that is buried under procedural rules and boring-sounding language.”

Update July 17th: The OMB proposal has received over 500,000 comments, not 50,000 as stated in a previous version of this story.

Follow topics and authors from this story to see more like this in your personalized homepage feed and to receive email updates.
#war #woke #science #space #researchNews,Policy,Politics,Science,Space

Tech-news , , , ,

The Trump administration is waging a culture war on science, and the latest salvo is in the form of a dry, bureaucratic proposal from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) that could threaten the future of US science as we know it.

The proposal would give political appointees unprecedented control over grant funding, the method through which scientists receive federal money to perform groundbreaking space research such as the search for evidence of organic compounds on Mars or the discovery of some of the earliest galaxies in the universe.

A typical proposed rule from the OMB garners less than 100 public comments. This rule has netted over 500,000 comments, the large majority of which appear to be negative, including a response from respected nonprofit The Planetary Society, which has criticized everything from the proposal’s rules around publication to its move away from peer review to its chilling effect on scientists in every field.

“Nearly every proposed aspect of these rule changes has some deleterious or negative consequence for the practice of science,” Casey Dreier, chief of space policy at The Planetary Society, tells The Verge.

“There’s concrete harm, even if you’re not a scientist,” he points out. The biggest obstacle is the restrictions on the funding of open-access publication, which is the method through which space science papers are made freely available to the public.

“There’s concrete harm, even if you’re not a scientist.”

— Casey Dreier, chief of space policy at The Planetary Society

For more than a decade, NASA has prided itself on making public the data collected with NASA instruments, as well as the science papers that come from studying that data. The new changes reverse that trend, making science data more difficult for everyone to access. Forbidding the use of grant funding for open-access publication means it’ll be harder for the public to see the research that their tax money helped fund.

“There’s no really good argument for that, unless you’re trying to use it as a means of control over the scientists themselves,” Dreier says.

Then there’s the ability to terminate grants because of the associations or political leanings of the scientists themselves. Consider the data collected by the Mars rovers — precious data that cost billions of dollars and took decades of expertise to acquire — and a scientist, who doesn’t even work for NASA directly, who wants to study that data and has a novel idea for research that their fellow scientists think is worthwhile and important. Hypothetically, the new regulations would allow a partisan non-expert employed by the White House to nix that scientist’s funding because they posted an anti-Trump meme on X years ago.

It gets worse. “You don’t even have to be in violation of a rule” to have your funding cut, Dreier says. Grants can be revoked at any time, for any reason, if they are deemed against the interests of the president’s whims: “There’s a capriciousness that is enabled by these changes, and an opacity of the decision process.”

The problems with the regulations are not just ideological. They largely impose a bureaucratic burden: Is any scientist going to want to set up an international partnership, or attend a conference, or try to publish their data publicly and for free, when doing so requires time and paperwork applying for exemptions that may or may not be granted by a government body that has no expertise or interest in their work? Are they going to set up a potentially fruitful collaboration with other scientists in China, or Russia, or even Canada, when doing so introduces a risk to their own work, knowing their livelihood could be yanked away when the president decides he doesn’t like another nation tomorrow?

“There’s no really good argument for that, unless you’re trying to use it as a means of control over the scientists themselves.”

— Casey Dreier

This is a separate, though perhaps even more dangerous, attack on science than the proposed cuts to NASA funding that are affecting programs like the operation of the Mars rovers. Under the proposed OMB rules, the contracts through which NASA builds spacecraft and collects data would remain, but the grants for scientists to analyze that data would be under political threat.

“There’s a distinction between data collection and science,” Dreier says. Building amazing tools like the Mars rovers or the James Webb Space Telescope and using them to collect data is only the first step in making progress: “The science is what happens when you pay a scientist to sit down and look at the data, interpret it, model it, test it, and then present it and go through the process of arguing about it.”

“What are we collecting data for, if we’re not going to support the scientists to study it?”

Despite the significant public pushback against the move, including a Senate hearing with the director of the OMB, Russell Vought, in which Democratic senators described the effects of the rule as “absurdity” and “bias,” the OMB does not seem disposed to back down and withdraw its proposed rule. Instead, it will likely face a series of legal challenges, including from a group of 24 governors and attorneys general who argue that the rule is unconstitutional and a violation of the separation of powers.

What is at stake here is bigger than slashed funds or a temporary refocusing on Earthly concerns over space research. “This is not a budget cut,” Dreier points out. Budget cuts are easy to understand and easy to argue against. What is happening here is more pernicious: “This is a surgical, scalpel-like attack on the actual process of science that is buried under procedural rules and boring-sounding language.”

Update July 17th: The OMB proposal has received over 500,000 comments, not 50,000 as stated in a previous version of this story.

Follow topics and authors from this story to see more like this in your personalized homepage feed and to receive email updates.


Source link
#war #woke #science #space #research

Tag

Related Posts

It turns out that even San Francisco mayor Daniel Lurie, who once declared that the city should be a testbed for emerging tech, has his limits. Especially when that emerging tech creates a massive hours-long traffic jam that leaves thousands at a standstill.

Mayor Lurie has asked state regulators to bolster rules for autonomous vehicles nearly two weeks after Waymo robotaxis became immobile in heavy July 4 traffic, ran out of power, and blocked key streets, further compounding the gridlock. The traffic jam, which trapped municipal shuttles, became a citywide problem that affected thousands of people.

In his letter to the state Department of Transportation, which was viewed by TechCrunch, Lurie pointed to two events — a widespread power outage in December and the Golden Gate Bridge fireworks show on July 4 that attracted 100,000 spectators — both of which led to dozens of stranded Waymo vehicles and paralyzed traffic. The San Francisco Chronicle first reported on the letter.

The events, he said in the letter, “demonstrated that California’s current regulatory framework does not adequately address how autonomous vehicles operate during major incidents, planned or not. California’s challenge now is not just whether autonomous vehicles can operate safely under normal conditions, but also whether they can perform reliably during extraordinary ones.”

Lurie said autonomous vehicle manufacturers should be able to demonstrate four “core operational capabilities” and asked the California Department of Transportation to establish statewide standards to prevent future problems like the July 4 gridlock incident.

Under Lurie’s vision, companies would be required to immediately remove or relocate robotaxis from active travel lanes to keep people moving and be required to be able to adapt in real time, adjusting their routes, service area, and pickup and drop-off locations. Companies would also have to share real-time operations data with local agencies, including service disruptions, the locations of immobile robotaxis, and recovery efforts as well as demonstrate through testing that they can handle large influxes of people and traffic.

TechCrunch has reached out to Waymo for comment. The article will be updated once the company responds.

