FCC votes to dismantle net neutrality as critics cry 'war on open internet'

Federal Communications Commission will start formal process of repealing Obama-era rule that banned internet service providers from creating fast lanes

Go to Original
By Dominic Rushe

Donald Trump’s newly installed media and telecoms regulator moved to repeal Obama-era rules aimed at protecting an open internet on Thursday, the most serious move to date in what looks set to be a hard fight over the future of the internet.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC), led by chairman Ajit Pai, voted two to one to start the formal process of dismantling “net neutrality” rules put in place in 2015.

Those rules banned internet service providers (ISPs) from creating fast lanes (or slow lanes) that could favour one service over another and potentially allow them to choose winners and losers online. Critics say the rules could kill a new or existing streaming service and that free speech would be at the mercy of broadband providers.

“Today’s notice is the start of a new chapter in the public discussion about how we can best maintain a free and open internet while making sure that ISPs have strong incentives to bring next-generation networks and services to all Americans,” said Pai.

But the Writers Guild of America called the move a “war on the open internet”.

The Obama-era ruling came after a massive campaign by online activists who successfully saw off the lobbying might of the US’s largest cable companies. A similar battle will now ensue as the month’s long process of reviewing the rules begins. At the end of the review a final FCC vote will decide the future of internet regulation; court challenges are inevitable whatever the result.

Gigi Sohn , distinguished fellow at the Georgetown Law Institute for Technology Law & Policy and Counselor to former FCC chairman Tom Wheeler, said: “Today the Trump FCC begins its dismantling of the internet rules that protect American consumers on behalf of the few huge companies that control their access to the internet. Net Neutrality rules ensure that consumers can control what they say and do online, but chairman Pai prefers to give that control instead to Comcast, AT&T, Charter and Verizon. That is an outcome that no American wants regardless of party or ideology.”

After comedian Jon Oliver, a staunch defender of net neutrality, highlighted Pai’s intentions earlier this month, the FCC’s website crashed losing an unknown number of public comments on the potential repeal.

The regulator has claimed it was attacked by hackers but has yet to release any evidence supporting that claim. The FCC’s site also seems to have been flooded by fake, often identical, comments in support of repeal.

Fight for the Future, an internet activist group, has called for an investigation into the situation. “State attorneys general should immediate investigate whether people in their state were affected by this, and the FCC should immediately release any and all information that it has about who is submitting these fake comments,” said Evan Greer, campaign director of Fight for the Future.

Pai’s move was cheered by major broadband providers who have celebrated the new FCC chairman’s pledge to take a “weed whacker” to the net neutrality rules and replace them with “light touch” regulation. “We applaud chairman Pai and commissioner Michael O’Rielly for remaining focussed on creating light touch regulatory environment that is pro-consumer, pro-investment, and pro-innovation, especially with the present partisan political rhetoric and debate,” said David Cohen, Comcast’s senior executive vice-president.

Trump Administration to Raid Public Ed to Fund School Choice Programs

With key K-12 and higher ed programs on the chopping block, education advocate Diane Ravitch declares: "Don't agonize. Organize."

Go to Original
By Deirdre Fulton

The Trump administration is preparing to unveil a sweeping school choice plan that would be prioritized at the expense of student aid and debt relief as well as public education programs that help low-income children, according to news reports. 

Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, a wealthy philanthropist who lobbied for voucher programs and charter schools before being tapped to lead the nation's K-12 and higher education systems, will reportedly announce the school choice proposal Monday at an Indianapolis summit hosted by the conservative group she formerly chaired, the American Federation for Children. 

According to Politico, which cited multiple anonymous sources, DeVos "is believed to be preparing to unveil an education tax credit scholarship proposal, which the Trump administration has been considering for some time."

"What DeVos is expected to outline," the outlet reported, "could look different than a bill pushed by Republicans Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida and Rep. Todd Rokita of Indiana. If passed by Congress, the proposal could channel billions of public dollars to working class families to help them pay for private schools, including religious schools."

As for where those billions would come from, Politico adds:

A federal plan could award tax credits to individuals, corporations, or both, in exchange for their donations to those organizations. It could be part of a larger tax reform bill and pass through the budget reconciliation process with only 51 votes in the Senate. That said, it's unclear how the Trump administration's ability to accomplish tax reform—or other policy priorities, for that matter—may be affected by the scandals engulfing the White House.

More money could come from implementing devastating cuts to other federal education programs. The Washington Post reported Wednesday that the budget proposal President Donald Trump is expected to unroll next week includes $1.4 billion for school choice programs, while it slashes in other areas. 

