Telecomm

Telecom Industry, neglected, see net neutralitysee trade gp National Cable & Telecommunications Assn

=big lobbyists?SEE NET NEUTRALITYSEE FCCsee PICsee municipal wirelesslocal rural broadbandsome alec defectorssee cell phone/EMR carlo gave 419K to john graham (2000 AT&T 300K$)==3 23 Gigi scalpWe strongly urge you to reject Sohn’s nomination to the FCC and hold our regulators to the highest standard.Sincerely,Center for a Free EconomyAmericans for Tax Reform60 Plus AssociationAmerican CommitmentCenter for Individual FreedomCitizen OutreachConservatives for Property RightsConsumer Action for a Strong EconomyInstitute for LibertyLess GovernmentMarket InstituteIndependent Women’s VoiceEagle ForumAffiliations listed for identification purposes only.=<div></div><div>an ah 1 23</div><div>
</div><div>Friday, January 6, 2023 marks the second anniversary of what <a href="https://www.thewrap.com/nbc-news-beschloss-wants-capitol-riot-memorialized-9-11/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="color: rgb(11, 13, 101); text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">historian Michael Beschloss</a> has described as one of the darkest days in United States history: the January 6, 2021 insurrection. That day, a violent mob of MAGA Republicans and Donald Trump supporters attacked the U.S. Capitol Building in the hope of preventing the certification of now-President Joe Biden’s Electoral College victory.As violent as that attack was, Beschloss has emphasized that it could have been much worse and escalated into “assassinations and/or hostage-taking” if the insurrectionists had been able to get to either members of Congress or then-Vice President Mike Pence. Some of the insurrectionists were calling for Pence’s murder that day, chanting, “Hang Mike Pence, hang Mike Pence.” And a hangman’s gallows was set up outside the Capitol.Two years ago, Corporate America was quick to condemn the Capitol insurrection. But in an <a href="https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2023/01/top-corporations-still-funding-election-deniers-january-6-insurrection/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="color: rgb(11, 13, 101); text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">in-depth report published by Mother Jones</a> on January 5, journalist Tim Murphy laments that some companies have since made campaign contributions to “Stop the Steal” Republicans who tried to overturn the 2020 presidential election results.READ MORE: <a href="https://www.alternet.org/january-6-committee-2658988065/" target="self" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="color: rgb(11, 13, 101); text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">Law professor’s Jan. 6 takeaway: the 'threat of political violence' is 'far from over'</a>“Two years after President Donald Trump incited a mob to storm the U.S. Capitol and halt the certification of the Electoral College results, the January 6 insurrection is still a live wire in American politics,” Murphy explains. “Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes was convicted of seditious conspiracy last month for his role in the riot. Advocates of Trump’s election lies received such an intense electoral rebuke in the midterm election that Democrats actually expanded their majority in the Senate…. But many of America’s largest companies have long since moved on.”Murphy adds, “In the first national election since a sitting president tried to overturn the popular will, some of the country’s biggest brands showered election deniers with millions of dollars in donations via their political action committees.”The Mother Jones reporter goes on to cite specific examples of companies that condemned “Stop the Steal” Republicans and election denialists two years ago but have since given them donations.“In the days after the insurrection,” Murphy recalls, “dozens of companies told <a href="https://popular.info/p/three-major-corporations-say-they" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="color: rgb(11, 13, 101); text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">Popular Information</a> and other outlets that they were pausing or reconsidering their political donations. Hallmark, which had donated to Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) in the past, singled him out by name in its statement condemning the attack. Big-pocketed corporations such as Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Comcast, PricewaterhouseCoopers and AT&T promised to suspend all contributions to members of Congress who voted against certifying the results either temporarily or for the entire 2022 cycle.”READ MORE: <a href="https://www.alternet.org/fake-elector-scheme-clear-path/" target="self" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="color: rgb(11, 13, 101); text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">January 6th 'fake elector scheme' offers a clear 'path to prosecuting Trump': attorney</a>Murphy continues, “But not only did each of those six companies eventually turn the spigot back on, they all ended up writing checks to help reelect Rep. Mike Kelly (R-Pa.) — a leading opponent of certification whose own chief of staff attempted to distribute a fake slate of electors on the day of the insurrection, according to the January 6 Committee. Kelly, a member of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee from a heavily Republican district, was a major recipient of corporate cash. Other contributors included PACs belonging to Intel and Verizon, both of which had told Popular Information they were suspending donations to the election-rejecters; Aflac, which had said it would be pausing all its political donations for an unspecified amount of time; Johnson & Johnson; FedEx; and the spirits-producing Sazerac Company.”The Mother Jones reporter points out that during the “2022 cycle,” Anheuser-Busch “gave $139,500 to election-denying members of Congress” in addition to giving a “maximum contribution” to the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC).“Among the dozens of recipients: Rep. Billy Long (R-Mo.), who tweeted that the election was ‘RIGGED’ for Biden in the run-up to January 6 and afterwards shared misinformation alleging that ‘Antifa thugs’ were responsible for the riot,” Murphy reports. “Airlines were major supporters of Stop the Steal candidates. Delta Airlines gave $225,000 to election-denying members of Congress, according to ProPublica‘s searchable database. Southwest Airlines’ ‘Freedom Fund’ gave $39,500 to election-rejecting candidates, including Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas), who tweeted on January 3, 2021 that he’d just met ‘with folks from Stop the Steal’ at our nation’s Capitol’ and ‘encouraged them to keep fighting.’”Murphy adds, “American Airlines, which told Popular Information that it was pausing all political contributions for three months, eventually funneled $165,000 to dozens of Republicans who voted not to certify the election results, including Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.), who asked Trump for a pardon after helping to organize congressional opposition to certification.”READ MORE: <a href="https://www.alternet.org/highlights-january-6th-committee-transcripts/" target="self" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="color: rgb(11, 13, 101); text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">Highlights from the latest batch of January 6th Select Committee transcripts</a></div><div>=</div><div>=</div><div>no twt lnx</div><div>https://www.alternet.org/2022/05/gigi-sohn/</div><div>
</div><div><div>'Infuriating': Telecom lobbyists spending big money to keep Gigi Sohn off FCC</div><div>
</div><div>Julia Conley and Common Dreams May 01, 2022</div><div>   </div><div>Consumer rights defenders are warning that telecom companies and lobbyists are taking advantage of the U.S. Senate's delay in confirming Gigi Sohn to the Federal Communications Commission by spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to pressure corporate Democrats to vote against the longtime public advocate.</div><div>
</div><div>"There's an unseemly amount of money being spent to promote disinformation about her," Greg Guice, director of government affairs for Public Knowledge, the group founded by Sohn, told MarketWatch this week. "These criticisms aren't based in fact whatsoever."</div><div>
</div><div>As Karl Bode wrote at Techdirt last week, former Democratic Sen. Heidi Heitkamp's rural-focused non-profit group recently launched a $250,000 social media ad campaign targeting at least two Democrats who have not yet confirmed how they plan to vote on Sohn's confirmation, even though it would give the party three of the five FCC seats for the first time in six years and would end the current deadlock.</div><div>
</div><div>The group's ads are aimed at Sens. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.) and Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), neither of whom have indicated how they will vote on Sohn's nomination and both of whom are facing reelection campaigns in November. Politico has reported that Heitkamp is also running ads in West Virginia, where right-wing Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin was "undecided" on Sohn after meeting her.</div><div>
</div><div>Heitkamp's group, the One Country Project, is claiming that Sohn has been insufficiently committed to improving broadband access in rural communities, pointing to congressional testimony in which she said Congress has been "disproportionately focused on broadband deployment in rural areas."</div><div>
</div><div>As Chris Matthews wrote at MarketWatch, Sohn's testimony didn't "argue that the federal government shouldn't fund broadband deployment, but that the main hurdle for Americans accessing broadband in both rural and urban areas is affordability, not infrastructure."</div><div>
</div><div>Heitkamp started One Country Project with "leftover campaign cash" to start her political action committee, Matthews noted, and counted AT&T and Comcast as two of her biggest donors when she was in the Senate.</div><div>
</div><div>"Telecom monopolies are now terrified that the Sohn appointment won't just break 2-2 commissioner gridlock (they created) at the agency, it will mean the restoration of meaningful federal oversight over one of the least popular and least competitive industries in the Internet ecosystem," wrote Bode at Techdirt.</div><div>
</div><div>Andrew Lokay, an analyst with independent policy research firm Beacon Policy Advisors, told MarketWatch that opponents of Sohn in the telecom industry appear to be "taking advantage of Biden's delay in nominating Sohn and the crowded Senate calendar in an attempt to sink her nomination."</div><div>
</div><div>Craig Aaron, president of media and technology advocacy group Free Press, accused the telecom industry and its allies of waging a "dishonest astroturf campaign" against Sohn and called the effort to derail the nomination of a strong net neutrality defender "infuriating."</div><div>
</div><div>In addition to One Country Project's efforts, the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC)—which has long partnered with AT&T—published an op-ed in the Arizona Daily Star earlier this month accusing Sohn of having a "deeply problematic track record on media diversity issues."</div><div>
</div><div>The group wrote that as a senior staffer at the FCC, Sohn "masterminded a plan to give Google a government permission slip to steal, repackage and monetize TV programming without paying one cent to its creators"—a move which angered "diverse creators" and lawmakers over "how her proposal would impact vulnerable, underrepresented communities."</div><div>
</div><div>In fact, Bode wrote, "the FCC's goal was to kill the cable box monopoly and save consumers about $20 billion annually in bullshit rental fees," adding that "framing it as a handout to 'big tech' is an intentional misrepresentation."</div><div>
</div><div>LULAC denied to MarketWatch that its opposition to Sohn has anything to do with its relationship with AT&T, and the company said it has not donated any money directly to One Country Project.</div><div>
</div><div>But as Bode argued, "Sohn's so popular, and the goals of telecom monopolies (less competition, more revenue, no oversight) are so viciously unpopular, they've been forced to fabricate flimsy complaints and funnel them through proxy organizations in a bid to derail the popular nomination."</div><div>
</div><div>"If Sohn's nomination is scuttled, it will come at the hands of Senators Joe Manchin, Catherine Cortez Masto, Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.), or Mark Kelly, who will, not coincidentally, parrot the false justifications for opposing Sohn's nomination concocted by the telecom lobby," Bode added.</div><div>
</div><div>"It will leave a permanent and violent scar on the political and policy landscape," he added, "loudly advertising once again that the voice of the public (which overwhelmingly supports holding telecom and media giants meaningfully accountable) simply doesn't matter in our purported democracy."</div></div><div>
</div><div></div>=omg1021anThe far right wing cable network One America News (OAN) is <a href="https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-oneamerica-att/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">funded almost entirely by telecom and tech giant AT&T</a>.OAN, which is even more far right than Fox News or Newsmax, served as a mouthpiece for the Trump administration and is being sued <a href="https://www.npr.org/2021/08/10/1026509404/dominion-sues-conservative-media-oan-newsmax-2020-election" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">in a $1.6 billion defamation case</a> by Dominion Voting Systems. The extremist network regularly promotes far right wing conspiracy theories as it attacks Democrats and the left.OAN, according to a Reuters special report, is "at the center of a bitter national divide over politics and truth."But it's how OAN got there that is disturbing for the AT&T brand."AT&T has been a crucial source of funds flowing into OAN," Reuters notes, adding: "Ninety percent of OAN's revenue came from a contract with AT&T-owned television platforms, including satellite broadcaster DirecTV, according to 2020 sworn testimony by an OAN accountant."AT&T, the world's largest telecom company and majority owner of DirecTV, has funneled "about $57 million" into OAN. The "news" network's founder and CEO, Robert Herring Sr., "has testified he was offered $250 million for OAN in 2019. Without the DirecTV deal, the accountant said under oath, the network's value 'would be zero.'""If Herring Networks, for instance, was to lose or not be renewed on DirecTV, the company would go out of business tomorrow," OAN lawyer Patrick Nellies told the court, a transcript shows.How did a far right wing "propaganda machine," as <a href="https://www.thedailybeast.com/pro-trump-channel-one-america-news-deploys-a-former-kremlin-propagandist-to-blast-the-russia-hoax" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">The Daily Beast</a> called OAN in 2019, come into being, seemingly overnight?"They told us they wanted a conservative network," Herring said during a 2019 deposition seen by Reuters. "They only had one, which was Fox News, and they had seven others on the other [leftwing] side. When they said that, I jumped to it and built one."Numerous reports have documented OAN's lies, propaganda, and mistruths, yet despite – or because of – that, Reuters notes, over a two-year period "Trump touted the network, known as @OANN online, to his 88 million Twitter followers at least 120 times."Read the entire Reuters report <a href="https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-oneamerica-att/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">here</a>.<div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">=</div>=<a href="https://www.democracynow.org/2021/5/7/headlines/new_york_ag_says_18_million_fake_comments_were_posted_in_support_of_2017_fcc_net_neutrality_repeal" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">
