SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Sdgla who wrote (1141385)6/13/2019 12:37:17 AM
From: sylvester80  Respond to of 1575426
 
tRump FCC said repealing net-neutrality rules would help consumers: IT HAS NOT!
Rob Pegoraro
Contributing Editor
Yahoo FinanceJune 12, 2019
finance.yahoo.com

One year ago, a Republican-controlled Federal Communications Commission finished scrapping the strict net neutrality regulations that banned internet providers from blocking or slowing legal content, or even charging for faster delivery. This new regime promised a different bargain: We’d get more and better broadband in return for giving ISPs the freedom to muscle around sites for profit.

FCC chairman Ajit Pai repeatedly emphasized that eliminating the rules would help smaller ISPs in particular bring competition to the market. “They told us that these rules prevented them from extending their service because they had to spend money on lawyers and accountants,” he said in a June 2018 statement.

A year later, the bargain looks unfulfilled. Evidence remains scant of ISPs saving money from this regulatory rollback, or working to give consumers faster or better broadband options. But they also don’t seem to be using their new power, much less abusing it.

Increased investment? It depends.On Monday, the industry group USTelecom said it estimated broadband investment had increased from $72 billion in 2017 to $75 billion in 2018. But its data also shows individual telco firms pulling back.

Figures USTelecom posted in February, for example, show Verizon cutting its investment by 3.4% from 2017 to 2018. And the 3.9% increase shown for AT&T ( T) vanishes if you subtract the $1.2 billion the firm spent in 2018 on the government-backed FirstNet emergency-responder network.

And last week, AT&T Communications CEO John Donovan told attendees at an investor conference that the firm would slow its fiber build-out.

Two small ISPs championed by Pai said they were improving speeds, not expanding coverage. Chad Cleveland, general manager for Laurens Municipal Power & Communications in Laurens, Iowa—a firm Pai cited as a net-neutrality victim, said Laurens Municipal “had already built out to all of the citizens of Laurens before this all took place,” but was now considering a fiber-to-home upgrade.

“We’ve focused on increasing the throughput capabilities,” said Derek McNaught, network engineer at Parsons, Kans.-based Wave Wireless. He added that his firm didn’t want to barge into territory other small wireless ISPs serve.

The FCC’s latest broadband-deployment report does show an increase in connectivity across the U.S.—but that’s based on vague and out-of-date information provided by ISPs. And outside broadband-mapping work by USTelecom and Microsoft ( MSFT) are making its defects increasingly obvious. On Wednesday, Pai announced that the FCC would vote in August to require more precise data from providers.

Cost savings? Meh.Cleveland said he’d feared the possible risks of the old rules’ backstop clause barring “unjust and unreasonable” practices but added that he backs a ban on blocking, throttling and paid prioritization.

“I don’t have a cost estimate for what I saved,” he said.

Claude Aiken, president of the wireless-ISP group WISPA, said it was more a matter of “potentially increased compliance costs” than actual expenses.

He and Ted Hearn, president of the small-cable-providers group ACA Connects, said banks were less willing to loan to smaller ISPs after the 2015 rules.

“It looks different from a bank’s perspective if you are in a lightly versus heavily regulated industry,” Aiken agreed.

Matt Larsen, CEO of Gering, Neb.-based VistaBeam, said the 2017 rules actually cost him. “All of those required disclosures costs us over $10K in legal fees to put together because we wanted to do it right,” he explained via email. He’s since found that pricey prose duplicated at another ISP’s site.

The worst didn’t happenOn the other hand, we haven’t seen telco execs indulge their dreams of surcharging sites.

An app-based study by researchers at Northeastern University, the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, and Stony Brook University confirmed no persistent throttling beyond wireless carriers limiting streaming-video resolution. And they were already doing that under the old rules, which exempted video from data caps.

That study originally detected Sprint ( S) throttling Skype, but in an email, lead principal investigator David Choffnes said the company stopped the practice in October. Choffnes said his group’s tests “generally do not detect throttling” among wired providers.

The FCC, meanwhile, knows of no paid-prioritization deals struck by ISPs.

You can see if yours would sign one at the disclosure statement it’s required to post. Comcast ( CMCSA), for instance, renounces paid prioritization in its disclosure.

But these statements may not reside at your provider’s site. They can send them to the FCC—where they lurk in its electronic-comment-filing system under docket number 18-142. To spare you from reading all 53 filings made via this opaque form of transparency, none attest to plans for blocking, throttling or paid prioritization.

Privacy by the waysideGigi Sohn, a net-neutrality advocate who served as counselor to Tom Wheeler, Pai’s predecessor as FCC chairman, called throttling and paid prioritization “one half of the picture.”

