Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

We need bipartisan cooperation to protect the internet

Underwater cable model

A model of an internet cable that is laid along the seabed to transmit high-voltage electricity and the Internet via fiberglass.

Serg Myshkovsky/Getty Images

Your internet access is dependent on the security and resiliency of garden-hose-sized underwater cables. More than 800,000 miles of these cables criss-cross the oceans and seas. When just one of these cables breaks, which occurs about every other day, you may not notice much of a change to your internet speed. When several break, which is increasingly possible, the resulting delay in internet connectivity can disrupt a nation’s economy, news and government.

If there were ever a bipartisan issue it’s this: protecting our undersea cable system.


Nearly all internet traffic goes through this cable system. The fiber optic glass at the core of the cables allows the internet to operate at incredible speeds. The alternative — relying on satellites — is nearly five times slower. That’s why protecting these cables is essential, especially for countries with fewer cables.

The hundreds of cable systems around the world are not equally distributed. Whereas the United States has dozens and dozens of cables on both coasts, some countries have less than a handful, or none at all. Those latter countries are especially vulnerable to diminished internet upon a cable break. Take, for example, Japan in 2011. The tsunami that struck the island nation caused seven of its 12 transpacific cables to break. If one more cable had been severed, internet traffic between Japan and the U.S. may have come to a halt.

Reducing the vulnerability of this system is not easy. It’s not a matter of governments simply laying more cables. For lack of a better phrase, governments are not in the cable laying business. Nearly all undersea cables are privately owned. Microsoft, Meta, Google and Amazon are the ones laying cables at a historically unprecedented rate.

It’s also not as simple as sending out more repair ships. There’s only a couple dozen ships outfitted to repair cables. This small fleet is made up of a small, aging labor force.

Finally, it’s not as straightforward as hiding cables from bad actors who might want to intentionally break them. Making cables harder to find might actually increase the number of breaks. The plurality of breaks are caused by fishers accidentally dropping nets, anchors and other equipment on cables. If fishing boats do not know where cables are laid, they may cause breaks on an even more frequent basis.

All potential ways to make the undersea cable system more resilient come with tradeoffs. New Zealand and Australia, for example, have developed cable protection zones, in which all cables must fall. These zones decrease the odds of unintentional breaks by making more actors aware of cable locations. Yet, by concentrating cables in a single area, the odds of a single storm or bad actor causing several breaks increase. Cables made of more resilient material may withstand more severe storms, but upon a break may be even harder to repair. This is just a short list of proposals that come with pros and cons but merit more investigation.

While the next best step to protecting undersea cables is unclear, what’s obvious is that the status quo cannot persist. The public must make this an issue. Elected officials on both sides of the aisle ought to prioritize this critical infrastructure. And, cable owners like Google should embrace the public service they are performing by making the cable laying and repair process more transparent and participatory. That’s a tall order for each set of actors; it’s also one that should inspire and motivate us all to rally in defense of the undersea cable system.

Frazier is an assistant professor at the Crump College of Law at St. Thomas University and a Tarbell fellow.

Read More

What's the Difference Between Consequence Culture and State Censorship?

Jimmy Kimmel attends the 28th Annual UCLA Jonsson Cancer Center Foundation's "Taste For A Cure" event at Beverly Wilshire, A Four Seasons Hotel on May 02, 2025 in Beverly Hills, California.

(Photo by Tommaso Boddi/Getty Images for UCLA Jonsson Cancer Center Foundation)

What's the Difference Between Consequence Culture and State Censorship?

On a recent Tuesday night, viewers tuned in expecting the usual rhythm of late-night comedy: sharp jokes, a celebrity guest, and some comic relief before bed. Instead, they were met with silence. Jimmy Kimmel was yanked off the air after mocking Trump’s response to Charlie Kirk’s assassination, his remarks branded “offensive” by federal officials. Stephen Colbert fared no better. After skewering Trump’s wealth and his strongman posturing, his show was abruptly suspended. The message was unmistakable: any criticism of the president could now be grounds for cancellation.

These weren’t ratings decisions or advertiser tantrums. They were acts of political pressure. Regulators threatened fines and hinted at license reviews if the jokes continued. A hallmark of American democracy, the freedom to mock the powerful, was suddenly treated as a form of censorship.

Keep ReadingShow less
Censorship in Prime Time: Is The Authoritarian Playbook in Motion?
Fayl:Jimmy Kimmel June 2022.jpg - Vikipediya

Censorship in Prime Time: Is The Authoritarian Playbook in Motion?

ABC’s decision to pull Jimmy Kimmel Live! indefinitely has sent shockwaves through both the media and political worlds, with critics denouncing the move as censorship. “This isn’t right,” wrote actor Ben Stiller. California Governor Gavin Newsom went further, accusing the Republican Party of “censoring you in real time,” warning that “buying and controlling media platforms, firing commentators, canceling shows… it’s coordinated. And it’s dangerous.”

This isn’t just about one late-night host. It’s about a pattern—a six-step playbook used by authoritarian regimes to dismantle democratic institutions. And under President Donald Trump’s second term, critics say that playbook is being executed with alarming precision.

Keep ReadingShow less
When Good Intentions Kill Cures: A Warning on AI Regulation

Kevin Frazier warns that one-size-fits-all AI laws risk stifling innovation. Learn the 7 “sins” policymakers must avoid to protect progress.

Getty Images, Aitor Diago

When Good Intentions Kill Cures: A Warning on AI Regulation

Imagine it is 2028. A start-up in St. Louis trains an AI model that can spot pancreatic cancer six months earlier than the best radiologists, buying patients precious time that medicine has never been able to give them. But the model never leaves the lab. Why? Because a well-intentioned, technology-neutral state statute drafted in 2025 forces every “automated decision system” to undergo a one-size-fits-all bias audit, to be repeated annually, and to be performed only by outside experts who—three years in—still do not exist in sufficient numbers. While regulators scramble, the company’s venture funding dries up, the founders decamp to Singapore, and thousands of Americans are deprived of an innovation that would have saved their lives.

That grim vignette is fictional—so far. But it is the predictable destination of the seven “deadly sins” that already haunt our AI policy debates. Reactive politicians are at risk of passing laws that fly in the face of what qualifies as good policy for emerging technologies.

Keep ReadingShow less
Why Journalists Must Stand Firm in the Face of Threats to Democracy
a cup of coffee and a pair of glasses on a newspaper
Photo by Ashni on Unsplash

Why Journalists Must Stand Firm in the Face of Threats to Democracy

The United States is living through a moment of profound democratic vulnerability. I believe the Trump administration has worked in ways that weaken trust in our institutions, including one of democracy’s most essential pillars: a free and independent press. In my view, these are not abstract risks but deliberate attempts to discredit truth-telling. That is why, now more than ever, I think journalists must recommit themselves to their core duty of telling the truth, holding power to account, and giving voice to the people.

As journalists, I believe we do not exist to serve those in office. Our loyalty should be to the public, to the people who trust us with their stories, not to officials who often seek to mold the press to favor their agenda. To me, abandoning that principle would be to betray not just our profession but democracy itself.

Keep ReadingShow less