Any company that wants to operate a robotaxi service in California has to successfully navigate two testing and deployment permit processes, one administered by the state’s Department of Motor Vehicles and the other by the Public Utilities Commission. California’s existing regulatory framework is stricter than that of other states like Texas and Arizona, but that hasn’t dissuaded companies from trying to operate there.

San Francisco and the wider area that stretches south into Silicon Valley have long been a testbed for autonomous vehicle technology. Six companies, including Nuro, Waymo, and Zoox, hold driverless testing permits, which allow the vehicles to drive without a human safety operator behind the wheel.

But the area has also become the launch point for commercial services, which requires other permits from the DMV and CPUC.

Waymo is the largest, with an estimated 1,000 robotaxis operating in the Bay Area today. But there are plenty of others either testing or poised to launch commercial operations, including Amazon-owned Zoox as well as a premium robotaxi service that will be operated by Uber. Tesla has a branded robotaxi service but it doesn’t use driverless vehicles, nor does it have the permits to do so. Instead, Tesla has a charter transportation permit, which allows its own drivers to pick up and drop off riders throughout San Francisco in vehicles equipped with its advanced driver-assistance system rather than fully autonomous software.

Waymo’s scale has made it the focal point for regulators in San Francisco and beyond. The company now operates in 11 cities and has said it completes more than 500,000 paid rides every week. In San Francisco, Lurie noted that Waymo had agreed to restrict its service on July 4 near the waterfront and had even assigned a representative to the city’s emergency center. But that wasn’t enough to keep the Waymos out of the heavy traffic that occurred outside of that district.

Lurie said these voluntary actions are no longer enough — a reflection of just how big Waymo’s fleet has become. He said the four proposed requirements “will not undermine autonomous vehicles; they will strengthen them.”

When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. This doesn’t affect our editorial independence.

#San #Francisco #mayor #pushes #tougher #rules #Waymo #traffic #fiasco #TechCrunchrobotaxis,Waymo">San Francisco mayor pushes for tougher rules after the Waymo traffic fiasco | TechCrunch It turns out that even San Francisco mayor Daniel Lurie, who once declared that the city should be a testbed for emerging tech, has his limits. Especially when that emerging tech creates a massive hours-long traffic jam that leaves thousands at a standstill. Mayor Lurie has asked state regulators to bolster rules for autonomous vehicles nearly two weeks after Waymo robotaxis became immobile in heavy July 4 traffic, ran out of power, and blocked key streets, further compounding the gridlock. The traffic jam, which trapped municipal shuttles, became a citywide problem that affected thousands of people. In his letter to the state Department of Transportation, which was viewed by TechCrunch, Lurie pointed to two events — a widespread power outage in December and the Golden Gate Bridge fireworks show on July 4 that attracted 100,000 spectators — both of which led to dozens of stranded Waymo vehicles and paralyzed traffic. The San Francisco Chronicle first reported on the letter. The events, he said in the letter, “demonstrated that California’s current regulatory framework does not adequately address how autonomous vehicles operate during major incidents, planned or not. California’s challenge now is not just whether autonomous vehicles can operate safely under normal conditions, but also whether they can perform reliably during extraordinary ones.” Lurie said autonomous vehicle manufacturers should be able to demonstrate four “core operational capabilities” and asked the California Department of Transportation to establish statewide standards to prevent future problems like the July 4 gridlock incident. Under Lurie’s vision, companies would be required to immediately remove or relocate robotaxis from active travel lanes to keep people moving and be required to be able to adapt in real time, adjusting their routes, service area, and pickup and drop-off locations. Companies would also have to share real-time operations data with local agencies, including service disruptions, the locations of immobile robotaxis, and recovery efforts as well as demonstrate through testing that they can handle large influxes of people and traffic. TechCrunch has reached out to Waymo for comment. The article will be updated once the company responds. Any company that wants to operate a robotaxi service in California has to successfully navigate two testing and deployment permit processes, one administered by the state’s Department of Motor Vehicles and the other by the Public Utilities Commission. California’s existing regulatory framework is stricter than that of other states like Texas and Arizona, but that hasn’t dissuaded companies from trying to operate there. San Francisco and the wider area that stretches south into Silicon Valley have long been a testbed for autonomous vehicle technology. Six companies, including Nuro, Waymo, and Zoox, hold driverless testing permits, which allow the vehicles to drive without a human safety operator behind the wheel. But the area has also become the launch point for commercial services, which requires other permits from the DMV and CPUC. Waymo is the largest, with an estimated 1,000 robotaxis operating in the Bay Area today. But there are plenty of others either testing or poised to launch commercial operations, including Amazon-owned Zoox as well as a premium robotaxi service that will be operated by Uber. Tesla has a branded robotaxi service but it doesn’t use driverless vehicles, nor does it have the permits to do so. Instead, Tesla has a charter transportation permit, which allows its own drivers to pick up and drop off riders throughout San Francisco in vehicles equipped with its advanced driver-assistance system rather than fully autonomous software. Waymo’s scale has made it the focal point for regulators in San Francisco and beyond. The company now operates in 11 cities and has said it completes more than 500,000 paid rides every week. In San Francisco, Lurie noted that Waymo had agreed to restrict its service on July 4 near the waterfront and had even assigned a representative to the city’s emergency center. But that wasn’t enough to keep the Waymos out of the heavy traffic that occurred outside of that district. Lurie said these voluntary actions are no longer enough — a reflection of just how big Waymo’s fleet has become. He said the four proposed requirements “will not undermine autonomous vehicles; they will strengthen them.” When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. This doesn’t affect our editorial independence.#San #Francisco #mayor #pushes #tougher #rules #Waymo #traffic #fiasco #TechCrunchrobotaxis,Waymo

testbed for emerging tech, has his limits. Especially when that emerging tech creates a massive hours-long traffic jam that leaves thousands at a standstill.

Mayor Lurie has asked state regulators to bolster rules for autonomous vehicles nearly two weeks after Waymo robotaxis became immobile in heavy July 4 traffic, ran out of power, and blocked key streets, further compounding the gridlock. The traffic jam, which trapped municipal shuttles, became a citywide problem that affected thousands of people.

In his letter to the state Department of Transportation, which was viewed by TechCrunch, Lurie pointed to two events — a widespread power outage in December and the Golden Gate Bridge fireworks show on July 4 that attracted 100,000 spectators — both of which led to dozens of stranded Waymo vehicles and paralyzed traffic. The San Francisco Chronicle first reported on the letter.

The events, he said in the letter, “demonstrated that California’s current regulatory framework does not adequately address how autonomous vehicles operate during major incidents, planned or not. California’s challenge now is not just whether autonomous vehicles can operate safely under normal conditions, but also whether they can perform reliably during extraordinary ones.”

