Even as the Trump administration sides with big internet service providers in setting the stage for major changes in the way consumers are billed for going online, New York is among a handful of states actively fighting back. 

Everything from student homework to entertainment and vital government and insurance services is being done digitally these days. That is why the concept of a content-agnostic web is essential. Under a new Federal Communications Commission rule, access could be broken into tiers, with slower speeds for some services. This has been described as deeply unfair and potentially innovation crushing.

Already, cable companies have been trying such schemes, offering faster downloads at greater cost, for example. Taken to an extreme, a company like Altice, which owns both Optimum Online, which has a near-monopoly on the South Fork, and Newsday, could put the brakes on competing media, such as The New York Times. AT&T, which is set to take over Time Warner, could throttle down the streaming service of competing Fox News while boosting CNN. 

The New York State Legislature passed a bill this week to try to protect equal access to the internet. It would prohibit state and local governments from using the services of companies that did not adhere to the principles of net neutrality. The fight is far from over, but Albany’s emerging position is an important step toward a level field for all players, large and small.

Rarely, it seems, does an experiment involving South Fork roads produce changes for the better, but this is the case with a trial just ended in Water Mill, which temporarily eliminated a stoplight at Montauk Highway and Station Road and, instead, set it to blinking while the U.S. Open was underway at the Shinnecock Hills Golf Club. Anecdotally, the test appears to have been a smashing success.

A staggering increase in traffic over the past decade is at the root of problems for drivers trying to squeeze through the hamlet, especially eastbound from County Road 39. The average number of vehicular trips daily in the area soared from about 29,000 in 2005 to more than 40,000 in 2016, according to the New York State Department of Transportation. At peak times, such as during the morning and evening “trade parade” and on weekends, the number might be far greater.

While the blinking-light experiment was underway, trips that might have taken an hour fell in some cases to 20 minutes. This was a very big deal for commuters and tradespeople, giving them back precious minutes over the course of the week at the busiest time of year. State transportation officials were to have collected traffic flow data during the Open. Many drivers hope the data will show that eliminating the stoplight and possibly making the Station Road intersection right-turn-only should be permanent.

A cold calculus has dominated the unusual multi-candidate Democratic primary in New York’s First Congressional District this year. Of seemingly more concern to many active party members is who stands the best chance of defeating the incumbent, Representative Lee Zeldin, rather than determining who may be the most qualified. At the same time, some Democratic strategists are likely to prefer a middle-of-the-road person who might draw some moderate Republicans to their column. Such realpolitik might feel appropriate in the age of Trump, but to have effective government voters should always hold their candidates to high idealistic standards.

For a variety of reasons, Mr. Zeldin is an unacceptable voice for the First District. From a once-promising start as a state legislator, he has withered under hot Fox News studio lights into a hissing, sycophantic Gollum that might make J.R.R. Tolkien proud. As one of the first members of Congress to embrace Donald Trump, Mr. Zeldin broke with his traditionally moderate district. Since the 2017 election, he has shied away from open public appearances, giving rise to the cynically named group Let’s Visit Lee Zeldin, and being driven further underground and away from his constituents.

As the June 26 primary approaches, Democratic voters must sift through the remaining hopefuls: Kate Browning, Perry Gershon, Vivian Viloria-Fisher, Elaine DiMasi, and David Pechefsky. Of these, Ms. DiMasi and Mr. Pechefsky are the standouts, if not in name recognition at least in background and worldview. Filtering further, in the #MeToo era, it seems important that a woman be selected to represent this region in Congress, where women make up less than 20 percent of elected representatives. This puts the focus on Ms. DiMasi — and there is much more to this former Brookhaven National Laboratory physicist and project manager than her gender.

Throughout her long-shot campaign, Ms. DiMasi has spoken about a facts and evidence-based approach to policy. She is running largely on a pitch for clean energy and clean-energy jobs, which are seen as boosts to the First District’s tech and construction sectors. As a scientist, she has grave concerns about the economic impact of Washington’s gutting of research funding, a dollar drain that could leave the United States behind competitors overseas, where money for research and development is more free-flowing.

At a time when truth itself is under assault from the White House, candidates with a strong grasp of the facts, like Ms. DiMasi, are all the more important. In our eastern Long Island district, where climate change, economic growth, and reality-based immigration policy should be at the top of the agenda, Ms. DiMasi is the best equipped among the remaining Democratic candidates. With less than two weeks until the primary, she deserves a close look by those voters who would like to put brainpower back in the equation. 

