#business broadband provider

[priyasri20015]

Connecting businesses to the speed of success! We are the leading leased lines providers in Hyderabad, offering reliable and high-speed connectivity solutions. Unlock your business potential with our seamless and secure network infrastructure. Join us on the fast lane to growth and productivity.

[robpegoraro]

Weekly output: drone delivery, ISP satisfaction, surprise military flyovers, data breach report, Google News Showcase coming to U.S.

This week will be taking me to a higher altitude–the outskirts of Denver, where I’ll be moderating a panel and writing up other panels at Fierce Video’s StreamTV Show from Monday through Thursday. This is the 2023 version of the conference I was supposed to speak at in 2022 until I tested positive for Covid the night before my flight out; I had told the organizers at the time that I would set…

[goodguygadgets]

Converge doubles fiber footprint in VisMin as of end-July, strategic partnership strengthens foothold in Cebu

The strategic partnership with the Marketing Services Provider ensures that Converge continues to strengthen its operations in the province. #ConvergeICT #ExperienceBetter @ExperienceCNVRG

Leading fiber broadband provider Converge ICT Solutions, Inc. (PSE:CNVRG) continues its rapidly expanding footprint in Visayas and Mindanao, having laid out more than 600,00 fiber ports in central and southern Philippines in the first seven months of the year. Converge also establishes a partnership with a local Marketing Services Provider (MSP) ensuring the continuity of operations and expansion…

[kp777]

By Jessica Corbett

Common Dreams

Sept. 26, 2023

Open internet advocates across the United States celebrated on Tuesday as Federal Communications Commission Chair Jessica Rosenworcel announced her highly anticipated proposal to reestablish FCC oversight of broadband and restore net neutrality rules.

"We thank the FCC for moving swiftly to begin the process of reinstating net neutrality regulations," said ACLU senior policy counsel Jenna Leventoff. "The internet is our nation's primary marketplace of ideas—and it's critical that access to that marketplace is not controlled by the profit-seeking whims of powerful telecommunications giants."

Rosenworcel—appointed to lead the commission by President Joe Biden—discussed the history of net neutrality and her new plan to treat broadband as a public utility in a speech at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., which came on the heels of the U.S. Senate's recent confirmation of Anna Gomez to a long-vacant FCC seat.

Back in 2005, "the agency made clear that when it came to net neutrality, consumers should expect that their broadband providers would not block, throttle, or engage in paid prioritization of lawful internet traffic," she recalled. "In other words, your broadband provider had no business cutting off access to websites, slowing down internet services, and censoring online speech."

"Giant corporations and their lobbyists... will try every trick to block or delay the agency from restoring net neutrality."

After a decade of policymaking and litigation, net neutrality rules were finalized in 2015. However, a few years later—under former FCC Chair Ajit Pai, an appointee of ex-President Donald Trump—the commission caved to industry pressure and repealed them.

"The public backlash was overwhelming. People lit up our phone lines, clogged our email inboxes, and jammed our online comment system to express their disapproval," noted Rosenworcel, who was a commissioner at the time and opposed the repeal. "So today we begin a process to make this right."

The chair is proposing to reclassify broadband under Title II of the Communications Act, which "is the part of the law that gives the FCC clear authority to serve as a watchdog over the communications marketplace and look out for the public interest," she explained. "Title II took on special importance in the net neutrality debate because the courts have ruled that the FCC has clear authority to enforce open internet policies if broadband internet is classified as a Title II service."

"On issue after issue, reclassifying broadband as a Title II service would help the FCC serve the public interest more efficiently and effectively," she pointed out, detailing how it relates to public safety, national security, cybersecurity, network resilience and reliability, privacy, broadband deployment, and robotexts.

Rosenworcel intends to release the full text of the proposal on Thursday and hold a vote regarding whether to kick off rulemaking on October 19. While Brendan Carr, one of the two Republican commissioners, signaled his opposition to the Title II approach on Tuesday, Gomez's confirmation earlier this month gives Democrats a 3-2 majority at the FCC.

"Giant corporations and their lobbyists blocked President Biden from filling the final FCC seat for more than two years, and they will try every trick to block or delay the agency from restoring net neutrality now," Demand Progress communications director Maria Langholz warned Tuesday. "The commission must remain resolute and fully restore free and open internet protections to ensure broadband service providers like Comcast and Verizon treat all content equally."

"Americans' internet experience should not be at the whims of corporate executives whose primary concerns are the pockets of their stakeholders and the corporations' bottom line," she added, also applauding the chair.

Free Press co-CEO Jessica J. González similarly praised Rosenworcel and stressed that "without Title II, broadband users are left vulnerable to discrimination, content throttling, dwindling competition, extortionate and monopolistic prices, billing fraud, and other shady behavior."

"As this proceeding gets under way, we will hear all manner of lies from the lobbyists and lawyers representing big phone and cable companies," she predicted. "They'll say anything and everything to avoid being held accountable. But broadband providers and their spin doctors are deeply out of touch with people across the political spectrum, who are fed up with high prices and unreliable services. These people demand a referee on the field to call fouls and issue penalties when broadband companies are being unfair."

Like Rosenworcel, in her Tuesday speech, González also highlighted that "one thing we learned from the Covid-19 pandemic is that broadband is essential infrastructure—it enables us to access education, employment, healthcare, and more."

That "more" includes civic engagement, as leaders at Common Cause noted Tuesday. Ishan Mehta, who directs the group's Media and Democracy Program, said that "the internet has fundamentally changed how people are civically engaged and is critical to participating in society today. It is the primary communications platform, a virtual public square, and has been a powerful organizing tool, allowing social justice movements to gain momentum and widespread support."

After the Trump-era repeal, Mehta explained, "we saw broadband providers throttle popular video streaming services, degrade video quality, forcing customers to pay higher prices for improved quality, offer service plans that favor their own services over competitors, and make hollow, voluntary, and unenforceable promises not to disconnect their customers during the pandemic."

