December 14, 2017


News and Views


FAKE NEWS IS A FAKE ISSUE MUCH ENLARGED BY DONALD TRUMP, AND IT’S PURE B.S, AND DISHONEST B.S. AT THAT. SEE THE NEXT TWO ARTICLES. IF A NEWS SOURCE SEEMS TO BE BIASED OR EVEN DISHONEST ON SOME ISSUE, BEFORE YOU CALL IT “FAKE NEWS,” FIRST MOVE ON TO ANOTHER SOURCE AND SEE WHAT THEY SAY ABOUT THE SUBJECT. THE BBC AND NPR ARE GOOD SOURCES. I DO THAT ALL THE TIME. IT’S EASY TO DO ON THE NET. WE DON’T HAVE TO GO DOWN TO THE CORNER STORE AND BUY ANOTHER NEWSPAPER, IN MOST CASES ANYWAY.

BEFORE YOU GET YOUR OWN COMPUTER AND INTERNET, THOSE SERVICES ARE ALREADY AVAILABLE AT YOUR LOCAL PUBLIC LIBRARY FREE OF CHARGE. THE WAIT AT MINE CAN BE AS LONG AS HALF AN HOUR, BUT IF YOU REALLY NEED IT IT’S WORTH THE WAIT. DO A LITTLE WORK ON THE TRUE NEWS BY CHECKING IT OUT. AN ARTICLE GIVES AN UNLIKELY SOUNDING “FACT,” LOOK IT UP. AMERICANS ARE TOO LAZY. WE WANT EVERYTHING PREDIGESTED. IN MY BOOK, THAT’S THE MOST DANGEROUS ATTITUDE OF A FOOL. THEY’RE JUST WAITING FOR A DEMAGOGUE TO SHOW UP AND LEAD THEM. ENTER THE ELECTION OF 2016.

(IN REFORMING OUR SLIGHTLY SOCIALIZED NATION, I WOULD PROPOSE INTERNET AND A COMPUTER FOR ALL. SUGGESTION: THE COMPUTER AND INTERNET SERVICE SHOULD COME WITH EVERY APARTMENT AND RENTAL HOUSE, JUST AS WE WOULD NEVER CONSIDER A LIVING PLACE WITHOUT A BATHROOM AND KITCHEN. WE’LL HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL BERNIE SANDERS IS ELECTED PRESIDENT, PROBABLY, BUT IF WE PUSH CONGRESS HARD ENOUGH RIGHT NOW, THEY MAY GET BEHIND THE IDEA ON THEIR OWN.)

https://www.politico.eu/article/david-cameron-to-trump-your-fake-news-act-is-dangerous/
David Cameron to Trump: Your ‘fake news’ act is ‘dangerous’
“‘Fake news’ is not broadcasters criticizing you, it’s Russian bots and trolls targeting your democracy,” says former British leader.
By PAUL DALLISON 12/13/17, 9:22 PM CET Updated 12/13/17, 9:35 PM CET

ALSO ON POLITICO
Trump’s ‘fake news’ mantra a hit with despots
JASON SCHWARTZ

ALSO ON POLITICO
Minutes after slamming ‘fake news,’ Trump welcomes ‘my friends in the media’ for Christmas party
JASON SCHWARTZ

Photograph -- David Cameron | Justin Tallis/AFP via Getty Images

Former British Prime Minister David Cameron called out Donald Trump’s attacks on the media, saying his use of term “fake news” was “dangerous.”

Giving Transparency International UK’s annual lecture in London on Wednesday evening, Cameron said attacks on journalists were “bad news for the fight against corruption.”

He then turned his attention to the U.S. president, saying: “When Donald Trump uses the term ‘fake news’ to describe CNN and the BBC, that is not just a questionable political tactic. It’s actually dangerous.”

The former Conservative Party prime minister, who resigned in the wake of his failed Brexit referendum in 2016, has shunned the British public stage, making his criticism of Trump a rare forway [sic] into the fray.

“Of course broadcasters make mistakes and it’s right they correct them,” Cameron said. “But what is being attempted here goes far beyond that. It’s an attempt to question the whole legitimacy of organizations that have an important role in our democracy.

“Let me put it like this. President Trump: ‘Fake news’ is not broadcasters criticizing you, it’s Russian bots and trolls targeting your democracy … pumping out untrue stories day after day, night after night.”