For all its popularity and spectacular shoreline, Montauk has inadequate beach parking. This is most acutely the case at Ditch Plain, which is both a well-known surf mecca and a sunbathers’ favorite. Parking there seemed almost an afterthought until recently, when East Hampton Town undertook small-scale expansions at so-called Dirt Lot and Otis Road, and the reconfiguration of the main lot closest to the lifeguards.

A further step toward making Ditch beach parking a little more rational is to be considered this evening in Town Hall. Proposals include banning vehicles with trailers, other than those licensed for food vending, and making the main, largest parking lot residents-only. This may be worth a try, but we are not sure it is the best approach.

One concern is that the already bonkers situation at Dirt Lot, especially when there is a good swell running, will be made worse as vehicles with pricey nonresident parking stickers jostle for the few available spots. At Otis Road, the relatively few available parking places already tend to fill up for the day while beachgoers pursue the summer lifestyle on the sand. Cramming all nonresident permit holders into these small spaces is likely to make things worse.

Meanwhile, the larger lot, the one with Ditch’s too-funky restrooms, will be half empty at times, like the residents-only lot at Indian Wells in Amagansett since that restriction was imposed about four years ago. The new rule is expected to pass, however.

The East Hampton Town Board should remain open-minded about Ditch Plain parking as it unfolds between now and the end of the season. One solution might be to allow nonresidents into the big lot after, say, noon, giving the locals first dibs and allowing everyone an equal chance after that. An alternative might be to make the Otis Road or Dirt Lot spaces resident-only. The town could also buy an upland parcel somewhere for parking, with a shuttle bus taking people to the beach.

Or — and this is probably the best idea of all: The town should ante up in a big way to buy the former East Deck Motel property, adding adequate parking and a proper beach facility, like that at Main Beach in East Hampton Village or Sagg Main in Sagaponack. It would be costly, for sure, but a wise investment for the future.

East Hampton’s beaches are its crown jewels. It’s high time that officials in Town Hall, who must realize this, act accordingly. We believe public support for a major upgrade would be overwhelming. Just tweaking parking rules at the most popular stretch of sand in the entire town will never be enough.

There is not a whole lot of daylight, at least on the surface, among the three candidates for East Hampton Village trustee whose names will be on Tuesday’s ballot. Rose Brown, Arthur Graham, and Bruce Siska are facing off, with the top two vote-getters winning seats. Mr. Graham and Mr. Siska are incumbents; Ms. Brown is taking her first shot at elected office. Narrowing the choice from three to two is difficult; all of the candidates are able and qualified.

Setting policy for East Hampton Village is no small thing. Village Hall must tend to the high-rent downtown retail hub, watch over the ocean beaches, tend to roads and public spaces, and meet the needs of diverse residents. This is in a climate of extreme real estate pressure and ongoing demands for police, fire, and ambulance services. Add long-term threats from sea level rise and concerns about deer and water pollution, and the relatively small municipal board has a very large portfolio to contend with.

Of the three candidates, Ms. Brown and Mr. Graham seem more willing to re-examine the status quo than Mr. Siska, but only marginally so. All three are eager to see more apartments for year-round occupation above stores on Main Street and Newtown Lane. All three favor some form of sewage treatment for the central area of the village. All three want tougher building standards to slow the hulking suburbanization of the village’s side streets.

While Mr. Siska feels that the public is happy with the way the village is being run, Ms. Brown and Mr. Graham seek to shake things up a little. For example, both would like a new comprehensive plan, which would take the pulse of existing residents and provide a map for future growth. Ms. Brown would show a little more leniency toward the village’s handful of inns. Mr. Graham is eager to do something about leaf-blower noise, at least during the summer season.

Part of Ms. Brown’s pitch to voters is that she is substantially younger than the current board members and would bring a different perspective as well as provide a conduit to a social circle not often heard from in village deliberations. We do not intend to show disrespect for the long-serving member of the village board, but it is hard to argue that relative youth would not be a valuable addition.

Mr. Graham strikes us as something of a fire-baller, which might grate on some but is a useful trait in local government. We very much like his strong commitment to a modern wastewater treatment system downtown, as well as to encouraging new apartments whose occupants might work in help-starved local businesses. 

Mr. Siska has been an important part of village government for almost 25 years, but in making an endorsement, we must evaluate who among the candidates would be most likely to contribute energetically going forward. By that measure, Ms. Brown and Mr. Graham are our choices. Election Day in the village is Tuesday from noon to 9 p.m. at the Emergency Services Building on Cedar Street.