Given how broadband providers have behaved, Michael Copps, a Common Cause special adviser and former FCC commissioner, said that "to allow a handful of monopoly-aspiring gatekeepers to control access to the internet is a direct threat to our democracy."

Rosenworcel's speech came a day after U.S. Sens. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) led over two dozen of their colleagues in sending a letter calling for the restoration of net neutrality protections. The pair said in a statement Tuesday that "broadband is not a luxury. It is an essential utility and it is imperative that the FCC's authority reflects the necessary nature of the internet in Americans' lives today."

"We need net neutrality so that small businesses are not shoved into online slow lanes, so that powerful social media companies cannot stifle competition, and so that users can always freely speak their minds on social media and advocate for the issues that are most important to them," they said. "We applaud Chairwoman Rosenworcel for her leadership and look forward to working with the FCC to ensure a just broadband future for everyone."

[workersolidarity]

🇺🇸 🚨

UNITED STATES CONGRESS PASSES SERIES OF ANTI-DEMOCRATIC AND PRO-WAR BILLS DESPITE PUBLIC OPPOSITION

The United States Congress and Senate passed a series of bills, including three controversial anti-democratic and pro-war bills, two of which were tied together, on Saturday, bypassing public opinion and popular opposition to the profligate, pro-war, globalist, Neolib/Neocon agenda currently driving United States domestic and foreign policy.

Included in the bills passed was a bill to force TikTok to divest from its connections with China at risk of being banned immediately, which naturally was tied to a Foreign aid bill.

However, as even Republican Senator Rand Paul mentioned in an opinion piece in Reason Magazine, the Bill is almost certain to lead to more power for American political elites and their administrations to pressure companies like Apple and Google to further ban apps and sites that offer contradictory opinions to that of the invented narratives of the American Political class.

Before long, Americans, many of whom are already poorly informed, and heavily misinformed by their mainstream media, could lose access to critical information that contradicts the narratives of the United States government and corporate elites.

Horrifically, this only the start. The US Congress also extended the newly revised FISA spy laws, which gives the United States government the power to spy on the electronic communications of foreigners, while also conveniently sweeping up the conversations of millions of Americans, as we learned years ago thanks to the sacrifices of whistle blowers and journalists like Edward Snowden, Chelsea Manning and Julian Assange.

The new FISA Law goes further than this, however, granting US Intelligence agencies the power to spy on the wireless communications of Americans in completely new ways.

A recent Jacobin article describes these new powers as a, "radical expansion of government surveillance that would be ripe for abuse by a future authoritarian leader", or it could just be used by the authoritarian leadership we have right now, and have had for decades.

In fact, when one commentator described the new powers as "Stasi-like," Edward Snowden himself replied with a long post in which he remarked, "invocation of "Stasi-like" is not only a fair characterization of Himes' amendment, it's probably generous. The Stasi dared not even dream of what the Himes amendment provides."

The amendment in question just "tweaks" the current law's definition of an "electronic communication provider," which is being changed to "any service provider," something extremely likely to be abused by the government to force anyone with a business, a modem and people using their broadband to collect the electronic communications of those people, while also forcing their victims into silence.

The government could essentially force Americans to spy on other people and remain silent about it. Cafe's, restaurants, hotels, business landlords, shared workspaces all could get swept up into the investigations of the Intelligence agencies.

Worse still, because picking out the communications of a single user would be next to impossible, all of their victim's data would end up being surrendered to the authorities.

Sadly, the assault on Americans by their own political elites didn't end there, to top this historic day in Congress, at time when the United States public debt is growing at an astounding rate of $1 trillion every 100 days, US lawmakers also passed a series of pro-war aid packages to American allies (vassals) totalling some $95 billion.

Included in the foreign aid bill are aid packages totalling $61 billion for the Ukraine scam, $26 billion for Israel's special genocide operation in the Gaza Strip, and $8 billion to the Indo-Pacific to provoke WWIII with China, at the same time we're also provoking a nuclear holocaust with the Russian Federation.

Also buried in these aid packages is the authorization for the United States government to outright steal the oversees investments of the Russian Federation, and thereby the Russian taxpayers.

Astonishingly, and in direct opposition to the wishes of their own voters, Republican support was won without the possibility of conditioning the aid to any kind of border security, this despite the issue being among the top biggest concerns of Republican voters.

Although much of the money is to be used replenishing the heavily depleted stocks of America's weapons and munitions, it remains unclear where the munitions are expected to come from, as US defense production has remained sluggish and slow to expand despite heavy investments and demand in recent years, despite the rapid urgency with which the policy elite describe the situation.

It bodes poorly for working Americans that only a relatively small handful of lawmakers opposed the bills, producing unlikely bedfellows like Senator Bernie Sanders and Senator Mike Lee in the Senate, opposing the FISA bill.

While in the House, the loudest opposition to the foreign aid bill mostly came from populist Republicans such as Marjorie Taylor Greene, Thomas Massie and Paul Goser. Only 58 Congresmembers voted against the Foreign Aid Bill in which the TikTok ban was tucked.

Not one word from American politicians about the need to raise the minimum wage, which hasn't been increased since 2009 despite considerable inflation, nor a word about America's endlessly growing homelessness crises, property crime increases, or the 40-year stagnation of American wages, the deterioration of infrastructure, and precious little was said besides complaints about border security over the immigration crises sparked by American Imperialist adventures and US sanctions.

What we've learned today is that we are highly unlikely to see any changes to the insane behavior of the US and its allies any time soon, neither with regards to the absolutely bonkers Neocon foreign policy leading us to the edge of abyss, nor the spending-for-the-rich/austerity-for-the-poor Neoliberal domestic policy of the last 45 years.