Lurie said autonomous vehicle manufacturers should be able to demonstrate four “core operational capabilities” and asked the California Department of Transportation to establish statewide standards to prevent future problems like the July 4 gridlock incident.

Under Lurie’s vision, companies would be required to immediately remove or relocate robotaxis from active travel lanes to keep people moving and be required to be able to adapt in real time, adjusting their routes, service area, and pickup and drop-off locations. Companies would also have to share real-time operations data with local agencies, including service disruptions, the locations of immobile robotaxis, and recovery efforts as well as demonstrate through testing that they can handle large influxes of people and traffic.

TechCrunch has reached out to Waymo for comment. The article will be updated once the company responds.

Any company that wants to operate a robotaxi service in California has to successfully navigate two testing and deployment permit processes, one administered by the state’s Department of Motor Vehicles and the other by the Public Utilities Commission. California’s existing regulatory framework is stricter than that of other states like Texas and Arizona, but that hasn’t dissuaded companies from trying to operate there.

San Francisco and the wider area that stretches south into Silicon Valley have long been a testbed for autonomous vehicle technology. Six companies, including Nuro, Waymo, and Zoox, hold driverless testing permits, which allow the vehicles to drive without a human safety operator behind the wheel.

But the area has also become the launch point for commercial services, which requires other permits from the DMV and CPUC.

Waymo is the largest, with an estimated 1,000 robotaxis operating in the Bay Area today. But there are plenty of others either testing or poised to launch commercial operations, including Amazon-owned Zoox as well as a premium robotaxi service that will be operated by Uber. Tesla has a branded robotaxi service but it doesn’t use driverless vehicles, nor does it have the permits to do so. Instead, Tesla has a charter transportation permit, which allows its own drivers to pick up and drop off riders throughout San Francisco in vehicles equipped with its advanced driver-assistance system rather than fully autonomous software.

Waymo’s scale has made it the focal point for regulators in San Francisco and beyond. The company now operates in 11 cities and has said it completes more than 500,000 paid rides every week. In San Francisco, Lurie noted that Waymo had agreed to restrict its service on July 4 near the waterfront and had even assigned a representative to the city’s emergency center. But that wasn’t enough to keep the Waymos out of the heavy traffic that occurred outside of that district.

Lurie said these voluntary actions are no longer enough — a reflection of just how big Waymo’s fleet has become. He said the four proposed requirements “will not undermine autonomous vehicles; they will strengthen them.”

When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. This doesn’t affect our editorial independence.

#San #Francisco #mayor #pushes #tougher #rules #Waymo #traffic #fiasco #TechCrunchrobotaxis,Waymo">San Francisco mayor pushes for tougher rules after the Waymo traffic fiasco | TechCrunch

It turns out that even San Francisco mayor Daniel Lurie, who once declared that the city should be a testbed for emerging tech, has his limits. Especially when that emerging tech creates a massive hours-long traffic jam that leaves thousands at a standstill.

Mayor Lurie has asked state regulators to bolster rules for autonomous vehicles nearly two weeks after Waymo robotaxis became immobile in heavy July 4 traffic, ran out of power, and blocked key streets, further compounding the gridlock. The traffic jam, which trapped municipal shuttles, became a citywide problem that affected thousands of people.

In his letter to the state Department of Transportation, which was viewed by TechCrunch, Lurie pointed to two events — a widespread power outage in December and the Golden Gate Bridge fireworks show on July 4 that attracted 100,000 spectators — both of which led to dozens of stranded Waymo vehicles and paralyzed traffic. The San Francisco Chronicle first reported on the letter.

The events, he said in the letter, “demonstrated that California’s current regulatory framework does not adequately address how autonomous vehicles operate during major incidents, planned or not. California’s challenge now is not just whether autonomous vehicles can operate safely under normal conditions, but also whether they can perform reliably during extraordinary ones.”

Lurie said autonomous vehicle manufacturers should be able to demonstrate four “core operational capabilities” and asked the California Department of Transportation to establish statewide standards to prevent future problems like the July 4 gridlock incident.

Under Lurie’s vision, companies would be required to immediately remove or relocate robotaxis from active travel lanes to keep people moving and be required to be able to adapt in real time, adjusting their routes, service area, and pickup and drop-off locations. Companies would also have to share real-time operations data with local agencies, including service disruptions, the locations of immobile robotaxis, and recovery efforts as well as demonstrate through testing that they can handle large influxes of people and traffic.

TechCrunch has reached out to Waymo for comment. The article will be updated once the company responds.

Any company that wants to operate a robotaxi service in California has to successfully navigate two testing and deployment permit processes, one administered by the state’s Department of Motor Vehicles and the other by the Public Utilities Commission. California’s existing regulatory framework is stricter than that of other states like Texas and Arizona, but that hasn’t dissuaded companies from trying to operate there.

San Francisco and the wider area that stretches south into Silicon Valley have long been a testbed for autonomous vehicle technology. Six companies, including Nuro, Waymo, and Zoox, hold driverless testing permits, which allow the vehicles to drive without a human safety operator behind the wheel.

But the area has also become the launch point for commercial services, which requires other permits from the DMV and CPUC.

Waymo is the largest, with an estimated 1,000 robotaxis operating in the Bay Area today. But there are plenty of others either testing or poised to launch commercial operations, including Amazon-owned Zoox as well as a premium robotaxi service that will be operated by Uber. Tesla has a branded robotaxi service but it doesn’t use driverless vehicles, nor does it have the permits to do so. Instead, Tesla has a charter transportation permit, which allows its own drivers to pick up and drop off riders throughout San Francisco in vehicles equipped with its advanced driver-assistance system rather than fully autonomous software.

Waymo’s scale has made it the focal point for regulators in San Francisco and beyond. The company now operates in 11 cities and has said it completes more than 500,000 paid rides every week. In San Francisco, Lurie noted that Waymo had agreed to restrict its service on July 4 near the waterfront and had even assigned a representative to the city’s emergency center. But that wasn’t enough to keep the Waymos out of the heavy traffic that occurred outside of that district.

Lurie said these voluntary actions are no longer enough — a reflection of just how big Waymo’s fleet has become. He said the four proposed requirements “will not undermine autonomous vehicles; they will strengthen them.”

When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. This doesn’t affect our editorial independence.

#San #Francisco #mayor #pushes #tougher #rules #Waymo #traffic #fiasco #TechCrunchrobotaxis,Waymo
newer iPads, it is not available on many older devices. However, you do have several options for checking your battery health. In this guide, we’ll explain how to check battery health on older iPads and share some useful tips to help extend battery life.

Which iPads Support Apple’s Built-in Battery Health Feature?

Apple provides a built-in Battery Health feature for selected iPad models. If your iPad supports it, you can view important battery information in the Settings app without installing any additional apps. This feature is available for iPad Pro M4, iPad Air M2, iPad mini (A17 Pro), iPad (A16), and newer iPads.