It’s that time of the year again. With schools finally out and kids with summer energy to burn, the East Hampton Town Junior Lifeguard and Nipper Guard programs started up this week. These are water skills and safety programs with East Hampton Town lifeguards as instructors. Swim evaluations began in the spring at the Y.M.C.A. East Hampton RECenter. From the age of 9 up, the morning programs are held at the ocean. Nippers, as the younger participants are called, train in calmer bay waters in Amagansett and Montauk. 

Given that we are surrounded by water, these programs are vital. Knowing how to deal with currents and waves — and getting pointers on swimming techniques from experienced guards — builds confidence and self-esteem. The programs also provide a feeder track for further training, forging young recruits who will be the lifesavers of the future at both public beaches and private facilities.

John Ryan Sr., the longtime guiding force behind the town lifeguards, is fond of saying that no one has ever drowned at a protected beach here. While not every kid who jumps in the water as a junior lifeguard or a Nipper will eventually progress to watching over others in the water, the skills they learn may prove valuable in other ways. Plus, it’s a whole lot of fun. Everyone involved deserves a tip of the sun hat for a job well done.

We were all thankful when we learned that a pedestrian who was struck by a car on Saturday morning just before 9 on Pantigo Road in East Hampton Village would be okay. However, the circumstances of the accident should serve as a reminder to both drivers and walkers about how fine the line is between safety and tragedy.

According to data drawn from federal reports, more than 5,900 pedestrians were killed in the United States last year; about 129,000 went to hospital emergency rooms for nonfatal injuries. Those most at risk year in and year out are the young and those over 65. And the trends are not good; the Governors Highway Safety Association said that the number of pedestrians killed by motor vehicles hit a 33-year-high in 2017. Increased cellphone use has not been tied to the increasing death and injury toll. Rather, a National Transportation Safety Board report blamed excessive speed and drunken driving.

Crosswalks by themselves are not sufficient protection for people on foot. The victim struck on Saturday was crossing in a designated place and an illuminated crossing sign indicated it was okay for her to proceed. The driver of the vehicle that struck her told police that she just did not see the pedestrian in the crosswalk.

Therein lies the key caution for those on foot: Drivers are as likely not to see you as to see you. Making eye contact is a good idea, and never assume anything when stepping off the sidewalk.

While not traditionally thought of as a flash point between conservationists and conservatives over threatened and endangered plants and animals, the East End has its own deep connections to the 1973 act of Congress that President Trump and his allies now seek to undermine. Three birds come most immediately to mind: the bald eagle, piping plover, and osprey, all of which have rebounded from what not that long ago appeared to be near-certain extinction.

Beyond the plovers, eagles, and osprey, more than 100 plant and animal species are in trouble here, according to the Peconic Estuary Program. The number of species on the East End is high in comparison to many other parts of the United States due to the combination of upland, wetland, and deep and shallow water zones, formed over thousands of years, which gave rise to impressive biodiversity. This is something those lucky enough to live here treasure and our visitors are drawn to again and again. It is no surprise that Montauk Point and its lighthouse, looking out over perhaps the wildest of the wild, has become a state symbol of deep pride.

The list of species that are rare or endangered globally, nationally, or locally includes the most endangered sea turtle, the Kemp’s ridley, as well as the leatherback and Atlantic hawksbill sea turtles, roseate and black terns, the Eskimo curlew, the state-listed endangered tiger salamander, the golden eagle, and loggerhead shrike. Offshore, right whales, Atlantic salmon, and short-nose and Atlantic sturgeon are critically endangered, while bluefin tuna and a number of sharks are listed as at risk.

Rare and at-risk plants include silverweed, sandplain gerardia, blue flag, seabeach amaranth, milkweed, and white-edge sedge — many coming under assault from invasive species, such as now-ubiquitous phragmites, while others suffer relentless depredation from an out-of-control deer population, and most of all, from development and other man-made threats.

Not all at-risk plants and animals in the state have earned federal protection under the Endangered Species Act. Listings by the Department of the Interior are highly politicized even though the agency is supposed to safeguard the biodiversity on which all life on earth depends. Because relatively little is known about the complex interplay of species, however, it is impossible to know if any are expendable; therefore, all should be protected. Whether one sees the divine hand of a creator in nature or billions of years of evolution at work, it should not be up to humankind to decide which live on and which disappear.