</a><a href="https://www.democracynow.org/2021/5/7/headlines/new_york_ag_says_18_million_fake_comments_were_posted_in_support_of_2017_fcc_net_neutrality_repeal" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">https://www.democracynow.org/2021/5/7/headlines/new_york_ag_says_18_million_fake_comments_were_posted_in_support_of_2017_fcc_net_neutrality_repeal</a>new York’s attorney general says the nation’s largest broadband companies funded a secret campaign to influence the Federal Communications Commission’s repeal of net neutrality rules. Attorney General Letitia James said Thursday an investigation by her office found that in 2017, “The broadband industry hired marketing companies that co-opted and created identities and filed nearly 18 million fake comments with the FCC and sent over half a million fake letters to Congress in support of the repeal.” Supporters of net neutrality say protections are needed to preserve an open internet and to bar internet service providers from stopping or slowing down the delivery of websites.<div class="topics" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-top: 30px; width: 635px; vertical-align: top; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div class="label" style="box-sizing: border-box; vertical-align: bottom; text-transform: uppercase; display: inline-block; margin-right: 10px; font-weight: 900;">TOPICS:</div><ul style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: top; display: inline;"><li style="box-sizing: border-box; list-style-type: none; vertical-align: top; display: inline-block;"><a data-ga-action="Headlines: Topic" href="https://www.democracynow.org/topics/new_york" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; vertical-align: top;">New York</a></li><li class="bullet" style="box-sizing: border-box; width: 4px; height: 4px; background-color: rgb(236, 238, 239); margin: 7px 5px 2px; display: inline-block; list-style-type: none; vertical-align: baseline;" /><li style="box-sizing: border-box; list-style-type: none; vertical-align: top; display: inline-block;"><a data-ga-action="Headlines: Topic" href="https://www.democracynow.org/topics/fcc" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; vertical-align: top;">FCC</a></li><li class="bullet" style="box-sizing: border-box; width: 4px; height: 4px; background-color: rgb(236, 238, 239); margin: 7px 5px 2px; display: inline-block; list-style-type: none; vertical-align: baseline;" /><li style="box-sizing: border-box; list-style-type: none; vertical-align: top; display: inline-block;"><a data-ga-action="Headlines: Topic" href="https://www.democracynow.org/topics/net_neutrality" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; vertical-align: top;">Net Neutrality</a></li><li class="bullet" style="box-sizing: border-box; width: 4px; height: 4px; background-color: rgb(236, 238, 239); margin: 7px 5px 2px; display: inline-block; list-style-type: none; vertical-align: baseline;" /><li style="box-sizing: border-box; list-style-type: none; vertical-align: top; display: inline-block;"><a data-ga-action="Headlines: Topic" href="https://www.democracynow.org/topics/corporate_power" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; vertical-align: top;">Corporate Power</a></li></ul></div>
<div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div style="">=</div><div style="">AP seattle times</div><div style="">
</div><div style="">The Office of the New York Attorney General said in a new report that a campaign funded by the broadband industry submitted millions of fake comments supporting the 2017 repeal of net neutrality.The Federal Communications Commission’s contentious 2017 repeal undid Obama-era rules that barred internet service providers from slowing or blocking websites and apps or charging companies more for faster speeds to consumers. The industry had sued to stop these rules during the Obama administration but lost.The proceeding generated a record-breaking number of comments — more than 22 million — and nearly 18 million were fake, the attorney general’s office found. It has long been known that the tally included fake comments.<div amp-access="access" style="box-sizing: inherit;">One 19-year-old in California submitted more than 7.7 million pro-net neutrality comments. The attorney general’s office did not identify the origins of another “distinct group” of more than 1.6 million pro-net neutrality comments, many of which used mailing addresses outside the U.S.A broadband industry group, called Broadband for America, spent $4.2 million generating more than 8.5 million of the fake FCC comments. Half a million fake letters were also sent to Congress.The goal of the broadband industry campaign, according to internal documents the attorney general’s office received, was to make it seem like there was “widespread grassroots support” for the repeal of net neutrality that could give the FCC chairman at the time, Ajit Pai, “volume and intellectual cover” for the repeal.The agency is supposed to use the comments it receives, from industry and public-industry groups and the public, to shape how it makes its rules.The FCC did not immediately answer how or if it has changed its commenting process, but the acting chairwoman, Jessica Rosenworcel, said in a prepared statement that “widespread problems with the record” of the 2017 proceedings “was troubling at the time” and the agency has to learn and improve the commenting process.The fake comments had high-profile victims. In 2018, two senators, Democrat Jeff Merkley of Oregon and Republican Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, said their identities were stolen to file fake comments for the net neutrality proceeding. “We were among those whose identities were misused to express viewpoints we do not hold,” they wrote to the FCC’s then-chairman, Pai, asking him to investigate the fake comments.Many expect the FCC to try to reinstate net neutrality rules once a third Democratic commissioner is appointed. The agency is currently split half Democrat and Republican, which makes undoing the repeal unlikely.Broadband for America’s website says its members include AT&T and Comcast as well as major trade groups for the wireless, cable and telecom industries.The campaign hired companies known as lead generators which created the fake comments, but that the attorney general’s office had not found evidence that the broadband companies had “direct knowledge of fraud” and thus they had not violated New York law, according to the report.Still, the report criticized the broadband industry group’s behavior as “troubling,” saying the campaign organizers ignored red flags and hid the broadband industry’s involvement.The lead generators copied names and addresses they had already collected and said those people had agreed to join the campaign against net neutrality, the report said. One company copied information that had been stolen in a data breach and posted online.The attorney general, Letitia James, also announced agreements with three of the companies that were responsible for millions of the fake comments, Fluent Inc., Opt-Intelligence Inc. and React2Media Inc., that require them to change practices in future advocacy campaigns and pay $4.4 million in fines. The companies did not reply to requests for comment.The attorney general’s office and other law enforcement agencies are still investigating ″other responsible parties,” according to the report.AT&T, Comcast and industry trade groups NCTA and USTelecom did not respond to questions.</div><div amp-access="access" style="box-sizing: inherit;"><div class="u-italic mv-40" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin-top: 40px; margin-bottom: 40px;"><div style="box-sizing: inherit;">Tali Arbel</div></div></div></div><div style="">=</div></div>no lnxOne of the things that the FCC and FTC have not done effectively over the last few decadesis hold telecommunications companies like AT&T and Verizon accountable for their tax-subsidized infrastructure obligations. In fact, the FCC under Trump's choice and former Verizon lawyer Ajit Pai, have done everything possible to protect big telecommunications from being held responsible for their fraudulent behaviors. The Republican-run FCC has done all of this in the name of deregulation and the promise that the invisible hand of the market will provide. Unsurprisingly, so far deregulating the system, giving out massive tax breaks to big telecoms and destroying net neutrality consumer protections have led to the opposite effect.
On Thursday, Mississippi Public Service Commission (PSC) officials sent a letter to the FCC calling on the corrupt body to investigate AT&T's claims of "providing internet service to 133,000 locations in Mississippi using federal aid from the Connect America Fund." How much federal-aid money did AT&T get their hands on? According to Arstechnica, the telecommunications company has pulled in a sweet $283,000,000 "from the Federal Communications Commission's Connect America Fund to expand its network in Mississippi," since 2015. Ah, that sweet corporate welfare!According to the PSC's letter, their investigation has turned up nothing but examples of AT&T falsely claiming to have created new broadband service in places they have not, for people that are not receiving broadband access. More specifically, saying you have provided internet access to 133,000 "locations" is incredibly vague when the point is to provide human beings with good service. Considering that AT&T has a history of taking taxpayer money to provide broadband and wireless services, only to not do that, and also make false claims of having done that, the news out of Mississippi isn't particularly surprising.The PSC has been pushing the telecom giant for more information regarding their service providing in Mississippi since subpoenaing them in September, demanding "production of documents showing the number of actual subscribers to AT&T's fixed wireless service within the 133,000 locations where the company claims to have provided service, the number of complaints filed with the company by customers who have taken service and the number of Mississippians who applied for fixed wireless service based on AT&T's assertion that it was available and were later determined not to be in an area covered."In 2015, AT&T made a deal with the U.S. government where they would get almost half a billion a year to bring very meager broadband 10MB service to rural areas. That money has been pulled from the Connect America Fund.AT&T will get the money over six years with an option for a seventh, potentially bringing the total to about $3 billion, according to Multichannel News. AT&T and other carriers getting Connect America funding have to deploy Internet service to 40 percent of funded locations by the end of 2017, 60 percent by the end of 2018, 80 percent by the end of 2019, and to 100 percent of locations by the end of 2020, the article said.For a very long time now AT&T has argued—somehow very successfully—that letting localities or individuals build out their own broadband networks stops the telelcom from taking our tax money. Seriously, they have argued that. AT&T has also argued that when they say one thing but do another thing, like not provide broadband service while taking federal money by saying they've provided that infrastructure, they haven't lied or mislead anyone because reporters have investigated them and exposed them. Seriously, they really have argued that.The FCC has taken out its own teeth but ending net neutrality protections. Ajit Pai has argued that the FCC cannot regulate the industry that it was created to regulate. This, of course, means that without a new president and a new FCC, any chance of getting telecommunications companies to do what they're supposed to do for the general public is unlikely.---=919 DN<ul style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 20px 0px 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: center; background-color: rgb(241, 242, 243);"><li class="hidden-xs" style="text-align: left; box-sizing: border-box; list-style-type: none; padding: 0px 0px 23px; font-weight: 700; line-height: 1.33;"><a data-ga-action="Home Headlines: Headline" href="https://www.democracynow.org/2019/9/10/headlines/bangladesh_imposes_mobile_phone_blackout_on_rohingya_refugees" style="text-decoration-line: none; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; border: 0px;">Bangladesh Imposes Mobile Phone Blackout on Rohingya Refugees</a></li></ul>t-mobile and sprint approved ~ warren 7194/16<a href="https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/z43493/how-the-telecom-lobby-rewrites-americas-laws">https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/z43493/how-the-telecom-lobby-rewrites-americas-laws</a>A  telecom-funded <a href="http://sglf.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2016/04/SGLF-Muni-Broadband-Study-1.pdf" target="blank" style="box-sizing: inherit; font-weight: bold;">policy paper</a> slamming local government-owned broadband networks published Wednesday is masquerading as a serious "economic analysis," but is yet another example of the dominant players in telecom manipulating the political system to suit their interests.<div data-type="body-text" class="articlebody dsp-block-xs bod-m" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: 1.6; position: relative;">In the last couple years, there's been a <a href="http://motherboard.vice.com/read/101-us-cities-have-pledged-to-build-their-own-gigabit-networks" style="box-sizing: inherit; font-weight: bold;">strong push by local municipalities</a> to provide Gigabit fiber internet connections for their residents, whether that means incentivizing a company like Google to come to their city, partnering with a startup ISP, or building the entire network by themselves using taxpayer money. The "municipal-owned" broadband networks are the ones taken on by <a href="http://sglf.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2016/04/SGLF-Muni-Broadband-Study-1.pdf" target="blank" style="box-sizing: inherit; font-weight: bold;">The Impact of Government-Owned Broadband Networks on Private Investment and Consumer Welfare</a>, and are, at least in theory, the ones that present the biggest threat to existing ISPs.<div class="ad-unitcontainercontainer" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; max-width: inherit;"><div class="article-iacwrapper" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;">Municipal networks are also the <a href="http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-path-to-community-broadband-runs-through-an-army-of-telecom-lawyers" style="box-sizing: inherit; font-weight: bold;">easiest targets for telecom lobbying</a>—taxpayer money being used to build a service that competes with private companies make an easy mark for small-government types. And when muni broadband networks fail, they often <a href="http://www.coalitionfortheneweconomy.org/blog/2016/02/scandal-plagued-bvu-wants-to-sell-bristol-va-s-municipal-broadband-network/" target="blank" style="box-sizing: inherit; font-weight: bold;">fail spectacularly</a>. That's why, over the past few decades, the most severe and destructive broadband lobbying has happened at the state level, as incumbent internet operators have found it easier to get state and local level policies against municipal broadband. So far, <a href="http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-21-laws-states-use-to-crush-broadband-competition" style="box-sizing: inherit; font-weight: bold;">23 states have passed anti municipal broadband</a> laws, and often times, the legislation itself is written by lobbying groups such as the <a href="http://motherboard.vice.com/read/tech-giants-finally-abandon-alec-the-group-that-killed-broadband-competition" style="box-sizing: inherit; font-weight: bold;">American Legislative Exchange Council</a>.The Federal Communications Commission <a href="http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-fcc-says-your-city-can-build-a-public-internet-even-if-your-state-says-no" style="box-sizing: inherit; font-weight: bold;">is working to preempt</a> some of these laws to allow greater municipal investment in some states, a crisis for telecom that has led to a bevy of pending lawsuits.It's in this context that the paper is released, and there's no doubt that it will be used as a study to support telecom-written legislation that are passed to governors and state lawmakers as evidence that taxpayer-funded internet services just don't work.This is not my opinion, this is the stated purpose of the paper, published by the State Government Leadership Foundation, a group that, like ALEC, "has assisted state elected leaders around the country in crafting sound policy solutions and promoting their successes."<div class="ad-unitcontainercontainer" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; max-width: inherit;"><div class="article-iacwrapper" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;">On a conference call with reporters Wednesday, former Congressman Tom Reynolds, the chairman of the SGLF, said the purpose of the paper is to "protect taxpayers.""When the FCC decided to preempt state laws in March of last year dealing with municipal broadband, SGLF realized it needed to lend its voice to help [state legislators] craft economically sound laws that protect taxpayers from undesired consequences of government-run broadband," he said.The SGLF was <a href="https://www.propublica.org/documents/item/603571-sglf-donors-test" target="blank" style="box-sizing: inherit; font-weight: bold;">founded in part</a> with donations from <a href="http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/big_corporations_put_up_seed_funding_for_gop_dark_money_group_20130217" target="blank" style="box-sizing: inherit; font-weight: bold;">AT&T and Time Warner</a>, and has since made its funding sources unknown. As a lawmaker, Reynolds counted Verizon and AT&T among his top donors, <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=Career&cid=N00001295&type=I" target="blank" style="box-sizing: inherit; font-weight: bold;">according to Open Secrets</a>. George S. Ford, the man they tapped to write the report, spent the late 1990s and early 2000s <a href="http://www.phoenix-center.org/FordVitaMar07.pdf" target="blank" style="box-sizing: inherit; font-weight: bold;">working for telecom companies</a> MCI and Z-Tel. He now works for the Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal and Public Policy Studies, a think tank that <a href="http://www.teletruth.org/FTCspeakercorporateties.htm" target="blank" style="box-sizing: inherit; font-weight: bold;">grew out of AT&T's old research arm</a> and has regularly received telecom support throughout its history.Last year, the organization <a href="http://www.phoenix-center.org/PhoenixCenterAmicusBrief.pdf" target="blank" style="box-sizing: inherit; font-weight: bold;">filed a legal brief</a> in support of the US Telecom Association's challenge of the FCC's net neutrality rules, and both Ford and his boss, Lawrence Spiwak, have written a <a href="http://www.phoenix-center.org/rt1.html" target="blank" style="box-sizing: inherit; font-weight: bold;">dizzying array of op-eds and reports</a> in support of the telecom industry.This paper, then, will be fed to lawmakers and governors under the guise of a serious economic analysis that proves that local governments have no place becoming internet service providers. But if you actually read the study, it quickly becomes clear that there's little substance here.