  1. Go to Settings.
  2. Tap Battery.
  3. Open Battery Health.
    Apple Doesn’t Show Battery Health on Older iPads—Here’s How to Check It Anyway Checking your battery health will not only provide you with information about your iPad’s performance but also indicate whether you need to replace your device. Although Apple provides a built-in Battery Health feature on newer iPads, it is not available on many older devices. However, you do have several options for checking your battery health. In this guide, we’ll explain how to check battery health on older iPads and share some useful tips to help extend battery life. Which iPads Support Apple’s Built-in Battery Health Feature? Apple provides a built-in Battery Health feature for selected iPad models. If your iPad supports it, you can view important battery information in the Settings app without installing any additional apps. This feature is available for iPad Pro M4, iPad Air M2, iPad mini (A17 Pro), iPad (A16), and newer iPads. Go to Settings. Tap Battery. Open Battery Health. View details such as Maximum Capacity, Cycle Count, Battery Status, Manufacturing Date, First Use Date, and the 80% Charging Limit. If you have an old iPad, you won’t see the Battery Health option in the Settings menu. The reason behind this restriction remains unknown, as Apple has not disclosed it yet. The old operating system of these iPads does not even support the Battery Health menu. How to Check Battery Health on Older iPads Apple provides an online battery diagnostic process for iPads that do not have the Battery Health option. This is the proper way to diagnose your device’s battery without downloading any additional software. First, contact Apple Support and describe your battery problems, which may include rapid battery drain, slow charging, and automatic shutdowns of your iPad. Apple Support will conduct a remote battery diagnostic on your iPad. They will be able to tell you all the vital information regarding your battery. Use coconutBattery on a Mac Another way to check your iPad’s battery health is through coconutBattery. The app is available for macOS and supports Apple devices, including iPads. Download coconutBattery on your Mac. Connect your iPad via a USB cable. Launch the application. Select your device and see its battery details. It provides information on Battery Health, Current Capacity, Design Capacity, Charge Cycles, Battery Temperature, and Charging Status. Please note that some more advanced options will be available only in the paid version. Tips to Keep Your Older iPad Battery Healthy Ensure that you only use certified chargers: Your iPad should be charged by Apple-certified and MFi-certified chargers and cables. Avoid using your iPad in extreme temperatures: it should not be exposed to direct sunlight or extremely high temperatures. Keep your iPad software up to date: Update your device to the latest iPadOS. Screen lock: Locking your iPad helps conserve battery power. Airplane mode in areas with poor signal: If the signal strength is low, activate airplane mode to conserve battery. Wi-Fi connection: Connect to Wi-Fi whenever it is possible. Unplug unnecessary devices: Unplug any USB-C device that is no longer needed. #Apple #Doesnt #Show #Battery #Health #Older #iPadsHeres #Checkapple
  4. View details such as Maximum Capacity, Cycle Count, Battery Status, Manufacturing Date, First Use Date, and the 80% Charging Limit.

If you have an old iPad, you won’t see the Battery Health option in the Settings menu. The reason behind this restriction remains unknown, as Apple has not disclosed it yet. The old operating system of these iPads does not even support the Battery Health menu.

How to Check Battery Health on Older iPads

ipad

Apple provides an online battery diagnostic process for iPads that do not have the Battery Health option. This is the proper way to diagnose your device’s battery without downloading any additional software. First, contact Apple Support and describe your battery problems, which may include rapid battery drain, slow charging, and automatic shutdowns of your iPad. Apple Support will conduct a remote battery diagnostic on your iPad. They will be able to tell you all the vital information regarding your battery.

Use coconutBattery on a Mac

Another way to check your iPad’s battery health is through coconutBattery. The app is available for macOS and supports Apple devices, including iPads.

  • Download coconutBattery on your Mac.
  • Connect your iPad via a USB cable.
  • Launch the application.
  • Select your device and see its battery details.
    Use coconutBattery on a Mac to check battery health

It provides information on Battery Health, Current Capacity, Design Capacity, Charge Cycles, Battery Temperature, and Charging Status. Please note that some more advanced options will be available only in the paid version.

Tips to Keep Your Older iPad Battery Healthy

  1. Ensure that you only use certified chargers: Your iPad should be charged by Apple-certified and MFi-certified chargers and cables.
  2. Avoid using your iPad in extreme temperatures: it should not be exposed to direct sunlight or extremely high temperatures.
  3. Keep your iPad software up to date: Update your device to the latest iPadOS.
  4. Screen lock: Locking your iPad helps conserve battery power.
  5. Airplane mode in areas with poor signal: If the signal strength is low, activate airplane mode to conserve battery.
  6. Wi-Fi connection: Connect to Wi-Fi whenever it is possible.
  7. Unplug unnecessary devices: Unplug any USB-C device that is no longer needed.
#Apple #Doesnt #Show #Battery #Health #Older #iPadsHeres #Checkapple">Apple Doesn’t Show Battery Health on Older iPads—Here’s How to Check It Anyway Checking your battery health will not only provide you with information about your iPad’s performance but also indicate whether you need to replace your device. Although Apple provides a built-in Battery Health feature on newer iPads, it is not available on many older devices. However, you do have several options for checking your battery health. In this guide, we’ll explain how to check battery health on older iPads and share some useful tips to help extend battery life. Which iPads Support Apple’s Built-in Battery Health Feature? Apple provides a built-in Battery Health feature for selected iPad models. If your iPad supports it, you can view important battery information in the Settings app without installing any additional apps. This feature is available for iPad Pro M4, iPad Air M2, iPad mini (A17 Pro), iPad (A16), and newer iPads. Go to Settings. Tap Battery. Open Battery Health. View details such as Maximum Capacity, Cycle Count, Battery Status, Manufacturing Date, First Use Date, and the 80% Charging Limit. If you have an old iPad, you won’t see the Battery Health option in the Settings menu. The reason behind this restriction remains unknown, as Apple has not disclosed it yet. The old operating system of these iPads does not even support the Battery Health menu. How to Check Battery Health on Older iPads Apple provides an online battery diagnostic process for iPads that do not have the Battery Health option. This is the proper way to diagnose your device’s battery without downloading any additional software. First, contact Apple Support and describe your battery problems, which may include rapid battery drain, slow charging, and automatic shutdowns of your iPad. Apple Support will conduct a remote battery diagnostic on your iPad. They will be able to tell you all the vital information regarding your battery. Use coconutBattery on a Mac Another way to check your iPad’s battery health is through coconutBattery. The app is available for macOS and supports Apple devices, including iPads. Download coconutBattery on your Mac. Connect your iPad via a USB cable. Launch the application. Select your device and see its battery details. It provides information on Battery Health, Current Capacity, Design Capacity, Charge Cycles, Battery Temperature, and Charging Status. Please note that some more advanced options will be available only in the paid version. Tips to Keep Your Older iPad Battery Healthy Ensure that you only use certified chargers: Your iPad should be charged by Apple-certified and MFi-certified chargers and cables. Avoid using your iPad in extreme temperatures: it should not be exposed to direct sunlight or extremely high temperatures. Keep your iPad software up to date: Update your device to the latest iPadOS. Screen lock: Locking your iPad helps conserve battery power. Airplane mode in areas with poor signal: If the signal strength is low, activate airplane mode to conserve battery. Wi-Fi connection: Connect to Wi-Fi whenever it is possible. Unplug unnecessary devices: Unplug any USB-C device that is no longer needed. #Apple #Doesnt #Show #Battery #Health #Older #iPadsHeres #Checkapple