A striking image of Montauk in the year 2100 made the online rounds this week. Produced by Scott Bluedorn, an artist and thinker, it showed the easternmost portion of the South Fork as it might appear after the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s worst-case projections for climate change-driven sea level rise. The image is stark and drew a lot of attention.

It has long been known that Montauk will eventually become an island of its own, cut off from the rest of East Hampton as low-lying Amagansett from Beach Hampton to Hither Hills is covered by water. But by looking closely at six feet of sea level rise on the NOAA flood map Mr. Bluedorn noticed something more: Montauk itself could be divided into two parts with another for the Hither Hills highlands.

Taking some artistic license in making a provocative image from the sterile NOAA data, Mr. Bluedorn called one part West Montauk Island, where a new commercial center is on elevated ground near where the hamlet’s Fire Department has a second fire station. The lake becomes the Montauk Chanel in Mr. Bluedorn’s version; on East Montauk Island,

Oyster Pond is now Oyster Bay. Generously, he allows the lighthouse to remain, which is not entirely a sure thing despite a $28 million planned Army Corps of Engineers project to shore up the bluff on which it sits.

Mr. Bluedorn’s inspired vision is not all that far-fetched. A study commissioned by the Town of East Hampton has already determined that an elevated causeway would have to be built at the entrance to downtown Montauk to replace a low-lying portion of Route 27. The report also presents a preliminary plan for relocating much of the commercial center away from the sea and from a new open waterway that could connect Fort Pond Bay to the ocean by subsuming Fort Pond itself.

The science of climate change has been settled since the 1970s. And, as recounted in a detailed New York Times Magazine piece this week, as the 1980s progressed, world leaders came agonizingly close to a global treaty limiting carbon dioxide emissions, but failed to reach binding agreement. Locally, elected officials are beginning to rethink coastal policy in the face of almost impossible decisions about what will be allowed to remain and what will go away as the water encroaches. A report presented in June to the East Hampton Town Board called climate change, sea level rise, and increased storm activity the greatest threats to East Hampton and its residents, upending the economy, property, and the drinking water supply.

Gallup says that 70 percent of people ages 18 to 34 are very worried about global warming, but almost the same portion of Republicans think the claims are exaggerated. Given this political reality, the prospects of action at a national level any time soon are dim. That leaves communities like ours on their own in dealing with the consequences. Work like Mr. Bluedorn’s helps us imagine the unimaginable. It is important to take notice and demand answers from those we elect — in the villages and Albany and the nation’s capital.

Southampton Supervisor Jay Schneiderman had seen enough. According to a press release, he was fed up with the proliferation of signs illegally posted along roads in Bridgehampton and Water Mill and ordered town workers to remove them. More than 100 signs touting everything from junk hauling to summer camps were disposed of in a sweep.

“We have devoted so much effort to preserve our natural beauty we are not going to let it be marred by illegal advertising on our roadways from companies looking to make a fast buck,” Mr. Schneiderman said in the announcement. While Southampton officials declined to issue citations this time, they warned that repeat violators could be charged with littering, obstructing roads, the private use of public rights of way, and placing prohibited signs.

In East Hampton Town, officials who should take a cue from their counterparts in Southampton basically ignore illegal signs. Building companies and others frequently place too-large signs on roadsides or leave them up longer than allowed. In one particularly weird instance, the town’s Building Department slapped a stop-work order on an architect’s Bluff Road, Amagansett, sign that was several square feet larger than the legal maximum and had been left standing for months beyond the date by which, under the law, it should have been removed. Even after the construction issue had been resolved, the insanely large sign stayed in place, but sporting a nice new building permit.

Similarly, both Perry Gershon and Lee Zeldin supporters nearby have erected their own illegally sized placards, which one would think would be a simple matter for town code enforcers to resolve. (Andy Sabin, we’re looking at you.) 

Is it corruption? Ignorance? Laziness? Is Town Hall understaffed and overworked? Are our elected officials afraid of angering voters in the trades? Are they over-solicitous of the real estate industry? Who knows. What is obvious is that no one in a position of authority appears to care, while violations spread like mushrooms after heavy rain.

Some years ago an East Hampton code officer told us that most people who put up illegal signs simply don’t know the law, that in general a quick phone call was all it took to get compliance. With business phone numbers on most, if not all, of the improper signs, why Town Hall does not drop the dime is a very good question.

Meanwhile, here’s to Jay Schneiderman and Southampton Town staff members who decided that a better-looking, more rule-following community mattered. Good work, folks. Let’s hope East Hampton Town gets the message.