<div class="ad-unitcontainercontainer" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; max-width: inherit;"><div class="article-iacwrapper" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;">The study itself paints municipal broadband networks as a financial disaster for taxpayers, for the communities that install them, and for the telecom companies that Ford argues should be receiving the subsidies that are used to build out municipal networks."If subsidies are to be used, theory indicates that subsidies to existing firms to increase output to achieve externalities is likely to be a more efficient approach," he wrote."People are kooky for broadband … there's no rational broadband thinking at the FCC and people are carrying on about it so much" While Ford is correct that not every municipal broadband project has succeeded—<a href="http://watchdog.org/128705/burlington-telecom-scandal-credit-rating/" target="blank" style="box-sizing: inherit; font-weight: bold;">there have been some catastrophic failures</a> beset with scandal that have undermined the movement in general—there are many examples (Chattanooga, Tennessee; Lafayette, Louisiana; and Leverett, Massachusetts come to mind) of it working quite well. So far, at least <a href="http://muninetworks.org/communitymap" target="blank" style="box-sizing: inherit; font-weight: bold;">83 cities in the US have offered fiber</a> to their citizens. Many—most—are not economic disasters.The most glaring problem with Ford's paper is that he uses economic theory over and over to prove his point, without doing any deep dives into the economics of these real-world examples. Time and time again, cities have been thrilled with the fact that investment in broadband technology has led to businesses relocating to take advantage of fast and reliable internet. Ford dismisses this phenomenon as "business stealing" that may be good for one city but is bad for the rest of the country.<div class="ad-unitcontainercontainer" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; max-width: inherit;"><div class="article-iacwrapper" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;">"Chattanooga and other cities were perhaps wise to get a first-mover advantage in stealing businesses from other cities, but as the deployment of fiber networks becomes more pervasive the first- or early-mover advantages of cities with municipal broadband networks is diminished," he wrote. "Most troubling is that the federal subsidies used to support financially municipal networks are funded through federal taxation; therefore, the people in cities losing businesses are perversely funding the broadband networks that are destroying their economy."Municipal broadband is a repudiation of the status quo, an emphatic statement by voters and their representatives that the free market has not worked for them. This is a bizarre argument does not leave room for the idea that top-of-class broadband can spur and support the creation of new businesses that take advantage of higher bandwidth connections; it also does not take into account research that suggests faster connections <a href="http://motherboard.vice.com/read/gigabit-internet-connections-make-property-values-rise" style="box-sizing: inherit; font-weight: bold;">lead to higher real estate values</a> and more <a href="https://www.uschamber.com/sites/default/files/legacy/about/US_Chamber_Paper_on_Broadband_and_Education.pdf" target="_blank" style="box-sizing: inherit; font-weight: bold;">educational opportunities for residents</a>, which are associated with better economic outcomes overall. Finally, it operates on the assumption that the status quo should be good enough going forward—that America's businesses can and should continue to compete globally with companies based in countries with broadband that runs laps around ours.Ford wrote that labeling broadband a "necessity" or "a human right" is "melodramatic" and wrote in the paper that "downloading a movie in five seconds rather than five minutes is a private issue, not a social good worthy of taxes and subsidies."<div class="ad-unitcontainercontainer" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; max-width: inherit;"><div class="article-iacwrapper" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;">He also says that competition alone has not been proven to increase the quality or quantity of any given good, then uses this to suggest that building municipal networks will not be enough to improve someone's internet experience. But he does this in a totally abstract economic theory sense without looking at the fact that new fiber networks—be they run by Google, a startup, or the local government—are objectively leaps and bounds faster than the existing infrastructure."We're almost 'high' on it," Ford said in the conference call. "People are kooky for broadband … there's no rational broadband thinking at the FCC and people are carrying on about it so much."Ford argues that existing telecom companies often can't compete with taxpayer-subsidized networks and thus don't end up trying, leading to less overall competition.The thing is, there are multiple paths toward a sufficient broadband experience: In a perfect world, private companies would compete with each other and would offer fast cheap internet to its customers. In cities where that's happened, such as Kansas City and Austin, there is no clamoring for municipal networks.Alternatively, a city—and its residents—can decide that they're tired of being underserved and overcharged and can opt, with their own tax dollars, to do something about it. Municipal broadband is inherently a repudiation of the status quo, an emphatic statement by voters and their representatives that the free market has not worked for them.<div class="ad-unitcontainercontainer" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; max-width: inherit;"><div class="article-iacwrapper" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;">Municipal broadband certainly isn't right for every city, but it's an option that individual communities should be legally allowed to explore. State-level laws that put up significant barriers to exploring that option serve no one but the telecom companies that helped write them.  So Ford is right: Municipal broadband is bad for telecom companies. He says they can't compete with municipal providers who are "truly not interested in profit maximization." But after years of watching big telecom care about profits and nothing else, who can blame communities for taking control of their broadband destiny?</div><div class="site-signature-icon m-b-5-xs" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin-bottom: 30px;"><picture style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; max-width: 100%;"><source srcset="https://vice-web-statics-cdn.vice.com/logos/vice-tombstone.svg" media="" style="box-sizing: inherit;"><img class=" " priority="5" src="https://vice-web-statics-cdn.vice.com/logos/vice-tombstone.svg" style="box-sizing: inherit; border: 0px; margin: 0px; max-width: 100%; height: 20px;" /></source></picture></div><ul class="topics topic-list m-b-5-xs" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px; list-style-position: inside;"><li class="topic hed-xs dsp-inline-block-xs m-b-0-xs" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin-bottom: 0px; font-weight: 600; line-height: 1.2; display: inline-block; text-transform: uppercase;">TAGGED:</li><li class="topic hed-xs dsp-inline-block-xs m-b-0-xs" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin-bottom: 0px; font-weight: 600; line-height: 1.2; display: inline-block; text-transform: uppercase;"><a class="topiclink" href="https://www.vice.com/en_us/topic/tech" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none;">TECH</a></li><li class="topic hed-xs dsp-inline-block-xs m-b-0-xs" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin-bottom: 0px; font-weight: 600; line-height: 1.2; display: inline-block; text-transform: uppercase;"><a class="topiclink" href="https://www.vice.com/en_us/topic/motherboard" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none;">MOTHERBOARD</a></li><li class="topic hed-xs dsp-inline-block-xs m-b-0-xs" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin-bottom: 0px; font-weight: 600; line-height: 1.2; display: inline-block; text-transform: uppercase;"><a class="topiclink" href="https://www.vice.com/en_us/topic/power" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none;">POWER</a></li><li class="topic hed-xs dsp-inline-block-xs m-b-0-xs" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin-bottom: 0px; font-weight: 600; line-height: 1.2; display: inline-block; text-transform: uppercase;"><a class="topiclink" href="https://www.vice.com/en_us/topic/opinion" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none;">OPINION</a></li><li class="topic hed-xs dsp-inline-block-xs m-b-0-xs" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin-bottom: 0px; font-weight: 600; line-height: 1.2; display: inline-block; text-transform: uppercase;"><a class="topiclink" href="https://www.vice.com/en_us/topic/alec" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none;">ALEC</a></li><li class="topic hed-xs dsp-inline-block-xs m-b-0-xs" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin-bottom: 0px; font-weight: 600; line-height: 1.2; display: inline-block; text-transform: uppercase;"><a class="topiclink" href="https://www.vice.com/en_us/topic/lobbying" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none;">LOBBYING</a></li><li class="topic hed-xs dsp-inline-block-xs m-b-0-xs" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin-bottom: 0px; font-weight: 600; line-height: 1.2; display: inline-block; text-transform: uppercase;"><a class="topiclink" href="https://www.vice.com/en_us/topic/motherboard-show" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none;">MOTHERBOARD SHOW</a></li><li class="topic hed-xs dsp-inline-block-xs m-b-0-xs" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin-bottom: 0px; font-weight: 600; line-height: 1.2; display: inline-block; text-transform: uppercase;"><a class="topiclink" href="https://www.vice.com/en_us/topic/municipal-broadband" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none;">MUNICIPAL BROADBAND</a></li><li class="topic hed-xs dsp-inline-block-xs m-b-0-xs" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin-bottom: 0px; font-weight: 600; line-height: 1.2; display: inline-block; text-transform: uppercase;"><a class="topiclink" href="https://www.vice.com/en_us/topic/broadband-competition" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none;">BROADBAND COMPETITION</a></li><li class="topic hed-xs dsp-inline-block-xs m-b-0-xs" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin-bottom: 0px; font-weight: 600; line-height: 1.2; display: inline-block; text-transform: uppercase;"><a class="topiclink" href="https://www.vice.com/en_us/topic/telecom-lobbying" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none;">TELECOM LOBBYING</a></li><li class="topic hed-xs dsp-inline-block-xs m-b-0-xs" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin-bottom: 0px; font-weight: 600; line-height: 1.2; display: inline-block; text-transform: uppercase;"><a class="topiclink" href="https://www.vice.com/en_us/topic/big-telecom" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none;">BIG TELECOM</a></li><li class="topic hed-xs dsp-inline-block-xs m-b-0-xs" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin-bottom: 0px; font-weight: 600; line-height: 1.2; display: inline-block; text-transform: uppercase;"><a class="topic__link" href="https://www.vice.com/en_us/topic/fiber-networks" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none;">FIBER NETWORKS</a></li></ul>=4/19<div class="mag-post-box hentry" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px 0px 15px; width: 374.545px; overflow: hidden; display: table; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(236, 236, 236); font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-color: initial;"><div class="magcat-thumb" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px 20px 0px 0px; padding: 0px; float: left; position: relative; transition: opacity 0.3s ease 0s;"><a class="penci-image-holder penci-lazy small-fix-size" href="https://www.alternet.org/2019/04/heres-what-it-would-mean-for-ai-to-become-conscious/" title="Here’s what it would mean for AI to become conscious" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer; position: relative; width: 120px; background: url(" https="https" www.alternet.org="www.alternet.org" wp-content="wp-content" uploads="uploads" shutterstock_1119927341-585x390.jpg="shutterstock_1119927341-585x390.jpg" center="center" cover="cover" no-repeat="no-repeat" rgb="rgb" display="display" inline-block="inline-block" vertical-align="vertical-align" top="top" overflow="overflow" hidden="hidden" /></div></div><div class="mag-post-box hentry" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px 0px 15px; width: 374.545px; overflow: hidden; display: table; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(236, 236, 236); font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-color: initial;"><div class="magcat-detail" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><h3 class="magcat-titlte entry-title" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-weight: bold; font-style: normal; letter-spacing: 1px;"><a href="https://www.alternet.org/2019/04/internet-infrastructure-in-the-us-is-hopelessly-compromised-by-an-oligopolistic-telecom-industry-that-doesnt-want-your-connection-to-be-fast/" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer; display: block; font-weight: bold; letter-spacing: 0px; line-height: 1.4;">Internet infrastructure in the US is hopelessly compromised by an oligopolistic telecom industry — that doesn’t want your connection to be fast</a></h3><div class="grid-post-box-meta mag-meta" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 7px 0px 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: right;"><a href="https://www.alternet.org/author/keith-a-spencer/" title="Posts by Keith A. Spencer" class="author url fn" rel="author" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">Keith A. Spencer</a> / <a href="https://www.alternet.org/author/salon/" title="Posts by Salon " class="author url fn" rel="author" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">Salon</a></div></div></div><div>=</div><div>verizon merger? saudis buy whole floors?</div><div>
</div><div><div class="r" style="margin: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a href="http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/needing-trumps-backing-telecom-giant-books-rooms-his-hotel" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/needing-trumps-backing-telecom-giant-books-rooms-his-hotel&ved=2ahUKEwiZkaaDgf3fAhVMZKwKHQNYCGMQFjAGegQIBxAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;" /><h3 class="LC20lb" style="font-weight: normal; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; display: inline-block;"><a href="http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/needing-trumps-backing-telecom-giant-books-rooms-his-hotel" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/needing-trumps-backing-telecom-giant-books-rooms-his-hotel&ved=2ahUKEwiZkaaDgf3fAhVMZKwKHQNYCGMQFjAGegQIBxAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;"></a><a href="http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/needing-trumps-backing-telecom-giant-books-rooms-his-hotel" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/needing-trumps-backing-telecom-giant-books-rooms-his-hotel&ved=2ahUKEwiZkaaDgf3fAhVMZKwKHQNYCGMQFjAGegQIBxAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;" /><a href="http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/needing-trumps-backing-telecom-giant-books-rooms-his-hotel" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/needing-trumps-backing-telecom-giant-books-rooms-his-hotel&ved=2ahUKEwiZkaaDgf3fAhVMZKwKHQNYCGMQFjAGegQIBxAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;" /><a href="http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/needing-trumps-backing-telecom-giant-books-rooms-his-hotel" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/needing-trumps-backing-telecom-giant-books-rooms-his-hotel&ved=2ahUKEwiZkaaDgf3fAhVMZKwKHQNYCGMQFjAGegQIBxAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;" /><a href="http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/needing-trumps-backing-telecom-giant-books-rooms-his-hotel" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/needing-trumps-backing-telecom-giant-books-rooms-his-hotel&ved=2ahUKEwiZkaaDgf3fAhVMZKwKHQNYCGMQFjAGegQIBxAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;" /><a href="http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/needing-trumps-backing-telecom-giant-books-rooms-his-hotel" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/needing-trumps-backing-telecom-giant-books-rooms-his-hotel&ved=2ahUKEwiZkaaDgf3fAhVMZKwKHQNYCGMQFjAGegQIBxAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;" /><a href="http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/needing-trumps-backing-telecom-giant-books-rooms-his-hotel" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/needing-trumps-backing-telecom-giant-books-rooms-his-hotel&ved=2ahUKEwiZkaaDgf3fAhVMZKwKHQNYCGMQFjAGegQIBxAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;">Needing Trump's backing, telecom giant books rooms at his hotel ...</a></h3>