She pointed to privacy issues, as seen in the discovery that all four wireless carriers—Yahoo Finance’s corporate parent Verizon ( VZ) among them—had sold location data to third-party brokers.

The Obama-administration FCC had approved privacy regulations grounded in the old net-neutrality rules, but Republicans in Congress rushed to cancel them in early 2017.

“It’s a lack of oversight that’s the most egregious part,” Sohn said. “I doubt anybody’s minding the store.”

The Federal Trade Commission is now supposed to step in when ISPs violate their stated policies. But the long-overworked FTC increasingly has its hands full investigating Facebook ( FB) and other tech giants.

Killing net-neutrality rules hasn’t destroyed the internet as we know it. But if their most-evident upside has been making bankers more comfortable loaning to ISPs, celebrating this as “restoring internet freedom” as Pai does is a bit much.



To: Sdgla who wrote (1141385)6/13/2019 12:52:05 AM
From: Wharf Rat1 Recommendation

Recommended By
sylvester80

  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1575426
 
"1.1 million more people working now since the election"
Yawn.

Trump’s Numbers, April 2019 Update
Statistical measures of how things have changed since the president took office.

By Brooks Jackson

Posted on April 11, 2019




Employment — Total nonfarm employment grew by 5,121,000 during the president’s first 26 months in office, according to the most recent figures available from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

That continued an unbroken chain of monthly gains in total employment that started in October 2010.

The average monthly gain under Trump so far is 197,000 — compared with an average monthly gain of 217,000 during Obama’s second term.

Trump will have to pick up the pace if he is to fulfill his campaign boast that he will be “ the greatest jobs president that God ever created.”

Message 32175201



To: Sdgla who wrote (1141385)6/13/2019 1:12:55 AM
From: sylvester80  Respond to of 1575426
 
BOMBSHELL: A DEAD REPUBLICAN IS MORE FORTHCOMING THAN TRUMP OFFICIALS
House panel finds William Barr and Wilbur Ross in contempt for refusing to turn over key documents about a plot to rig the census, which was found on a deceased man’s hard drive.
Jay Michaelson
Updated 06.12.19 5:47PM ET / Published 06.12.19 5:04PM ET
thedailybeast.com

The House Oversight Committee voted on party lines Wednesday to hold Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross and Attorney General William Barr in contempt of Congress for their failure to respond to subpoenas about the addition of a citizenship question to the census.

That action comes a day after the House authorized the Justice Committee to sue Barr and former White House Counsel Don McGahn in federal court, in order to compel them to comply with their subpoenas and testify before the committee regarding the Mueller Report.

Trump officials have withheld so many documents in the two investigations, that deceased Republican operative Thomas Hofeller has been more forthcoming than the current administration.

SMOKING GUN
Revealed: Trump Officials Trying to Rig Elections for Whites

Jay Michaelson



Two weeks ago, in a shocking turn of events, memos found on Hofeller’s hard drive revealed that the true purpose of the citizenship question was to change congressional districts to benefit “non-Hispanic whites.” That revelation directly contradicted Trump administration claims that the question was intended to help enforce the Voting Rights Act. Indeed, it showed that the intention was the exact opposite.

The Supreme Court is poised to rule on the citizenship question in the next two weeks.

While the Census and Russia scandals emerge from different sources, they’re now more alike than different.

We’re no longer talking about how a citizenship question would decrease Hispanic responses to the Senate, or whether Donald Trump obstructed justice by firing James Comey. We’re talking about Trump administration officials covering up evidence and refusing congressional subpoenas.

In the case of the census, Trump administration officials may have violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and perhaps even the constitution. But in brazenly defying congressional subpoenas, they have flouted the rule of law itself, not to mention Congress’s constitutionally-mandated powers.

In some ways, the cover-up is even worse than the crime.

“We would be committing legislative malpractice if we didn’t do our job,” said Oversight Committee Chair Elijah Cummings at the start of Wednesday’s often rancorous hearings.

“Underneath the obstruction and contempt are a series of decisions that Republicans would prefer to keep secret.”

Indeed, while several Republican members of the committee tried to make the investigation about something else – “why don’t Democrats want to know how many citizens there are?” asked Ohio congressman Jim Jordan – Democrats continued to hammer on the core of the contempt motion: the defiance of congressional subpoenas.

Rep. William Lacy Clay (D-MO) noted that Ross and Barr refused to answer over 100 questions. And while Republicans pointed out that Ross spent seven hours testifying to Congress, Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-MA) countered that “every answer he gave was designed to produce pain and consume time.”

RELATED IN POLITICS


Holding Barr in Contempt Must Be Just the Beginning

House Dems Deploy New Powers to Take Trump Figures to Court

White House Will Preview Mueller Evidence Before Nadler Does
To be sure, neither action was a full-on vote on contempt of Congress. Wednesday’s vote was only at the committee level, and the House opted not to find Barr and McGahn in contempt of congress, apparently in the hopes that a deal could still be worked out with them.

But underneath the obstruction and contempt are a series of decisions that Republicans would prefer to keep secret.

For example, it’s clear – as we noted last October – that Ross lied under oath to Congress. As Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) pointed out in today’s hearing, Ross said that he only added the citizenship question in December, 2017, after a request from the Department of Justice and a public comment period.

But a letter Ross wrote seven months earlier, in May 2017, said that he had already requested the question be added. That makes the entire public process a sham, and means that Ross’s underlings violated the APA by falsifying the record.

And there are numerous other examples. Ross lied under oath about his meetings with White House advisors Steve Bannon and Kris Kobach, both ardent nationalists. DOJ officials lied about the influence of Hofeller, covered up their conversations about changing census confidentiality rules to share data with ICE, and lied about the chain of events leading up to the proposed change.

Most importantly, it’s now abundantly clear that the proffered rationale for the question – to aid in the enforcement of the Voting Rights Act – is pure pretext. (If nothing else, it’s quite bizarre that officials who have opposed the VRA are now so committed to enforcing it.) The real rationale is right there in the Hofeller memos: to dilute the power of non-white communities by omitting non-citizens from congressional district apportionment.

That would fly in the face of 230 years of American tradition (after all, women were counted before they could vote, and children are still counted today). And it would advantage “non-Hispanic whites.”

The fact that the citizenship question would intimidate Hispanics is just the icing on the cake.

What happens now?

First, despite Republican protestations, it’s unlikely that the contempt vote – even if it passes the full House – will influence the Supreme Court. They are separate procedures, different factual issues, and different legal standards. (Indeed, Contempt of Congress, like Contempt of Court, is so vague that it barely has a standard at all.) While the Court may take official notice of the contempt finding, it has no legal relevance to the case.

ELEVENTH HOUR
SCOTUS Could Ignore Evidence of Plot to Rig Elections

Jay Michaelson



Second, the White House’s eleventh-hour attempt to shield the documents in question under the banner of executive privilege is also unlikely to have much impact. The documents were not privileged in the months that Ross and Barr refused to turn them over, which according to the Oversight Committee demonstrated contempt of Congress.

Nor is the privilege claim likely to survive judicial review. The declaration was a transparent attempt to shield embarrassing or incriminating documents from Congress. There’s no plausible rationale for why they should be covered by executive privilege. If anything, the tactic merely begs the question of, in Rep. Cummings’ words, “what are they hiding?”

So the next move lies with the House as a whole.

Perhaps, as in the Mueller case, House leaders could use the contempt resolution as leverage to compel Ross and Barr to comply with the Oversight Committee’s subpoenas.

Or, if such compliance is not forthcoming, the House could find the two in contempt. Doing so is not unprecedented, or even unusual; Attorney General Eric Holder was found in contempt of Congress in 2016 in connection with investigations into DOJ’s “Fast and Furious” program. And Bush White House Counsel Harriet Miers was found in contempt of Congress in 2007 in connection with the administration’s mass firing of U.S. attorneys.

Neither of those votes resulted in the resignations of the officials involved, let alone Presidents Obama or Bush. But they did move forward both of the investigations. Conceivably, if two Trump cabinet secretaries are found in contempt of Congress, the same might happen here.

Who knows, maybe the government will even catch up with the dead guy.



To: Sdgla who wrote (1141385)6/13/2019 1:16:11 AM
From: sylvester80  Respond to of 1575426
 
TRAITOR REPUBLICANS ENGINEERED A COUP D'ETAT IN US.. First with gerrymandering, then with FAKE NEWS & collusion with a foreign adverasary, and now with the census. ALL TRAITOR REPUBLICANS SHOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR TREASON!!!!



To: Sdgla who wrote (1141385)6/13/2019 1:20:38 AM
From: sylvester80  Respond to of 1575426
 
tRump LOSING: Why home-flipping numbers signal a big problem for the housing market
Sarah Smith
Segment Producer/Booker
Yahoo FinanceJune 12, 2019
finance.yahoo.com



To: Sdgla who wrote (1141385)6/13/2019 2:32:13 AM
From: Heywood401 Recommendation

Recommended By
sylvester80

  Respond to of 1575426
 
Ivankunt Rump is a fucking idiot, just like her abuser, McDonald J FatRump.