Cameron also said that “Barack Obama used to challenge European leaders over how we seemed to ignore or even tolerate Russian subversion of some Eastern European business, energy, media or even political interests. He was bang on target. And my successor, Theresa May, has been quite right to put this on the EU Council agenda.”

Authors:
Paul Dallison



POLITICO’S TAKE IS SPINE CHILLING. “IT MEANT ORIGINALLY TO REFER TO SOMETHING DISTINCT, BUT IT NO LONGER DOES, AND THAT’S KIND OF AN ACHIEVEMENT OF THE PRESIDENT’S APPROPRIATION OF THE TERM.”

THERE IS A REASON BEHIND TRUMP’S ABUSE OF THE TERM -- MEANING PURPOSELY UNTRUE STORIES WRITTEN SIMPLY TO LEAD A GROUP OF PEOPLE, SUCH AS THE US PUBLIC, ASTRAY – MOVING FROM SOMETHING MEANINGFUL AND HELPFUL TO A KIND OF GIBBERISH INSTEAD. TRUMP EVEN SAID IN ONE OF HIS MOST JOCULARLY MALICIOUS STATEMENTS, THAT “REAL NEWS,” IS WHAT HE SAYS IS TRUE. HOW MUCH MORE LIKE A BANANA REPUBLIC DICTATOR COULD HE POSSIBLY GET? NO, I DON’T REMEMBER WHAT ARTICLE I SAW THAT IN, BUT IT WAS ABOUT SIX TO NINE MONTHS AGO, I BELIEVE.

SEE ALSO:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/fake-news-trump-launches-real-news-series-n790241. AND http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2996#pop1.



https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/08/trump-fake-news-despots-287129
MEDIA
Trump’s 'fake news' mantra a hit with despots
Leaders or state media in at least 15 countries use the president’s favorite denunciation to quell dissent, question human rights violations.
By JASON SCHWARTZ 12/08/2017 05:03 AM EST

Photograph -- In the Philippines, President Rodrigo Duterte has complained of being “demonized” by “fake news.” Last month, with President Donald Trump laughing by his side, he called reporters “spies.” | Athit Perawongmetha/AFP/Getty Images

Authoritarian rulers across the globe are adopting President Donald Trump’s favorite phrase to limit free speech, with prominent leaders or state media in at least 15 countries using his “fake news” line to denounce their critics, according to a POLITICO review.

By aligning themselves with Trump’s words, despots have been able to use the U.S. president as a shield for their attacks on press freedom and human rights, said Joel Simon, executive director of the Committee to Protect Journalists.

“I’m seeing it more and more,” he said. Trump, he added, “is providing a context and framework for all sorts of authoritarian leaders — or democratic leaders and others who are dissatisfied or upset by critical media coverage — to undermine and discredit reporting.”

In February, for example, Syrian President Bashar Assad brushed off an Amnesty International report that some 13,000 people had been killed at one of his military prisons by saying, “You can forge anything these days, we are living in a fake news era.”

In the Philippines, President Rodrigo Duterte has complained of being “demonized” by “fake news.” Last month, with Trump laughing by his side, he called reporters “spies.”

And in a meta-moment in July, Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro complained to RT, the Russian propaganda outlet, that the world media had “spread lots of false versions, lots of lies” about his country, adding, “This is what we call 'fake news' today, isn't it?”

Over the weekend, a state official in Myanmar attracted notice when he said, “There is no such thing as Rohingya. It is fake news,” referring to the persecuted ethnic group.

Those are hardly the only examples of Trump’s phrase being deployed internationally: In March, Chinese state media dismissed a prominent rights activist’s account of torture as “fake news.” And in May, the People’s Daily ran an op-ed with the headline, “Trump is right, fake news is the enemy, something China has known for years.”

During a July news conference in Warsaw with Polish President Andrzej Duda, Trump complained about “fake news” CNN, before turning to Duda and asking if he dealt with the same problems. Duda, who has cracked down aggressively on the press, smiled and nodded. That same day, after a mini-controversy over whether Duda’s wife snubbed Trump for a handshake, the Polish president declared on Twitter, “Contrary to some surprising reports my wife did shake hands with Mrs. and Mr. Trump @POTUS after a great visit. Let's FIGHT FAKE NEWS.”