#source1

#source2

#source3

#source4

#source5

#source6

#source7

#source8

@WorkerSolidarityNews

Blue: titles are opinion pieces or analysis, and may or may not contain sources.

[sniperct]

Amazing what happens when you vote republicans out of office.

The US government on Thursday banned internet service providers (ISPs) from meddling in the speeds their customers receive when browsing the web and downloading files, restoring tough rules rescinded during the Trump administration and setting the stage for a major legal battle with the broadband industry. The net neutrality regulations adopted Thursday by the Federal Communications Commission prohibit providers such as AT&T, Comcast and Verizon from selectively speeding up, slowing down or blocking users’ internet traffic. They largely reflect rules passed by a prior FCC in 2015 and unwound in 2017. The latest rules show how, with a 3-2 Democratic majority, the FCC is moving to reassert its authority over an industry that powers the modern digital economy, touching everything from education to health care and enabling advanced technologies such as artificial intelligence.

[mariacallous]

Lobbyists for cable companies and advertisers yesterday expressed their displeasure with a proposed “click-to-cancel” regulation that aims to make it easier for consumers to cancel services.

Federal Trade Commission chair Lina Khan has said that changes are needed because “some businesses too often trick consumers into paying for subscriptions they no longer want or didn't sign up for in the first place.” The FTC proposed the new set of rules in March 2023, and comments from industry groups were taken this week in a hearing presided over by an administrative law judge.

NCTA – The Internet & Television Association, the primary trade group for cable companies like Comcast and Charter, said the rule would make it harder to offer deals to customers who are trying to cancel.

“The proposed simple click-to-cancel mechanism may not be so simple when such practices are involved. A consumer may easily misunderstand the consequences of canceling, and it may be imperative that they learn about better options,” NCTA CEO Michael Powell said at the hearing. For example, a customer “may face difficulty and unintended consequences if they want to cancel only one service in the package,” as “canceling part of a discounted bundle may increase the price for remaining services.”

Powell said that cable company reps can usually talk customers out of canceling. “Out of millions of cancellations, complaints received by NCTA members amount to only a tiny fraction of 1 percent,” he said. “Three out of four of the cable and broadband customers who called to cancel end up retaining some or all service after speaking with an agent.”

Powell worries that retaining customers will become tougher because, he said, the FTC “proposal prevents almost any communication without first obtaining a consumer's unambiguous, affirmative consent. That could disrupt the continuity of important services, choke off helpful information, and forgo potential savings. It certainly raises First Amendment issues.”

Powell also said the cost of complying—including retraining employees and maintaining records for longer than current practice—could force cable companies to raise prices. He claimed that the FTC's estimate of compliance costs is too low.

FTC: Sellers Must Take “No” for an Answer

The FTC said one of its proposed rules “would require businesses to make it at least as easy to cancel a subscription as it was to start it. For example, if you can sign up online, you must be able to cancel on the same website, in the same number of steps.”

Sellers would also have to obtain customer consent before they “pitch additional offers or modifications when a consumer tries to cancel their enrollment,” the FTC said. Before making those pitches, sellers would have to “ask consumers whether they want to hear them. In other words, a seller must take ‘no’ for an answer, and upon hearing ‘no’ must immediately implement the cancellation process.”

The FTC also proposes that sellers be required to “provide an annual reminder to consumers enrolled in negative option programs involving anything other than physical goods, before they are automatically renewed.”

At yesterday's hearing, the FTC also heard from the Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB), a lobby group for the online advertising industry. “The proposed rule would disrupt the current regime by adding specific requirements dictating what auto-renewal disclosures must say and how they must be presented,” said Lartease Tiffith, the IAB's executive VP for public policy.

Tiffith argued that the rule will burden businesses “and restrict innovation without any corresponding benefit. And as the technology develops, these prescriptive requirements will constrain companies from being able to adapt their offerings to the needs of their customers.”

Tiffith defended auto-renewals generally, saying the practice of automatically renewing services brings “significant benefits to both businesses and consumers in the form of cost savings, convenience, and heightened value.”

Cable Lobby Complains About Cost

Powell claims that complying with the rules would require “rebuilding” cable company systems and that the cost “could easily exceed $100 million for initial implementation by our industry alone.” These costs “would likely lead to higher prices for consumers,” he said.

An FTC Notice of Proposed Rulemaking offered a much different take on the costs, estimating that the “annual labor cost for disclosures for all entities is $4,695,800.” That's based on “an estimated hourly wage rate for sales personnel of $22.15” and an “estimate of 212,000 hours for compliance with the Rule's disclosure requirements.”

The FTC said that non-labor costs for complying with record-keeping and disclosure rules, “such as equipment and office supplies, would be costs borne by sellers in the normal course of business.”

Powell argued that the proposal shouldn't be applied to the cable industry. “The ominously labeled ‘negative option’ feature is merely a plan that continues until the customer cancels,” Powell said. "Most such plans present few concerns … In many industries like ours, automatic renewals are the only model that makes any sense. Consumers expect their internet service to flow reliably and without interruption."

The cable lobbyist contended that consumers are happy with cable company cancellation practices, and that adding the rules to “established processes that are well understood by subscribers will create more confusion, not less.”

“Tens of millions of consumers use our services. They know they are paying for continuing service … and they know how to cancel, rarely complaining about the process,” he said. “The FTC's highly prescriptive proposal requiring numerous disclosures, multiple consents, and specific cancellation mechanisms is a particularly poor fit for our industry.”

Referring to the requirement to obtain consent before offering new deals to customers who are trying to cancel service, Powell said that “placing speed bumps on conversations between consumers and providers will deny them a rightful chance at a better deal and providers a fair opportunity to retain a good customer.”