<div class="TbwUpd" style="padding-bottom: 3px; padding-top: 2px; display: inline-block;"><cite class="iUh30" style="font-style: normal; padding-top: 1px;">www.msnbc.com/.../needing-trumps-backing-telecom-giant-books-rooms-his-hotel</cite></div><div class="action-menu ab_ctl" style="display: inline; position: relative; margin: 1px 3px 0px; user-select: none; vertical-align: middle;"><a class="GHDvEf ab_button" href="https://www.google.com/search?q=trump+hotel+verizon+merger&oq=trump+hotel+verizon+merger&aqs=chrome..69i57.6087j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#" id="am-b6" aria-label="Result Options" aria-expanded="false" aria-haspopup="true" role="button" jsaction="m.tdd;keydown:m.hbke;keypress:m.mskpe" data-ved="2ahUKEwiZkaaDgf3fAhVMZKwKHQNYCGMQ7B0wBnoECAcQAg" style="border-radius: 0px; cursor: default; font-weight: bold; height: 12px; line-height: 27px; margin: 1px 0px 2px; min-width: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: center; transition: none 0s ease 0s; user-select: none; background-image: none; border: 0px; box-shadow: 0px 0px 0px 0px; filter: none; width: 13px; text-decoration-line: none; display: inline-block;"><span class="mn-dwn-arw" style="border-color: rgb(0, 102, 33) transparent; border-style: solid; border-width: 5px 4px 0px; width: 0px; height: 0px; margin-left: 3px; top: 7.5px; margin-top: -4px; position: absolute; left: 0px;" /></a><div class="action-menu-panel ab_dropdown" role="menu" tabindex="-1" jsaction="keydown:m.hdke;mouseover:m.hdhne;mouseout:m.hdhue" data-ved="2ahUKEwiZkaaDgf3fAhVMZKwKHQNYCGMQqR8wBnoECAcQAw" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; border: 1px solid rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2); padding: 0px; position: absolute; right: auto; top: 12px; white-space: nowrap; z-index: 3; transition: opacity 0.218s ease 0s; box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2) 0px 2px 4px; left: 0px; visibility: hidden;"><ol style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px;"><li class="action-menu-item ab_dropdownitem" role="menuitem" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; list-style: none; user-select: none; cursor: pointer;"><a class="fl" href="http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ZbBFw2g0gcEJ:www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/needing-trumps-backing-telecom-giant-books-rooms-his-hotel+&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:ZbBFw2g0gcEJ:www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/needing-trumps-backing-telecom-giant-books-rooms-his-hotel%2B%26cd%3D7%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwiZkaaDgf3fAhVMZKwKHQNYCGMQIDAGegQIBxAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;" /></li></ol></div></div></div><div class="s" style="max-width: 48em; line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a class="fl" href="http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ZbBFw2g0gcEJ:www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/needing-trumps-backing-telecom-giant-books-rooms-his-hotel+&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:ZbBFw2g0gcEJ:www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/needing-trumps-backing-telecom-giant-books-rooms-his-hotel%2B%26cd%3D7%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwiZkaaDgf3fAhVMZKwKHQNYCGMQIDAGegQIBxAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;"></a><a class="fl" href="http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ZbBFw2g0gcEJ:www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/needing-trumps-backing-telecom-giant-books-rooms-his-hotel+&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:ZbBFw2g0gcEJ:www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/needing-trumps-backing-telecom-giant-books-rooms-his-hotel%2B%26cd%3D7%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwiZkaaDgf3fAhVMZKwKHQNYCGMQIDAGegQIBxAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;"></a><a class="fl" href="http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ZbBFw2g0gcEJ:www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/needing-trumps-backing-telecom-giant-books-rooms-his-hotel+&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:ZbBFw2g0gcEJ:www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/needing-trumps-backing-telecom-giant-books-rooms-his-hotel%2B%26cd%3D7%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwiZkaaDgf3fAhVMZKwKHQNYCGMQIDAGegQIBxAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;"></a><a class="fl" href="http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ZbBFw2g0gcEJ:www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/needing-trumps-backing-telecom-giant-books-rooms-his-hotel+&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:ZbBFw2g0gcEJ:www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/needing-trumps-backing-telecom-giant-books-rooms-his-hotel%2B%26cd%3D7%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwiZkaaDgf3fAhVMZKwKHQNYCGMQIDAGegQIBxAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;">4 days ago - 21, 2106, the Trump International Hotel in Washington. ... a $26 billion merger with rival Sprint, which would more than double T-Mobile's value ...</a><div class="TXwUJf" style=""><a class="fl" href="http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ZbBFw2g0gcEJ:www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/needing-trumps-backing-telecom-giant-books-rooms-his-hotel+&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:ZbBFw2g0gcEJ:www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/needing-trumps-backing-telecom-giant-books-rooms-his-hotel%2B%26cd%3D7%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwiZkaaDgf3fAhVMZKwKHQNYCGMQIDAGegQIBxAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;">Missing: <s>verizon</s> ‎| ‎Must include: ‎</a><a class="fl" href="https://www.google.com/search?q=trump+hotel+%22verizon%22+merger&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiZkaaDgf3fAhVMZKwKHQNYCGMQ5t4CMAZ6BAgHEAc" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer;">verizon</a></div></div></div>https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/11/ajit-pai-slams-sprint-charter-and-centurylink-for-poor-robocall-effort/
Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai yesterday criticized Sprint, Charter, CenturyLink, and four other phone providers for not committing to adopt a new system for blocking robocalls.Pai issued a press release and sent letters to wireless carriers and other phone providers, saying that certain companies "have not yet established concrete plans to protect their customers" using the new "SHAKEN" and "STIR" robocall-blocking protocols.SHAKEN stands for Signature-based Handling of Asserted Information Using toKENs, while STIR stands for Secure Telephone Identity Revisited. The new industry standard isn't expected to completely eliminate robocalls, but it may make a sizable difference and is expected to be implemented by carriers starting in 2019.  Under the SHAKEN/STIR framework, calls traveling through interconnected phone networks would be 'signed' as legitimate by originating carriers and validated by other carriers before reaching consumers," Pai's press release explained. "The framework digitally validates the handoff of phone calls passing through the complex web of networks, allowing the phone company of the consumer receiving the call to verify that a call is from the person supposedly making it."Pai's letters say that seven phone providers apparently do "not yet have concrete plans to implement a robust call authentication framework" and asked those carriers to answer a series of questions by November 19. Those carriers are CenturyLink, Charter, Frontier, Sprint, TDS Telecom, US Cellular, and Vonage.Pai's letters yesterday came a month after 35 state attorneys general urged him to act more aggressively on robocall blocking.Pai thanked other phone providers for committing to implement SHAKEN/STIR. The carriers that already committed to adopt SHAKEN/STIR are AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, Comcast, Bandwidth.com, Cox, and Google, according to Pai's letters. He also asked those providers for more details on their plans.FURTHER READINGRobocallers “evolved” to sidestep new call blocking rules, AGs tell FCCCarriers that haven't committed to deploying SHAKEN/STIR received a different letter.
"Despite these industry-wide efforts, I understand from Commission staff that Charter does not yet have concrete plans to implement a robust call authentication framework," Pai wrote in his letter to Charter. "I hope that is no longer the case."Explain yourselfThe letter to Charter was almost identical to those sent to Sprint, CenturyLink, Frontier, TDS Telecom, US Cellular, and Vonage. The letter asked the following questions, requesting detailed responses by November 19:What is preventing or inhibiting you from signing calls today?What is your timeframe for signing (i.e., authenticating) calls originating on your network?What tests have you run on deployment, and what are the results? Please be specific.What steps have you taken to work with vendors to deploy a robust call authentication framework?How often is Charter an intermediate provider, and do you intend to transmit signed calls from other providers?How do you intend to combat and stop originating and terminating illegally spoofed calls on your network?The Commission has already authorized voice providers to block certain illegally spoofed calls. If the Commission were to move forward with authorizing voice providers to block all unsigned calls or improperly signed calls, how would you ensure the legitimate calls of your customers are completed properly?We contacted the seven carriers about Pai's letters last night. Sprint told Ars that it has "received the letter and will respond to Chairman Pai directly." US Cellular answered similarly, saying it "will be responding to the chairman's letter."
CenturyLink told Ars that it "understands consumers' concern" about robocalls and "will continue to work with our industry colleagues to identify and address the sources of illegal robocalls." TDS said it is "currently investigating our options for implementing a call authentication framework on a multitude of platforms." Frontier told Ars, "We are reviewing the Chairman’s letter and look forward to continue working collaboratively with the FCC and industry to fight the bad actors placing these bothersome, invasive and deceitful calls."Vonage said it "take[s] this matter very seriously" and that it is "working closely with our third-party carrier partners and the FCC to respond to the Chairman’s letter directly."We haven't received a response from Charter yet.Today, Pai followed up with letters to business voice providers that he said are not participating in "industry efforts to trace scam robocalls that originate on or pass through their networks." Those companies are 382 Communications, Global Voicecom, IP Link Telecom, R Squared Telecom, Talkie Communications, Thinq, TouchTone Communications, and XCast LabsSprint complained about costIn previous filings with the FCC, some carriers noted that SHAKEN/STIR won't entirely solve the robocall problem, and they questioned whether the FCC has provided proper authorization to use SHAKEN/STIR.Sprint told the FCC in October that "SHAKEN/STIR will be helpful to carriers battling illegal robocalls but is not a complete solution."Sprint also complained about the cost of implementing the system. "Sprint is also concerned about the costs of implementing the certificate management requirements of SHAKEN and encourages the Commission and industry to explore more cost-effective alternatives to the central repository process originally contemplated in the development of SHAKEN," Sprint wrote.Sprint and others noted that SHAKEN/STIR needs widespread adoption by carriers to be effective. Sprint wrote that "SHAKEN tells us nothing about the content of a call or whether it is legal. It just authenticates origination of the call path and the Caller ID information of individual calls. Without universal adoption of SHAKEN from originating carrier to completing carrier, call authentication will not be passed to the terminating carrier."Charter's filing in September said it partners with call-blocking company Nomorobo to offer robocall blocking to customers but suggested it needs further authorization to use SHAKEN/STIR."As the industry finalizes and implements the SHAKEN/STIR framework, the Commission should adopt rules that permit providers to block calls that fail authentication in cases where both the calling and terminating voice providers have implemented the SHAKEN/STIR protocols," Charter wrote. "Given the robust testing of the SHAKEN/STIR framework that is currently underway, the Commission can be assured that such calls are 'highly likely to be illegal.'"Though T-Mobile has already committed to using SHAKEN/STIR, it pointed out potential shortcomings in its filing."First, SHAKEN/STIR can only provide a positive affirmation of the source of a given call," T-Mobile told the FCC. "It cannot provide confirmation of the opposite—that is, that a call is definitively 'bad' or fraudulent. This is particularly true where calls are carried by international providers that do not participate in SHAKEN/STIR and send calls to the United States through wholesale partners."T-Mobile further noted that the majority of fraudulent calls likely originate from outside the US and that "adoption must go beyond domestic carriers to also include international carriers to have a real effect on the onslaught of fraudulent calls." Finally, T-Mobile noted that SHAKEN/STIR requires IP interconnection. "[T]us, legacy networks will not be able to source or transmit verification data for calls," T-Mobile wrote.Disclosure: The Advance/Newhouse Partnership, which owns 13 percent of Charter, is part of Advance Publications. Advance Publications owns Condé Nast, which owns Ars Technica.<h2 style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 0.5em; line-height: 1; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a class="headline" href="https://boingboing.net/2018/08/01/immortan-joe-isp.html" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 0.25em;">Now that telcos have "abandoned rural America," the only broadband comes from cable monopolies </a><a class="byline" href="https://boingboing.net/author/cory_doctorow_1" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none; text-transform: uppercase;"> CORY DOCTOROW</a></h2><h2 class="news_head" style="margin: 15px 0px 5px; clear: left;"><a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2018/01/lobbying-by-telecoms-industry-2017/" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">Lobbying by Telecom industry spikes to end 2017</a></h2>January 23, 2018 | Internet service providers, such as Comcast and AT&T, spent millions on federal lobbying in the fourth quarter of 2017, as the FCC took final steps to overturn net neutrality.  <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2018/01/lobbying-by-telecoms-industry-2017/" style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" text-align="text-align" right="right" background-image="background-image" initial="initial" background-position="background-position" background-size="background-size" background-repeat="background-repeat" background-attachment="background-attachment" background-origin="background-origin" background-clip="background-clip" text-decoration-line="text-decoration-line" none="none">Read more...