Last week, Libyan media jumped on a Trump tweet accusing CNN of reporting “fake news” to attempt to undermine a report by the network on modern day slavery within the country.

The Russian foreign ministry’s website drops big red “Fake news” stamps on stories it deems untrue.

Even Spain’s foreign minister said that police violence against Catalonians during their independence referendum was “fake news,” despite photos and videos to the contrary.

The list goes on to Uganda, Somaliland, Angola, Cambodia and Turkey. Leaders in Singapore, a country known for restricting free speech, have promised “Fake news” legislation in the new year.

“These governments, they’re pushing the boundaries of what it’s possible to get away with in terms of controlling their national media,” said Steve Coll, dean of the Columbia Journalism School, “and there’s no question that this kind of speech makes it easier for them to stretch those boundaries.”

White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders pushed back against the idea that Trump bears responsibility. “This story is really ridiculous,” she said in an email. “The president isn’t against free speech but we do think reporting should be accurate.”

The spread of the phrase has come against a backdrop of rising violence and persecution against journalists — at the end of 2016, the Committee to Protect Journalists counted 259 reporters jailed around the world, more than any year since it began counting in 1990. (The organization expects updated numbers for 2017 soon.)

Trump’s go-to insult has become such a touchstone that members of far-right groups or political parties in countries like the Netherlands or Germany often write “fake news” in English in their tweets, said Cas Mudde, an international affairs professor at the University of Georgia.

“I have seen it particularly in social media used by radical right leaders who have been clearly influenced by Trump’s use,” he said. “Even if they have a tweet in Dutch, there will be a hashtag #fakenews in it.”

RELATED: White House: Trump Jr. had ‘legitimate reason’ to refuse to discuss conversation with president

“Ironically, you could call this the soft power of the U.S.,” he said. “The U.S. always had massive soft power — you just think about hip-hop or McDonald’s.”

Trump has claimed that he invented the term, but in reality, it predates him. In the initial 2016 election conception, “fake news” described fabricated news stories meant to deceive readers, primarily on social media. But shortly after his election, Trump began using it to refute mainstream news stories—or entire outlets—he disagreed with.

“He took this term that had been used against him and turned it into a weapon against the media itself,” Simon said. “The meaning has been so diluted and distorted that it’s just become an insult without a lot of meaning.”

As a result, Coll said, it’s obscured the concerns around actual fake news. “We’ve lost the engagement through that phrase with something that is truly new and important,” he said. “It meant originally to refer to something distinct, but it no longer does, and that’s kind of an achievement of the president’s appropriation of the term.”

In Singapore, for example, leaders are billing the anticipated “Fake news” law as a way to fight against the same scourge of disinformation that plagued the U.S. election. But given the regime’s history of restricting free speech, it’s easy to imagine it being used to squash dissent.

Ruth Ben-Ghiat, a history professor at New York University who studies authoritarianism, said that, to her, the phrase does now have a clear meaning: “It’s anything that contradicts with a leader’s version of reality,” she said, pointing to the situation in Myanmar. “You can will away genocide, you can will away events that you didn’t want people to know happened.”

Ben-Ghiat recently wrote a New Yorker story asking why so many fascist memorials remain in Italy, and was stunned by the number of responses she received in Italian on Twitter that attacked her using the phrase “fake news,” once again, in English.

“People still see the president of the United States as a very important figure. That’s his slogan,” she said. “It’s one prong of a program that also is dismissing human rights, the whole turn against liberal democracy, the new illiberalism.”

Leaders, of course, have been seeking to stifle dissenting voices since long before Trump, but Simon said that the cudgel of “fake news” gives them an additional tool. Traditionally, he said, repressive leaders most often justify silencing reporters by citing the fight against terrorism. “I don’t think it’s going to supplant anti-terror,” he said, “but I think it will supplement it quite nicely.”

The ABC logo is pictured. | Getty Images
ABC reprimands producer for giving data to Trump campaign
By MICHAEL CALDERONE

Trump’s attacks on the “fake news media” have signaled that protecting freedom of speech is not a priority for the country, essentially handing the world a permission slip, Mudde said.

“A lot of countries look to the U.S. partly for inspiration, but mostly as the policeman of the world,” said Mudde. “If you see that the policeman actually doesn’t care about freedom of speech and the free press anymore, you feel that you don’t have to care too much either.”