[iww-gnv]

Communications Workers of America (CWA) members with Frontier Communications in West Virginia and Ashburn, Virginia said in a Sunday press release they will extend their current contract through August 19th. The contract for about 1,400 CWA-represented employees was set to expire at midnight Saturday and members had voted to strike without gaining a fair settlement.     The union said major bargaining issues include job security provisions that keep jobs local and limit the use of subcontractors in expanding broadband in West Virginia.  Chad Leggett, President of CWA Local 2009 released a statement: “We want a contract that delivers quality jobs so that we can deliver quality service to our customers. That means using experienced, local technicians to bring broadband to our communities instead of subcontractors who often do not have adequate training. It means offering affordable healthcare so that we can take care of our families. “I am hoping that we do not have to go on strike at all. We are still at the bargaining table, and Frontier executives have a choice to do the right thing for their employees and all West Virginians. They can agree to a fair contract so that we can all stay focused on providing quality service to our customers and building fiber connections to as many homes and businesses as possible. We’re here to work hard, but we will stand together if necessary, just like we did in 2018. “We believe that public dollars should be used to fund high-quality networks and to create family-supporting jobs in our communities – that means using a well-trained, union workforce. We’re invested in this company and our communities, and we’re eager to get to work.“

[priyasri20015]

best leased lines providers in hyderabad

Connecting businesses to the speed of success. We are Hyderabad's premier leased lines providers, delivering reliable, high-speed connectivity solutions that empower businesses to thrive in a digitally-driven world. Experience seamless communication and unparalleled performance with our cutting-edge leased line services. Join us and elevate your business to new heights.

[thoughtportal]

More than 600 communities across the U.S. have decided to build their own broadband networks after decades of predatory behavior, slow speeds, and high prices by regional telecom monopolies.

That includes the city of Bountiful, Utah, which earlier this year voted to build a $48 million fiber network to deliver affordable, gigabit broadband to every business and residence in the city. The network is to be open access, meaning that multiple competitors can come in and compete on shared central infrastructure, driving down prices for locals (see our recent Copia study on this concept).

As you might expect, regional telecom monopolies hate this sort of thing. But because these networks are so popular among consumers, they’re generally afraid to speak out against them directly. So they usually employ the help of dodgy proxy lobbying and policy middlemen, who’ll then set upon any town or city contemplating such a network using a bunch of scary, misleading rhetoric.

Like in Bountiful, where the “Utah Taxpayers Association” (which has direct financial and even obvious managerial tethers to regional telecom giants CenturyLink (now Lumen) and Comcast) launched a petition trying to force a public vote on the $48 million in revenue bonds authorized for the project under the pretense that such a project would be an unmitigated disaster for the town. (Their effort didn’t work).

Big ISPs like to pretend they’re suddenly concerned about taxpayers and force entirely new votes on these kinds of projects because they know that with unlimited marketing budgets, they can usually flood less well funded towns or cities with misleading PR to sour the public on the idea.

But after the experience most Americans had with their existing broadband options during the peak COVID home education boom, it’s been much harder for telecom giants to bullshit the public. And the stone cold fact remains: these locally owned networks that wouldn’t even be considered if locals were happy with existing options.

You’ll notice these “taxpayer groups” exploited by big ISPs never criticize the untold billions federal and local governments throw at giant telecom monopolies for half-completed networks. Or the routine taxpayer fraud companies like AT&T, Frontier, CenturyLink (now Lumen) and others routinely engage in.

And it’s because such taxpayer protection groups are effectively industry-funded performance art; perhaps well intentioned at one point, but routinely hijacked, paid, and used as a prop by telecom monopolies looking to protect market dominance.

Gigi Sohn (who you’ll recall just had her nomination to the FCC scuttled by a sleazy telecom monopoly smear campaign) has shifted her focus heavily toward advocating for locally-owned, creative alternatives to telecom monopoly power. And in an op-ed to local Utah residents in the Salt Lake Tribune, she notes how telecom giants want to have their cake and eat it too.

They don’t want to provide affordable, evenly available next-generation broadband. But they don’t want long-neglected locals to, either:

Two huge cable and broadband companies, Comcast and CenturyLink/Lumen, have been members of UTA and have sponsored the UTA annual conference. They have been vocally opposed to community-owned broadband for decades and are well-known for providing organizations like the UTA with significant financial support in exchange for pushing policies that help maintain their market dominance. Yet when given the opportunity in 2020, before anyone else, to provide Bountiful City with affordable and robust broadband, the companies balked. So the dominant cable companies not only don’t want to provide the service Bountiful City needs, they also want to block others from doing so.

Big telecom giants like AT&T and Comcast (and all the consultants, think tankers, and academics they hire to defend their monopoly power) love to claim that community owned broadband networks are some kind of inherent boondoggle. But they’re just another business plan, dependent on the quality of the proposal and the individuals involved.

Even then, data consistently shows that community-owned broadband networks (whether municipal, cooperative, or built on the back of the city-owned utility) provide better, faster, cheaper service than regional monopolies. Such networks routinely not only provide the fastest service in the country, they do so while being immensely popular among consumers. They’re locally-owned and staffed, so they’re more accountable to locals. And they’re just looking to break even, not make a killing.

If I was a lumbering, apathetic, telecom monopoly solely fixated on cutting corners and raising rates to please myopic Wall Street investors, I’d be worried too.

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Boy, gig companies sure hire disastrously sloppy lawyers

In the run-up to the 2020 election, “gig work” companies, led by Uber and Lyft, firehosed $225m to back the passage of Proposition 22, a law that would permanently allow them to misclassify employees as contractors, not entitled to benefits or workplace protections.

More than a decade after Citizens United — the Supreme Court ruling that paved the way for unlimited dark money in US election spending — it’s sometimes hard to get a sense of scale. Is $225m a lot of money to spend on a California ballot initiative?