</a> cancer tobacco playbook the nation hertsgaard, regulatory capture, sci supp 3<p style="box-sizing: border-box; word-wrap: break-word; margin: 0px 0px 20px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; font-family: " mercury="Mercury" display="Display" a="A" b="B" font-size="font-size" px="px" outline="outline" padding="padding" vertical-align="vertical-align" baseline="baseline" line-height="line-height" word-spacing="word-spacing" color="color" rgb="rgb" background-color="background-color">A closer look reveals the industry’s sleight of hand. When Henry Lai, the professor whom Carlo tried to get fired, analyzed 326 safety-related studies completed between 1990 and 2005, he learned that 56 percent found a biological effect from cell-phone radiation and 44 percent did not; the scientific community apparently was split. But when Lai recategorized the studies according to their funding sources, a different picture emerged: 67 percent of the independently funded studies found a biological effect, while a mere 28 percent of the industry-funded studies did. Lai’s findings were replicated by <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1797826/" style="box-sizing: border-box; border-width: 0px 0px 2px; border-top-style: initial; border-right-style: initial; border-bottom-style: solid; border-left-style: initial; border-top-color: initial; border-right-color: initial; border-bottom-color: rgb(207, 14, 14); border-left-color: initial; border-image: initial; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration-line: none; background-color: transparent; line-height: inherit; opacity: 1; transition: opacity 0.2s ease 0s; outline: 0px !important;">a 2007 analysis in Environmental Health Perspectives</a> that concluded industry-funded studies were two and a half times less likely than independent studies to find a health effect.<p style="box-sizing: border-box; word-wrap: break-word; margin: 0px 0px 20px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; font-family: " mercury="Mercury" display="Display" a="A" b="B" font-size="font-size" px="px" outline="outline" padding="padding" vertical-align="vertical-align" baseline="baseline" line-height="line-height" word-spacing="word-spacing" color="color" rgb="rgb" background-color="background-color">One key player has not been swayed by all this wireless-friendly research: the insurance industry. The Nation has not been able to find a single insurance company willing to sell a product-liability policy that covered cell-phone radiation. “Why would we want to do that?” one executive chuckled before pointing to more than two dozen lawsuits outstanding against wireless companies, demanding a total of $1.9 billion in damages. Some judges have affirmed such lawsuits, including a<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/apr/21/italian-court-rules-mobile-phone-use-caused-brain-tumour" style="box-sizing: border-box; border-width: 0px 0px 2px; border-top-style: initial; border-right-style: initial; border-bottom-style: solid; border-left-style: initial; border-top-color: initial; border-right-color: initial; border-bottom-color: rgb(207, 14, 14); border-left-color: initial; border-image: initial; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration-line: none; background-color: transparent; line-height: inherit; opacity: 1; transition: opacity 0.2s ease 0s; outline: 0px !important;"> judge in Italy who refused to allow industry-funded research as evidence</a>.<p style="box-sizing: border-box; word-wrap: break-word; margin: 0px 0px 20px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; font-family: " mercury="Mercury" display="Display" a="A" b="B" font-size="font-size" px="px" outline="outline" padding="padding" vertical-align="vertical-align" baseline="baseline" line-height="line-height" word-spacing="word-spacing" color="color" rgb="rgb" background-color="background-color">Even so, the industry’s neutralizing of the safety issue has opened the door to the biggest, most hazardous prize of all: the proposed revolutionary transformation of society dubbed the “Internet of Things.” Lauded as a gigantic engine of economic growth, the Internet of Things will not only connect people through their smartphones and computers but will connect those devices to a customer’s vehicles and home appliances, even their baby’s diapers—all at speeds faster than can currently be achieved.<aside class="pull-quote-module" style="box-sizing: border-box; border-top: 2px solid rgb(229, 223, 212); border-bottom: 2px solid rgb(229, 223, 212); padding: 25px 0px; margin: 35px 0px; position: relative;" mercury="Mercury" display="Display" a="A" b="B" font-size="font-size" px="px" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb"><div class="pull-quote-blocks" style="box-sizing: border-box; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><p style="box-sizing: border-box; word-wrap: break-word; margin: 0px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-weight: 700; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.43em; word-spacing: 0.3px; text-transform: initial;">Billions of cell-phone users have been subjected to a public-health experiment without informed consent.</div></aside><p style="box-sizing: border-box; word-wrap: break-word; margin: 0px 0px 20px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; font-family: " mercury="Mercury" display="Display" a="A" b="B" font-size="font-size" px="px" outline="outline" padding="padding" vertical-align="vertical-align" baseline="baseline" line-height="line-height" word-spacing="word-spacing" color="color" rgb="rgb" background-color="background-color">There is a catch, though: The Internet of Things will require augmenting today’s 4G technology with 5G, thus “massively increasing” the general population’s exposure to radiation, according to <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B14R6QNkmaXuelFrNWRQcThNV0U/view" style="box-sizing: border-box; border-width: 0px 0px 2px; border-top-style: initial; border-right-style: initial; border-bottom-style: solid; border-left-style: initial; border-top-color: initial; border-right-color: initial; border-bottom-color: rgb(207, 14, 14); border-left-color: initial; border-image: initial; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration-line: none; background-color: transparent; line-height: inherit; opacity: 1; transition: opacity 0.2s ease 0s; outline: 0px !important;">a petition signed by 236 scientists worldwide</a> who have published more than 2,000 peer-reviewed studies and represent “a significant portion of the credentialed scientists in the radiation research field,” according to Joel Moskowitz, the director of the Center for Family and Community Health at the University of California, Berkeley, who helped circulate the petition. Nevertheless, like cell phones, 5G technology is on the verge of being introduced without pre-market safety testing.<p style="box-sizing: border-box; word-wrap: break-word; margin: 0px 0px 20px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; font-family: " mercury="Mercury" display="Display" a="A" b="B" font-size="font-size" px="px" outline="outline" padding="padding" vertical-align="vertical-align" baseline="baseline" line-height="line-height" word-spacing="word-spacing" color="color" rgb="rgb" background-color="background-color">Lack of definitive proof that a technology is harmful does not mean the technology is safe, yet the wireless industry has succeeded in selling this logical fallacy to the world. In truth, the safety of wireless technology has been an unsettled question since the industry’s earliest days. The upshot is that, over the past 30 years, billions of people around the world have been subjected to a massive public-health experiment: Use a cell phone today, find out later if it causes cancer or genetic damage. Meanwhile, the wireless industry has obstructed a full and fair understanding of the current science, aided by government agencies that have prioritized commercial interests over human health and news organizations that have failed to inform the public about what the scientific community really thinks. In other words, this public-health experiment has been conducted without the informed consent of its subjects, even as the industry keeps its thumb on the scale.<p class="drop_c" style="box-sizing: border-box; word-wrap: break-word; margin-bottom: 20px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; font-family: " mercury="Mercury" display="Display" a="A" b="B" font-size="font-size" px="px" margin-right="margin-right" margin-left="margin-left" outline="outline" padding="padding" vertical-align="vertical-align" baseline="baseline" line-height="line-height" word-spacing="word-spacing" color="color" rgb="rgb" background-color="background-color" margin-top="margin-top" important="important"><span class="wpsdc-drop-cap" style="box-sizing: border-box; border: 0px; font-family: " knockout="Knockout" a="A" b="B" font-size="font-size" px="px" font-weight="font-weight" bold="bold" margin="margin" outline="outline" padding="padding" vertical-align="vertical-align" baseline="baseline" float="float" left="left" line-height="line-height">“<span class="wpsdc-drop-cap" style="box-sizing: border-box; border: 0px; font-family: " knockout="Knockout" a="A" b="B" font-size="font-size" px="px" font-weight="font-weight" bold="bold" margin="margin" outline="outline" padding="padding" vertical-align="vertical-align" baseline="baseline" float="float" left="left" line-height="line-height">The absence of absolute proof does not mean the absence of risk,” Annie Sasco, the former director of epidemiology for cancer prevention at France’s National Institute of Health and Medical Research, told the attendees of the 2012 Childhood Cancer conference. “The younger one starts using cell phones, the higher the risk,” Sasco continued, urging a public-education effort to inform parents, politicians, and the press about children’s exceptional susceptibility.<p style="box-sizing: border-box; word-wrap: break-word; margin: 0px 0px 20px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; font-family: " mercury="Mercury" display="Display" a="A" b="B" font-size="font-size" px="px" outline="outline" padding="padding" vertical-align="vertical-align" baseline="baseline" line-height="line-height" word-spacing="word-spacing" color="color" rgb="rgb" background-color="background-color">For adults and children alike, the process by which wireless radiation may cause cancer remains uncertain, but it is thought to be indirect. Wireless radiation has been <a href="https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/7520941992.pdf" style="box-sizing: border-box; border-width: 0px 0px 2px; border-top-style: initial; border-right-style: initial; border-bottom-style: solid; border-left-style: initial; border-top-color: initial; border-right-color: initial; border-bottom-color: rgb(207, 14, 14); border-left-color: initial; border-image: initial; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration-line: none; background-color: transparent; line-height: inherit; opacity: 1; transition: opacity 0.2s ease 0s; outline: 0px !important;">shown to damage the blood-brain barrier</a>, a vital defense mechanism that shields the brain from carcinogenic chemicals elsewhere in the body (resulting, for example, from secondhand cigarette smoke). Wireless radiation has also been shown to <a href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/1409.1431.pdf" style="box-sizing: border-box; border-width: 0px 0px 2px; border-top-style: initial; border-right-style: initial; border-bottom-style: solid; border-left-style: initial; border-top-color: initial; border-right-color: initial; border-bottom-color: rgb(207, 14, 14); border-left-color: initial; border-image: initial; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration-line: none; background-color: transparent; line-height: inherit; opacity: 1; transition: opacity 0.2s ease 0s; outline: 0px !important;">interfere with DNA replication</a>, a proven progenitor of cancer. In each of these cases, the risks are higher for children: Their skulls, being smaller, absorb more radiation than adults’ skulls do, while children’s longer life span increases their cumulative exposure.<p style="box-sizing: border-box; word-wrap: break-word; margin: 0px 0px 20px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; font-family: " mercury="Mercury" display="Display" a="A" b="B" font-size="font-size" px="px" outline="outline" padding="padding" vertical-align="vertical-align" baseline="baseline" line-height="line-height" word-spacing="word-spacing" color="color" rgb="rgb" background-color="background-color">The wireless industry has sought to downplay concerns about cell phones’ safety, and the Federal Communications Commission has followed its example. In 1996, the FCC established cell-phone safety levels based on “specific absorption rate,” or SAR. Phones were required to have a SAR of 1.6 watts or less per kilogram of body weight. In 2013, <a href="https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/7520941318.pdf" style="box-sizing: border-box; border-width: 0px 0px 2px; border-top-style: initial; border-right-style: initial; border-bottom-style: solid; border-left-style: initial; border-top-color: initial; border-right-color: initial; border-bottom-color: rgb(207, 14, 14); border-left-color: initial; border-image: initial; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration-line: none; background-color: transparent; line-height: inherit; opacity: 1; transition: opacity 0.2s ease 0s; outline: 0px !important;">the American Academy of Pediatrics advised the FCC</a> that its guidelines “do not account for the unique vulnerability and use patterns specific to pregnant women and children.” Nevertheless, the FCC has declined to update its standards.<p style="box-sizing: border-box; word-wrap: break-word; margin: 0px 0px 20px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; font-family: " mercury="Mercury" display="Display" a="A" b="B" font-size="font-size" px="px" outline="outline" padding="padding" vertical-align="vertical-align" baseline="baseline" line-height="line-height" word-spacing="word-spacing" color="color" rgb="rgb" background-color="background-color">The FCC has granted the industry’s wishes so often that it qualifies as a “captured agency,” argued journalist Norm Alster in <a href="http://ethics.harvard.edu/files/center-for-ethics/files/capturedagency_alster.pdf" style="box-sizing: border-box; border-width: 0px 0px 2px; border-top-style: initial; border-right-style: initial; border-bottom-style: solid; border-left-style: initial; border-top-color: initial; border-right-color: initial; border-bottom-color: rgb(207, 14, 14); border-left-color: initial; border-image: initial; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration-line: none; background-color: transparent; line-height: inherit; opacity: 1; transition: opacity 0.2s ease 0s; outline: 0px !important;">a report</a> that Harvard University’s Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics published in 2015. The FCC allows cell-phone manufacturers to self-report SAR levels, and does not independently test industry claims or require manufacturers to display the SAR level on a phone’s packaging. “Industry controls the FCC through a soup-to-nuts stranglehold that extends from its well-placed campaign spending in Congress through its control of the FCC’s congressional oversight committees to its persistent agency lobbying,” Alster wrote. He also quoted the CTIA website praising the FCC for “its light regulatory touch.”<p style="box-sizing: border-box; word-wrap: break-word; margin: 0px 0px 20px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; font-family: " mercury="Mercury" display="Display" a="A" b="B" font-size="font-size" px="px" outline="outline" padding="padding" vertical-align="vertical-align" baseline="baseline" line-height="line-height" word-spacing="word-spacing" color="color" rgb="rgb" background-color="background-color">The revolving-door syndrome that characterizes so many industries and federal agencies reinforces the close relationship between the wireless industry and the FCC. Just as Tom Wheeler went from running the CTIA (1992– 2004) to chairing the FCC (2013–2017), Meredith Atwell Baker went from FCC commissioner (2009–2011) to the presidency of the CTIA (2014 through today). To ensure its access on Capitol Hill, the wireless industry made $26 million in campaign contributions in 2016, <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/totals.php?ind=B09" style="box-sizing: border-box; border-width: 0px 0px 2px; border-top-style: initial; border-right-style: initial; border-bottom-style: solid; border-left-style: initial; border-top-color: initial; border-right-color: initial; border-bottom-color: rgb(207, 14, 14); border-left-color: initial; border-image: initial; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration-line: none; background-color: transparent; line-height: inherit; opacity: 1; transition: opacity 0.2s ease 0s; outline: 0px !important;">according to the Center for Responsive Politics</a>, and spent $87 million on lobbying in 2017.