, it is not available on many older devices. However, you do have several options for checking your battery health. In this guide, we’ll explain how to check battery health on older iPads and share some useful tips to help extend battery life.

Which iPads Support Apple’s Built-in Battery Health Feature?

Apple provides a built-in Battery Health feature for selected iPad models. If your iPad supports it, you can view important battery information in the Settings app without installing any additional apps. This feature is available for iPad Pro M4, iPad Air M2, iPad mini (A17 Pro), iPad (A16), and newer iPads.

  1. Go to Settings.
  2. Tap Battery.
  3. Open Battery Health.
    Apple Doesn’t Show Battery Health on Older iPads—Here’s How to Check It Anyway Checking your battery health will not only provide you with information about your iPad’s performance but also indicate whether you need to replace your device. Although Apple provides a built-in Battery Health feature on newer iPads, it is not available on many older devices. However, you do have several options for checking your battery health. In this guide, we’ll explain how to check battery health on older iPads and share some useful tips to help extend battery life. Which iPads Support Apple’s Built-in Battery Health Feature? Apple provides a built-in Battery Health feature for selected iPad models. If your iPad supports it, you can view important battery information in the Settings app without installing any additional apps. This feature is available for iPad Pro M4, iPad Air M2, iPad mini (A17 Pro), iPad (A16), and newer iPads. Go to Settings. Tap Battery. Open Battery Health. View details such as Maximum Capacity, Cycle Count, Battery Status, Manufacturing Date, First Use Date, and the 80% Charging Limit. If you have an old iPad, you won’t see the Battery Health option in the Settings menu. The reason behind this restriction remains unknown, as Apple has not disclosed it yet. The old operating system of these iPads does not even support the Battery Health menu. How to Check Battery Health on Older iPads Apple provides an online battery diagnostic process for iPads that do not have the Battery Health option. This is the proper way to diagnose your device’s battery without downloading any additional software. First, contact Apple Support and describe your battery problems, which may include rapid battery drain, slow charging, and automatic shutdowns of your iPad. Apple Support will conduct a remote battery diagnostic on your iPad. They will be able to tell you all the vital information regarding your battery. Use coconutBattery on a Mac Another way to check your iPad’s battery health is through coconutBattery. The app is available for macOS and supports Apple devices, including iPads. Download coconutBattery on your Mac. Connect your iPad via a USB cable. Launch the application. Select your device and see its battery details. It provides information on Battery Health, Current Capacity, Design Capacity, Charge Cycles, Battery Temperature, and Charging Status. Please note that some more advanced options will be available only in the paid version. Tips to Keep Your Older iPad Battery Healthy Ensure that you only use certified chargers: Your iPad should be charged by Apple-certified and MFi-certified chargers and cables. Avoid using your iPad in extreme temperatures: it should not be exposed to direct sunlight or extremely high temperatures. Keep your iPad software up to date: Update your device to the latest iPadOS. Screen lock: Locking your iPad helps conserve battery power. Airplane mode in areas with poor signal: If the signal strength is low, activate airplane mode to conserve battery. Wi-Fi connection: Connect to Wi-Fi whenever it is possible. Unplug unnecessary devices: Unplug any USB-C device that is no longer needed. #Apple #Doesnt #Show #Battery #Health #Older #iPadsHeres #Checkapple
  4. View details such as Maximum Capacity, Cycle Count, Battery Status, Manufacturing Date, First Use Date, and the 80% Charging Limit.

If you have an old iPad, you won’t see the Battery Health option in the Settings menu. The reason behind this restriction remains unknown, as Apple has not disclosed it yet. The old operating system of these iPads does not even support the Battery Health menu.

How to Check Battery Health on Older iPads

ipad

Apple provides an online battery diagnostic process for iPads that do not have the Battery Health option. This is the proper way to diagnose your device’s battery without downloading any additional software. First, contact Apple Support and describe your battery problems, which may include rapid battery drain, slow charging, and automatic shutdowns of your iPad. Apple Support will conduct a remote battery diagnostic on your iPad. They will be able to tell you all the vital information regarding your battery.

Use coconutBattery on a Mac

Another way to check your iPad’s battery health is through coconutBattery. The app is available for macOS and supports Apple devices, including iPads.

  • Download coconutBattery on your Mac.
  • Connect your iPad via a USB cable.
  • Launch the application.
  • Select your device and see its battery details.
    Use coconutBattery on a Mac to check battery health

It provides information on Battery Health, Current Capacity, Design Capacity, Charge Cycles, Battery Temperature, and Charging Status. Please note that some more advanced options will be available only in the paid version.

Tips to Keep Your Older iPad Battery Healthy

  1. Ensure that you only use certified chargers: Your iPad should be charged by Apple-certified and MFi-certified chargers and cables.
  2. Avoid using your iPad in extreme temperatures: it should not be exposed to direct sunlight or extremely high temperatures.
  3. Keep your iPad software up to date: Update your device to the latest iPadOS.
  4. Screen lock: Locking your iPad helps conserve battery power.
  5. Airplane mode in areas with poor signal: If the signal strength is low, activate airplane mode to conserve battery.
  6. Wi-Fi connection: Connect to Wi-Fi whenever it is possible.
  7. Unplug unnecessary devices: Unplug any USB-C device that is no longer needed.
#Apple #Doesnt #Show #Battery #Health #Older #iPadsHeres #Checkapple">Apple Doesn’t Show Battery Health on Older iPads—Here’s How to Check It Anyway

Checking your battery health will not only provide you with information about your iPad’s performance but also indicate whether you need to replace your device. Although Apple provides a built-in Battery Health feature on newer iPads, it is not available on many older devices. However, you do have several options for checking your battery health. In this guide, we’ll explain how to check battery health on older iPads and share some useful tips to help extend battery life.