Uh, yeah. Uber and Lyft’s spending on that single question exceeded nearly all the spending on all the 2020 state electoral campaigns, combined. It was a big flex, and it paid off. After the passage of Prop 22, companies like Pavilions mass-fired their union staff and replaced them with gig workers:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/01/05/manorialism-feudalism-cycle/#prop22

Given both the high stakes and the high pricetag for Prop 22, you’d think that the lawyers who drafted it would have been very careful to ensure that the law itself was valid. I mean, it’d be hilarious if the companies spent $225m bigfooting their way to a custom-wrought California law only to have it invalidated because it violated the state constitution, you know?

Here’s something hilarious: Prop 22 was unconstitutional. It took so much power away from the legislature that a state court found that it required a constitutional amendment to be valid. The California Superior court voided Prop 22 in its entirety and $225m in dark money went up in smoke. You love to see it.

https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2021-08-20/prop-22-unconstitutional

It wasn’t supposed to be that way. Prop 22 was supposed to be model legislation, like the laws banning municipal broadband that ALEC pushed through statehouses across the country. In fact, Lyft, Uber and their allies had already committed $100m to dark-money campaign spending for a similar provision in Massachusetts for the 2022 elections.

You’ll never guess what happened next. With just months to go until the election, the Massachusetts surpreme court unanimously ruled that the worker misclassification initiative is so badly drafted that it can’t appear on the ballot.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-06-14/massachusetts-justices-strike-down-gig-backed-ballot-initiative

The ballot initiative included a provision that let the gig companies off the hook for car wrecks, no matter how culpable they were, but the summary provided to voters failed to mention this. The court found the summary so misleading that they tore the whole thing up.

This is a baffling error. Look, I’m as gaffe-prone as anyone, but I’m not a lawyer. In 20 years of advocacy work, I’ve always worked in teams with lawyers who serve as the red team for my weird ideas, gaming out all the ways that they can go wrong.

Like, one time when I beat a giant corporation that tried sued me on idiotic grounds and lost big, I wanted to use the phrase “not even wrong” to describe their outlandish legal theory. The lawyer involved made me take that out: “You don’t want anything that anyone can interpret as your admission that they’re right, even if you mean the opposite.” She was right. I was wrong. I took it out.

When the stakes are higher — for example, in legislative work, or high stake litigation, or treaty drafting — whole teams of lawyers go over every word, getting into fierce arguments about whether or how it could be adversely interpreted. The idea is to make something drum-tight, because it would suck to get through all of this and then lose due to an unforced error in the drafting.

I can’t even imagine how you go ahead with a $100m ballot initiative campaign without gaming out the way it’ll play in court. I mean, sure, your boss is going to freak out if you fairly describe the ballot initiative’s lopsided language in the voter guide summary, but the lawyer’s job is to explain that failing to do so could wreck the whole thing.

It’s possible — likely, even — that the leadership in gig work companies are so high on their own supply that they can’t conceive of losing, and ignore their legal advice. It’s also possible that these lawyers have caught the profession’s most debilitating disease: compulsive bullying, which manifests in competitive sadism:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/02/10/duke-sucks/#devils

Seen in this light, lawyers’ addiction to sadistic overreach when representing massive, bullying clients is a feature, not a bug. Time and again, it produces operatic comeuppances that save us all from giant companies’ nefarious plans.

Remember “Free Basics?” This was Facebook’s bid to make “Facebook” synonymous with “internet” for people living in poor countries in the Global South. The idea was that Facebook would bribe the local ISPs and wireless companies to impose data-caps, but exempt Facebook and the internet services it favored.

The company claimed that this was just an act of charity, a bid to make the internet universally accessible to poor people. Critics claimed that it was “poor internet for poor people.” The evidence backed the critics — zero-rating programs like Internet Basics didn’t (and don’t) improve internet access:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/02/countries-zero-rating-have-more-expensive-wireless-broadband-countries-without-it

Facebook fought an especially vicious campaign in India, where local activists with deep technological backgrounds led a nationwide uprising against Free Basics, prompting the national telecoms regulator to put out a consultation paper seeking public comment on whether to allow the program.

Facebook cooked up a seemingly unbeatable plan: whenever people in India opened Facebook on their devices, they were prompted to send a form-letter to the telecoms regulator supporting Facebook’s position. It worked: Facebook got millions of comments in its favor.

But it failed. Due to sloppy drafting, Facebook’s boilerplate didn’t actually address any of the points raised in the consultation paper. The regulator threw them all out, saying “Consultation papers are not opinion polls. We expect the stakeholders who participate to provide meaningful input.”

https://web.archive.org/web/20160102182135/https://www.thehindu.com/business/Industry/consultation-paper-is-not-an-opinion-poll-trai-chairman/article8050019.ece

Facebook could have drafted comments that were responsive to the consultation paper, but it didn’t. Instead, it astroturfed millions of people into sending puffed-up, nonresponsive nonsense to the regulator. Somehow, amidst all the comma-fucking that characterizes a normal legal drafting process, Facebook managed to blow it.

It’s been six years since the Facebook Free Basics debacle, and I still don’t know how it is that they managed to squander such a giant advantage. I mean, I’m glad they did, but just as with Prop 22 and the Massachusetts ballot question, I can’t figure out how the world’s most powerful companies keep slipping on their own banana-peels.

[Image ID: A rusted wreck with Massachusetts custom plates reading 'DERP' and an Uber bumper-decal.]