<p class="drop_c" style="box-sizing: border-box; word-wrap: break-word; margin-bottom: 20px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; font-family: " mercury="Mercury" display="Display" a="A" b="B" font-size="font-size" px="px" margin-right="margin-right" margin-left="margin-left" outline="outline" padding="padding" vertical-align="vertical-align" baseline="baseline" line-height="line-height" word-spacing="word-spacing" color="color" rgb="rgb" background-color="background-color" margin-top="margin-top" important="important"><span class="wpsdc-drop-cap" style="box-sizing: border-box; border: 0px; font-family: " knockout="Knockout" a="A" b="B" font-size="font-size" px="px" font-weight="font-weight" bold="bold" margin="margin" outline="outline" padding="padding" vertical-align="vertical-align" baseline="baseline" float="float" left="left" line-height="line-height">Neutralizing the safety issue has been an ongoing imperative because the research keeps coming, much of it from outside the United States. But the industry’s European and Asian branches have, like their US counterpart, zealously war-gamed the science, spun the news coverage, and thereby warped the public perception of their products’ safety.<p style="box-sizing: border-box; word-wrap: break-word; margin: 0px 0px 20px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; font-family: " mercury="Mercury" display="Display" a="A" b="B" font-size="font-size" px="px" outline="outline" padding="padding" vertical-align="vertical-align" baseline="baseline" line-height="line-height" word-spacing="word-spacing" color="color" rgb="rgb" background-color="background-color">The WHO began to study the health effects of electric- and magnetic-field radiation (EMF) in 1996 under the direction of Michael Repacholi, an Australian biophysicist. Although Repacholi claimed on disclosure forms that he was “independent” of corporate influence, in fact Motorola had funded his research: While Repacholi was director of the WHO’s EMF program, Motorola paid $50,000 a year to his former employer, the Royal Adelaide Hospital, which then transferred the money to the WHO program. When journalists exposed the payments, Repacholi <a href="http://microwavenews.com/CT.html" style="box-sizing: border-box; border-width: 0px 0px 2px; border-top-style: initial; border-right-style: initial; border-bottom-style: solid; border-left-style: initial; border-top-color: initial; border-right-color: initial; border-bottom-color: rgb(207, 14, 14); border-left-color: initial; border-image: initial; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration-line: none; background-color: transparent; line-height: inherit; opacity: 1; transition: opacity 0.2s ease 0s; outline: 0px !important;">denied</a> that there was anything untoward about them because Motorola had not paid him personally. Eventually, Motorola’s payments were bundled with other industry contributions and funneled through the Mobile and Wireless Forum, a trade association that gave the WHO’s program $150,000 annually. In 1999, Repacholi helped engineer a WHO statement that “EMF exposures below the limits recommended in international guidelines do not appear to have any known consequence on health.”<p style="box-sizing: border-box; word-wrap: break-word; margin: 0px 0px 20px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; font-family: " mercury="Mercury" display="Display" a="A" b="B" font-size="font-size" px="px" outline="outline" padding="padding" vertical-align="vertical-align" baseline="baseline" line-height="line-height" word-spacing="word-spacing" color="color" rgb="rgb" background-color="background-color">Two wireless trade associations contributed $4.7 million to <a href="http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2011/pdfs/pr208_E.pdf" style="box-sizing: border-box; border-width: 0px 0px 2px; border-top-style: initial; border-right-style: initial; border-bottom-style: solid; border-left-style: initial; border-top-color: initial; border-right-color: initial; border-bottom-color: rgb(207, 14, 14); border-left-color: initial; border-image: initial; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration-line: none; background-color: transparent; line-height: inherit; opacity: 1; transition: opacity 0.2s ease 0s; outline: 0px !important;">the Interphone study</a> launched by the WHO’s International Agency for Cancer Research in 2000. That $4.7 million represented 20 percent of the $24 million budget for the Interphone study, which convened 21 scientists from 13 countries to explore possible links between cell phones and two common types of brain tumor: glioma and meningioma. The money was channeled through a “firewall” mechanism intended to prevent corporate influence on the IACR’s findings, but whether such firewalls work is debatable. “Industry sponsors know [which scientists] receive funding; sponsored scientists know who provides funding,” Dariusz Leszczynski, an adjunct professor of biochemistry at the University of Helsinki, has explained.<aside class="pull-quote-module" style="box-sizing: border-box; border-top: 2px solid rgb(229, 223, 212); border-bottom: 2px solid rgb(229, 223, 212); padding: 25px 0px; margin: 35px 0px; position: relative;" mercury="Mercury" display="Display" a="A" b="B" font-size="font-size" px="px" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb"><div class="pull-quote-blocks" style="box-sizing: border-box; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><p style="box-sizing: border-box; word-wrap: break-word; margin: 0px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-weight: 700; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.43em; word-spacing: 0.3px; text-transform: initial;">The FCC grants the wireless industry’s wishes so often that it qualifies as a “captured agency.”</div></aside><p style="box-sizing: border-box; word-wrap: break-word; margin: 0px 0px 20px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; font-family: " mercury="Mercury" display="Display" a="A" b="B" font-size="font-size" px="px" outline="outline" padding="padding" vertical-align="vertical-align" baseline="baseline" line-height="line-height" word-spacing="word-spacing" color="color" rgb="rgb" background-color="background-color">To be sure, the industry could not have been pleased with some of the <a href="https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/39/3/675/631387" style="box-sizing: border-box; border-width: 0px 0px 2px; border-top-style: initial; border-right-style: initial; border-bottom-style: solid; border-left-style: initial; border-top-color: initial; border-right-color: initial; border-bottom-color: rgb(207, 14, 14); border-left-color: initial; border-image: initial; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration-line: none; background-color: transparent; line-height: inherit; opacity: 1; transition: opacity 0.2s ease 0s; outline: 0px !important;">Interphone study’s conclusions</a>. The study found that the heaviest cell-phone users were <a href="http://microwavenews.com/Interphone.Appendix2.html" style="box-sizing: border-box; border-width: 0px 0px 2px; border-top-style: initial; border-right-style: initial; border-bottom-style: solid; border-left-style: initial; border-top-color: initial; border-right-color: initial; border-bottom-color: rgb(207, 14, 14); border-left-color: initial; border-image: initial; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration-line: none; background-color: transparent; line-height: inherit; opacity: 1; transition: opacity 0.2s ease 0s; outline: 0px !important;">80 percent more likely to develop glioma</a>. (The initial finding of 40 percent was increased to 80 to correct for selection bias.) The Interphone study also concluded that individuals who had owned a cell phone for 10 years or longer saw their risk of glioma increase by nearly 120 percent. However, the study did not find any increased risk for individuals who used their cell phones less frequently; nor was there evidence of any connection with meningioma.<p style="box-sizing: border-box; word-wrap: break-word; margin: 0px 0px 20px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; font-family: " mercury="Mercury" display="Display" a="A" b="B" font-size="font-size" px="px" outline="outline" padding="padding" vertical-align="vertical-align" baseline="baseline" line-height="line-height" word-spacing="word-spacing" color="color" rgb="rgb" background-color="background-color">When the Interphone conclusions were released in 2010, industry spokespeople blunted their impact by deploying what experts on lying call “creative truth-telling.” “Interphone’s conclusion of no overall increased risk of brain cancer is consistent with conclusions reached in an already large body of scientific research on this subject,” John Walls, the vice president for public affairs at the CTIA, <a href="https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20100517006038/en/CTIA%E2%80%93The-Wireless-Association-Statement-Interphone-Study" style="box-sizing: border-box; border-width: 0px 0px 2px; border-top-style: initial; border-right-style: initial; border-bottom-style: solid; border-left-style: initial; border-top-color: initial; border-right-color: initial; border-bottom-color: rgb(207, 14, 14); border-left-color: initial; border-image: initial; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration-line: none; background-color: transparent; line-height: inherit; opacity: 1; transition: opacity 0.2s ease 0s; outline: 0px !important;">told reporters</a>. The wiggle word here is “overall”: Since some of the Interphone studies did not find increased brain-cancer rates, stipulating “overall” allowed Walls to ignore those that did. The misleading spin confused enough news organizations that their coverage of the Interphone study was essentially reassuring to the industry’s customers. The Wall Street Journal announced “Cell Phone Study Sends Fuzzy Signal on Cancer Risk,” while the BBC’s headline declared: “No Proof of Mobile Cancer Risk.”<p style="box-sizing: border-box; word-wrap: break-word; margin: 0px 0px 20px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; font-family: " mercury="Mercury" display="Display" a="A" b="B" font-size="font-size" px="px" outline="outline" padding="padding" vertical-align="vertical-align" baseline="baseline" line-height="line-height" word-spacing="word-spacing" color="color" rgb="rgb" background-color="background-color">The industry’s $4.7 million contribution to the WHO appears to have had its most telling effect in May 2011, when the WHO convened scientists in Lyon, France, to discuss how to classify the cancer risk posed by cell phones. The industry not only secured “observer” status at Lyon for three of its trade associations; it placed two industry-funded experts on the working group that would debate the classification, as well as additional experts among the “invited specialists” who advised the group.<p style="box-sizing: border-box; word-wrap: break-word; margin: 0px 0px 20px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; font-family: " mercury="Mercury" display="Display" a="A" b="B" font-size="font-size" px="px" outline="outline" padding="padding" vertical-align="vertical-align" baseline="baseline" line-height="line-height" word-spacing="word-spacing" color="color" rgb="rgb" background-color="background-color">Niels Kuster, a Swiss engineer, initially filed a conflict-of-interest statement affirming only that his research group had taken money from “various governments, scientific institutions and corporations.” But after Kuster co-authored a summary of the WHO’s findings in The Lancet Oncology, the medical journal <a href="https://retractionwatch.com/2015/06/24/lancet-oncology-updates-coi-for-monograph-on-cancer-risk-of-cell-phones-other-devices/" style="box-sizing: border-box; border-width: 0px 0px 2px; border-top-style: initial; border-right-style: initial; border-bottom-style: solid; border-left-style: initial; border-top-color: initial; border-right-color: initial; border-bottom-color: rgb(207, 14, 14); border-left-color: initial; border-image: initial; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration-line: none; background-color: transparent; line-height: inherit; opacity: 1; transition: opacity 0.2s ease 0s; outline: 0px !important;">issued a correction</a> expanding on Kuster’s conflict-of-interest statement, noting payments from the Mobile Manufacturers Forum, Motorola, Ericsson, Nokia, Samsung, Sony, GSMA, and Deutsche Telekom. Nevertheless, Kuster participated in the entire 10 days of deliberations.<p style="box-sizing: border-box; word-wrap: break-word; margin: 0px 0px 20px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; font-family: " mercury="Mercury" display="Display" a="A" b="B" font-size="font-size" px="px" outline="outline" padding="padding" vertical-align="vertical-align" baseline="baseline" line-height="line-height" word-spacing="word-spacing" color="color" rgb="rgb" background-color="background-color">The industry also mounted a campaign to discredit Lennart Hardell, a Swedish professor of oncology serving on the working group. <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/6603070" style="box-sizing: border-box; border-width: 0px 0px 2px; border-top-style: initial; border-right-style: initial; border-bottom-style: solid; border-left-style: initial; border-top-color: initial; border-right-color: initial; border-bottom-color: rgb(207, 14, 14); border-left-color: initial; border-image: initial; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration-line: none; background-color: transparent; line-height: inherit; opacity: 1; transition: opacity 0.2s ease 0s; outline: 0px !important;">Hardell’s studies</a>, which found an increase in gliomas and acoustic neuromas in long-term cell-phone users, were some of the strongest evidence that the group was considering.<p style="box-sizing: border-box; word-wrap: break-word; margin: 0px 0px 20px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; font-family: " mercury="Mercury" display="Display" a="A" b="B" font-size="font-size" px="px" outline="outline" padding="padding" vertical-align="vertical-align" baseline="baseline" line-height="line-height" word-spacing="word-spacing" color="color" rgb="rgb" background-color="background-color">Hardell had already attracted the industry’s displeasure back in 2002, when he began arguing that children shouldn’t use cell phones. Two scientists with industry ties quickly <a href="https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/4122/e9cc3b08a2ebead92692aa20410fe1b15f8f.pdf" style="box-sizing: border-box; border-width: 0px 0px 2px; border-top-style: initial; border-right-style: initial; border-bottom-style: solid; border-left-style: initial; border-top-color: initial; border-right-color: initial; border-bottom-color: rgb(207, 14, 14); border-left-color: initial; border-image: initial; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration-line: none; background-color: transparent; line-height: inherit; opacity: 1; transition: opacity 0.2s ease 0s; outline: 0px !important;">published a report</a> with the Swedish Radiation Authority dismissing Hardell’s research. His detractors were John D. Boice and Joseph K. McLaughlin of the International Epidemiology Institute, a company that provided “Litigation Support” and “Corporate Counseling” to various industries, <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20130403080359/https://www.cspinet.org/integrity/nonprofits/international_epidemiology_institute.html/" style="box-sizing: border-box; border-width: 0px 0px 2px; border-top-style: initial; border-right-style: initial; border-bottom-style: solid; border-left-style: initial; border-top-color: initial; border-right-color: initial; border-bottom-color: rgb(207, 14, 14); border-left-color: initial; border-image: initial; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration-line: none; background-color: transparent; line-height: inherit; opacity: 1; transition: opacity 0.2s ease 0s; outline: 0px !important;">according to its website</a>. Indeed, at the very time Boice and McLaughlin were denigrating Hardell’s work, the institute was providing expert-witness services to Motorola in a brain-tumor lawsuit against the company.<p style="box-sizing: border-box; word-wrap: break-word; margin: 0px 0px 20px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; font-family: " mercury="Mercury" display="Display" a="A" b="B" font-size="font-size" px="px" outline="outline" padding="padding" vertical-align="vertical-align" baseline="baseline" line-height="line-height" word-spacing="word-spacing" color="color" rgb="rgb" background-color="background-color">The wireless industry didn’t get the outcome that it wanted at Lyon, but it did limit the damage. A number of the working group’s scientists had favored increasing the classification of cell phones to Category 2A, a “probable” carcinogen; but<a href="http://interphone.iarc.fr/UICC_Report_Final_03102011.pdf" style="box-sizing: border-box; border-width: 0px 0px 2px; border-top-style: initial; border-right-style: initial; border-bottom-style: solid; border-left-style: initial; border-top-color: initial; border-right-color: initial; border-bottom-color: rgb(207, 14, 14); border-left-color: initial; border-image: initial; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration-line: none; background-color: transparent; line-height: inherit; opacity: 1; transition: opacity 0.2s ease 0s; outline: 0px !important;"> in the end, the group could only agree</a> on an increase to 2B, a “possible” carcinogen.