Coll, the Columbia dean, said that promoting freedom of speech has always been a pillar of American policy, no matter which party has been in power.

“This has been such a constant of American voicing in the world. And it’s not just about press freedom, it’s about religious freedom, it’s about democratic participation, more recently about women’s rights, about LGBT rights,” he said. “To just kind of turn around and coin a phrase that gives cover in this way—it’s one of those aspects of this time that we’re in that you really have to step back and think about to recognize what a departure it is.”

CORRECTION: This story has been updated to correct the spelling of Cas Mudde's name.

NOTE: GO, ALSO, TO TODAY’S INDIVIDUAL SUBJECT BLOG CALLED, “WILL THE REAL NEWS PLEASE STAND UP.”



NET NEUTRALITY AFTER THE VOTE, AND SOME OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF IT’S DEMISE. THIS IS ONE OF THE VERY BEST NEWS ARTICLES FOR CLEARLY AND UNDERSTANDABLY TRANSMITTING SOME HIGHLY TECHNICAL AND COMPLEX MATERIAL IN A WAY THAT THE PUBLIC (ME) CAN UNDERSTAND. THIS WRITER IS ALSO ON THE SIDE OF THE ANGELS ON THE NET NEUTRALITY ISSUE. IT’S NOT ONLY USEFUL, BUT GREAT READING AS WELL.

I AM LINKING THIS WITH THE “FAKE NEWS” STORIES BECAUSE THE VARIETY OF NEWS SOURCES, MANY OF WHICH MAY NOT BE ABLE TO PAY OUTRAGEOUSLY HIGH FEES TO THE PIRATES THAT WILL HIJACK OUR NEWS SOURCES; WILL ALMOST CERTAINLY BE UNAVAILABLE AFTER THIS. AT ANY RATE, OUR PERSONAL INTERNET COVERAGE FEES FROM AT&T AND COMCAST, EVEN GOOGLE, MAY BECOME UNAFFORDABLE FOR PEOPLE LIKE ME. THE TRICKLE DOWN THEORY UNDOUBTEDLY APPLIES HERE, IF ISP’S DO HAVE TO PAY A PROBLEMATIC RATE IN ORDER TO CONTINUE TO GIVE SERVICE. DEMOCRACY DEPENDS ON THIS VOTE, A GOOD BASIC EDUCATION, AND THE ACCESS TO INFORMATION. THAT’S WHY PEOPLE LIKE ME ARE SO “HYSTERICAL” AS THE FCC GUY SAID. TO HIM, IT’S A PITTANCE, I’M SURE, AND BESIDES HE’S OBEYING HIS MASTERS, PRESIDENT TRUMP AND FRIENDS.

https://mic.com/articles/186693/net-neutrality-2017-fcc-ajit-pai-vote-isp-title-2-results-time-news-fcc-just-voted-to-remove-net-neutrality-protections-heres-how-the-decision-affects-consumers?utm_medium=web&utm_source=micPush#.PhkDvXduM
By James Dennin
December 14, 2017

James is a staff writer covering money and millennials. Send your tips and your money problems to jdennin@mic.com.

IMAGE: The FCC just voted to remove net neutrality protections: Here’s how the decision affects consumers

The internet is potentially about to get a lot less consumer friendly. On Thursday, the Federal Communications Commission voted 3-2 to repeal Title II restrictions that require internet service providers to meet certain standards, most importantly: net neutrality.

If you’re not familiar, net neutrality prevents the internet service providers who build and maintain the internet’s infrastructure from restricting the traffic of the websites that use it. In other words, your ISP — likely a cable company like Charter or Verizon — can’t pick and choose the activity it allows through, even if some of that traffic is more costly than others. Net neutrality advocates point out potential harm to streaming services like Netflix (and their customers), because of a pre-net neutrality dispute between the streaming company and the ISPs after Comcast refused to accommodate all of Netflix’s extra traffic.

Net neutrality became the law of the land in 2015, when the FCC voted to apply “Title II” restrictions — which normally apply to utilities — to internet services companies as well. The Title II classification is important because it gives the FCC the authority to regulate ISPs in the same way it does the utilities that provide phone service.

These regulations are broadly popular, with about 83% of Americans opposing the repeal, according to a University of Maryland survey. But critics of net neutrality regulations, like the current FCC chairman Ajit Pai argue these restrictions have kept ISPs from expanding their networks. As he explained in a Wall Street Journal editorial, investment declined about 6% after the net neutrality rules were put in place.

“[This] is not going to destroy the internet, it is not going to end the internet as we know it, it is not going to kill democracy,” FCC Chairman Ajit Pai said during the meeting ahead of the repeal vote. Pai, a former attorney for the telecommunications giant Verizon, and his fellow GOP commissioners argue that repealing neutrality is simply a return to “normal,” a restoration of how it was before the 2015 change, when upstarts on the internet still thrived.

But advocates of net neutrality argue that these arguments are misleading. For one, for much of the internet’s history, it traveled through regular phone lines protected by Title II restrictions. They point to a 3-1 FCC vote in 2002 deciding cable modems were under the FCC’s jurisdiction, as evidence that today’s action is not a “return to normal,” but instead — as Harold Feld, an attorney and senior vice president at the advocacy group Public Knowledge*, put it — a “dinner bell for every ISP who has wanted to do things consumers hate.”

“Our position has always been that this proceeding is really not about net neutrality, it’s first and foremost about the FCC’s authority over the internet,” Berin Szóka, president of TechFreedom, said. TechFreedom is a tech policy think tank that backs lifting the restrictions. “This has always been about Silicon Valley’s influence and power.”

Not all of the FCC commissioners agreed net neutrality should be repealed. “This decision and the process that brought us to this point is ugly,” said FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel in her dissent. “It’s ugly in the cavalier disregard this agency has demonstrated to the public, the contempt it has shown for citizens who speak up, and the disdain it has for popular opinion.”

What’s the big concern? For one, by stepping back from its regulatory role, the FCC leaves cable companies and ISPs to be exclusively regulated by the Federal Trade Commission. But advocates say the FTC is not equipped to handle intervention will be too little too late. “The FTC would be coming in at the back end, and only when there’s anti-competitive behavior,” said Christy Gamble of Black Women’s Health Imperative said. “You’re waiting until there’s an infraction, and then only if they rule it as anticompetitive behavior will something be done. We need this on the front end, we need preventative measures so we don’t have to worry about people not being able to reach people.”

This decision is sure to be contested, but here’s what we know for sure about how losing net neutrality might affect consumers.

1. The internet could get slower and less secure
Feld argues that the pre-net neutrality “golden age” never happened, and that before the rules consumer abuses were common.

“We are not going back to the golden age of 2014, but even if we were, the two worst abuses of ISPs occurred in 2014,” Feld said. “One was the shakedown of Netflix from the four ISPs. ... They were all saying that if Netflix wanted to get through they had to pay. So they just let all the traffic congest.”

To be fair, waiting longer for your shows to buffer isn’t exactly the greatest injustice in the world, but Feld said that these disputes don’t just affect the people trying to stream. If, for example, Comcast refuses to accommodate all the extra traffic Netflix drives when people get home from work, other sites will have longer loading times during those hours as well.

But it’s not just a slower internet — Feld also says that without Title II protections, the internet could become less secure as well.

“There is a provision of Title II that includes privacy provisions specific to telecommunications,” Feld said. “These are referred to as the CPNI rules, they’re basically what protects your phone privacy right now. Once the FCC reclassified broadband as Title II, broadband became suspect to [sic] these privacy protections.”

Without that protection, the fear is that ISPs would be free to install so-called “supercookies” which track online behavior without notifying their customers. Last year, Verizon paid a $1.35 million settlement for its use of supercookies, with the FCC citing the net neutrality rule.

Consumer advocates argue that consumer abuses like tracking online behavior without disclosing it could become more common. John Minchillo/AP

2. Costs could be higher
Advocates of the repeal, including Pai, object to the notion that repealing net neutrality will lead to higher costs. “People are scaring people,” Dan Rayburn, a media analyst and consultant, said. “You’re not going to charge people more based on a site they’re watching. It’s not how products are sold. They’re not going to say ‘it’s $100 a month for your ISP triple play, but if you want to watch Netflix, it’s $110.’”

But there is some evidence that losing net neutrality rules could lead some consumers to pay more. Critics of the repeal like Feld strongly disagree with Pai, and cite one or two examples of ISPs engaging in that type of behavior.

One of the most notorious examples was back in 2012, when Apple rolled out a version of the iPhone with FaceTime. AT&T wanted to make FaceTime exclusively available on its more expensive “shared data plans.” AT&T eventually backed out of the plan after public backlash — but customers on lower tiered plans were still blocked from using FaceTime for months.

The main concern is that if ISPs can create fast and slow lanes, and use preferential pricing schemes to increase costs on internet-based businesses, it’s likely some companies will simply pass those higher prices onto customers — especially if those consumers don’t have better options.

3. History suggests a free internet really requires tough laws
Proponents of lifting the restrictions would tell you that AT&T’s reversal on FaceTime restrictions are proof that the free market can do the work of regulating ISPs itself, but the early history of the electricity industry is illustrative of why this might not be true.

Utilities like the electric and cable companies have enormous upfront “fixed costs” — installing all that infrastructure is expensive — but extremely variable costs. In other words, it’s expensive to get wires in the ground, but it’s fairly cheap to keep them running and collect customer’s utility bills.

In their early days, electricity companies were largely unregulated and thrived in this environment, and as a result there were lots of them. By the late 1800s, there were some 29 franchises in the Chicago area alone. But while all that competition was great for a time, eventually they bid the prices down so much that companies could only cover their variable costs. Since no one could make any money, all the “little guys” soon went out of business, and monopolies emerged that could raise costs indefinitely.

Regulators concluded that the best arrangement for delivering electricity through the free market was through a highly regulated oligopoly, one where the utilities could still make money, but with careful limits on the kinds of things they could charge consumers for.

4. A slower internet hurts vulnerable people
Advocates of all stripes — from libraries to members of the public health community — have been quick to paint net neutrality as a social justice issue.

Gamble said she is concerned about how the decision might affect the rise of tele-medicine, where people use video chat to communicate with doctors.

Federal Communication Commission commissioner Mignon Clyburn, one of two Democratic commissioners who oppose today’s vote Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Gamble said in a phone interview that when people rely on the internet as a public service, even temporary and brief outages can have more drastic consequences than falling behind on your shows or not being able to post your latest food pic to Instagram, as Pai recently assured viewers they would continue to be able to do in a recent video for the Daily Caller.

“People can quickly lose their enthusiasm and energy when it’s difficult to access something,” Gamble said. “We’re seeing this with the opioid crisis. Can you imagine someone who’s addicted, it’s difficult enough to get them to seek treatment — but when their access to online counseling is unreliable and inconsistent?”

“Access to the internet is a fundamental need,” Jim Neal, president of the American Library Association, said. “We see people using the internet for learning, accessing health information, accessing information about community services, filing their taxes, applying for jobs.”

Interest groups like the ALA and the BWHI both fear that corporate-controlled internet will put their groups at a disadvantage when seeking these kinds of services.

5. Entrepreneurship and innovation could be stifled
Another group that’s particularly concerned about net neutrality’s repeal are small business owners who worry that tiered internet plans and other anti-consumer behavior could put them at a disadvantage. Back in 2015 before the rules were introduced, more than 100 small business owners and startup CEOs including the heads of Etsy, Imgur, Kickstarter and Yelp all signed on to a letter to the FCC in support of the rules.

“Contrary to any unsupported claims otherwise, we believe that the [rules] encourage competition and innovation by preventing ISPs from using their gatekeeper power to distort the internet market,” the letter reads. “Chairman Wheeler’s plan is the best proposal we have seen to date for protecting the open Internet.”

The cable companies and Pai argue that relaxing the rules will actually spur innovation among the broadcasters, but Feld said that argument is insincere. ISPs aren’t really innovators just like electricity companies weren’t really innovators. The utility companies pumping electricity into your home didn’t pioneer the answering machine, he explained, the cable companies didn’t pioneer direct video recording — startups called PhoneMate and TiVo did.

“This discussion goes back to when the internet was born,” Feld said. “Did you want the network to be a smart network that helped decide what services went through, because that’s how we’d develop innovation, or a universe where it was end to end, where it was ‘dumb pipe,’ and people on the edge would innovate. You don’t have a lot of innovation from the large networks, it’s not what they’re good at. It’s not how they make money.”

For their parts, Feld, also an attorney, and the American Library Association’s Neal said they planned on being involved in what will certainly be a legal battle to preserve net neutrality through the courts. Feld also said that a legislative solution is possible as well, pointing to early GOP defectors as a sign that popular opinion might prevail after all.