All told, Trump's budget would cut about $9.2 billion, or 13.6 percent, from the Education Department. Some programs would be eliminated entirely. 

"Gone, for example, would be $1.2 billion for after-school programs that serve 1.6 million children, most of whom are poor, and $2.1 billion for teacher training and class-size reduction," the Post reports. 

Also on the chopping block, according to the document seen by the Post:

• a $15 million program that provides child care for low-income parents in college;
• a $27 million arts education program;
• two programs targeting Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian students, totaling $65 million;
• two international education and foreign language programs, $72 million;
• a $12 million program for gifted students; and
• $12 million for Special Olympics education programs.

Education Week further reports that the budget proposal "would also entirely eliminate funding for a block grant intended to help programs providing well-rounded education to students and cover things like health and education technology." 

Ally Bernstein, a spokeswoman for a coalition of organizations pushing for funding for that grant, told Education Week: "If these leaked details of the administration's [budget proposal] are accurate, they demonstrate clearly that school choice is the administration's sole vision for K-12 education."

Advocacy group Education Votes was urging constituents to call their lawmakers to protest the proposed cuts:

Education Votes‏Verified account @edvotes

1.6m students could lose after-school programs. Call today to reject the #budget: http://bit.ly/2qixOxZ  #EdFunding

Also revealed in the Post's reporting are sharp cuts to student aid, work-study, and debt relief programs: "The spending proposal would maintain funding for Pell Grants for students in financial need, but it would eliminate more than $700 million in Perkins loans for disadvantaged students; nearly halve the work-study program that helps students work their way through school, cutting $490 million; take a first step toward ending subsidized loans, for which the government pays interest while the borrower is in school; and end loan forgiveness for public servants."

Jordan Weissmann reported for Slate: 

Under the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program, which the administration's budget would reportedly kill off, student borrowers can currently have their debts erased if they spend 10 years working for a government or nonprofit employer. The program was created in 2007 in order to encourage more Americans to go into public service, but has become more controversial as some have criticized it as a back-door subsidy for expensive graduate degrees—the people who have signed up for so far tend to have high loan balances more typical of someone who went on to get a master's or a J.D. rather than a mere bachelor's. In 2015, the Obama administration proposed capping the amount of debt that could be forgiven at the federal loan limit for undergraduates, or $57,500. But Trump and his education secretary Betsy DeVos would go a step further by eliminating it entirely. As the Post notes, it is unclear what that would mean for borrowers currently working their way toward forgiveness.

The White House also reportedly wants to make some major changes to the Department of Education's income-based repayment options, which cap monthly payments as a percentage of a borrower's income. The tweaks would essentially help undergraduate borrowers at the expense of graduate students. 

Under the current version of income-based repayment, borrowers are expected to pay 10 percent of their disposable income toward their loan balance, which is forgiven after 20 years for people who borrowed for a bachelor's degree, or 25 years for those who borrowed for an advanced degree. Under Trump's plan, borrowers would pay 12.5 percent of their income for 15 years if they borrowed for undergrad or for 30 years if they borrowed for grad school.

That's why, as Ben Miller, senior director for postsecondary education at the Center for American Progress, told the Post for a separate story: "For grad students, this is a lousy deal. Thirty years is like a mortgage."

Responding to this week's reporting, public education advocate and historian Diane Ravitch advised her readers: "Don't agonize. Organize."

"Be active in the fight against these cuts," Ravitch wrote Thursday. "Be active in the resistance to privatization and the Trump administration's indifference/hostility to public schools."

"Frickin' Illegal": Congressman Says Trump Has No Authority for Latest Bombing

"Trump does not have Congressional authorization to attack Syria, a country that has not attacked US," says Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif)

Go to Original
By Jon Queally

In the wake of news that the U.S. military bombed forces allied with the Syrian government of President Bashar al-Assad on Thursday, at least one member of Congress is voicing dissent by saying President Donald Trump has no legal authority to order such attacks.

"The situation that led to today's strike is precisely why I warned against getting further entangled in the Syrian civil war without a clear strategy." 
—Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.)"For the second time in as many months, the U.S. military has conducted airstrikes against pro-Assad forces in Syria," said Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.). "The Trump Administration does not have congressional authorization to carry out military strikes against the Assad regime. Furthermore, the situation that led to today's strike is precisely why I warned against getting further entangled in the Syrian civil war without a clear strategy."

In a previous tweet, Lieu called the bombing "frickin' illegal."

Ted Lieu‏Verified account @tedlieu

Ted Lieu Retweeted Mike Giglio

If true, this is FRICKIN ILLEGAL. Trump does not have Congressional authorization to attack Syria, a country that has not attacked US.