<p style="box-sizing: border-box; word-wrap: break-word; margin: 0px 0px 20px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; font-family: " mercury="Mercury" display="Display" a="A" b="B" font-size="font-size" px="px" outline="outline" padding="padding" vertical-align="vertical-align" baseline="baseline" line-height="line-height" word-spacing="word-spacing" color="color" rgb="rgb" background-color="background-color">That result enabled the industry to continue proclaiming that there was no scientifically established proof that cell phones are dangerous. Jack Rowley of the GSMA trade association said that “interpretation should be based on the overall balance of the evidence.” Once again, the slippery word “overall” downplayed the significance of scientific research that the industry didn’t like.<p style="box-sizing: border-box; word-wrap: break-word; margin: 0px 0px 20px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; font-family: " mercury="Mercury" display="Display" a="A" b="B" font-size="font-size" px="px" outline="outline" padding="padding" vertical-align="vertical-align" baseline="baseline" line-height="line-height" word-spacing="word-spacing" color="color" rgb="rgb" background-color="background-color">Industry-funded scientists had been pressuring their colleagues for a decade by then, according to Leszczynski, another member of the Lyon working group. Leszczynski was an assistant professor at Harvard Medical School when he first experienced such pressure, in 1999. He had wanted to investigate the effects of radiation levels higher than the SAR levels permitted by government, hypothesizing that this might better conform to real-world practices. But when he proposed the idea at scientific meetings, <a href="https://betweenrockandhardplace.wordpress.com/2015/02/12/the-gamechanger-revision-of-dosimetry-by-schmid-kuster/" style="box-sizing: border-box; border-width: 0px 0px 2px; border-top-style: initial; border-right-style: initial; border-bottom-style: solid; border-left-style: initial; border-top-color: initial; border-right-color: initial; border-bottom-color: rgb(207, 14, 14); border-left-color: initial; border-image: initial; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration-line: none; background-color: transparent; line-height: inherit; opacity: 1; transition: opacity 0.2s ease 0s; outline: 0px !important;">Leszczynski said</a>, it was shouted down by Mays Swicord, Joe Elder, and C.K. Chou—scientists who worked for Motorola. As Leszczynski recalled, “It was a normal occurrence at scientific meetings—and I attended really a lot of them—that whenever [a] scientist reported biological effects at SAR over [government-approved levels], the above-mentioned industry scientists, singularly or as a group, jumped up to the microphone to condemn and to discredit the results.”<p style="box-sizing: border-box; word-wrap: break-word; margin: 0px 0px 20px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; font-family: " mercury="Mercury" display="Display" a="A" b="B" font-size="font-size" px="px" outline="outline" padding="padding" vertical-align="vertical-align" baseline="baseline" line-height="line-height" word-spacing="word-spacing" color="color" rgb="rgb" background-color="background-color">Years later,<a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25644546" style="box-sizing: border-box; border-width: 0px 0px 2px; border-top-style: initial; border-right-style: initial; border-bottom-style: solid; border-left-style: initial; border-top-color: initial; border-right-color: initial; border-bottom-color: rgb(207, 14, 14); border-left-color: initial; border-image: initial; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration-line: none; background-color: transparent; line-height: inherit; opacity: 1; transition: opacity 0.2s ease 0s; outline: 0px !important;"> a study</a> that Leszczynski described as a “game changer” discovered that even phones meeting government standards, which in Europe were a SAR of 2.0 watts per kilogram, could deliver exponentially higher peak radiation levels to certain skin and blood cells. (SAR levels reached a staggering 40 watts per kilogram—20 times higher than officially permitted.) In other words, the official safety levels masked dramatically higher exposures in hot spots, but industry-funded scientists obstructed research on the health impacts.<aside class="pull-quote-module" style="box-sizing: border-box; border-top: 2px solid rgb(229, 223, 212); border-bottom: 2px solid rgb(229, 223, 212); padding: 25px 0px; margin: 35px 0px; position: relative;" mercury="Mercury" display="Display" a="A" b="B" font-size="font-size" px="px" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb"><div class="pull-quote-blocks" style="box-sizing: border-box; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><p style="box-sizing: border-box; word-wrap: break-word; margin: 0px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-weight: 700; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.43em; word-spacing: 0.3px; text-transform: initial;">“Everyone knows that if your research results show that radiation has effects, the funding flow dries up.” —Dariusz Leszczynski, adjunct professor of biochemistry at the University of Helsinki</div></aside><p style="box-sizing: border-box; word-wrap: break-word; margin: 0px 0px 20px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; font-family: " mercury="Mercury" display="Display" a="A" b="B" font-size="font-size" px="px" outline="outline" padding="padding" vertical-align="vertical-align" baseline="baseline" line-height="line-height" word-spacing="word-spacing" color="color" rgb="rgb" background-color="background-color">“Everyone knows that if your research results show that radiation has effects, the funding flow dries up,” Leszczynski said in an interview in 2011. Sure enough, the Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority of Finland, where Leszczynski had a long career, discontinued research on the biological effects of cell phones and discharged him a year later.<p style="box-sizing: border-box; word-wrap: break-word; margin: 0px 0px 20px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; font-family: " mercury="Mercury" display="Display" a="A" b="B" font-size="font-size" px="px" outline="outline" padding="padding" vertical-align="vertical-align" baseline="baseline" line-height="line-height" word-spacing="word-spacing" color="color" rgb="rgb" background-color="background-color">According to scientists involved in the process, the WHO may decide later this year to reconsider its categorization of the cancer risk posed by cell phones; the WHO itself told The Nation that before making any such decision, it will review the final report of the National Toxicology Program, a US government initiative. The <a href="https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2016/05/26/055699.full.pdf" style="box-sizing: border-box; border-width: 0px 0px 2px; border-top-style: initial; border-right-style: initial; border-bottom-style: solid; border-left-style: initial; border-top-color: initial; border-right-color: initial; border-bottom-color: rgb(207, 14, 14); border-left-color: initial; border-image: initial; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration-line: none; background-color: transparent; line-height: inherit; opacity: 1; transition: opacity 0.2s ease 0s; outline: 0px !important;">results reported by the NTP</a> in 2016 seem to strengthen the case for increasing the assessment of cell-phone radiation to a “probable” or even a “known” carcinogen. Whereas the WHO’s Interphone study compared the cell-phone usage of people who had contracted cancer with that of people who hadn’t, the NTP study exposed rats and mice to cell-phone radiation and observed whether the animals got sick.<p style="box-sizing: border-box; word-wrap: break-word; margin: 0px 0px 20px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; font-family: " mercury="Mercury" display="Display" a="A" b="B" font-size="font-size" px="px" outline="outline" padding="padding" vertical-align="vertical-align" baseline="baseline" line-height="line-height" word-spacing="word-spacing" color="color" rgb="rgb" background-color="background-color">“There is a carcinogenic effect,” announced Ron Melnick, the designer of the study. Male rats exposed to cell-phone radiation developed cancer at a substantially higher rate, though the same effect was not seen in female rats. Rats exposed to radiation also had lower birth rates, higher infant mortality, and more heart problems than those in the control group. The cancer effect occurred in only a small percentage of the rats, but that small percentage could translate into a massive amount of human cancers. “Given the extremely large number of people who use wireless communications devices, even a very small increase in the incidence of disease…could have broad implications for public health,” the NTP’s draft report explained.<p style="box-sizing: border-box; word-wrap: break-word; margin: 0px 0px 20px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; font-family: " mercury="Mercury" display="Display" a="A" b="B" font-size="font-size" px="px" outline="outline" padding="padding" vertical-align="vertical-align" baseline="baseline" line-height="line-height" word-spacing="word-spacing" color="color" rgb="rgb" background-color="background-color">But this was not the message that media coverage of the NTP study conveyed, as the industry blanketed reporters with its usual “more research is needed” spin. “<a href="https://www.vox.com/2016/5/27/11797924/cellphones-cancer-bad-reporting" style="box-sizing: border-box; border-width: 0px 0px 2px; border-top-style: initial; border-right-style: initial; border-bottom-style: solid; border-left-style: initial; border-top-color: initial; border-right-color: initial; border-bottom-color: rgb(207, 14, 14); border-left-color: initial; border-image: initial; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration-line: none; background-color: transparent; line-height: inherit; opacity: 1; transition: opacity 0.2s ease 0s; outline: 0px !important;">Seriously, stop with the irresponsible reporting on cell phones and cancer</a>,” demanded a Vox headline. “<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2016/05/27/do-cellphones-cause-cancer-dont-believe-the-hype/" style="box-sizing: border-box; border-width: 0px 0px 2px; border-top-style: initial; border-right-style: initial; border-bottom-style: solid; border-left-style: initial; border-top-color: initial; border-right-color: initial; border-bottom-color: rgb(207, 14, 14); border-left-color: initial; border-image: initial; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration-line: none; background-color: transparent; line-height: inherit; opacity: 1; transition: opacity 0.2s ease 0s; outline: 0px !important;">Don’t Believe the Hype</a>,” urged The Washington Post. Newsweek, for its part, <a href="http://www.newsweek.com/can-cell-phone-radiation-harm-your-health-new-california-guidelines-raise-751121" style="box-sizing: border-box; border-width: 0px 0px 2px; border-top-style: initial; border-right-style: initial; border-bottom-style: solid; border-left-style: initial; border-top-color: initial; border-right-color: initial; border-bottom-color: rgb(207, 14, 14); border-left-color: initial; border-image: initial; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration-line: none; background-color: transparent; line-height: inherit; opacity: 1; transition: opacity 0.2s ease 0s; outline: 0px !important;">stated the NTP’s findings in a single paragraph</a>, then devoted the rest of the article to an argument for why they should be ignored.<p style="box-sizing: border-box; word-wrap: break-word; margin: 0px 0px 20px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; font-family: " mercury="Mercury" display="Display" a="A" b="B" font-size="font-size" px="px" outline="outline" padding="padding" vertical-align="vertical-align" baseline="baseline" line-height="line-height" word-spacing="word-spacing" color="color" rgb="rgb" background-color="background-color">The NTP study was to be peer-reviewed at a meeting on March 26–28, amid signs that the program’s leadership is pivoting to downplay its findings. The NTP had issued a public-health warning when the study’s early results were released in 2016. But when the NTP released essentially the same data in February 2018, John Bucher, the senior scientist who directed the study, announced in a telephone press conference that “I don’t think this is a high-risk situation at all,” partly because the study had exposed the rats and mice to higher levels of radiation than a typical cell-phone user experienced.<p style="box-sizing: border-box; word-wrap: break-word; margin: 0px 0px 20px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; font-family: " mercury="Mercury" display="Display" a="A" b="B" font-size="font-size" px="px" outline="outline" padding="padding" vertical-align="vertical-align" baseline="baseline" line-height="line-height" word-spacing="word-spacing" color="color" rgb="rgb" background-color="background-color">Microwave News’s Slesin <a href="http://microwavenews.com/news-center/what-changed" style="box-sizing: border-box; border-width: 0px 0px 2px; border-top-style: initial; border-right-style: initial; border-bottom-style: solid; border-left-style: initial; border-top-color: initial; border-right-color: initial; border-bottom-color: rgb(207, 14, 14); border-left-color: initial; border-image: initial; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration-line: none; background-color: transparent; line-height: inherit; opacity: 1; transition: opacity 0.2s ease 0s; outline: 0px !important;">speculated on potential explanations</a> for the NTP’s apparent backtracking: new leadership within the program, where a former drug-company executive, Brian Berridge, now runs the day-to-day operations; pressure from business-friendly Republicans on Capitol Hill and from the US military, whose weapons systems rely on wireless radiation; and the anti-science ideology of the Trump White House. The question now: Will the scientists doing the peer review endorse the NTP’s newly ambivalent perspective, or challenge it?<p style="box-sizing: border-box; word-wrap: break-word; margin: 0px 0px 20px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; font-family: " mercury="Mercury" display="Display" a="A" b="B" font-size="font-size" px="px" outline="outline" padding="padding" vertical-align="vertical-align" baseline="baseline" line-height="line-height" word-spacing="word-spacing" color="color" rgb="rgb" background-color="background-color">...=<a href="https://www.democracynow.org/2018/4/5/how_the_wireless_industry_convinced_the">https://www.democracynow.org/2018/4/5/how_the_wireless_industry_convinced_the</a><div class="story_summary" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div class="text" style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 27px; letter-spacing: -0.2px;">Ninety-five out of every 100 American adults owns a cellphone today. And worldwide, three out of four adults now have cellphone access. The wireless industry is one of the fastest-growing on Earth, raking in annual sales of $440 billion in 2016. But are cellphones safe? A new investigation by The Nation suggests that’s a question that cellphone giants prefer you don’t ask. We speak with Mark Hertsgaard, The Nation’s environment correspondent and investigative editor. His report, co-authored with Mark Dowie, is headlined “How Big Wireless Made Us Think That Cell Phones Are Safe.”