Which iPads Support Apple’s Built-in Battery Health Feature?

Apple provides a built-in Battery Health feature for selected iPad models. If your iPad supports it, you can view important battery information in the Settings app without installing any additional apps. This feature is available for iPad Pro M4, iPad Air M2, iPad mini (A17 Pro), iPad (A16), and newer iPads.

  1. Go to Settings.
  2. Tap Battery.
  3. Open Battery Health.
    Apple Doesn’t Show Battery Health on Older iPads—Here’s How to Check It Anyway Checking your battery health will not only provide you with information about your iPad’s performance but also indicate whether you need to replace your device. Although Apple provides a built-in Battery Health feature on newer iPads, it is not available on many older devices. However, you do have several options for checking your battery health. In this guide, we’ll explain how to check battery health on older iPads and share some useful tips to help extend battery life. Which iPads Support Apple’s Built-in Battery Health Feature? Apple provides a built-in Battery Health feature for selected iPad models. If your iPad supports it, you can view important battery information in the Settings app without installing any additional apps. This feature is available for iPad Pro M4, iPad Air M2, iPad mini (A17 Pro), iPad (A16), and newer iPads. Go to Settings. Tap Battery. Open Battery Health. View details such as Maximum Capacity, Cycle Count, Battery Status, Manufacturing Date, First Use Date, and the 80% Charging Limit. If you have an old iPad, you won’t see the Battery Health option in the Settings menu. The reason behind this restriction remains unknown, as Apple has not disclosed it yet. The old operating system of these iPads does not even support the Battery Health menu. How to Check Battery Health on Older iPads Apple provides an online battery diagnostic process for iPads that do not have the Battery Health option. This is the proper way to diagnose your device’s battery without downloading any additional software. First, contact Apple Support and describe your battery problems, which may include rapid battery drain, slow charging, and automatic shutdowns of your iPad. Apple Support will conduct a remote battery diagnostic on your iPad. They will be able to tell you all the vital information regarding your battery. Use coconutBattery on a Mac Another way to check your iPad’s battery health is through coconutBattery. The app is available for macOS and supports Apple devices, including iPads. Download coconutBattery on your Mac. Connect your iPad via a USB cable. Launch the application. Select your device and see its battery details. It provides information on Battery Health, Current Capacity, Design Capacity, Charge Cycles, Battery Temperature, and Charging Status. Please note that some more advanced options will be available only in the paid version. Tips to Keep Your Older iPad Battery Healthy Ensure that you only use certified chargers: Your iPad should be charged by Apple-certified and MFi-certified chargers and cables. Avoid using your iPad in extreme temperatures: it should not be exposed to direct sunlight or extremely high temperatures. Keep your iPad software up to date: Update your device to the latest iPadOS. Screen lock: Locking your iPad helps conserve battery power. Airplane mode in areas with poor signal: If the signal strength is low, activate airplane mode to conserve battery. Wi-Fi connection: Connect to Wi-Fi whenever it is possible. Unplug unnecessary devices: Unplug any USB-C device that is no longer needed. #Apple #Doesnt #Show #Battery #Health #Older #iPadsHeres #Checkapple
  4. View details such as Maximum Capacity, Cycle Count, Battery Status, Manufacturing Date, First Use Date, and the 80% Charging Limit.

If you have an old iPad, you won’t see the Battery Health option in the Settings menu. The reason behind this restriction remains unknown, as Apple has not disclosed it yet. The old operating system of these iPads does not even support the Battery Health menu.

How to Check Battery Health on Older iPads

ipad

Apple provides an online battery diagnostic process for iPads that do not have the Battery Health option. This is the proper way to diagnose your device’s battery without downloading any additional software. First, contact Apple Support and describe your battery problems, which may include rapid battery drain, slow charging, and automatic shutdowns of your iPad. Apple Support will conduct a remote battery diagnostic on your iPad. They will be able to tell you all the vital information regarding your battery.

Use coconutBattery on a Mac

Another way to check your iPad’s battery health is through coconutBattery. The app is available for macOS and supports Apple devices, including iPads.

  • Download coconutBattery on your Mac.
  • Connect your iPad via a USB cable.
  • Launch the application.
  • Select your device and see its battery details.
    Use coconutBattery on a Mac to check battery health

It provides information on Battery Health, Current Capacity, Design Capacity, Charge Cycles, Battery Temperature, and Charging Status. Please note that some more advanced options will be available only in the paid version.

Tips to Keep Your Older iPad Battery Healthy

  1. Ensure that you only use certified chargers: Your iPad should be charged by Apple-certified and MFi-certified chargers and cables.
  2. Avoid using your iPad in extreme temperatures: it should not be exposed to direct sunlight or extremely high temperatures.
  3. Keep your iPad software up to date: Update your device to the latest iPadOS.
  4. Screen lock: Locking your iPad helps conserve battery power.
  5. Airplane mode in areas with poor signal: If the signal strength is low, activate airplane mode to conserve battery.
  6. Wi-Fi connection: Connect to Wi-Fi whenever it is possible.
  7. Unplug unnecessary devices: Unplug any USB-C device that is no longer needed.
#Apple #Doesnt #Show #Battery #Health #Older #iPadsHeres #Checkapple

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr wants to repeal a rule that has prevented a select handful of broadcasters from taking full control of the media landscape.

Back in 2004, Congress instructed the FCC to enact a national ownership cap that would bar any one broadcast station owner from reaching more than 39% of American households. For more than 20 years, the rule has kept mega mergers in the TV broadcasting industry from gobbling up the entire media ecosystem.

Now, Carr is proposing to repeal that national ownership cap rule, which, if successful, would mean broadcast TV giants will pretty much have a green light for mergers, even if it meant that one company would gain access to most of the media landscape.

Carr expressed his intentions in an op-ed published by the far-right organization Breitbart. In the op-ed, he claimed that the cap was once helpful in protecting local news stations, but now it was becoming an obstacle as they compete with national news, large streamers, and social media giants.

Instead of a blanket rule, Carr wants to create a new “case-by-case approach.”

“Previously, the cap operated as a blanket prohibition on any and all deals that would combine stations in excess of the 39 percent limit—regardless of whether it was a good deal or a bad one for the country,” Carr wrote in the op-ed. “Our new proposal would allow the FCC to approve deals that exceed the 39 percent cap, but only if doing so would promote the public interest.”

Major broadcasters have been lobbying for a change to the rule for quite some time now. One such mega TV broadcasting company that lobbied for the rule change is Nexstar. Earlier this year, the FCC granted Nexstar a waiver for the 39% national ownership cap rule and approved its acquisition of rival Tegna. The merger is still currently facing court challenges over antitrust claims, but if it is finalized, then Nexstar is estimated to expand its reach to at least 60% of American households.