And further explained:

Ted Lieu‏Verified account @tedlieu

Ted Lieu Retweeted Matt Fuller

Congress authorized President to use force in 2 cases: terrorists & Iraq. @realDonaldTrump has NO AUTHORIZATION to attack Syrian regime.

Phyllis Bennis, director of the New Internationalism Project at the Institute for Policy Studies, thinks the congressman is right on target.

"Rep. Lieu is absolutely right," Bennis told Common Dreams in an email, "today’s airstrikes against Syrian government forces were 'frickin’ illegal.'  They violate both international and US domestic law."

It's important to note, Bennis added, that is violation is nothing  this is nothing new when it comes to U.S. policy.

"The entire U.S. military operation in Syria is violating domestic and international law," she explained. "Internationally, the use of military force by one nation against another country is only legal if it's approved by the UN Security Council, which this wasn't, or in case of immediate self-defense if an armed attack occurs, which it didn't. Under U.S. law, the War Powers Act governs if and when a president can send troops into harms way—and that's actually a pretty high bar. Only if Congress declares war, which they didn't (and in fact haven’t since World War II), or if Congress authorizes the attack, which they didn't, or in immediate response to a military attack."

Based on what's known at this point, said Bennis, none of those criteria were met in this case. Even though everyone knows that U.S. troops are operating inside Syria, she explained, they are not there in a sanctioned or legal way. "So even a threatened attack on them does not make their presence or airstrikes to support them legal," she argued.

According to statements from U.S. officials to various news outlets, Thursday's bombing by U.S. forces took place near the town of al-Tanf, inside the so-called "deconfliction zone" in the south near the border with Iraq and Jordan. Reporters were told the airstrike was conducted because militia forces allied with the Syrian army and backed by Iran were moving towards rebel groups backed by the United States.

With U.S. Special Forces actively training anti-Assad rebels at a military base near al-Tanf, that is the likely reference of U.S. "entanglement" made by Lieu in his statement. And while both Trump and President Barack Obama before him have relied on the Authorization of Military Force (AUMF) decrees approved by Congress in the wake of the attacks on September 11, 2001, few legal or military experts believe that authorization should apply to fighting against anyone the president determines is an enemy.

"Congress can no longer sit on its hands and allow this administration or any other to send US military power—troops, planes, bombs, airstrikes, drones and more—against people and countries across the globe without its permission." 
—Phyllis Bennis, Institute for Policy Studies"Claiming reliance on the worn-out and over-used AUMF passed immediately after the 9/11 attacks should be explicitly rejected," said Bennis. "That AUMF was limited to authorizing attacks on those who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks and those who support them – meaning al Qaeda and the Taliban. Period, full stop.  Claiming that that moldy 16-year-old document somehow also allows the president to order attacks on organizations like ISIS that didn’t even exist in 2001 and that are in fact fighting against al Qaeda, let alone allowing attacks on the military forces of a government, however brutal in its own country, that the US has not declared war on, is simply unacceptable." 

Along with other lawmakers and Middle East experts who have repeatedly warned against escalation in Syria, or the foolishness of further injecting the U.S. military into the nation's brutal and protracted civil war, Lieu said that Trump must make clear his intentions regarding Syria. In April, critics slammed Trump for launching a cruise missile attack on a Syrian air base after exposure to chemical agents killed dozens of civilians near the northern town of Idlib. 

According to Lieu on Thursday, "President Trump needs to explain his plan for Syria to Congress and the American people."

For her part, Bennis believes that it's past time for other members of Congress to take a tougher stance when it comes to war-making.

"Congress can no longer sit on its hands and allow this administration or any other to send US military power—troops, planes, bombs, airstrikes, drones and more—against people and countries across the globe without its permission," Bennis concluded. "Congress must be held accountable to enforce its own powers – no one else will."

New ferry links North Korea and Russia despite U.S. calls for isolation

Go to Original
By Valeria Fedorenko

A new ferry between isolated North Korea and Russia docked for the first time at the Pacific port of Vladivostok on Thursday, in spite of U.S. calls for countries to curtail relations with Pyongyang over its nuclear and missile programs.

The launch of the weekly service linking Vladivostok and the North Korean port of Rajin also came despite North Korea's test-firing of a new type of ballistic missile on Sunday that landed in the sea near Russia. [nL4N1IF09K]

The ferry's Russian operators say it is purely a commercial venture, but the service's launch coincides with what some experts say is a drive by North Korea to build ties with Moscow in case its closest ally China turns its back.

