Due to COVID-19, the College Board came out with an at-home AP test in just 2 months. Its many failures revealed a deeper problem within the U.S.' education ecosystem. Bob Schaeffer and Carol Burris explain.

Even with over $1 billion in campaign spending, why didn't Mike Bloomberg's 2020 run get him the win? Dr. Lara Brown and journalist Benjamin Dixon give analysis.

Film studios can't legally own their own movie theaters. If that changed, what would it mean for the industry?

With the Sprint and T-Mobile merger sitting in limbo, Daniel Litwin examined what a four-to-three merger of this size would mean for the industry.

This episode of Ratified is trying something new; a considerably more niche topic. Whereas the last two went a little larger in scale, hitting on gig economy legislation in California and the state of net neutrality, this episode of Ratified is a look at the nitty gritty legislative back and forth of lobbying in the telecom and AV industry.Joining Daniel to provide context and perspective is Chuck Wilson, Executive Director of the National Systems Contractors Association, and Keith Kempenich of the North Dakota House of Representatives, representing District 39.In 2019, legislative sessions introduced new language that would’ve either subtly or drastically changed the dynamics of licensing requirements for electricians and tangential industries, like AV and telecom. Lawmakers looked around at technology they thought was new, or at least now more relevant in these industries, and decided it was time to rework licensing around low-voltage lighting, IoT devices, and power over ethernet. This language was meant to keep everyone safe and adjust legal language for the times.If only it were that simple. The different state bills immediately turned the heads of AV industry professionals, and not out of excitement. Listen to the full episode to hear how this battle turned out and get the different perspectives from individuals on both sides of the issue.

The fight for net neutrality is over at the federal level, at least for now. The Obama-era Open Internet Order of 2015 was repealed by Ajit Pai’s FCC and solidified after a DC circuit court of appeals’ final ruling, leaving prospects looking slim for legislation proactively regulating broadband internet.However, even with the federal repeal, individual states still have the ability to pass their own legislation, which could carry on the spirit of net neutrality by tackling the most frequented issues of blocking lawful content, throttling and paid prioritization.With the future of net neutrality in the hands of the states, how will this play out for end-users and ISPs? On this episode of Ratified, a MarketScale show on the intersection of business and policy, host Daniel Litwin brings two important perspectives to the table to understand the main arguments for and against net neutrality regulations, why small ISPs fought hard for repeal, and what future legislation could look like encourages both broadband expansion and an open internet.Commentary includes perspectives from Matt Polka, CEO of ACA Connects, and Chad Marlow, senior advocacy & policy council at the ACLU.ACA Connects, which represents almost 800 small and medium-sized independent telecom operators across the nation, and works with Washington to ensure fair treatment of these small players so they can provide “affordable video broadband and phone services to Main Street America.” Polka and his members have felt a weight lifted with the repeal of Net Neutrality, and he joined Ratified to give his perspective on Title II regulations, how they affect small ISPs, and whether lawmakers can put partisanship aside to roll out new federal legislation.At the ACLU, Marlow advises specifically on privacy, surveillance, and technology issues. An advocate for a free and open internet, Marlow explained how a state-by-state Net Neutrality framework could play out, who’s necessary to advise on quality legislation, and his take on some of the prevailing arguments from the net neutrality discussion.For more on Ratified, follow Daniel Litwin on Twitter and subscribe to MarketScale Radio on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.

California Assembly Bill 5 is a piece of legislation that holds massive ramifications for the gig economy, specifically rideshare companies like Uber and Lyft. It was signed into law on September 18, 2019 in an attempt to limit the ability to classify workers as independent contractors rather than employees of a company.Governor Gavin Newsom said of the bill, “Assembly bill 5 is landmark legislation for workers and our economy. It will help reduce worker misclassification—workers being wrongly classified as “independent contractors” rather than employees—which erodes basic worker protections like the minimum wage, PTO, and health insurance benefits.”Uber, Lyft, and DoorDash have all expressed their displeasure with the bill, signaling they will not be in compliance. What are their claims and why are they so vehemently opposed?To answer those questions our host Daniel Litwin spoke to Nicole Moore with Rideshare Drivers United, who provided the perspective of the driver, and Professor William Gould, who provided necessary context on the dynamics of labor law in the United States.Tune into Ratified every Tuesday morning at 9AM CST to get the latest on the intersection of policy and business.