Sinclair, another Trump-allied major broadcaster that was behind a particularly infamous PR debacle during Trump’s first administration, is also eyeing a merger and commended the proposed rule change as “common sense.” Both companies also famously refused to air Jimmy Kimmel’s show on their channels late last year after the late-night host’s comments about Charlie Kirk drew ire from the Trump administration.

The FCC will vote on eliminating the rule on August 6th. There are three commissioners, two Republicans and one Democrat. The lone Democratic FCC Commissioner, Anna Gomez, took to X to voice her staunch opposition.

“The FCC just announced it will move forward with its unlawful effort to hand control of the public airwaves to billionaire buddies of this administration,” Gomez wrote. “This will destroy local newsrooms, silence community reporting, and drive-up costs for American families.”

Even if the action passes the FCC vote, it’s likely to receive pushback from both sides of the aisle in Congress.

“Trump’s FCC Chair is trying to illegally rewrite the rules to make it easier for billionaires to line their own pockets while jacking up costs and controlling what Americans watch,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren said in a statement. “After rubber-stamping the Nexstar-Tegna megamerger, this looks like the Trump administration’s latest attempt to roll out the red carpet for more antitrust disasters.”

Critics believe that because the rule was created following Congress’s action, it is up to Congress to determine if it should be retired. But Carr insists that the FCC has the authority to modify or repeal the rule.

#FCC #Chairman #Repeal #Key #Rule #Fundamentally #Change #Broadcast #NewsBrendan carr,broadcast television,FCC">FCC Chairman Wants to Repeal a Key Rule That Would Fundamentally Change Broadcast News Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr wants to repeal a rule that has prevented a select handful of broadcasters from taking full control of the media landscape. Back in 2004, Congress instructed the FCC to enact a national ownership cap that would bar any one broadcast station owner from reaching more than 39% of American households. For more than 20 years, the rule has kept mega mergers in the TV broadcasting industry from gobbling up the entire media ecosystem. Now, Carr is proposing to repeal that national ownership cap rule, which, if successful, would mean broadcast TV giants will pretty much have a green light for mergers, even if it meant that one company would gain access to most of the media landscape. Carr expressed his intentions in an op-ed published by the far-right organization Breitbart. In the op-ed, he claimed that the cap was once helpful in protecting local news stations, but now it was becoming an obstacle as they compete with national news, large streamers, and social media giants. Instead of a blanket rule, Carr wants to create a new “case-by-case approach.” “Previously, the cap operated as a blanket prohibition on any and all deals that would combine stations in excess of the 39 percent limit—regardless of whether it was a good deal or a bad one for the country,” Carr wrote in the op-ed. “Our new proposal would allow the FCC to approve deals that exceed the 39 percent cap, but only if doing so would promote the public interest.” Major broadcasters have been lobbying for a change to the rule for quite some time now. One such mega TV broadcasting company that lobbied for the rule change is Nexstar. Earlier this year, the FCC granted Nexstar a waiver for the 39% national ownership cap rule and approved its acquisition of rival Tegna. The merger is still currently facing court challenges over antitrust claims, but if it is finalized, then Nexstar is estimated to expand its reach to at least 60% of American households. Sinclair, another Trump-allied major broadcaster that was behind a particularly infamous PR debacle during Trump’s first administration, is also eyeing a merger and commended the proposed rule change as “common sense.” Both companies also famously refused to air Jimmy Kimmel’s show on their channels late last year after the late-night host’s comments about Charlie Kirk drew ire from the Trump administration. [embed]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fHfgU8oMSo[/embed] The FCC will vote on eliminating the rule on August 6th. There are three commissioners, two Republicans and one Democrat. The lone Democratic FCC Commissioner, Anna Gomez, took to X to voice her staunch opposition. “The FCC just announced it will move forward with its unlawful effort to hand control of the public airwaves to billionaire buddies of this administration,” Gomez wrote. “This will destroy local newsrooms, silence community reporting, and drive-up costs for American families.” Even if the action passes the FCC vote, it’s likely to receive pushback from both sides of the aisle in Congress. “Trump’s FCC Chair is trying to illegally rewrite the rules to make it easier for billionaires to line their own pockets while jacking up costs and controlling what Americans watch,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren said in a statement. “After rubber-stamping the Nexstar-Tegna megamerger, this looks like the Trump administration’s latest attempt to roll out the red carpet for more antitrust disasters.” Critics believe that because the rule was created following Congress’s action, it is up to Congress to determine if it should be retired. But Carr insists that the FCC has the authority to modify or repeal the rule. #FCC #Chairman #Repeal #Key #Rule #Fundamentally #Change #Broadcast #NewsBrendan carr,broadcast television,FCC

Breitbart. In the op-ed, he claimed that the cap was once helpful in protecting local news stations, but now it was becoming an obstacle as they compete with national news, large streamers, and social media giants.

Instead of a blanket rule, Carr wants to create a new “case-by-case approach.”

“Previously, the cap operated as a blanket prohibition on any and all deals that would combine stations in excess of the 39 percent limit—regardless of whether it was a good deal or a bad one for the country,” Carr wrote in the op-ed. “Our new proposal would allow the FCC to approve deals that exceed the 39 percent cap, but only if doing so would promote the public interest.”

Major broadcasters have been lobbying for a change to the rule for quite some time now. One such mega TV broadcasting company that lobbied for the rule change is Nexstar. Earlier this year, the FCC granted Nexstar a waiver for the 39% national ownership cap rule and approved its acquisition of rival Tegna. The merger is still currently facing court challenges over antitrust claims, but if it is finalized, then Nexstar is estimated to expand its reach to at least 60% of American households.

Sinclair, another Trump-allied major broadcaster that was behind a particularly infamous PR debacle during Trump’s first administration, is also eyeing a merger and commended the proposed rule change as “common sense.” Both companies also famously refused to air Jimmy Kimmel’s show on their channels late last year after the late-night host’s comments about Charlie Kirk drew ire from the Trump administration.

The FCC will vote on eliminating the rule on August 6th. There are three commissioners, two Republicans and one Democrat. The lone Democratic FCC Commissioner, Anna Gomez, took to X to voice her staunch opposition.

“The FCC just announced it will move forward with its unlawful effort to hand control of the public airwaves to billionaire buddies of this administration,” Gomez wrote. “This will destroy local newsrooms, silence community reporting, and drive-up costs for American families.”

Even if the action passes the FCC vote, it’s likely to receive pushback from both sides of the aisle in Congress.

“Trump’s FCC Chair is trying to illegally rewrite the rules to make it easier for billionaires to line their own pockets while jacking up costs and controlling what Americans watch,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren said in a statement. “After rubber-stamping the Nexstar-Tegna megamerger, this looks like the Trump administration’s latest attempt to roll out the red carpet for more antitrust disasters.”