The service is pitched at Chinese tourists wanting to travel by sea to the Pacific port of Vladivostok, according to the operators.

China has no ports on the Sea of Japan, so traveling to North Korea and on to Vladivostok is the quickest way of reaching Vladivostok by sea.

"It's our business, of our company, without any state subsidies, involvement and help," Mikhail Khmel, the deputy director of Investstroytrest, the Russia firm operating the ferry, told reporters.

The new ferry link comes in spite of recent calls by U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson for countries to fully implement U.N. sanctions and review their ties with North Korea to pressure it to give up its weapons programs.

"We call on all nations to fully implement U.N. Security Council Resolutions, and sever or downgrade diplomatic and commercial relations with North Korea," a spokeswoman for the U.S. State Department, Katina Adams, said when asked about the new ferry service.

Adams noted Russia's "obligation" under U.N. Security Council resolutions, "to inspect all cargo, including personal luggage, of any individual traveling to or from" North Korea.

Journalists were unable to see passengers disembarking from the North Korean-flagged vessel Mangyongbong at Vladivostok because Russian officials kept them away from the quayside, citing unspecified security reasons.

But Reuters television was able to speak to three passengers, who said they were representatives of Chinese tourism agencies.

One of the passengers showed a photograph on her smartphone she said had been taken on board. It showed a plaque with an inscription in Korean which, she said, bore the name of North Korea's long-dead founder Kim Il Sung.

The United States has been discussing possible new U.N. sanctions on North Korea with China, which disapproves of North Korea's development of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles to deliver them, but remains its main trading partner.

Washington is looking to toughen U.N. sanctions to cut off Pyongyang's sources of funding and to block smuggling of materials needed for its weapons programs.

Russia, especially the port of Vladivostok, is home to one of the largest overseas communities of North Koreans, who send home much-needed hard currency.

To date, there are no signs of a sustainable increase in trade between Russia and North Korea, but Russia has taken a more benign stance toward Pyongyang that other major powers.

Speaking in Beijing this week, Russian President Vladimir Putin said Moscow was against North Korea's nuclear program, but that the world should talk to Pyongyang instead of threatening it. [nL8N1IH3D8]

Asked about the ferry, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said on Thursday she "didn't see a connection" between the new service and political issues.

Trump campaign had at least 18 undisclosed contacts with Russians: sources

Go to Original
By Ned Parker, Jonathan Landay and Warren Strobel

Michael Flynn and other advisers to Donald Trump’s campaign were in contact with Russian officials and others with Kremlin ties in at least 18 calls and emails during the last seven months of the 2016 presidential race, current and former U.S. officials familiar with the exchanges told Reuters.

The previously undisclosed interactions form part of the record now being reviewed by FBI and congressional investigators probing Russian interference in the U.S. presidential election and contacts between Trump’s campaign and Russia.

Six of the previously undisclosed contacts described to Reuters were phone calls between Sergei Kislyak, Russia's ambassador to the United States, and Trump advisers, including Flynn, Trump’s first national security adviser, three current and former officials said.

Conversations between Flynn and Kislyak accelerated after the Nov. 8 vote as the two discussed establishing a back channel for communication between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin that could bypass the U.S. national security bureaucracy, which both sides considered hostile to improved relations, four current U.S. officials said.

In January, the Trump White House initially denied any contacts with Russian officials during the 2016 campaign. The White House and advisers to the campaign have since confirmed four meetings between Kislyak and Trump advisers during that time.

The people who described the contacts to Reuters said they had seen no evidence of wrongdoing or collusion between the campaign and Russia in the communications reviewed so far. But the disclosure could increase the pressure on Trump and his aides to provide the FBI and Congress with a full account of interactions with Russian officials and others with links to the Kremlin during and immediately after the 2016 election.

The White House did not respond to requests for comment. Flynn's lawyer declined to comment. In Moscow, a Russian foreign ministry official declined to comment on the contacts and referred Reuters to the Trump administration.

Separately, a spokesman for the Russian embassy in Washington said: “We do not comment on our daily contacts with the local interlocutors.”

The 18 calls and electronic messages took place between April and November 2016 as hackers engaged in what U.S. intelligence concluded in January was part of a Kremlin campaign to discredit the vote and influence the outcome of the election in favor of Trump over his Democratic challenger, former secretary of state Hillary Clinton.

Those discussions focused on mending U.S.-Russian economic relations strained by sanctions imposed on Moscow, cooperating in fighting Islamic State in Syria and containing a more assertive China, the sources said.

Members of the Senate and House intelligence committees have gone to the CIA and the National Security Agency to review transcripts and other documents related to contacts between Trump campaign advisers and associates and Russian officials and others with links to Putin, people with knowledge of those investigations told Reuters.