[phonemantra-blog]

Falcon 9 launches - strategic partnership between Amazon and SpaceX Amazon's Kuiper project, which aims to provide broadband Internet, could become a competitor to SpaceX's Starlink satellite network. There is no place for friendship in the world of business: Amazon announced a contract for three launches of Project Kuiper satellites on a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket. Thus, Amazon is expanding its capabilities to implement its deployment strategy. Information on the exact dates and costs of launches was not provided. Project Kuiper, similar to Starlink, is being developed to provide broadband Internet access to millions of people around the world. SpaceX is already well ahead of its competitors, launching thousands of satellites and attracting more than two million subscribers to its Starlink network. In October, Amazon launched two prototypes for the first time on United Launch Alliance's Atlas V rocket. A few weeks ago, Amazon announced that the satellites had successfully passed tests and were now scheduled to begin mass production at a plant in Kirkland, Washington. The SpaceX factory is also nearby in Redmond. [caption id="attachment_85356" align="aligncenter" width="630"] SpaceX[/caption] Amazon signs contract to launch Kuiper satellites using Falcon 9 rocket from rival SpaceX The first Kuiper satellites to users are due to launch early next year, with beta service becoming available in the second half of 2024. Under a license from the FCC, half of the Kuiper constellation of 3,236 satellites is expected to be in low-Earth orbit by mid-2026. Most of Amazon's launches are planned to be carried out on three types of rockets (which have not yet flown a single mission): Blue Origin's New Glenn, ULA's Vulcan and Arianespace's Ariane 6. In addition to the three Falcon 9 launches, Amazon has reserved space on eight Atlas V rockets, which are solid choices. So SpaceX's Falcon 9 launch reservation provides some security for Amazon's deployment plan. The selection of SpaceX for a portion of Project Kuiper's launches could also affect the lawsuit, which alleges Amazon did not sufficiently consider SpaceX as a potential launch provider. In August, a pension fund that has Amazon shares in its portfolio filed a lawsuit. The lawsuit alleges that Amazon's directors and officers refused to cooperate with SpaceX because of the latter's competition with Blue Origin. “In light of SpaceX's proven reliability and economic advantages, the decision by Bezos-led Amazon not to even consider SpaceX as a launch provider highlights the conflicting interests Bezos has with Amazon and Blue Origin and the significant impact these conflicts will have on the board's ability to protect the interests of the company and its shareholders in conducting contract negotiations,” the pension fund said in its lawsuit. SpaceX's choice for some of Kuiper's launches refutes the pension fund's arguments. However, a hearing in this case has not yet been scheduled. Amazon said that the pension fund's claims are "completely baseless" and they intend to prove this during the legal process.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

April 3, 2023

Heather Cox Richardson

On Saturday, April 1, the emergency measures Congress put in place to extend medical coverage at the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic expired. This means that states can end Medicaid coverage for people who do not meet the pre-pandemic eligibility requirements, which are based primarily on income. As many as 15 million of the 85 million people covered by Medicaid could lose coverage, although most will be eligible for other coverage either through employers or through the Affordable Care Act. The 383,000 who will fall through the cracks are in the 10 states that have refused to expand Medicaid.

The pandemic prompted the United States to reverse 40 years of cutbacks to the social safety net. These cuts were prescribed by Republican politicians who argued that concentrating money upward would promote economic growth by enabling private investment in the economy. That “supply side” economic policy, they said, would expand the economy so effectively that everyone would prosper. In 2017, Republicans passed yet another tax cut, primarily for the wealthy and for corporations, to advance this policy.

As the economy fell apart during the coronavirus pandemic, though, it was clear the government must do something to shore up the tattered social safety net, and even Republicans got on board fast. On March 6, 2020, Trump signed the Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Supplemental Appropriations Act, allocating $8.3 billion to fund vaccine research and give money to states and local governments to try to stop the spread of the virus. On March 18, he signed the Families First Coronavirus Response Act, which provided food assistance, sick leave, $1 billion in unemployment insurance, and Covid testing. On the same day, the Federal Housing Administration put moratoriums on foreclosure and eviction for people with government-backed loans.

On March 27, Congress passed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES), which appropriated $2.3 trillion, including $500 billion for companies, $349 billion for small businesses, $175 billion for hospitals, $150 billion to state and local government, $30.75 billion for schools and universities, individual one-time cash payments, and expanded unemployment benefits.

Trump signed another stimulus package on April 24, 2020, which appropriated another $484 billion. And on December 27, 2020, he signed another $900 billion stimulus and relief package.

When he took office, President Joe Biden promised to rebuild the American middle class. He and the Democratic Congress began to shift the government’s investment from shoring up the social safety net to repairing the economy. On March 19, 2021, he signed the American Rescue Plan into law, putting $1.9 trillion behind economic stimulus and relief proposals.

Biden signed the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Law, also known as the Bipartisan infrastructure Act, on November 15, 2021, putting $1.2 trillion into so-called hard infrastructure projects: roads and bridges and broadband.

On August 9, 2022, he signed the CHIPS and Science Act, putting about $280 billion in new funding behind scientific research and the manufacturing of semiconductors. And days later, on August 16, Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Law, putting billions behind addressing climate change and energy security while also raising money to pay for new policies and to reduce the deficit by raising taxes on corporations and the wealthy, funding the Internal Revenue Service to stop cheating, and permitting Medicare to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies over drug prices.

This dramatic investment in the demand side, rather than the supply side, of the economy helped to spark record inflation, compounded by supply chain issues that created shortages and encouraged price gouging. To combat that inflation, the Federal Reserve has been raising interest rates. Numbers released Friday show that inflation cooled in February, suggesting that the Federal Reserve is seeing the downward trend it has been hoping for, although there is concern that the sudden decision of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) this weekend to slash production of crude oil might drive the price of oil back up, dragging prices with it.

That investment in the demand side of the economy also meant that the child poverty rate in the U.S. fell almost 30%, while food insufficiency fell by 26% in households that received the expanded child tax credit. The U.S. economy recovered faster than that of any other G7 nation after the worst of the pandemic. Wages for low-paid workers grew at their fastest rate in 40 years, with real income growing by 9%. MIddle-income workers’ wages grew by only between 2.4% and 3.9% after inflation, but that, too, was the biggest jump in 40 years. Unemployment has fallen to its lowest level since 1969, and a record 10 million people have applied to start small businesses.