Critics believe that because the rule was created following Congress’s action, it is up to Congress to determine if it should be retired. But Carr insists that the FCC has the authority to modify or repeal the rule.

#FCC #Chairman #Repeal #Key #Rule #Fundamentally #Change #Broadcast #NewsBrendan carr,broadcast television,FCC">FCC Chairman Wants to Repeal a Key Rule That Would Fundamentally Change Broadcast NewsFCC Chairman Wants to Repeal a Key Rule That Would Fundamentally Change Broadcast News Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr wants to repeal a rule that has prevented a select handful of broadcasters from taking full control of the media landscape. Back in 2004, Congress instructed the FCC to enact a national ownership cap that would bar any one broadcast station owner from reaching more than 39% of American households. For more than 20 years, the rule has kept mega mergers in the TV broadcasting industry from gobbling up the entire media ecosystem. Now, Carr is proposing to repeal that national ownership cap rule, which, if successful, would mean broadcast TV giants will pretty much have a green light for mergers, even if it meant that one company would gain access to most of the media landscape. Carr expressed his intentions in an op-ed published by the far-right organization Breitbart. In the op-ed, he claimed that the cap was once helpful in protecting local news stations, but now it was becoming an obstacle as they compete with national news, large streamers, and social media giants. Instead of a blanket rule, Carr wants to create a new “case-by-case approach.” “Previously, the cap operated as a blanket prohibition on any and all deals that would combine stations in excess of the 39 percent limit—regardless of whether it was a good deal or a bad one for the country,” Carr wrote in the op-ed. “Our new proposal would allow the FCC to approve deals that exceed the 39 percent cap, but only if doing so would promote the public interest.” Major broadcasters have been lobbying for a change to the rule for quite some time now. One such mega TV broadcasting company that lobbied for the rule change is Nexstar. Earlier this year, the FCC granted Nexstar a waiver for the 39% national ownership cap rule and approved its acquisition of rival Tegna. The merger is still currently facing court challenges over antitrust claims, but if it is finalized, then Nexstar is estimated to expand its reach to at least 60% of American households. Sinclair, another Trump-allied major broadcaster that was behind a particularly infamous PR debacle during Trump’s first administration, is also eyeing a merger and commended the proposed rule change as “common sense.” Both companies also famously refused to air Jimmy Kimmel’s show on their channels late last year after the late-night host’s comments about Charlie Kirk drew ire from the Trump administration. [embed]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fHfgU8oMSo[/embed] The FCC will vote on eliminating the rule on August 6th. There are three commissioners, two Republicans and one Democrat. The lone Democratic FCC Commissioner, Anna Gomez, took to X to voice her staunch opposition. “The FCC just announced it will move forward with its unlawful effort to hand control of the public airwaves to billionaire buddies of this administration,” Gomez wrote. “This will destroy local newsrooms, silence community reporting, and drive-up costs for American families.” Even if the action passes the FCC vote, it’s likely to receive pushback from both sides of the aisle in Congress. “Trump’s FCC Chair is trying to illegally rewrite the rules to make it easier for billionaires to line their own pockets while jacking up costs and controlling what Americans watch,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren said in a statement. “After rubber-stamping the Nexstar-Tegna megamerger, this looks like the Trump administration’s latest attempt to roll out the red carpet for more antitrust disasters.” Critics believe that because the rule was created following Congress’s action, it is up to Congress to determine if it should be retired. But Carr insists that the FCC has the authority to modify or repeal the rule. #FCC #Chairman #Repeal #Key #Rule #Fundamentally #Change #Broadcast #NewsBrendan carr,broadcast television,FCC

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr wants to repeal a rule that has prevented a select handful of broadcasters from taking full control of the media landscape.

Back in 2004, Congress instructed the FCC to enact a national ownership cap that would bar any one broadcast station owner from reaching more than 39% of American households. For more than 20 years, the rule has kept mega mergers in the TV broadcasting industry from gobbling up the entire media ecosystem.

Now, Carr is proposing to repeal that national ownership cap rule, which, if successful, would mean broadcast TV giants will pretty much have a green light for mergers, even if it meant that one company would gain access to most of the media landscape.

Carr expressed his intentions in an op-ed published by the far-right organization Breitbart. In the op-ed, he claimed that the cap was once helpful in protecting local news stations, but now it was becoming an obstacle as they compete with national news, large streamers, and social media giants.

Instead of a blanket rule, Carr wants to create a new “case-by-case approach.”

“Previously, the cap operated as a blanket prohibition on any and all deals that would combine stations in excess of the 39 percent limit—regardless of whether it was a good deal or a bad one for the country,” Carr wrote in the op-ed. “Our new proposal would allow the FCC to approve deals that exceed the 39 percent cap, but only if doing so would promote the public interest.”

Major broadcasters have been lobbying for a change to the rule for quite some time now. One such mega TV broadcasting company that lobbied for the rule change is Nexstar. Earlier this year, the FCC granted Nexstar a waiver for the 39% national ownership cap rule and approved its acquisition of rival Tegna. The merger is still currently facing court challenges over antitrust claims, but if it is finalized, then Nexstar is estimated to expand its reach to at least 60% of American households.

Sinclair, another Trump-allied major broadcaster that was behind a particularly infamous PR debacle during Trump’s first administration, is also eyeing a merger and commended the proposed rule change as “common sense.” Both companies also famously refused to air Jimmy Kimmel’s show on their channels late last year after the late-night host’s comments about Charlie Kirk drew ire from the Trump administration.

The FCC will vote on eliminating the rule on August 6th. There are three commissioners, two Republicans and one Democrat. The lone Democratic FCC Commissioner, Anna Gomez, took to X to voice her staunch opposition.

“The FCC just announced it will move forward with its unlawful effort to hand control of the public airwaves to billionaire buddies of this administration,” Gomez wrote. “This will destroy local newsrooms, silence community reporting, and drive-up costs for American families.”

Even if the action passes the FCC vote, it’s likely to receive pushback from both sides of the aisle in Congress.

“Trump’s FCC Chair is trying to illegally rewrite the rules to make it easier for billionaires to line their own pockets while jacking up costs and controlling what Americans watch,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren said in a statement. “After rubber-stamping the Nexstar-Tegna megamerger, this looks like the Trump administration’s latest attempt to roll out the red carpet for more antitrust disasters.”

Critics believe that because the rule was created following Congress’s action, it is up to Congress to determine if it should be retired. But Carr insists that the FCC has the authority to modify or repeal the rule.

#FCC #Chairman #Repeal #Key #Rule #Fundamentally #Change #Broadcast #NewsBrendan carr,broadcast television,FCC

Post Comment