“I have to tell you that I’m looking forward to going to court and taking this thing down,” Feld said of today’s decision, adding, “I think there’s not a member of the GOP in Congress who after [Tuesday night] is not at least a little bit worried about their seat... [they are] not looking forward to going home and saying, ‘I backed the cable companies.’”



PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE.ORG*

What Public Knowledge Does

Public Knowledge promotes freedom of expression, an open internet, and access to affordable communications tools and creative works. We work to shape policy on behalf of the public interest.

Competition Policy and Antitrust Law
Introduction

Supporting policies that promote competition is a key part of Public Knowledge’s effort to promote freedom of expression on affordable communications platforms for all. In the digital age, the way we consume products and information is changing as new technologies become ever more integrated into our daily experiences. It’s important that we reflect on what competition means in the 21st century, and make choices that continue to foster a competitive marketplace for consumers. Competition is a critical part of PK’s work on issues ranging from privacy protection to the reform of intellectual property laws.

Why do we need competition and competition policy?

A competitive marketplace is the backbone of our economy. Consumers benefit from competition because it keeps prices low and ensures that the market offers meaningful choices. When multiple vendors are vying for a piece of a consumer’s paycheck, they are forced to offer their best or risk losing business to someone else with a better idea. The United States has laws on the books that foster this competitive marketplace, but they only work if carefully enforced by the entities charged with protecting consumers.

Because many markets aren’t inherently competitive, some companies’ natural drive to maximize profit results in inflated prices and lower quality. Therefore our nation’s antitrust and regulatory authorities must work together to ensure that companies are competing on the merits instead of using anticompetitive practices to get ahead of their rivals, and harming consumers in the process. However, the new administration’s focus on eliminating public oversight tools threatens the existing balance between public accountability and the market. We should ensure that expert economic analysis, and not simplistic rhetoric, is the measure of the day and continue to uphold the public/private balance needed to drive competition and encourage innovation in today’s market.

During the past several years, the federal government vigorously enforced pro-competition policies, which ensured that companies challenge each other on a level playing field. These pro-consumer policies are important for every sector of the economy. In communications for example, the Department of Justice blocked the proposed merger of AT&T and T-Mobile in 2011. The DOJ noted that T-Mobile was an important innovator in the wireless industry with a number of historic firsts, including the first android phone. The DOJ’s action prevented the consolidation of the wireless market that threatened this innovation.

While the wireless market isn’t perfect, today, as a result of this decision, instead of three major wireless carriers there are four. T-Mobile has continued to innovate through pricing plans with unlimited data and has ended two-year contracts, with other carriers following suit. According to the Wall Street Journal, Verizon recently cut prices and added more data to its wireless plans to stop customers from fleeing to T-Mobile and Sprint. This competition has led not only to innovative product offerings for consumers but competition on price as well. Prices for wireless phone service were down eleven percent in March 2017 from March of 2016, and down seven percent from February of 2017.

This type of competition provides a stark contrast to the highly consolidated cable market. Two large providers -- Comcast and Charter -- control more than half of American cable broadband connections. And, since they operate in separate regions and do not compete against each other, the majority of Americans have no choice of cable broadband provider. According to the Federal Communications Commission’s latest Broadband Progress Report, three quarters of census blocks in the United States have at most one provider that offers a 25 Mbps broadband connection. Only about a third of Americans have a choice of two or more providers, less than ten percent have a choice of three or more, and the picture gets worse as Internet speeds increase. This lack of competition means higher prices and worse service.

Complementary enforcement mechanisms

Antitrust enforcement, by either the DOJ or Federal Trade Commission, isn’t the only way to ensure that the American economy is functioning competitively. Regulation by expert agencies also plays an important role in ensuring that consumers have options in the market. Just like peanut butter and jelly, antitrust law and regulation are better together, each playing an important role at different places in the market. Put another way, regulation helps where the market is inclined to fail to offer competitive structures on its own for consumers, because of network effects or other structural defects. It can also be used to jump start competition. Antitrust on the other hand steps in when things have already gone sideways and consumers are being hurt by anticompetitive practices.

Since its creation in 1934, the FCC has been charged with regulating communications in the public interest. This standard, unlike the pure economic efficiency that antitrust regulators strive for, asks about broader societal goals like ensuring the availability of diverse content for consumers throughout the U.S. The FCC has the authority to regulate broadcast licenses to ensure that local content, content for children, content accessible for people with disabilities, and content produced by minorities and women all have a place on our airwaves. These goals certainly go beyond what antitrust authorities are looking at when they police our markets. But the combination of regulation that takes into account factors not reflected in the economic determinism of antitrust, combined with that rigorous economic scrutiny, gets us the best of both worlds: effective and efficient markets populated by a diversity of voices and ideas.

How can we keep our markets competitive?

Protecting consumers is a nonpartisan issue. Democrats and Republicans have consistently been united in ensuring that consumers have real choices in the economy because it benefits everyone.

A key way to ensure that competition endures is the review of mergers by both antitrust authorities and expert agencies. Mergers have the potential to decrease options for consumers by increasing the consolidation of big companies. Antitrust authorities review mergers that threaten to dangerously decrease the options available to consumers. These mergers can either be entirely blocked or approved conditionally. Conditions are applied if they can eliminate the potential anticompetitive effects of the merger. President Trump has promised to curb consolidation and to promote competition in order to protect our democracy from the harm of increased concentration of ownership in media markets. Public Knowledge hopes that the President will follow through on this pledge to protect consumers.

Antitrust plays a role in guaranteeing free expression in our society by ensuring that our marketplace of ideas is a competitive one. Consolidation in the communications marketplace restricts the ideas that people are exposed to because it limits the number of voices. Where appropriate, Public Knowledge believes harmful deals should be blocked, or at least remedied with enforceable conditions designed to protect the public interest.

America has long valued competition as one our of* core democratic principles. Justice Thurgood Marshall once wrote, “Antitrust laws in general, and the Sherman Act in particular, are the Magna Carta of free enterprise. They are as important to the preservation of economic freedom and our free-enterprise system as the Bill of Rights is to the protection of our fundamental personal freedoms.” Media and communications consolidation not only leads to higher prices for consumers, it threatens democracy and diversity of viewpoints in the market.

What is Public Knowledge doing to help?

We will continue to weigh in on efforts to eliminate public oversight and undermine competition in our marketplace and globally. In order to ensure that we keep pace with fast moving technologies, we also want to connect with experts to understand how theories of competition are continuing to evolve. Public Knowledge is committed to monitoring the state of antitrust enforcement and merger review to ensure that consumers continue to be effectively protected.

Copyright ©2017 Public Knowledge



TWO MORE WELL-KNOWN AND CLEAN CUT MEN NAMED IN ALLEGED SEXUAL ASSAULTS. RATHER THAN PUTTING YET ANOTHER OF THESE STORIES IN HERE, I WILL SIMPLY GIVE YOU THE WEBSITES AND YOU CAN READ THEM FOR YOURSELF. I DON’T KNOW RUSSELL SIMMONS, BUT DUSTIN HOFFMAN HURTS ME. HE IS ONE OF MY FAVORITES. I WAS ON A DATE SOME 30 YEARS AGO WHEN THE SUBJECT OF THE PERPETUAL UNFAITHFULNESS OF MEN CAME UP AND I EXPRESSED WOE AND IRRITATION. MY DATE, WITHOUT EVEN PAUSING, SAID VERY FLATLY, “MEN ARE DOGS.” I ASSUMED THAT BY THAT HE WAS INCLUDING HIMSELF IN THE STATEMENT. IT PLEASED ME THAT HE WASN’T DOWNPLAYING MY CONCERN, AND THAT HE CLEARLY WAS REALLY LISTENING TO ME.

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2017/12/14/dustin-hoffman-accused-sexually-harassing-5-more-women-some-underage.html
Dustin Hoffman accused of sexually harassing 5 more women, some underage
By Elizabeth Zwirz | Fox News

AND

HTTP://WWW.CBS8.COM/STORY/37072902/NYPD-OPENS-PRELIMINARY-INVESTIGATION-INTO-RUSSELL-SIMMONS-SEXUAL-ASSAULT-ALLEGATIONS
NYPD OPENS PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION INTO RUSSELL SIMMONS SEXUAL ASSAULT ALLEGATIONS
UPDATED: DEC 14, 2017 6:55 PM
BY JENNIFER DRYSDALE – ENTERTAINMENT TONIGHT