The U.S. Justice Department said on Wednesday it had appointed former FBI Director Robert Mueller as special counsel to investigate alleged Russian meddling in the U.S. presidential campaign and possible collusion between Trump’s campaign and Russia. Mueller will now take charge of the FBI investigation that began last July. Trump and his aides have repeatedly denied any collusion with Russia.

'IT'S RARE'

In addition to the six phone calls involving Kislyak, the communications described to Reuters involved another 12 calls, emails or text messages between Russian officials or people considered to be close to Putin and Trump campaign advisers.

One of those contacts was by Viktor Medvedchuk, a Ukrainian oligarch and politician, according to one person with detailed knowledge of the exchange and two others familiar with the issue.

It was not clear with whom Medvedchuk was in contact within the Trump campaign but the themes included U.S.-Russia cooperation, the sources said. Putin is godfather to Medvedchuk’s daughter.

Medvedchuk denied having any contact with anyone in the Trump campaign.

"I am not acquainted with any of Donald Trump's close associates, therefore no such conversation could have taken place," he said in an email to Reuters.

In the conversations during the campaign, Russian officials emphasized a pragmatic, business-style approach and stressed to Trump associates that they could make deals by focusing on common economic and other interests and leaving contentious issues aside, the sources said.

Veterans of previous election campaigns said some contact with foreign officials during a campaign was not unusual, but the number of interactions between Trump aides and Russian officials and others with links to Putin was exceptional.

“It’s rare to have that many phone calls to foreign officials, especially to a country we consider an adversary or a hostile power,” Richard Armitage, a Republican and former deputy secretary of state, told Reuters.

FLYNN FIRED

Beyond Medvedchuk and Kislyak, the identities of the other Putin-linked participants in the contacts remain classified and the names of Trump advisers other than Flynn have been “masked” in intelligence reports on the contacts because of legal protections on their privacy as American citizens. However, officials can request that they be revealed for intelligence purposes.

U.S. and allied intelligence and law enforcement agencies routinely monitor communications and movements of Russian officials.

After Vice President Mike Pence and others had denied in January that Trump campaign representatives had any contact with Russian officials, the White House later confirmed that Kislyak had met twice with then-Senator Jeff Sessions, who later became attorney general.

Kislyak also attended an event in April where Trump said he would seek better relations with Russia. Senior White House adviser Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law, also attended that event in Washington. In addition, Kislyak met with two other Trump campaign advisers in July on the sidelines of the Republican convention.

Trump fired Flynn in February after it became clear that he had falsely characterized the nature of phone conversations with Kislyak in late December - after the Nov. 8 election and just after the Obama administration announced new sanctions on Russia. Flynn offered to testify to Congress in return for immunity from prosecution but his offer was turned down by the House intelligence committee.

Trump turns US into a ‘geopolitical wildcard’

Vladimir Putin’s “wait and see” approach is unlikely to last

Go to Original
By JOHAN NYLANDER

President Donald Trump’s unpredictability in foreign affairs has turned the US into a “geopolitical wildcard,” a new global risk report warned Friday.

Foreign policy impulsiveness has been a hallmark of the Trump administration since taking office last year, which in many respects has turned global politics into a guessing-game, UK-based risk and strategic consulting firm Verisk Maplecroft said in its latest Geopolitical Risk Outlook.

The volatile behavior was reflected in the bombing of the Shayrat Airbase in Syria, the firm said. The act caused alarm in Moscow and left the Kremlin unable to project how Washington will act.

Verisk Maplecroft said it was unlikely that Russian President Vladimir Putin’s wait-and-see approach on Syria would last much longer, and that “Moscow can be expected to revert to type and test Trump’s resolve in the foreign policy arena before long.”

However, Trump has made less hodgepodge on the global arena than was initially expected, the report added.

For example, he has backtracked on China being a currency manipulator, while reforms of the Nafta free-trade agreement have been less radical than initially envisaged.

Disruption to global trade – a central concern before Trump took office – has not yet materialized.

The risk outlook also advised on indirect collateral damage of US policy in the Middle East and on emerging markets. Washington’s tighter monetary policy will hurt emerging nations relying on US dollars to fund trade and investment, while Trump’s America First energy policy is turning up the heat on Middle East oil producers.

“The unpredictability of Trump in the foreign policy arena and his flexible approach to US engagement has become a geopolitical wildcard”, the report said.

“Despite the restraint shown on international trade, Trump’s unpredictability in foreign affairs leaves allies and traditional adversaries guessing.”