</div></div><div class="mobile_anchor_target" id="transcript" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><div class="text" style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 27px; letter-spacing: -0.2px;">AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman, with Nermeen Shaikh.NERMEEN SHAIKH: Ninety-five out of every 100 American adults owns a cellphone today. And worldwide, three out of four adults now have cellphone access. The wireless industry is one of the fastest-growing on Earth, raking in annual sales of $440 billion in 2016.But are cellphones safe? Well, a new <a href="https://www.thenation.com/article/how-big-wireless-made-us-think-that-cell-phones-are-safe-a-special-investigation/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; border: 0px;">investigation</a> by The Nation suggests that’s a question that cellphone giants prefer you don’t ask. The article, by journalists Mark Hertsgaard and Mark Dowie, is headlined “How Big Wireless Made Us Think That Cell Phones Are Safe.”The article notes that cellphones were first marketed to U.S. consumers in the 1980s without any government safety testing. Then, a decade later, one of the industry’s own hand-picked researchers, George Carlo, reportedly told top company officials, including leaders of Apple, AT&T and Motorola, that some industry-commissioned studies raised serious questions about cellphone safety. On October 7th, 1999, Carlo sent letters to industry CEOs urging them to give consumers, quote, “the information they need to make an informed judgment about how much of this unknown risk they wish to assume.” Instead, the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association reportedly tried to discredit Carlo’s findings, and had him physically removed from its premises during its annual conference in February 2000.AMY GOODMAN: The Nation magazine investigation notes Carlo’s story “evokes eerie parallels with two of the most notorious cases of corporate deception on record: the campaigns by the tobacco and fossil-fuel industries to obscure the dangers of smoking and climate change, respectively.”For more, we go to San Francisco to speak with one of the authors of this new investigation, Mark Hertsgaard, The Nation’s environment correspondent and investigative editor, author of seven books, including Hot: Living Through the Next Fifty Years on Earth.Mark, welcome back to Democracy Now!MARK HERTSGAARD: Hi, Amy.AMY GOODMAN: Talk about what you have found, what we do know about cellphone safety, and how dangerous are cellphones.MARK HERTSGAARD: Let me emphasize, Amy, our piece is not saying that cellphones are safe or are not safe. Our piece is an investigative exposé showing you how the cellular industry has worked for 25 years behind the scenes to convince you that cellphones are safe, when, in fact, if you look at the independently funded science, the picture is a lot more mixed than that. And as you mentioned, there’s that smoking gun memo—letter, I should say—from George Carlo in 1999 telling the CEOs of all these big companies, “Look, this stuff is raising serious questions, especially about kids and cancer and genetic damage.”And I think that’s the real parallel with both Big Oil and Big Tobacco. In each case, these big companies were told privately by their own scientists that there are serious questions about your product, whether it be cigarettes or fossil fuels or cellphones. And in each case, those executives decided not to share that with the public, but rather to keep that information to themselves, while telling the public and telling the press and telling policymakers there’s no problem.There is a lot of evidence suggesting that we need to be a lot more careful about these cellphones. The World Health Organization has listed them as a possible carcinogen. And just last week, here in the United States, the National Institutes of Health had a major study, peer-reviewed, about cellphone radiation. And the peer-review scientists, who are independent of government, said that there was, quote, “clear evidence,” unquote, that cellphones can cause cancer.And that is something that you have not read in the American media. And I have to say that that’s another part of the story, Amy, is how the U.S. news organizations and journalists have been hoodwinked, yet again, by a corporate propaganda campaign, where we listen more to what the industry says than to what independent scientists are saying.NERMEEN SHAIKH: And, Mark, could you talk a little about the way in which wireless industries have tried to influence the scientific research on the effects, possible effects, of cellphone use?MARK HERTSGAARD: Sure. The term that they use is “war gaming.” They have war-gamed the science. That comes from an internal memo in 1994 from Motorola, a major cellphone manufacturer, which at that point was already facing lawsuits from customers claiming that their brain tumors had come from Motorola-supplied equipment. War gaming means a number of different things. It means funding science that is friendly to industry. It means discrediting science, or attempting to discredit scientists, that are critical of industry. And it means trying to put industry-friendly scientists on key advisory boards, such as the World Health Organization.And our <a href="https://www.thenation.com/article/how-big-wireless-made-us-think-that-cell-phones-are-safe-a-special-investigation/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; border: 0px;">piece</a> in The Nation magazine documents how when the World Health Organization was preparing, in the year 2011, to render a judgment on how likely cellphones are to cause cancer, the industry made sure to get a number of its scientists onto the advisory boards that consulted with the WHO on that decision. And that is contrary to the conflict-of-interest rules that the WHO has, but the industry managed to circumvent those. It put money into that process. And at the end of the day, in 2011, the WHO, World Health Organization, called cellphone radiation a “possible” carcinogen.But a number of the scientists who were on that committee, who we interviewed, said that they wanted to call it a “probable.” And one scientist even wanted to call it a “known” carcinogen. So, later this year, the WHO is going to revisit this question of cellphone radiation, and they told us that they will look very carefully at this recent study from last week by the National Toxicology Program of the U.S. government that found clear evidence that cellphones can cause cancer.AMY GOODMAN: Mark, you wrote the industry has “also mounted a campaign to discredit Lennart Hardell, a Swedish professor of oncology serving on the working group. Hardell’s studies, which found an increase in gliomas and acoustic neuromas in long-term cell-phone users, were some of the strongest evidence that the group was considering.” Gliomas, acoustic neuromas, explain what they are and what you feel has been suppressed or discredited.MARK HERTSGAARD: Well, Lennart Hardell, the Swedish scientist you mentioned, Amy, he was the one scientist on that WHO committee who wanted to call cellphone radiation a “known” cancer risk—not probable, not possible, but known. That would be Category 1. And he did that on the basis of his studies of gliomas. They are a nasty brain tumor, brain cancer, partly because it’s very difficult to treat them. It’s not like a specific sort of nodule that you can take out. They kind of leak through the brain in long strands.And Hardell was especially concerned about what this means for children. And I should note here, Amy, that, you know, the United States is quite different than other advanced countries on this. In Britain, in France, in Israel, the governments have issued very strict limitations on cellphone use by children. In the public schools in France, there are no iPads, there is no wireless, partly for the reasons of addiction, but also because of these concerns about health.And in the case of Lennart Hardell in Sweden, once he started to publish those findings in 2002, the industry immediately mobilized to have two of their friendly—industry-friendly scientists immediately put out a paper condemning Hardell. Well, we found out that those two scientists, at the very time that they were posing as independent scientists and saying that Mr.—that Dr. Hardell’s findings were methodologically incoherent, they were consulting—they were consulting to Motorola as expert witnesses in a brain tumor case. So, who are you going to believe?AMY GOODMAN: Well, we have to leave it there, but we’re going to do Part 2 and post it as a web exclusive online at democracynow.org. There’s just too much to talk about, from the internet of things, talking about 5G, and how the campaign here mirrors what happened with Big Tobacco. Mark Hertsgaard’s new <a href="https://www.thenation.com/article/how-big-wireless-made-us-think-that-cell-phones-are-safe-a-special-investigation/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; border: 0px;">special investigation</a>, we’ll link to, is headlined “How Big Wireless Made Us Think That Cell Phones Are Safe.”</div></div>==<div class="m_8977333056726177338article_head" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding: 0px; margin-top: 0.4em !important;"><div style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 10px; line-height: 1.1em;">Comcast, Verizon, AT&T winning fight against restoring net neutrality </div><div style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 10px; line-height: 1.1em;">
</div></div><div class="m_8977333056726177338first m_8977333056726177338column m_8977333056726177338last" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; width: 576px; float: left;"><div class="m_8977333056726177338div_paddingarticle" style="margin: 0px; padding: 3px;"><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin: 0px; padding: 0px 10px; line-height: 1.1em;">Anyone doubting the power lobbyists still hold in Washington need only look at the ongoing, shameful net neutrality travesty.</div>It was bad enough that Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai, a former Verizon lawyer, engineered the repeal of President Obama’s landmark rules prohibiting Internet Service Providers from blocking or slowing down the internet or giving preference for certain online content.Now Republican Rep. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee wants to lock the vast majority of Pai’s rules into law through her proposed legislation with the Orwellian title: the Open Internet Preservation Act.The Verizon, AT& T and Comcast Dream Act would be more appropriate.Unlike Pai’s new rules, Blackburn’s bill would prevent ISPs from blocking access to websites. That’s good news. But Blackburn would put into law the FCC chairman’s approval to allow ISPs to charge content providers on websites a premium for faster speeds. The legislation would devastate small businesses and startups from being able to compete, throttling creativity and innovation. It would also rake in billions for the ISPs who have poured more than $600 million into their lobbying efforts over the last 20 years.Blackburn has been one of their prime beneficiaries, receiving more than $500,000 from telecom companies since she took office in 2002, including $84,000 in the most recent election cycle, the biggest contribution to any member of the House of Representatives.Don’t expect Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell or Republicans in the Senate to stand up for consumers in a heist that will net Verizon, AT& T and Comcast billions. Telecom companies gave Mc-Connell a cool $250,000 in the last election cycle.Blackburn also went out of her way to block any notion of blue states writing their own net neutrality laws. Her bill would pre-empt states from passing “any law, rule, regulation, duty, requirement, standard or other provision” related to net neutrality.The Tennessee Republican was well aware that in California only days after the FCC vote, state Sen. Scott Wiener of San Francisco announced that he would introduce a net neutrality bill when the Legislature reconvenes in January. Wiener later indicated that he would join forces with New York state Sen. Brad Hoylman of Manhattan to write legislation that would restore net neutrality to both states. Democrats in Congress are hoping that a small number of Senate Republicans who in the past have expressed some support for net neutrality may find the courage to oppose Blackburn’s bill if it reaches the Senate floor, as expected.It will take a major show of outrage by consumers and the tech industry to help make the case. They can start by citing a recent survey by the University of Maryland showing that 80 percent of Americans — including 75 percent of Republicans — oppose the notion of repealing net neutrality regulations.The only alternative is to hope the courts strike down Pai and Blackburn’s efforts — or that enough Democrats win seats in 2018 to start their own cycle of congressional “repeal and replace”.Republican Rep. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee wants to lock most of the new rules into law through her proposed legislation with the Orwellian title: the Open Internet Preservation Act. The Verizon, AT& T and Comcast Dream Act would be more appropriate.</div></div>

FCC hangs tough tho head is fmr lobbyist telecom exec in public says reg harms investment, in pvt says opposite (verizon?) BO pushes back on ban on munic wireless 2/15

random find: colo bundlers mostly telecomm:including? nevermind, it's media<div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">341 1018 IND MAFFEI, GREGORY $250,000 1/6/2017 </div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">4175 SOUTH HUMBOLDT STREET</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">CHERRY HILLS VILLAGE</div><div>CO 80113 President and CEO of Liberty Media Corporation,[1] Liberty Interactive Corporation and its various spun-off entities. So there are total of 4 donations (total 1M), each 250k from Liberty Media right now </div>=no lnxtelecomm assocGrants to Politically Active Nonprofits and Donor Organizations2013Recipient Parent Organization Type Amount Filing End DateBroadband For America Broadband for America $2,000,000 12/31/2013Technology Policy Institute Technology Policy Institute $250,000 12/31/2013Mercatus Center Mercatus Center $150,000 12/31/2013Free State Foundation Free State Foundation $100,000 12/31/2013Third way foundation Third Way $100,000 12/31/2013Family Online Safety Institute Family Online Safety Institute $75,000 12/31/2013Advertising Council Advertising Council $72,350 12/31/2013Joint center for political & economic studies Joint Center for Political & Economic Studies $63,500 12/31/2013Americans for Prosperity Americans for Prosperity $50,000 12/31/2013Americans for Tax Reform Americans for Tax Reform $50,000 12/31/2013Information Technology & Innovation Foundation $50,000 12/31/2013NAACP Washington Bureau NAACP $50,000 12/31/2013New York University Law School $50,000 12/31/2013The Institute for Liberty $50,000 12/31/2013Women In Cable Telecommunications Women in Cable Telecommunications $43,097 12/31/2013Walter Kaitz Foundation Walter Kaitz Foundation $40,500 12/31/2013Leadership Conference on Civil & Human Rights $40,000 12/31/2013Minority Media & Telecom Council Minority Media & Telecom Council $35,000 12/31/2013Congressional Black Caucus Foundation Congressional Black Caucus Foundation $32,378 12/31/2013Center for Democracy & Technology Center for Democracy & Technology $31,000 12/31/2013CBC Political Education & Leadership Institute $30,000 12/31/2013Institute for policy innovation $30,000 12/31/2013Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute $28,600 12/31/2013NewBay Media NewBay Media $28,100 12/31/2013The media institute $26,330 12/31/2013America's Promise $25,000 12/31/2013Citizens Against Government Waste Citizens Against Government Waste $25,000 12/31/2013Faith & Politics Institute Faith & Politics Institute $25,000 12/31/2013International Center for Law & Economics International Center for Law & Economics $25,000 12/31/2013League of Rural Voters League of Rural Voters $25,000 12/31/2013Lulac institute LULAC Institute $25,000 12/31/2013National Urban League National Urban League $25,000 12/31/2013Rutgers University Foundation Rutgers University Foundation $25,000 12/31/2013TECHFREEDOM TechFreedom $25,000 12/31/2013Third Way: Strategy Ctr for Progressives $25,000 12/31/2013Year Up $23,200 12/31/2013League of United Latin American Citizens $23,000 12/31/2013T Howard Foundation $23,000 12/31/2013United Jewish Appeal Federation/New York $23,000 12/31/2013Center for Individual Freedom $20,000 12/31/2013National Black Chamber of Commerce $20,000 12/31/2013Namic Inc $19,500 12/31/2013National black caucus of state legislators $18,200 12/31/2013national conference of state legislatures $18,000 12/31/2013Cable center $17,500 12/31/2013Fight For Children $17,250 12/31/2013Alliance for women in media foundation $17,100 12/31/2013Discovery Institute $15,000 12/31/2013Madery Bridge Associates LLC $15,000 12/31/2013National Congress of Black Women $15,000 12/31/2013National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce $15,000 12/31/2013National hispanic caucus of state legislators $15,000 12/31/2013State Policy Network $15,000 12/31/2013Tracy's Kids $15,000 12/31/2013National Puerto Rican Coalition $14,650 12/31/2013Philip Randolph Institute $14,500 12/31/2013Alliance for Women in Media $13,500 12/31/2013National Conference of State Legislatures Fdtn $12,500 12/31/2013NAMIC Mid-Atlantic Inc $10,600 12/31/2013American commitment $10,000 12/31/2013Breast Cancer Connections $10,000 12/31/2013Citizenship Education Fund $10,000 12/31/2013Cnc Inc $10,000 12/31/2013Common Sense Media $10,000 12/31/2013Emma L Bowen Foundation $10,000 12/31/2013Internet Society $10,000 12/31/2013Latin council for latin american advancement $10,000 12/31/2013Minority Business Roundtable $10,000 12/31/2013N Street Village $10,000 12/31/2013The taxpayers protection Alliance $10,000 12/31/2013US Hispanic Chamber of Commerce $10,000 12/31/2013Washington Bach Consort $10,000 12/31/2013Asian American Justice Center $9,740 12/31/2013Susan G Komen Breast Cancer Foundation $9,010 12/31/2013Competitive Enterprise Institute $9,000 12/31/2013Global Down Syndrome Foundation $8,840 12/31/2013National Coalition for Cancer Survivorship $8,830 12/31/2013Leadership Conference on Civil & Human Rights $8,750 12/31/2013National Assn of Broadcasters Education $8,700 12/31/2013Howard Theatre Restoration $7,500 12/31/2013March of Dimes Birth Defects Foundation $6,808 12/31/2013Alvin Ailey Dance Foundation $6,254 12/31/2013National press foundation $5,050 12/31/2013"Filing end date" refers to the last date included in the IRS Form 990 report covering an organization's fiscal year. A group's fiscal year may or may not correspond to a calendar year.
Feel free to distribute or cite this material, but please credit OpenSecrets. For permission to reprint for commercial uses, such as textbooks, contact OpenSecrets: info@crp.org===

</div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>