This public investment in the economy has attracted billions in private-sector investment—chipmakers have planned almost $200 billion of investments in 17 states—while it has also pressured certain companies to act in the public interest: the three major insulin producers in the U.S., making up 90% of the market, have all capped prices at $35 a month.  

As the economy begins to smooth out, Biden and members of his administration are touting the benefits of investing in the economy “from the bottom up and the middle out.” They have emphasized that they are working to support unions and the rights of consumers, taking on “junk fees,” noncompete agreements, and nondisparagement clauses. After the collapse of the Silicon Valley Bank, the administration has suggested that deregulation of banking institutions went too far, and Biden has continued to push increased support for child care and health care.

A recent Associated Press–NORC poll shows that while 60% of Americans say the federal government spends too much money, they actually want increased investment in specific programs: 65% want more on education (12% want less); 63% want more on health care (16% want less); 62% want more on Social Security (7% want less); 58% want more spending on Medicare (10% want less); 53% want more on border security (23% want less); and 35% want more spending on the military (29% want less).

This puts the political parties in an odd spot. A week ago, Biden and members of the administration began barnstorming the country to highlight how their policy of “Investing in America” has been building the economy: “unleashing a manufacturing boom, helping rebuild our infrastructure and bring back supply chains, lowering costs for hardworking families, and creating jobs that don’t require a four-year degree across the country,” as the White House puts it.

Meanwhile,  the Republicans are doubling down on the idea that such investments are a waste of money, and are forcing a fight over the debt ceiling to try to slash the very programs that the administration is celebrating. Ignoring that the 2017 Trump tax cuts and spending under Trump added about 25% to the debt, they are focusing on Biden’s policies and demanding  that the government balance the budget in 10 years without raising taxes and without cutting defense, veterans benefits, Social Security, or Medicare, which would require slashing everything else by an impossible 85%, at least (some estimates say even 100% cuts wouldn’t do it).

As David Firestone put it today in the New York Times: “Cutting spending…might sound attractive to many voters until you explain what you’re actually cutting and what effect it would have.” Republicans cut taxes and then complain about deficits “but don’t want to discuss how many veterans won’t get care or whose damaged homes won’t get rebuilt or which dangerous products won’t get recalled.” Firestone noted that this disconnect is why the House Republicans cannot come up with a budget. “The details of austerity are unpopular,” Firestone notes, “and it’s easier to just issue fiery news releases.”

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[robbiesblogdotcom]

Domain Names Owned By Earthlink Inc

EarthLink Inc is an American internet service provider that provides dial-up internet access, high-speed broadband access using digital subscriber line (DSL), single ISDN, and cable modem technology to 4.2 million consumer and business customers It is the second largest Internet service provider (ISP) in the United States, trailing 25-million-member America Online. EarthLink was co-founded in…

[reasoningdaily]

Advance digital equity today or usher in a future of egregious economic inequality - Connect Humanity

At Marconi Society’s “Decade of Digital Inclusion” conference last year, we heard from leaders in technology and digital equity. What follows is a précis of my remarks and some additional reflections for the session, ‘The (Big) Data Economy: Inclusion and Fairness’, in which I focus on the importance of digital equity now to secure a future that works for all.

When ‘good enough’, isn’t good enough

Rural and low-income communities have been expected to make-do with antiquated infrastructure and low-performing technologies offered at high costs, such as legacy copper (DSL) or coaxial cable networks, or satellite service. Time and again, communities are told not to expect fiber-based networks, but to settle for whatever technology is offered to them. In his book, Farm Fresh Broadband, Christopher Ali calls this the “politics of good enough”.

Digital inclusion — having access to quality broadband infrastructure, devices, and the digital skills to use them — is key to upward mobility. It is a portal to healthcare and education, a platform to start and grow a business, and the first rung on the ladder to a well paid job.

For much of the 20th Century, individuals were able to enter the middle class, with or without a college degree, through jobs in manufacturing and retail. Today most jobs have a digital component and employers across sectors look for candidates with well-honed digital skills. If you haven’t grown up with access to data and devices, you’re starting at a disadvantage. And if you don’t have a computer and a connection, good luck applying for a job in a world where recruitment happens almost entirely online.

Digital exclusion doesn’t just punish job seekers, it holds back the creation of jobs in the first place. When a community doesn’t have the fiber infrastructure to attract and retain 21st century businesses, it loses out on so many fronts. Fewer work opportunities. A lower tax base. Less activity in the local economy. Higher unemployment — and the economic and social costs that often follow in distressed communities.

Digital inclusion is economic inclusion

‘Digital exclusion’ is ‘economic exclusion’. By maintaining the digital divide, this politics of ‘good enough’ will perpetuate ever greater income and wealth inequality. By the same token, ‘digital inclusion is economic inclusion’ and by pursuing what Jonathan Sallet calls broadband networks ‘fit for the future’ we can start unwinding the entrenched poverty that has robbed communities of a brighter future.

We cannot miss this moment. The longer we wait to close the digital divide, the harder it’ll be for those on the wrong side to catch up. We have the technology, the established research methodologies and data sets, and best practices. We have business and operating models, philanthropy, and, in the U.S., the Community Reinvestment Act, that can support the connection of low-income, BIPOC, and rural communities that large national providers have not served equitably. Let’s heed the warning of one of our most trusted leaders in broadband policy, Blair Levin: “…our country may take the biggest backwards step any country has ever taken in increasing, rather than closing, the digital divide.” Let’s not blindly proceed on that path. 

Civic participation at its best

There are local and regional ISPs, co-ops, local governments, and community partners across the country who are rolling up their sleeves and building next generation broadband networks for underserved communities. And they know better than to aim for the minimum speed, i.e., the FCC’s definition of 25/3 mbps that seems to be frozen in time, driven by a scarcity narrative in a world where accelerating technology demands require that networks ‘fit for the future’ offer far greater speeds. This is civic participation at its best — and the government, philanthropy, and the private sector must support these efforts.

Rather than wasting time entertaining inaccurate, unreliable, expensive maps (at least $44 million for the new FCC “Federal Broadband Map” by CostQuest) and catering to powerful companies that write the rules and misrepresent their service, we must engage with communities to understand their needs, their context, and work with them to shape our shared digital future. This is the work I joined Connect Humanity to do, with a special focus on the Texas-Mexico border region. 

When we make investments in local communities, we support an inclusive economy and opportunities for under-represented groups to use, create, and own assets in the digital economy. That level of inclusion is necessary for a diversity of people to become the makers and shapers of fair algorithms, the owners of local and regional  ISPs, the ethical managers of the internet of things, and the leaders who engage communities to make policy and law to protect people from the deleterious use of big data and AI.

Here’s a link to replay the panel.

[sassyfrassboss]

Background on the owner of the private jet

Marc Ganzi is an American businessman. He is the President and CEO of DigitalBridge, and is the founder and former CEO of Digital Bridge Holdings and Global Tower Partners. He is also a polo player.

He received a Bachelor of Science in business administration from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. He interned in the White House for Stephen M. Studdert, special advisor to President George H. W. Bush in 1989. In 1990, Ganzi served as an assistant Commercial Attaché in Madrid for the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Foreign Commercial Service Department.

After graduation, Ganzi bought distressed real estate for Resolution Trust Corporation. He worked at Deutsche Bank, where he oversaw investments in the radio tower sector.

In 1993, he co-founded AD Development Corporation, a real estate development company in the Mid-Atlantic states, where he worked until 1994. He co-founded Apex Site Management, which was purchased by SpectraSite, and he served as group president for a year. In 1998, Ganzi founded Eureka Broadband, an application service provider and high-speed Internet access corporation. From 2000 to 2002, he was a partner in DB Capital Partners in New York City.

In 2003, he founded Global Tower Partners, a telecommunications company headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida. He served as its Chief Executive Officer and built the company into the largest privately held operator of U.S. cell towers. The company was purchased by Macquarie Group (ASX: MQG) in 2007, and, in 2013, American Tower Corporation (NYSE: AMT) acquired GTP for $4.8 billion.

In 2013, Ganzi and Ben Jenkins founded Digital Bridge Holdings, an investor and operator of mobile and internet connectivity companies. Digital Bridge Holdings was acquired by Colony Capital in 2019, where Ganzi took over as CEO-elect. On July 1, 2020, he became CEO and President of Colony Capital. In 2021, the company rebranded to become DigitalBridge, a digital infrastructure investment firm, and he remained in those respective positions.

DigitalBridge Group, Inc. is a global digital infrastructure investment firm. The company owns, invests in and operates businesses such as cell towers, data centers, fiber, small cells, and edge infrastructure. Headquartered in Boca Raton, DigitalBridge has key offices in Los Angeles, New York, London, and Singapore.

In 2010, DigitalBridge, then still Colony Capital, was reported to manage about $30 billion in investments. In 2011, DigitalBridge was tied for 3rd largest private equity real estate fund in the world, behind Blackstone Group and Morgan Stanley Real Estate

Colony purchased Raffles International on July 18, 2005. This included the 41 hotels and resorts operated under the Raffles Hotel and Swissotel brand names. On January 30, 2006, it acquired Fairmont Hotels and Resorts of Toronto, Ontario with Kingdom Hotels International as a joint partner for US$3.24 billion.[citation needed] On April 10, 2006, it acquired French professional football team Paris Saint-Germain.

On November 11, 2008, Michael Jackson transferred the title of his 2,700 acre estate Neverland Ranch to Sycamore Valley Ranch Company LLC, a joint venture between Jackson (represented by attorney, L. Londell McMillan) and an affiliate of Colony Capital. It is still unclear whether Colony Capital has a part in the property. Jackson earned a total of US$35 million when he agreed to the joint venture between himself and Colony Capital.

In March 2010, Colony arranged a financing and marketing package for Annie Leibovitz. The New York celebrity photographer had been in financial difficulty and in danger of losing to her previous lender, ArtCapital, the rights to her photographs and negatives and her three Greenwich Village townhouses. ArtCapital's credit was for $24 million. In December 2010, Colony purchased Miramax from Disney with Qatar Investment Authority, Tutor-Saliba Corporation and The Weinstein Company as part of a joint venture called Filmyard Holdings for $663 million.

In September 2017, Colony NorthStar agreed to sell its Townsend Group unit to Aon for $475 million.

In October 2017, Colony entered discussions to purchase The Weinstein Company, a movie and TV production studio that sustained damage after its co-founder, Harvey Weinstein, was accused of multiple counts of sexual harassment over three decades. In the wake of the Harvey Weinstein sexual assault scandal, in late October 2017, it was reported that Colony Capital LLC had proved hesitant to purchase Weinstein Co. after a week of exclusive negotiations. Fortress Investment Group was also in talks to provide a loan to Weinstein Co.

In June 2018, The New York Times reported that Colony North Star had raised more than $7 billion in investments since Donald Trump won the 2016 presidential election. 24 percent of the money came from the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia.

In April 2022, DigitalBridge bought out Wafra’s stake in its investment management subsidiary for $800 million and switched from REIT to traditional C-Corp. DigitalBridge announced and initiated several acquisitions during 2022 including AMP Capital's global infrastructure equity investment management business for $328 million and Switch, Inc., a data center company, for $11 billion. The firm sold 27 percent of its stake in DataBank to Swiss Life and EDF Invest for $1.2 billion. DigitalBridge said it would own 15.5 percent of DataBank after the sale.

Thanks!

He looks a lot like that Mark Dyer guy that used to keep tabs on Harry.

Mark Ganzi

Mark Dyer and Harry: