Telecommunications outages in western Myanmar’s embattled Rakhine state have persisted for nearly 100 days, impinging on its more than 3 million residents' right to information and livelihoods, sources in the region said Wednesday.

The blackouts have affected all 14 townships occupied by the rebel Arakan Army, or AA, in Rakhine, sources said, as well as AA-occupied Paletwa township in neighboring Chin state, and the Rakhine townships of Kyaukphyu, Munaung and parts of Sittwe, which have been under the control of the military junta since its February 2021 coup d’etat.

The AA cut off both telephone and internet access in its territories beginning Nov. 16, 2024, and a source close to the rebel group told RFA Burmese that the outages are “to prevent airstrikes, because there are junta informants” there. He offered no evidence to support his claim.

The junta implemented blackouts in its Rakhine territories shortly after the AA attacked military positions in the state in November 2023, ending a year-long ceasefire.

Attempts by RFA to reach Khaing Thukha, the AA spokesperson, for comment went unanswered Wednesday, as did calls to Hla Thein, the junta’s spokesperson and state attorney general in Rakhine state.

(Sai Aung Main/AFP)

Residents said that, in addition to affecting their livelihoods, the blackouts have made communicating with family members a challenge.

“Separated across different areas, we can’t communicate with our families or close relatives,” said one Rakhine resident who, like others interviewed for this report, spoke on condition of anonymity due to security concerns.

He noted that transportation is difficult and travel expenses are high, so meeting in person is also off the table.

“Our family members [in other parts of Rakhine state] don’t know what is happening to us here,” he said. “We are also deeply worried when we hear that the junta has carried out aerial strikes in areas where our family members live.”

RELATED STORIES

Northern Myanmar cut off by state-wide communications blackout

Daily blackouts in Myanmar disrupt livelihoods of rural, urban dwellers

UN calls for Myanmar to end internet blackout in Rakhine state

Other residents said that fighters with the AA and other allied rebel groups have access to the internet via the satellite service Starlink.

Several said that they need to travel “miles” in order to access a working telephone.

Communicating from abroad

Many people from Rakhine state, an underdeveloped area of Myanmar, choose to work abroad to earn a living and send money home to help their families.

But a resident of Rakhine who is working in Thailand told RFA that the lack of phone and internet connections has made it nearly impossible for her to send money home.

“I can’t even communicate with my children, who are still in the village, and as a mother, I constantly worry about them,” she said. “I also have parents and siblings, and I want to know if they are safe and how they manage to make a living. Not being able to reach them fills me with anxiety.”

The woman, who also declined to be named, said it had been “more than two months” since she last had contact with her family members in Rakhine.

Journalists in Rakhine told RFA that while the AA has allowed them to access the internet using Starlink, they can only do so for five hours a day, limiting their ability to report news from the region.

Translated by Aung Naing. Edited by Joshua Lipes and Malcolm Foster.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by RFA Burmese.

A Vietnamese government restructuring proposal includes the shifting of authority over state-owned MobiFone –- the country’s third-largest telecommunications provider –- to the Ministry of Public Security.

Such a move could allow the ministry to easily obtain personal information for police investigations, several commentators on Radio Free Asia’s Facebook page said this week.

Those fears are partly based on the government’s recent efforts to tighten control on what can be posted on global internet sites such as YouTube.

A decree in November requires cross-border social media operators such as Meta’s Facebook and Alphabet’s Google to authenticate accounts by requiring Vietnamese users to provide a mobile phone or personal identification number.

Vietnamese authorities can demand access to that information. The decree raised concerns about the government’s growing use of the law to crack down on freedom of expression.

Why is Vietnam streamlining its government?

General Secretary To Lam announced the ambitious state restructuring in December. The plan includes the elimination of parliamentary committees, the shuttering of government offices and party committees and the closure or consolidation of five of 21 ministries, according to state media. The number of civil servants is expected to be reduced by a fifth.

To Lam’s goal is to complete the plan before the next Communist Party of Vietnam National Congress, planned for early 2026, according to Carl Thayer, a veteran Vietnam watcher and emeritus professor at the University of New South Wales in Canberra, Australia. The Congress is expected to decide whether to elect him to a full term at that time.

(Minh Hoang/AP)

To Lam was named to the most powerful position in the country in August following the death of his predecessor. He told state media at the time that large national institutions like the government must change before Vietnam can become a wealthy, democratic, just and civilized country.

The restructuring aligns with the party’s goal of transforming Vietnam into a high middle-income country with modernized industries by 2030 and a developed, high-income nation by 2045, Thayer said.

To Lam also pledged in August to build a strong Communist Party of Vietnam, according to state media.

Why would the Ministry of Public Security be given authority over MobiFone ?

In 2016, MobiFone acquired 95 percent of Audio Visual Global JSC, or AVG, a privately run company that provided a paid television service. MobiFone intended to rebrand the television service to “MobiTV.”

A follow-up police investigation found that more than US$3 million in bribes were paid to the then-minister of information and a top deputy to approve the sale without seeking proper permission from the Ministry of Public Security.

The Vietnam Government Inspectorate later found that AVG was in poor financial condition. The sale was nullified, resulting in the loss of more than US$300 million to the state budget.

To Lam, who was a top deputy at the Ministry of Public Security at the time, is believed to have been involved in the signing of official documents in late 2015 that paved the way for the deal.

One document affirmed that the agreement complied with existing laws and regulations and stated that the sale price was reasonable. The document was classified as secret. Another document signed by To Lam in March 2015 was also classified as secret and directed the Ministry of Information to prohibit media organizations from reporting on the sale.

To Lam was never charged or implicated in the investigation, which resulted in long prison terms for the two Ministry of Information officials. His recent rise to the top of Vietnam’s leadership came amid an anti-corruption campaign that saw eight members of the Politburo resign between December 2022 and May 2024.

MobiFone remains profitable, which could benefit the Ministry of Public Security and help strengthen To Lam’s continued influence within the police force.

Will MobiFone users stay with its cellphone service?

A Hanoi lawyer who has used MobiFone’s cellphone plans for five years said he was concerned that the Ministry of Public Security “could directly access user databases” -– something that could “undermine the privacy and security of customers’ personal data,” he said.

“They could monitor users without their knowledge,” he told RFA, requesting anonymity for personal reasons.

RELATED STORIES

To Lam elected as Vietnam’s top leader

Vietnamese Former Trade Official Targeted for Arrest in Corruption Probe

Former Vietnamese Government Minister Draws Life Term in Corruption Case

Le Hong Phong, a security guard in Hanoi, said he has been using MobiFone for over 20 years but would switch providers immediately if it is officially transferred to the Ministry of Public Security because he doesn’t police to use “users’ information against themselves.”

But one commentator on RFA’s Facebook page said this week that if people don’t break the law, they shouldn’t be worried about government monitoring.

“If I don’t break the law and live by it, why should I be afraid of using MobiFone’s service?” said the commentator whose user name was listed as T.V.

Another Facebook commentator, X.L., noted that other mobile networks in Vietnam are also assumed to include some kind of government surveillance of private data.

“Every provider requires users to register with their names and take photos of their faces and IDs,” he said. “Things are fully monitored.”

Translated by Anna Vu. Edited by Matt Reed.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by RFA Vietnamese.

The following is a statement from Demand Progress Senior Campaigner Joey DeFrancesco:

“Americans want an open and free internet, while Big Telecom and the Trump administration want to gate off the internet for the highest bidder, and the courts just sided with them. This ruling is a blatant giveaway to Big Telecom and an ominous sign that the courts and the Trump administration are gearing up to sign away not just the internet, but also anything else they can to corporate interests.”

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Newswire Editor.

“Haitian authorities should reverse their suspension of the Radio Mega show ‘Boukante Lapawòl’ (Exchange of Words) and refrain from further interfering with the free flow of information,” said CPJ U.S., Canada and Caribbean Program Coordinator Katherine Jacobsen in Washington, D.C. “Haitian authorities would do well to focus on restoring order in the country, rather than accusing journalists of spreading propaganda.” 

The suspension was imposed on November 22 after a wanted Haitian gang leader, Jimmy ‘Barbecue’ Cherizier, called into the show the night before to denounce alleged public corruption, claiming that he was offered a large bribe by a member of the ruling Presidential Transition Council to negotiate peace with the gangs. It was the second time in several weeks that Cherizier had called into the show without prior arrangement, said Radio Mega’s owner, veteran journalist Alex Saint-Surin.

CONATEL cited a 1977 decree in issuing the suspension without giving Radio Mega the opportunity to explain the incident or defend itself legally.  

“Notorious leaders have benefited greatly from airtime, spreading messages of hatred and terror against society,” CONATEL said in a letter to the station.

CONATEL did not immediately reply to an inquiry from CPJ, but a government spokesman told CPJ in a WhatsApp message that Radio Mega had lent its airwaves to Cherizier’s “propaganda,” adding that Haiti was “weak state” struggling to defend itself from Viv Ansamn, a heavily armed gang coalition led by Cherizier.

Cherizier has called on the council to resign and launched a series of deadly attacks in recent days targeting the prime minister’s office and other government buildings. Armed members of Viv Ansamn control large parts of the capital using tactics such as rape, murder, child recruitment and kidnapping to terrorize the population over the last nine months, according to the United Nations.

The Haitian media support group, SOS Journalistes, rejected CONATEL’s accusations against Radio Mega, saying that “Boukante Lapawòl has never served as a propaganda platform for gangs.” 

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by CPJ Staff.

“Taliban officials must immediately reverse their decision to suspend the broadcast licenses of 14 active media outlets in Nangarhar province that collectively reach millions of people,” said Beh Lih Yi, CPJ Asia program coordinator. “The Taliban continues to exert pressure on media outlets to control their programming and broadcasting operations in Afghanistan. They must cease these tactics and allow the independent media to operate freely.”

The order also stipulated that the outlets must renew their licenses and pay any outstanding fees or risk having all the outlet’s licenses revoked, according to CPJ’s review of the order, the exiled Afghanistan Journalists Center watchdog group, and a journalist who spoke to CPJ on the condition of anonymity. 

ATRA is a regulatory body that operates as part of the Taliban’s Ministry of Communications and Information Technology.

Outlets with suspended radio and TV licenses: 

• Hamisha Bahar Radio and TV
• Sharq 
• Arzasht 

Radio networks affected: 

• The Nan
• Radio Safa
• Meena 
• Radio Dost
• Mazal
• Manar
• Muram
• Haqiqat 
• Hood 
• Spinghar
• Ulfat

CPJ’s text messages to Taliban spokesperson Zabihullah Mujahid for comment did not receive a reply.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Committee to Protect Journalists.

Furthermore: the U.S. Government began in 1948 its many dozens of coups (starting with Thailand in that year) to overthrow the leaders of its targeted-for-takeover countries, and its replacement of those by U.S.-chosen dictators. Ever since 25 July 1945, the U.S. Government has been aiming to take control over the entire world — to create the world’s first-ever all-encompassing global empire.

Cold War Two is the years when Russia had ended its side of the Cold War in 1991 while the U.S. secretly has continued its side of the Cold War. This deceit by America was done during the start of Russia’s Yeltsin years, when the G.H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton Administrations sent the Harvard economics department into Russia to teach Yeltsin’s people how to become capitalists by partnering U.S. billionaires with whomever Russia would privatize its assets to, and so created an incredibly corrupt economy there, which would be dependent upon decisions by America’s billionaires — Russia was then in the process of becoming the U.S. Government’s biggest colony or ‘ally’ after it would be trapped fully in the thrall of America’s billionaires, which was the U.S. regime’s objective. Then, while getting its claws into Russia’s Government that way, Clinton lowered the boom against Russia, by blatantly violating the promises that Bush’s team had made (but which violation by Bush’s successors had been planned by Bush — Bush secretly told his stooges (Kohl, Mitterand, etc.) that the promises he had told them to make to Gorbachev, that NATO wouldn’t expand toward Russia, were to be lies) to Gorbachev, and that NATO actually would expand toward Russia and would exclude Russia from ever being considered as a possible NATO member-nation (i.e., Russia wasn’t to be another vassal nation, but instead a conquered nation, to be exploited by the entire U.S. empire). The expansion of America’s NATO toward Russia was begun by Clinton — on 12 March 1999 near the end of his Presidency — bringing Czechia, Hungary, and Poland, into NATO, blatantly in violation of what Bush’s team had promised to Gorbachev’s team.

Russia’s top leadership now knew that America’s top leadership intended to conquer Russia, not merely for Russia to become yet another vassal-nation in the U.S. empire; and, so, Yeltsin resigned as President on 31 December 1999, and passed the nation’s leadership (and Russia’s then seemingly insuperable problems from it) to Russia’s Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, who promptly began to clean house and to inform Russia’s billionaires that either they would do what he asks them to do, or else he would make sure that Russia would pursue whatever legal means were then available in order to get them into compliance with Russia’s tax-laws and other laws, so as for them not to continue to rip-off the Russian nation (as they had been doing). Even the post-2012 solidly neoconservative British newspaper Guardian headlined on 6 March 2022 “How London became the place to be for Putin’s oligarchs” and touched upon the surface of the escape of “Russian oligarchs” to London (and elsewhere in America’s EU-NATO portion of the U.S. empire), but their article didn’t mention the worst cases, such as Mikhail Khordorkovsky, Boris Berezovsky, and Vladimir Gusinsky. Each of these were individuals who had absconded with billions in Russia’s wealth. (I previously posted to the Web my “Private Investigations Find America’s Magnitsky Act to Be Based on Frauds”, presenting in-depth the case of the American-in-Russia financial operator Bill Browder’s theft of $232 million from Russia, and documenting Browder’s lies on the basis of which President Obama got passed in the U.S. Congress the Magnitsky Act protecting Browder and sanctioning Russia on fake charges that were cooked up by Browder and by the billionaire George Soros’s ’non-profits’. Not all of the American skimmers from Russia were billionaires; some, such as Browder, weren’t that big. But their shared target was to win control over Russia; and this was the U.S. Government’s objective, too.)

The U.S. regime also changed its entire strategy for expanding its empire (its list of colonies or ‘allies’ — vassal-nations) after 1991, in a number of significant ways, such as by creating front-organizations, an example being Transparency International, to downgrade creditworthiness of the U.S. regime’s targeted countries (so as to force up their borrowing-costs, and thus weaken the targeted nation’s Government), and there were also a wide range of other ‘non-profits’, some of which took over (privatized) much of the preparatory work for the U.S. regime’s “regime-change” operations (coups) that formerly had been done by the by-now-infamous CIA.

One of these ‘non-profits’, for example, is CANVAS, Centre for Applied Nonviolent Action and Strategies, which “was founded in 2004 by Srđa Popović, and the CEO of Orion Telecom, Slobodan Đinović.” Just about all that is online about Đinović is this, this, this, this and this. It’s not much, for allegedly the 50% donor to CANVAS. Actually, that organization’s major funding is entirely secret, and is almost certainly from the U.S. Government or conduits therefrom (including U.S. billionaires such as Soros), since CANVAS is always aiding the overthrow of Governments that the U.S. regime aims to overthrow.

Both Popović and Đinović had earlier, since 1998, been among the leading members of another U.S. astroturf ‘revolution for democracy’ organization, Otpor! (“Resistance!”), which had helped to overthrow Milosevic and break up Yugoslavia. Otpor! ended successfully in 2004, at which time Popović and Đinović founded their own CANVAS, which they designed to institutionalize and spread to Ukraine and other countries the techniques that Otpor! had used and which had been taught to Otpor! by the U.S. regime under Bill Clinton. These were techniques which had been formalized by the American political scientist Gene Sharp.

Even well before Popovic and Dinovic had joined in 1998 (during the U.S-NATO’s prior overthrow-Milosevic campaign to break up the former Yugoslavia) the Otpor student movement to overthrow Yugoslavia’s President Slobodan Milošević, the American Gene Sharp had created the detailed program to do this. Sharp’s Albert Einstein Institute published and promoted Sharp’s books advocating pacifism as the best way to force a ‘dictatorship’ (i.e., any Government that the U.S. regime wants to overthrow) to be overthrown. Sharp presented himself as being an advocate of ’non-violent resistance’ as practiced by Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and other actual anti-imperialists, but Sharp himself was no anti-imperialist (quite the contrary!); he was instead purely a pacifist, and not at all anti-imperialist. Einstein, like Gandhi, had been no pacifist, but didn’t know that Sharp, whom Einstein never met, accepted imperialism, which Sharp’s claimed hero, Gandhi, detested. So, Einstein unfortunately accepted the cunning Sharp’s request to write a Foreword for Sharp’s first book praising Gandhi, Gandhi Wields the Weapon of Moral Power, and Sharp then used that Foreword as ‘proof’ that Sharp was a follower of Einstein (even naming his Institute after the by-then deceased physicist) — which was as false as Sharp’s claimed advocacy of Gandhi’s philosophy was. Sharp was a master self-publicist and deceiver. Einstein’s 321-word, 1.3-page-long, Foreword praised the work and its young author, but he might just have cursorily skimmed the manuscript. He probably would have have been appalled at what followed from Sharp.

Sharp, thus, carefully avoided clarifying that, for example, he would have been a pacifist if he had been in America during the U.S. Revolutionary War, or even perhaps if he had been a northerner during the Civil War, or else been an anti-Nazi partisan during WW II (a pacifist ‘anti-Nazi’). Sharp’s recommendations are useful for the U.S. regime’s coups, because Sharp’s recommendations provide a way to make as difficult as possible for a head-of-state that the U.S. regime has targeted for removal, to remain in office. Sharp’s recommendations are for such a head-of-state to need to employ so much — and ever-increasing — violence against so many of his domestic opponents (fooled non-violent resistors — ‘martyrs’), as to become forced to resign, simply in order not to become himself a casualty of the resultant soaring backlash against himself as being viewed by his own public as simply a ruthless tyrannical dictator, for imprisoning or even killing those ‘democracy protesters’ who had been fooled by agents of the U.S. empire. So: Sharp’s methods are ideal to use so as to increase the public’s support for what is actually a U.S. coup. And that’s their real purpose: to facilitate coups, instead of to create any actual revolution. (As the commentator at the opening there noted, “Missing from Gene Sharp’s list are ‘Constructive actions’ – actions you take to build the alternative society you hope to create.” Sharp’s entire system is for destroying a Government — nothing to create a new one except that it should be ‘democratic’ — whatever that supposedly meant to his fools.) And, then, the coup itself is carried out, by the U.S. professionals at that, once the targeted head-of-state has become hated by a majority of his population. That’s the Sharp method, for coups.

This is an alternative to what had been the U.S. regime’s method during 1945-1991, which was simply CIA-run coups, which relied mainly upon bribing local officials and oligarchs, and hiring rent-a-mobs so as to show photographic ‘mass-support’ for overthrowing a ruler, in order to replace the local ruler with one that the U.S. regime has selected (like this).

On 12 November 2012, the pacifist John Horgan headlined at Scientific American, “Should Scientists and Engineers Resist Taking Military Money?,” and he wrote:

Defense-funded research has led to advances in civilian health care, transportation, communication and other industries that have improved our lives. My favorite example of well-spent Pentagon money was a 1968 Darpa grant to the political scientist Gene Sharp. That money helped Sharp research and write the first of a series of books on how nonviolent activism can bring about political change.

Sharp’s writings have reportedly inspired nonviolent opposition movements around the world, including ones that toppled corrupt regimes in Serbia, Ukraine [he was referring here to the 2004 ‘Orange Revolution’, but Sharp’s methods were also used in the 2014 ‘Maidan Revolution’], Georgia–and, more recently, Tunisia and Egypt [the ‘Arab Spring’]. Sharp, who has not received any federal support since 1968, has defended his acceptance of Darpa funds. In the preface of his classic 1972 work The Politics of Nonviolent Action, he argued that “governments and defense departments — as well as other groups — should finance and conduct research into alternatives to violence in politics.” I couldn’t agree more.

So: Sharp’s pacifists are the opposite of anti-imperialists; they are neocons: agents to expand the U.S. empire, by means of (i.e., now preferring) coups instead of military invasions.

On 11 December 2000, the Washington Post headlined “U.S. Advice Guided Milosevic Opposition,” and reported:

The lead role was taken by the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development, the government’s foreign assistance agency, which channeled the funds through commercial contractors and nonprofit groups such as NDI and its Republican counterpart, the International Republican Institute (IRI).

While NDI worked closely with Serbian opposition parties, IRI focused its attention on Otpor, which served as the revolution’s ideological and organizational backbone. In March, IRI paid for two dozen Otpor leaders to attend a seminar on nonviolent resistance at the Hilton Hotel in Budapest, a few hundreds yards along the Danube from the NDI-favored Marriott.

During the seminar, the Serbian students received training in such matters as how to organize a strike, how to communicate with symbols, how to overcome fear and how to undermine the authority of a dictatorial regime. The principal lecturer was retired U.S. Army Col. Robert Helvey, who has made a study of nonviolent resistance methods around the world, including those used in modern-day Burma and the civil rights struggle in the American South.

“What was most amazing to us was to discover that what we were trying to do spontaneously in Serbia was supported by a whole nonviolent system that we knew nothing about,” said Srdja Popovic, a former biology student. “This was the first time we thought about this in a systematic, scientific way. We said to ourselves, ‘We will go back and apply this.’ ”

Helvey, who served two tours in Vietnam, introduced the Otpor activists to the ideas of American theoretician Gene Sharpe, whom he describes as “the Clausewitz of the nonviolence movement,” referring to the renowned Prussian military strategist. Six months later, Popovic can recite Helvey’s lectures almost word for word, beginning with the dictum, “Removing the authority of the ruler is the most important element in nonviolent struggle.”

“Those Serbs really impressed me,” Helvey said in an interview from his West Virginia home. “They were very bright, very committed.”

Back in Serbia, Otpor activists set about undermining Milosevic’s authority by all means available. Rather than simply daubing slogans on walls, they used a wide range of sophisticated public relations techniques, including polling, leafleting and paid advertising. “The poll results were very important,” recalled Ivo Andric, a marketing student at Belgrade University. “At every moment, we knew what to say to the people.”

The poll results pointed to a paradox that went to the heart of Milosevic’s grip on power. On one hand, the Yugoslav president was detested by 70 percent of the electorate. On the other, a majority of Serbs believed he would continue to remain in power, even after an election. To topple Milosevic, opposition leaders first had to convince their fellow Serbs that he could be overthrown.

At a brainstorming session last July, Otpor activist Srdjan Milivojevic murmured the words “Gotov je,” or “He’s finished.”

“We realized immediately that it summed up our entire campaign,” said Dejan Randjic, who ran the Otpor marketing operation. “It was very simple, very powerful. It focused on Milosevic, but did not even mention him by name.”

Over the next three months, millions of “Gotov je” stickers were printed on 80 tons of imported adhesive paper–paid for by USAID and delivered by the Washington-based Ronco Consulting Corp.–and plastered all over Serbia on walls, inside elevators and across Milosevic’s campaign posters. Printed in black and white and accompanied by Otpor’s clenched-fist emblem, they became the symbol of the revolution.

However, a WikiLeaked email from Jake Sullivan to Hillary Clinton on 26 July 2011, about the Subject “Gene Sharp,” discussed Egypt’s “April 6 movement,” which had overthrown Egypt’s President Hosni Mubarak. Sullivan told her that “In order to assess … the role of Gene Sharp’s ideas in the January 25 revolution, several members of the Policy Planning Staff (S/P) looked into the issue during a recent fact-finding trip to Egypt. They met with representatives of a wide range of protest groups — including the April 6 movement — major civil society organizations, and political parties.” And Sullivan concluded that “ the earlier reporting on these purported ties to Gene Sharp now seems somewhat overblown. …  Most other analysts … credit this to the leadership of the Muslim Brotherhood.” Sullivan wrote from ignorance. On 3 March 2018, Israel’s Haaretz newspaper headlined “The Resistance Guide That Inspired Jewish Settlers and Muslim Brothers Alike: Opponents of Israel’s 2005 Gaza withdrawal, Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood and anti-government protesters in Iran have adopted the civil disobedience principles of the late Prof. Gene Sharp,” and recounted that, “Participants in the Arab Spring uprisings of 2011 also owe many of their achievements to Sharp’s ideas. In Egypt it’s known that at least four groups of activists were influenced by them. Even the Muslim Brotherhood [the group that Sullivan said was NOT influenced by Sharp’s ideas], whose tradition of violence struck fear into the hearts of many, viewed Sharp’s book as a manual and posted it in Arabic translation on its website.” And, for example, even Wikipedia, in its article on the “April 6 Youth Movement,” says: “The April 6 movement is using the same raised fist symbol as the Otpor! movement from Serbia, that helped bring down the regime of Slobodan Milošević and whose nonviolent tactics were later used in Ukraine and Georgia. Mohammed Adel, a leader in the April 6 movement, studied at the Centre for Applied Nonviolent Action and Strategies, an organization founded by former Otpor! members.”

Jake Sullivan was stunningly ignorant — not merely arrogant. The U.S. intelligence community has intimately cooperated with Otpor, CANVAS, and other such astroturf ‘revolution’-generators for American billionaires. For example, Ruaridh Arrow, the writer and director of a eulogistic biopic on Gene Sharp, “How to Start a Revolution,” headlined “Did Gene Sharp work for the CIA? Correcting the Conspiracies.” He wrote: “Funds were provided by the NED and IRI to activists for Albert Einstein Institution projects, for example in Burma, but the Institution was never able to fund groups in its own right.” (And what is that “but”-clause supposed to mean?) However, Arrow also wrote there: “Gene Sharp never worked for the CIA, in fact he was highly critical of them and advised activists not to take money from intelligence services. He argued that reliance on outsiders could weaken their movement and make them reliant on a foreign state which could suddenly cut off money and support, causing serious damage to their cause. It’s one thing to deny involvement with the CIA, it’s quite another to go around the world giving convincing arguments NOT to take money from them. … See below for a video of Gene Sharp telling people NOT to take money from the CIA.”

Sharp’s operation, and that of the other ’non-profits’ such as CANVAS that adhere to it, don’t need money from the CIA, because they can get plenty of money from the billionaires who benefit from America’s coups. On 26 January 2001, David Holley in the Los Angeles Times headlined “The Seed Money for Democracy: Financier George Soros has put out $2.8 billion since 1990 to promote a global open society. His efforts include funding the student movement that helped oust Milosevic in Yugoslavia.” He wrote:

Yugoslavia was a case where everything democrats had worried about–extreme nationalism, ethnic conflict, corruption, media controls and bickering among opposition political parties–were at their worst. Yet, just as Soros had calculated, it was a grass-roots surge by strong citizen organizations that won the battle for democracy.

Soros’ branch in Belgrade, the Yugoslav and Serbian capital, was among the earliest backers of Otpor, which grew under young and decentralized leadership to strengthen the fractured opposition to Milosevic. “We gave them their first grant back in 1998, when they appeared as a student organization,” said Ivan Vejvoda, executive director of the Fund for an Open Society-Yugoslavia, the network’s branch here.

Foreign financial support helped Otpor surreptitiously print about 60 tons of posters and leaflets in the months before the Sept. 24 election that led to Milosevic’s ouster, said Miljana Jovanovic, a student who is one of the movement’s leaders. …

The vast majority of groups funded by Soros are not nearly as powerful as Otpor, nor do they play for such huge stakes.

More typical are efforts such as “horse-riding therapy” for disabled children, funded by the network’s Polish branch, the Stefan Batory Foundation.

I found that article only recently. On 18 April 2022, I had headlined “History of the Ukrainian War” and here was a passage in it that included the Stafan Battory Foundation, but I didn’t know, at the time, that this organization was actually Soros’s Open Society Foundation in Poland. Here is the relevant portion from that history of the Ukrainian war:

*****

On 1 March 2013 inside America’s Embassy to Ukraine in Kiev, a series of “Tech Camps” started to be held, in order to train those Ukrainian nazis for their leadership of Ukraine’s ‘anti-corruption’ organizing. Simultaneously, under Polish Government authorization, the CIA was training in Poland the military Right Sector leaders how to lead the coming U.S. coup in neighboring Ukraine. As the independent Polish investigative journalist Marek Miszczuk headlined for the Polish magazine NIE (“meaning “NO”) (the original article being in Polish): “Maidan secret state secret: Polish training camp for Ukrainians.” The article was published 14 April 2014. Excerpts:

An informant who introduced himself as Wowa called the “NIE” editorial office with the information that the Maidan rebels in Wrocław are neo-fascists … [with] tattooed swastikas, swords, eagles and crosses with unambiguous meaning. … Wowa pleadingly announced that photos of members of the Right Sector must not appear in the press. … 86 fighters from the then prepared Euromaidan flew over the Vistula River in September 2013 at the invitation of the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The pretext was to start cooperation between the Warsaw University of Technology and the National University of Technology in Kiev. But they were in Poland to receive special training to overthrow Ukraine’s government. … Day 3 and 4 – theoretical classes: crowd management, target selection, tactics and leadership. Day 5 – training in behavior in stressful situations. Day 6 – free without leaving the center. Day 7 – pre-medical help. Day 8 – protection against irritating gases. Day 9 – building barricades. And so on and on for almost 25 days. The program includes … classes at the shooting range (including three times with sniper rifles!), tactical and practical training in the assault on buildings. …

Excited by the importance of the information that was presented to me, I started to verify it.

The Office of the Press Spokesman of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs refused to answer the questions about the student exchange without giving any reason. It did not want to disclose whether it had actually invited dozens of neo-fascists to Poland to teach them how to overthrow the legal Ukrainian authorities. …

Let us summarize: in September 2013, according to the information presented to me, several dozen Ukrainian students of the Polytechnic University will come to Poland, at the invitation of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In fact, they are members of the Right Sector, an extreme right-wing and nationalist Ukrainian group led by Dmytro Jarosz – he declined to comment on his visit to Legionowo.

Poland’s ‘fact-checking’ organization is (appropriately) titled demagog dot org (Demagog Association), and it is funded by the Stefan Batory Foundation. Demagog’s article about that NIE news-report rated it “NIEWERYFIKOWALNE” or “ NOT VERIFIABLE”. The sole reason given was: “The Ministry [of Foreign Affairs] strongly opposes such news, emphasizing that the weekly (magazine) has violated not only the principles of good taste, but also raison d’etat (reasons of state).” No facts that were alleged in Miszczuk’s article were even mentioned, much less disproven. How can his article be “unverifiable” if the evidence that it refers to isn’t so much as even being checked?

Miszczuk’s article’s mention of “the Right Sector, an extreme right-wing and nationalist Ukrainian group led by Dmytro Jarosz” referred to the key person (Dmitriy Yarosh) and the key group (his Right Sector paramilitary organization and political party) that has actually been running Ukraine behind the scenes ever since the coup, and they also were the key people who had led the snipers who were firing down from tall buildings upon the Ukrainian Government’s police and upon the anti-Government demonstrators at Kiev’s Maidan Square — the violence simultaneously against both sides — that the newly installed post-coup government immediately blamed against the just-ousted democratically elected President, so that the new top officials were all blaming the ones that they had replaced.

*****

On 4 October 2017, the historian F. William Engdahl, who unfortunately leaves many of his allegations not linked to his alleged sources, wrote:

Goldman Sachs and Stratfor

Even more interesting details recently came to light on the intimate links between the US “intelligence consultancy”, Stratfor — known as the ”Shadow CIA” for its corporate clients which include Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon and U.S. government agencies including the Department of Homeland Security and the Defense Intelligence Agency.

It was revealed in a huge release of internal memos from Stratfor in 2012, some five million emails provided them by the hacker community Anonymous, that Popović, after creating CANVAS also cultivated very close relations with Stratfor. According to the Stratfor internal emails, Popović worked for Stratfor to spy on opposition groups. So intimate was the relationship between Popović and Stratfor that he got his wife a job with the company and invited several Stratfor people to his Belgrade wedding.

Revealed in the same Stratfor emails by Wikileaks was the intriguing information that one of the “golden geese” funders of the mysterious CANVAS was a Wall Street bank named Goldman Sachs. Satter Muneer, a Goldman Sachs partner, is cited by Stratfor’s then-Eurasia Analyst Marko Papic. Papic, asked by a Stratfor colleague whether Muneer was the “golden goose” money behind CANVAS, writes back, “They have several golden gooses I believe. He is for sure one of them.”

Now the very remarkable Mr Popović brings his dishonest career to Hungary where, not a dictator, but a very popular true democrat who offers his voters choices, is the target for Popović’ peculiar brand of US State Department fake democracy. This will not at all be as easy as toppling Milošević, even if he has the help of student activists being trained at Soros’ Central European University in Budapest.

If he had linked to those WikiLeaks documents, then copies of his article that were made before the U.S. regime removed some WikiLeaks files from the Web would have archived those files, but that didn’t happen; and, so, today, a Web-search for the 3-word string

Stratfor Popović wikileaks

produces finds such as

https://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/17/1773778_meeting-canvas-stratfor-.html

https://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/17/1792423_information-on-canvas-.html

of which no copies were saved at any of the Web archives.

However, a prior article, by Carl Gibson and Steve Horn of Occuy.com, on 2 December 2013, was headlined “Exposed: Globally Renowned Activist Collaborated with Intelligence Firm Stratfor,” and it has links to the WikiLeaks documents. From all of this, it’s clear that the obscure Srđa Popović and Slobodan Đinović, are each well-connected to wealth, if not themselves quite wealthy, from their business, of fomenting coups for the U.S. regime, in the names of ‘peace’ and of ‘democracy’.

Apparently, CANVAS remains quite active today:

On 6 October 2023, Kit Klarenberg, at The Grayzone, headlined “A Maidan 2.0 color revolution looms in Georgia,” and reported that:

The arrest of US regime change operatives in Tbilisi suggests a coup against Georgia’s government could be in the works. As Ukraine’s counteroffensive fails, the West appears eager to open a new front in its proxy war.

On September 29, in a disclosure ignored by the entire Western media, the US government-run Radio Free Europe’s Russian-language portal Slobodna Evropa revealed that three foreign operatives had been summoned for questioning by the Georgian Security Service, for allegedly assisting opposition elements prepare a Maidan-style regime change scenario in Tbilisi.

The operatives were staffers of the Center for Applied Nonviolent Actions and Strategies. …

The ruling Georgian dream [NO — it’s the Georgian Dream Party] has been portrayed in the west as a pro-Kremlin government. In reality, it’s simply reverted to a longstanding policy of balancing between East and West. For the neoconservative establishment, its true sin is being insufficiently supportive of the Ukraine proxy war. Thus Ukrainian elements are set to be involved in a possible color revolution. If such an operation succeeds, it would open a second front in that war on Russia’s Western flank.

The development seemingly confirms warnings from local security officials earlier this September. They cautioned “a coup a la Euromaidan is being prepared in Georgia,” referring to the 2014 US-backed color revolution which toppled Ukraine’s elected president and ushered in a pro-NATO government. The purported lead plotters are ethnic Georgians working for the Ukrainian government: Giorgi Lortkipanidze, Kiev’s deputy military intelligence chief; Mikhail Baturin, the bodyguard of former President Mikheil Saakashvili; and Mamuka Mamulashvili, commander of the notorious Georgian Legion.

A September 6 investigation by The Grayzone revealed that Georgian Legion chief Mamulashvili is centrally implicated in a false flag massacre of Maidan protesters, which was pivotal in unseating elected President Viktor Yanukovych. He apparently brought the shooters to Maidan Square to “sow some chaos” by opening fire on crowds, and provided sniper rifles for the purpose.

Georgian officials say that now they’ve uncovered evidence that young anti-government activists are undergoing training near Ukraine’s border with Poland to enact a similar scheme, which would feature a deadly bombing during planned riots meant to take place in Tbilisi between October and December, when the European Commission is expected to rule on whether Georgia can formally become an EU candidate country.

The Wikipedia article “Centre for Applied Nonviolent Action and Strategies” says:

CANVAS’ training and methodology has been successfully applied by groups in Georgia (2003), Ukraine (2004), Lebanon (2005), The Maldives (2008)?, Egypt (2011)?, Syria (2011)? and Ukraine (2014). It works only in response to requests for assistance.

However: anyone who participates in such ‘Revolutions’ is placing oneself at severe personal risk, in order to facilitate a coup by the U.S. Government and its controlling owners, who are billionaires. People such as Sharp, Popović, and Đinović, are merely well-paid and maintained servants to America’s billionaires.

Here’s how they market their operation, to peaceniks:

https://web.archive.org/web/20230521063855/https://www.nonviolent-conflict.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/CANVAS-Core-Curriculum_EN4.pdf

https://canvasopedia.org/2023/01/05/examining-non-state-stakeholders-role-in-modern-nonviolent-conflict-2/

https://web.archive.org/web/20231025015004/https://fsi-live.s3.us-west-1.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/canvas_presentation.pdf

They open by paying homage to Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King. This is mocking them — aping their influence, not spreading it.

And here is how the neoconservative Tina Rosenberg, in the neoconservative Donald Graham’s Foreign Policy magazine, promotes CANVAS, as being “Revolution U“:

As nonviolent revolutions have swept long-ruling regimes from power in Tunisia and Egypt and threaten the rulers of nearby Algeria, Bahrain, and Yemen, the world’s attention has been drawn to the causes — generations of repressive rule — and tools — social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter — animating the wave of revolt. But as the members of the April 6 movement learned, these elements alone do not a revolution make. What does? In the past, the discontented availed themselves of the sweeping forces of geopolitics: the fall of regimes in Latin America and the former Soviet bloc was largely a product of the withdrawal of superpower support for dictatorships and the consolidation of liberal democracy as a global ideal. But the global clash of ideologies is over, and plenty of dictators remain — so what do we do?

The answer, for democratic activists in an ever-growing list of countries, is to turn to CANVAS. Better than other democracy groups, CANVAS has built a durable blueprint for  nonviolent revolution: what to do to grow from a vanload of people into a mass movement and then use those masses to topple a dictator. CANVAS has figured out how to turn a cynical, passive, and fearful public into activists. It stresses unity, discipline, and planning — tactics that are basic to any military campaign, but are usually ignored by nonviolent revolutionaries. There will be many moments during a dictatorship that galvanize public anger: a hike in the price of oil, the assassination of an opposition leader, corrupt indifference to a natural disaster, or simply the confiscation by the police of a produce cart. In most cases, anger is not enough — it simply flares out. Only a prepared opponent will be able to use such moments to bring down a government.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Eric Zuesse.

The post Telecom Scandal: The Great Excise Tax Scam appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by David Rosen.

Photograph Source: Campax – CC BY 2.0

Do you have a “5G” service? It’s ceaselessly promoted as the mobile phone standard. Over the last two decade, the mobile phone market has been transformed, moving steadily from the earliest “1^st generation” to today’s “5^th generation.” Americans are being told that the present is 5G and the future is 6G.

Americans use millions of wireless phones and devices. According to the CTIA, the wireless industry trade association, in 2021 there were 469 million mobile wireless devices in use and, of these, 190 million were connected devices that included smartphones, laptops, tablets, watches and in cars. The 2020 U.S. Census reports the population at 331 million, that’s 1.4 wireless devices per person.

Sadly, 5G has very little to do with the actual public benefits of wireless technology, especially as a “mobile” service that facilitates our hectic, postmodern lifestyles. While “5G” has been a great marketing term to signal the wonderful future promised by a new technology, it’s really has served two purposes: (i) to get rid of both federal and state communications legislation and regulation and (ii) to replace copper networks not with fiber but more profitable – and inferior performing — wireless services.

And the strategy has been successful on both fronts. For example, Verizon diverted its existing wireline utility budgets to illegally cross-subsidize its wireless network.

The telecom industry claims that wireless technology can replace a fiber-optic-based network. However, there are two types of wireless service, “fixed” and “mobile”; fixed connects two or more fixed locations where mobile refers to portable devices. Verizon, AT&T and the other wireless carriers do not distinguish the one from the other and are pushing wireless to cover “unwired” parts of many cities with cell sites for wireless. They claim to offer 5G technology, but it is often just the older 4G-LTE.

5G has been aggressively promoted by FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr. In 2018, he put forward 5G small cell technology model legislation that was most likely created by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). “Carr’s 5G Order” was adopted by the Republican-controlled agency in 2020 and helped launch the new generation of wireless communications. Carr argued that his 5G plan would cut roughly $2 billion in administrative fees and stimulate additional investments. Has it?

Often gone unacknowledged, ALEC has long played a pivotal role influencing telecom policy. It promotes itself as a “nonpartisan individual membership organization of state legislators that favors federalism and conservative public policy solutions.” It claims to “advance the Jeffersonian principles of free markets, limited government, federalism, and individual liberty ….”

ALEC is, formally, a non-profit group that drafts model legislation. It has an estimated membership exceeding 2,400 state legislators from both political parties, but most are conservative Republicans. It regularly invites members to all-expense paid private gatherings with corporate executives and lobbyists where they devise model legislation to fulfill their political agenda, many involving telecommunications policy. These legislators, in turn, return to their home states and promote the legislation at state houses throughout the country. Many of their initiatives are enacted.

ALEC is part of the Koch Bros network of corporate front organizations that lobby for their Libertarian free-market agenda at all levels of government. It has actively supported repealing the minimum wage, privatizing Social Security and replacing guaranteed health benefits with medical savings accounts. It developed template campaigns for states to oppose the new federal healthcare program (e.g., Virginia) and pushed anti-immigration laws (e.g., Arizona). Over the last two decades, ALEC was backed by AT&T, Sprint and Verizon and the NCTA in support of telecommunications re-regulations and in opposition to net neutrality.

Whether its claims are making Jefferson spin in his grave is an open question, ALEC’s effort to get rid of regulation that restrict potential corporate profits is represented by its actions regarding efforts to terminate what is known as “Carrier of Last Resort” (COLR) obligations. Such “obligations” are, according to Sherry Lichtenberg, Ph.D., at the National Regulatory Research Institute, “a cornerstone of utility regulation, arising both from English common law and historical state regulatory policy.” One of the obligations is simple:

The obligation to serve all customers within their territory, including extending facilities where necessary to provide service,

John Stephenson, former director of ALEC’s Communications and Technology Task Force, led the campaign against COLR. “Those [old rules] were written at a time when consumers had no choice in the matter,” he said.

Going further, he insisted that fewer regulations would lead to more investment in broadband and other services. “If we were to clear the underbrush of these rules written long before the Internet was even a word,” Stephenson argued, “there would be a lot more broadband deployed to the United States, and things that are even better that we can’t conceive of today.”

By 2022, more than 29 states had adopted COLR revision legislation, including Illinois. In 2020, the Oregon legislature pointed out, “Meeting the broader policy goal of universal access to broadband would effectively moot the need for a COLR obligation for voice telephony, as broadband service can provide both information and voice services.” It then added: “More than a quarter of Oregonians live in areas that are unserved, underserved, or have older technologies that will not be able to meet the digital demands of the very near future.”

Three open questions standout: (i) will ending COLR obligations end “digital redlining”?; (ii) is overturning COLR just another scheme to maximize telecom industry profits? and; (iii) what does it signify that the telecom system, the electronic glue that interconnects the nation, has no “obligation to serve” our fellow Americans?

Few Americans are aware that the U.S. is a second-tier telecom country. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) ranks the U.S. 32^nd in terms of fiber deployment of the 38 OECD countries. The U.S. is ranked 15^th-fastest for mobile speeds (at 110.07 Mbps) and 13^th-fastest for broadband speeds (at 203.81 Mbps).

As of April 2022, only 43 percent of American homes had access to fiber broadband services compared to Norway and South Korea with over 80 percent access, and Spain, Portugal and Japan that were above 90 percent.

Making matters worse, Americans pay more for their inferior telecom services. In the U.S., the monthly fee for internet service (at 60 Mbps) is estimated at $70.06 compared to Canada ($64.29), the U.K. ($38.72), France ($32.23) and Japan ($33.45).

And Americans are systematically overcharged not only by rigged service fees (e.g., “Ramming,” Cramming,” “Slamming” and other scams) but a host of hidden fees like “Subscriber Line Charges” and “Inside Wire Charges” and miscellaneous charges (e.g., “Call Waiting,” “Caller ID” and “Call Forwarding”).

Every time you pickup your mobile, especially “smart,” phone, don’t forget the technological, political and economic games that are being played out to bring this 21^st century communications device to market.

Sadly, you – me, we! – are captives of a system that one can’t expect to fundamentally change. The U.S. will remain an over-priced, 2^nd-tier telecom nation for the foreseeable future.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by David Rosen.

Photograph Source: Tony Webster – CC BY-SA 2.0

In September 2020, the State of California won a $116 million suit against Verizon ($68 million) and AT&T ($48 million). The suit was brought by a “whistleblower,” OnTheGo Wireless, LLC, and thirty government entities claiming under the California False Claims Act that the telecoms overcharged the state and government customers for wireless services.[1]  Some 300 state and local entities will recover money for the excessive payments, including the State of California, state universities as well as city and county governments.

Over the last few decades, the leading telecom companies have engaged in a host of schemes to swindle their customers and the American taxpayer. One involves overcharging customers for which they have been repeatedly sued. Others involve deceptive pricing practices, questionable accounting schemes, substitution of inferior wireless (e.g., 5G) for fiber-optic system upgrades, capture of federal and state regulatory agencies and the “deregulation” of the telecom industry. These schemes fueled the telecom swindle.

In 2007, “whistleblower” Stephen Shea filed suit against the former MCI for falsely billing the General Administration (GSA) for local and long-distance voice and data services.[2]  The claim was that the false billing began in 1999 and involved a host of “surcharges,” including property tax surcharges, carrier cost recovery charges, state telecommunications relay service surcharges and public utility commission fee surcharges. In 2005, Verizon acquired MCI for $6.6 billion in cash and stock, and continued MCI’s billing practice with the GSA.  In 2011, the Justice Department reached a $93 million agreement with Verizon over the lawsuit.

In 2014, one of the fallouts from the Snowden spying revelations was that the U.S. government sued Sprint for overcharging the NSA, FBI, DEA, ICE and various other agencies for “knowingly submitting false claims … by including unallowable costs in their charges for carrying out court orders authorizing wiretaps, pen registers and trap devices.”[3]  The suit alleged Sprint overcharged the government agencies $21 million, and the U.S. sought triple damages totaling $63 million.

And in 2021, AT&T agreed to pay a $1.5 million fine to settle a lawsuit brought by the Washington, D.C.’s Office of the Attorney General (OAG) related to overcharging the District and government entities for wireless voice and data services.[4] The OAG argued that over a six-year period from 2012 to 2018 AT&T knowingly charged for features, add-ons and other services that D.C. subscribers didn’t need and failed to comply with contract requirements to provide the most cost-effective and lowest price plans available.  While the telecom denied the accusations, it paid the fine.

These isolated examples of telecoms being successfully sued for overcharging customers reveal the larger swindle.  Various non-profit groups have offered alarming estimates as to the size of the swindle.

In 2016, Public Knowledge published “Overcharged and Underserved,” written by Dr. Mark Cooper, Director of Research, Consumer Federation of America.  The study analyzed the Big Telecom and Big Cable companies. including AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Charter Communications, naming them a “tight oligopoly on steroids.”  Cooper claimed that over $60 billion was being overcharged annually and $250 billion in just the years of 2012-2016.  He found:

Combining the consumer pocket overcharges, we conclude that the total is almost $60 billion per year. While the overcharges have mounted, the total for the past five years is in the range of $250 billion or more …. For a typical household with two wireless subscriptions, a landing, broadband Internet access service, and multi-channel video, the total overcharge is about $45 per month ($540 per year). The aggregate overcharges are almost $60 billion per year.[5]

This comes to over a half-trillion dollars over the decade of 2012-2022.

New Networks Institute (NNI) estimates that over the three decades between 1992 and 2021, “Americans were overcharged an estimated $1.3 trillion.” NNI notes that it “occurred into two phases: (i) during the period of 1992-2018, $500 billion was overcharged for a fiber optic future that never showed up; and (ii) from 2000-2020, the former Bell companies overcharged Americans about $70-$90 billion annually.”[6]

NNI’s Bruce Kushnik identifies a series of schemes telecoms use to execute overcharges, including:

Services Fees – Charges for services customers did not order that NNI estimates totals $17 billion annually. They include:

“Ramming” — The phone company adds a service, that is provided by one of the companies’ subsidiaries or different line of business, that was not ordered.

“Cramming” — A service is added by another company that was not ordered.

“Slamming” — A company switches you to their service without permission.

Made Up Fees – They are commonplace and can include “Cost Recovery Fees” and “Administrative Fees” on wireless or even Digital Voice service on a FiOS bundle of voice and broadband as well as “Broadcast TV & Sports Fee” on cable services. NNI estimates these at $22.7 billion.[7]

Made Up Taxes on Made up Fees — America’s communications services are taxed made up fees, which are then also taxed, fees and surcharged. NNI estimates they generate $25 billion per year. For example, “Verizon Surcharges and Fees” are not mandated but are a pass-through. They include taxes applied to Verizon, but which it is allowed to pass onto the subscriber’s bill as an administrative fee. The Verizon web site states that “these are Verizon charges, not taxes.” It reads:

Administrative Charge, which helps defray certain expenses we incur, including charges we, or our agents, pay local telephone companies for delivering calls from our customers to their customers; fees and assessments on our network facilities and services; property taxes; and the costs we incur responding to regulatory obligations. Please note that these are Verizon charges, not taxes.[8]

***

How did this long-term swindle take place? NYU economist Thomas Philippon pointed out, in 2021 “the average monthly cost of fixed broadband in 2018 was about twice more expensive in the US ($68) than in Europe (between $30 and $40 in France, Germany, the UK, etc.).”[9]  He then notes:

By most metrics the United States broadband industry has become rather uncompetitive. Monopolies or duopolies serve most markets, and a recent report using FCC data finds that approximately 80 million customers can only access broadband through a single provider.

Overall, the data show that monopoly and duopolies in the United States set higher prices and earn larger profit margins than firms operating in countries where competition is more intense. Moreover, these higher profit margins flow into higher dividends, not into faster capital accumulation.

Philippon concludes pointedly: “The fraction of internet users is somewhat lower in the US than in Northern/Western Europe; the speeds are roughly the same; but American users pay about twice as much as EU users for mobile services, and two to three times more for fixed broadband services.”

In 2020, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) ranked the U.S. 18^th of the 38 OECD countries in terms of broadband usage.[10]  It estimated that the U.S. ranked 11^th in terms of fixed broadband service at 191.97 Mbps [Megabits per second] — Singapore ranked first at 245.5 Mbps; in terms of mobile service, it ranked 18^th at 82.04 Mbps – compared to South Korea at 186.06 Mbps.[11]  In addition, in 2021, only 32 percent of American homes had access to fiber broadband services compared to Norway and South Korea with over 80 percent access, and Spain, Portugal and Japan that are above 90 percent.[12]

Telecom overcharging is playout in still other ways. A remarkably 2022 researched study by The Markup Organization, “Dollars to Megabits: You May Be Paying 400 Times As Much As Your Neighbor for Internet Service,” analyzed more than 850,000 internet service offered from AT&T, Verizon, Earthlink and CenturyLink in 38 cities across U.S.[13]  In a pessimistic assessment, it found:

In cities where the providers offered different speeds in different areas, the residents living in areas that disproportionately received the worst deals were lower income (92 percent of cities) and people of color (66 percent of cities), and their neighborhoods had been historically redlined (100 percent of the 22 cities in our data where digital maps were available).

It adds: “Wealthier, Whiter, and non-redlined [i.e., digitally divided] areas were offered faster speeds for the same price​ more often​.”  Going further, it found that telecoms routinely offered fast base speeds (at or above 200 Mbps) in more upscale neighborhoods for the same price as connections below 25 Mbps (the FCC’s minimum) in others.  The Markup warned, “To put it plainly, we found these providers offered the worst deals to people who are the most in need of affordable prices for high-quality, high-speed internet.”

Another scheme employed by telecoms is the use of questionable accounting procedures.  NNI’s Kushnick reports that investigating “the billing practices of the telecom companies, we came to understand that they were involved in the largest accounting scandal in American history.”  More troubling, he adds: “The Bells secured FCC assistance in manipulating the accounting formulas so that the state utilities turned into a cash machine to fund the companies’ other lines of business.”[14] He goes on to argue:

… they successfully transformed the state utilities into funding mechanisms for their wireless and other non-utility enterprises, while leaving local telephone customers with antiquated service at higher prices.  They also had a grossly inflated portion of their corporate operations expenses – e.g., executive pay, lobbyists, lawyers and corporate jets — charged to local telephone customers.[15]

How did the telecom rip-off come about?  In an October 2019 article for The Atlantic, the economist Philippon noted, “In 1999, the United States had free and competitive markets in many industries that, in Europe, were dominated by oligopolies. Today the opposite is true.”[16] He added:

… in industry after industry in the United States—the country that invented antitrust laws—incumbent companies have increased their market power by acquiring nascent competitors, heavily lobbying regulators, and lavishly spending on campaign contributions. Free markets are supposed to punish private companies that take their customers for granted, but today many American companies have grown so dominant that they can get away with offering bad service, charging high prices, and collecting, exploiting, and inadequately guarding their customers’ private data.

Today’s dominant telecom conglomerates may be best understood as 21^st century “cartels.” Perdue University economist John Connor defines cartels as “voluntary associations of legally independent companies that manipulate market prices or industry output in order to increase their collective profits.”[17]  He distinguishes between “private” cartels (i.e., “not protected by national sovereignty or by treaties”) and “international” cartels (i.e., those that have participants from two or more nations”).  He adds, “private cartels operate secretly to avoid detection.”

In 2012, the journalist David Cay Johnston, in a New York Times op-ed, linked the issue of cartels to the telecom crisis.  He argued, “what we’ve witnessed instead is low-quality service and prices that are higher than a truly competitive market would bring.”[18]  He went on, noting, “after a brief fling with competition, ownership has reconcentrated into a stodgy duopoly of Bell Twins — AT&T and Verizon. Now, thanks to new government rules, each in effect has become the leader of its own cartel.”  He added, “because AT&T’s and Verizon’s own land-based services operate mostly in discrete geographic markets, each cartel rules its domain as a near monopoly.”

Susan Crawford, a Harvard Law School professor, reiterated this perception in her 2019 study, Fiber, The Coming Tech Revolution.  She observed: “A handful of private companies dominate last-mile data delivery in American cities.  They choose the richest, densest areas to serve with expensive second-class services – not with malign intention, but with a detrimental effect on the country.”[19]

As the U.S. telecom industry was reorganized through deregulation, it shifted from a world leader to a second-tier telecom nation – and Americans are paying for it through poor services and ever-increasing fees.

Endnotes

[1] “Verizon, AT&T Agree to Pay $116 Million to Settle California Whistleblower Case,” September 24, 2020;

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/verizon-att-agree-to-pay-116-million-to-settle-california-whistleblower-case-301137930.html

[2] Sean Buckley, “Verizon reaches $93.5 million settlement with government over service overcharges,” FierceCable, April 5, 2011;

https://www.fiercetelecom.com/telecom/verizon-reaches-93-5-million-settlement-government-over-service-overcharges

[3] Jon Brodkin, “Lawsuit: Sprint charged US gov’t $21 million too much for spying expenses,” ArsTechnica, March 3, 2014;

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/03/lawsuit-sprint-charged-us-govt-21-million-too-much-for-spying-expenses/

[4]  “AG Racine Sues AT&T for Overcharging the District Government Millions of Dollars for Cell Phone and Internet Service,” February 21, 2021;

https://oag.dc.gov/release/ag-racine-sues-att-overcharging-district

[5] “Overcharged and Underserved: How a Tight Oligopoly on Steroids Undermines Competition,” Consumer Federation of America, December 7, 2016;

Overcharged and Underserved: How a Tight Oligopoly on Steroids Undermines Competition

[6] Bruce Kushnick, “Break Up Big Telecom: $1+ Trillion in Overcharging … And Counting,” Medium, May 10, 2021;

https://kushnickbruce.medium.com/break-up-big-telecom-1-trillion-in-overcharging-and-counting-2d74ba317711.

[7] Bruce Kushnick, “Made-up, Broadcast-Sports Fees Up 820%; Overcharging $250+ a Year— then Quintuple-Taxed, Fee’d and Surcharged,” Medium, December 23, 2021;

https://kushnickbruce.medium.com/made-up-broadcast-sports-fees-up-820-overcharging-250-a-year-then-quintuple-taxed-feed-and-52138fb07bbf

[8] Verizon, “Government taxes and fees and Verizon wireless surcharges”;

https://www.verizon.com/support/surcharges/

[9] Thomas Philippon, “How Expensive Are U.S. Broadband and Wireless Services?,” April 2021;

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3836281

[10] OCED, “OECD broadband statistics update,” July 22, 2020;

https://www.oecd.org/sti/broadband/broadband-statistics-update.htm

[11] Speedtest, “Speedtest Global Index”;

https://www.speedtest.net/global-index

[12] Tyler Cooper, “Fiber-Optic Internet in the USA,” BroadbandNow, March 23, 2021;

Fiber-Optic Internet in the United States

[13] The Markup Organization, “Dollars to Megits,” October 19, 2022;

https://themarkup.org/still-loading/2022/10/19/dollars-to-megabits-you-may-be-paying-400-times-as-much-as-your-neighbor-for-internet-service

[14] Bruce Kushnick, with David Rosen, Book of Violations & Egregious Acts: Trillion Dollar Broadband Scandal (New Networks Institute, 2002), p. 38.

[15] Ibid, pp. 229-30.

[16] Thomas Philippon, “The U.S. Only Pretends to Have Free Markets,” The Atlantic, October 2019;

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/10/europe-not-america-home-free-market/600859/

[17] John M. Connor, “Cartels Costly for Customers,” SSRN, June 18, 2017;

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2988489

[18] David Cay Johnston, “Bad Connections,” The New York Times, November 28, 2012;

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/28/opinion/break-up-the-telecom-cartels.html

[19] Susan Crawford, Fiber, The Coming Tech Revolution (Yale University Press, 2019), p.16;

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by David Rosen.

On Tuesday, Gigi Sohn withdrew her nomination to the Federal Communications Commission.

This ends a two-year fight to put an accomplished public servant in the important fifth seat on the FCC. In the —after nearly 500 days, multiple confirmation hearings, and a relentless industry-orchestrated campaign against her—Sohn didn't have enough votes in the Senate to move forward.

I'm furious—and determined to make sure this doesn't happen again.

The dirty campaign to stop Gigi Sohn

They're celebrating today at Comcast and Fox, where their lobbyists deserve most of the credit for concocting lies to derail Sohn's nomination. They falsely portrayed her as radical and divisive, even though her years of experience tell a different story—about a highly regarded expert who has reached across political divides to support communications policies that help people.

Republicans who willfully spread those lies are thrilled, too. Their campaign of vile dog whistles, homophobic innuendo and false outrage worked. In fact, it was too easy.

But they're not the only ones to blame: The failure of Democratic leaders to defend their nominee cost the agency—and the nation—a true public servant. Their missteps and unforced errors were many.

From the start, infighting in the Biden administration delayed the nomination of a new FCC chair and commissioner for months—meaning Sohn wasn't nominated until late October 2021 and then got little time during debates around the infrastructure bills. Instead of moving on this nomination right away when the Biden team had the most political capital—they did it when they had the least.

While the GOP ganged up on her, most Democrats sat back, either using their time on the dais to ask questions about their home states or repeat industry-written talking points.

Then Senate leaders made Sohn endure an unprecedented three confirmation hearings, giving the right-wing noise machine numerous opportunities to badger her while extracting zero concessions from the other side. Despite her composure in the hot seat, this stage let Sohn's opponents test out numerous lines of attack. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) got endless opportunities to fulminate about her random retweets, while Sen. J.D. Vance (R-Ohio) cosplayed as a culture warrior from his new perch on the Commerce Committee.

While the GOP ganged up on her, most Democrats sat back, either using their time on the dais to ask questions about their home states or repeat industry-written talking points. (Notable and laudable exceptions who came to Sohn's defense include Sens. Ed Markey and Tammy Baldwin.)

Unfortunately, the failure of more Democratic senators to advocate for their own nominee means that companies like Comcast and Fox will likely only double-down in the future on the kinds of deceitful and dirty tactics they deployed against Sohn. What other lessons could they draw from how easily senators folded in the face of easily fact-checked lies and slanders? And what potential FCC nominee would want to subject themselves to this kind of character assassination?

A leadership failure

Neither the White House nor Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer succeeded in getting the votes Sohn needed when she got through committee and to the verge of a floor vote last year. They didn't put enough pressure on holdout senators or create any real political costs for the holdouts' refusal to back the administration's nominees. Worse still, President Biden and Vice President Harris actually feted ISP execs in the Rose Garden—even as those same companies were sabotaging Sohn.

It says a lot about who they're willing to fight for—and who they won't.

Without real pressure from the top, rank-and-file Democrats invented excuses for why they couldn't vote before the midterms—and, once those were over, immediately recycled the same rationalizations about the 2024 election. As much as I might wish the FCC were a top-tier election issue, exactly zero swing voters are going to the polls thinking about Gigi Sohn. Yet multiple senators acted like a vote for their own party's nominee could sink their reelection chances.

Politicians who should know better all of a sudden took seriously the disingenuous pay-to-slay attacks by sock-puppet front groups (including one led by former North Dakota Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, now on the corporate payroll). I'm not sure what's worse: If they just made these excuses to placate corporate donors, or if they actually believed them.

What does it say when Democratic senators—like Sens. Cortez-Masto, Kelly, Rosen, and Tester, who all failed publicly support Sohn—take the specious claims of a disreputable group like the Fraternal Order of Police more seriously than they do the support of 400 of the nation's largest civil-rights, civil-liberties, labor and public-interest groups? What does it mean when they don't just let the lies fester but actually promote them? It says a lot about who they're willing to fight for—and who they won't.

The next battle

This defeat has implications that go far beyond the FCC. The Republicans and their Democratic enablers are setting out markers for who's allowed to serve in government. They made clear that public servants will be pilloried while ex-corporate lobbyists sail through. Women and LGBTQIA+ folks—Sohn would have been the first lesbian to serve as an FCC commissioner—will be slandered. Tweeting about police violence can be disqualifying (in the Senate, retweets do equal endorsements). Questioning the propriety of Fox News—even as it's being exposed for aiding and abetting election lies and insurrection—is unacceptable. A basic understanding of U.S. history and racism may be disqualifying.

Of course, this is bad news for the FCC, too.

At a moment when media and tech are intertwined with every facet of our lives, our politics and the very state of our democracy, this vital agency cannot fully do its job. Which is just how the industry wants it.

One of the best things the Biden administration has done since 2021 is securing $65 billion for broadband expansion. FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel has been making the most of the hand she was dealt, but a deadlocked FCC makes it harder to implement and maintain those programs and spend those funds in the best way possible. Net Neutrality and the restoration of Title II will remain in limbo without a fifth vote at the agency. As Sohn herself wrote in the statement announcing her withdrawal: "It means that the FCC will not have a majority to adopt strong rules which ensure that everyone has nondiscriminatory access to broadband, regardless of who they are or where they live."

At a moment when media and tech are intertwined with every facet of our lives, our politics and the very state of our democracy, this vital agency cannot fully do its job. Which is just how the industry wants it.

The next test is already here. The Biden administration needs to come up with a new nominee to the FCC, and it may be tempted to nominate an industry-friendly choice—someone who can "get through" and avoid a larger political fight. We must oppose and reject any return to business as usual that furthers industry capture of the FCC.

Instead, we need to demand an independent candidate with public-interest bona fides and a clear commitment to racial justice and civil rights. They must show they're willing to stand up to lies. They must be unequivocal in their support for restoring the FCC's authority, and making sure that the internet is open, affordable, available, and reliable for everyone. They must demonstrate a commitment to engaging the public, not just meeting with lobbyists.

This loss stings. Gigi Sohn deserved better. But we cannot let the industry pick its own regulators ever again.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Craig Aaron.

"I could not have imagined that legions of cable and media industry lobbyists, their bought-and-paid-for surrogates, and dark money political groups with bottomless pockets would distort my over 30-year history as a consumer advocate into an absurd caricature of blatant lies," Sohn said in a statement. "The unrelenting, dishonest, and cruel attacks on my character and my career as an advocate for the public interest have taken an enormous toll on me and my family."

While her announcement came just after U.S. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), a frequent obstacle to his own party's priorities, confirmed Tuesday that he would not support the nomination, Sohn's lengthy statement—shared with The Washington Post—signaled that she decided to bow out after speaking with her family on Monday.

According to Sohn:

Unfortunately, the American people are the real losers here. The FCC deadlock, now over two years long, will remain so for a long time. As someone who has advocated for my entire career for affordable, accessible broadband for every American, it is ironic that the 2-2 FCC will remain sidelined at the most consequential opportunity for broadband in our lifetimes. This means that your broadband will be more expensive for lack of competition, minority, and underrepresented voices will be marginalized, and your private information will continue to be used and sold at the whim of your broadband provider. It means that the FCC will not have a majority to adopt strong rules which ensure that everyone has nondiscriminatory access to broadband, regardless of who they are or where they live, and that low-income students will continue to be forced to do their school work sitting outside of Taco Bell because universal service funds can't be used for broadband in their homes. And it means that many rural Americans will continue the long wait for broadband because the FCC can't fix its Universal Service programs.

It is a sad day for our country and our democracy when dominant industries, with assistance from unlimited dark money, get to choose their regulators. And with the help of their friends in the Senate, the powerful cable and media companies have done just that.

After thanking Biden—who first nominated her to the post in October 2021 and has stood by the choice—as well as the hundreds of organizations and advocates who have supported her throughout the process, Sohn said that "I hope the president swiftly nominates an individual who puts the American people first over all other interests. The country deserves nothing less."

During a media briefing Tuesday afternoon, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre praised Sohn.

"We appreciate Gigi Sohn's candidacy for this important role. She would have brought tremendous intellect and experience, which is why the president nominated her in the first place. We also appreciate her dedication to public service, her talent, and her years of work as one of the nation's leading public advocates on behalf of American consumers and competition," said Jean-Pierre, who declined to comment on what's next.

"The abject failure of Democratic leaders to stand up and advocate for their own nominee means that these companies will likely only double down on the kinds of deceitful and dirty tactics they deployed against Sohn."

Meanwhile, advocacy groups that rallied behind Sohn not only expressed disappointment that she won't be on the FCC but also took aim at Democratic leadership for failing to adequately stand up for her in the face of dishonest attacks.

"Gigi would have provided the final key vote needed to move forward on major White House priorities including net neutrality, digital discrimination, privacy, network competition, broadband maps, and the digital divide," said Demand Progress communications director Maria Langholz. "Sohn's nomination was marred by right-wing extremist attacks that centered on misinformation and politics of division and hate rather than her record and role at the FCC. While it would be easiest to blame the right-wing for her nomination failing, there was missing urgency and commitment from Democrats in the White House and Senate."

"With Sohn now out of consideration, we expect the White House to provide a strong nomination in the immediate future," Langholz added. "The American people cannot afford to have this stalemate at the FCC any longer. President Biden must expeditiously move forward a nominee who will be a champion on net neutrality and privacy, and avoid delivering big telecommunications companies a victory in the form of an industry-friendly pick."

Free Press president and co-CEO Craig Aaron similarly said that "they're probably celebrating at Comcast and Fox today, and their lobbyists deserve most of the credit for concocting lies to derail her nomination. Republicans who willfully spread those lies must be thrilled, too. But they're not the only ones to blame: The failure of Democratic leaders to stand up to industry-orchestrated smears cost the agency—and the nation—a true public servant."

"The abject failure of Democratic leaders to stand up and advocate for their own nominee means that these companies will likely only double down on the kinds of deceitful and dirty tactics they deployed against Sohn," he warned. "We're angry about how Sohn was treated, and we're disturbed that Democratic leaders by and large failed to speak out against the lies, bigotry, and innuendo surrounding her nomination. But the answer here is not going back to the way things used to be at the FCC, when the industry got to hand-pick commissioners. Going backward would be a terrible mistake."

"There will be temptation in the weeks ahead to put forward an industry-friendly nominee to avoid a larger political fight. That's how the agency has worked in the past," Aaron added. "But the public—now more than ever—needs an independent voice at this crucial agency, one who won't cave to the industries they are supposed to regulate. Though Gigi Sohn deserved much, much better, we can only hope this moment will finally serve as a wake-up call to the Biden administration and the Democratic Party."

"Democrats promised to restore net neutrality and FCC oversight of telecom monopolies, and instead they caved to corporate interests and homophobic smears."

Fight for the Future director Evan Greer also expressed concern that the development will be followed by an industry-backed pick.

"Let's be perfectly clear: Democrats promised to restore net neutrality and FCC oversight of telecom monopolies, and instead they caved to corporate interests and homophobic smears. The same telecom companies that were caught red-handed funding a flood of fraudulent comments to the FCC and paying for misleading robocalls to senior citizens to kill net neutrality rules now will seemingly get to pick their own regulator, just as they did with Ajit Pai," Greer said, referring to a former FCC chair.

Internet service providers (ISPs) "are under immense pressure to censor legitimate content, including websites with accurate information about abortion care and LGBTQ issues, with state legislatures passing bills demanding ISPs block entire websites," she noted. "Meanwhile, lack of FCC oversight has enabled collection and sale of cel phone location data that puts vulnerable communities at risk of stalking, harassment, and surveillance. A fully staffed FCC could address these issues. Biden's deadlocked FCC is utterly impotent. And marginalized communities will pay the price for Democrats' incompetence and cowardice."

As for Biden's next nominee, Greer said that "we will fight tooth and nail to ensure that they don't pick another Ajit Pai clone. We demand an FCC commissioner that will fight for the public interest, and one that has no ties to the telecom industry that the agency is supposed to regulate."

This post has been updated with comment from Fight for the Future.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Jessica Corbett.

The U.S. Senate's refusal to confirm Gigi Sohn in the nearly 500 days since President Joe Biden first nominated her to the Federal Communications Commission stands in stark contrast to the chamber's treatment of other candidates, including Ajit Pai.

Sohn on Tuesday attended her third U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation hearing—during which Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), the panel's ranking member, took aim at not only the candidate but also digital rights group Fight for the Future.

Meanwhile, advocacy groups supporting Sohn in the face of a telecommunications industry smear campaign and homophobic attacks yet again blasted the Senate's delay—which has not deterred Biden, who renominated Sohn last month.

Caitlin Seeley George, Fight for the Future's campaigns and managing director, compared the stalled votes for Sohn to the Senate's confirmation of GOP commissioners Ajit Pai and Nathan Simington under former President Donald Trump.

"It is absolutely absurd that Gigi Sohn, a dedicated advocate for the public interest, has gone through three hearings in front of the Senate Commerce Committee," she argued, "when controversial nominees with massive conflicts of interest like Ajit Pai and Nathan Simington sailed through Senate approval (almost as absurd as Sen. Cruz calling out Fight for the Future because we hold lawmakers from both sides of the aisle accountable!)."

Sohn, an attorney who co-founded the advocacy group Public Knowledge, previously served as counselor to former FCC Chair Tom Wheeler, who was appointed in 2013 by then-President Barack Obama.

Pai—an ex-Verizon attorney who destroyed net neutrality rules—was initially nominated to the FCC in 2011 by Obama and unanimously confirmed by the Senate the next year. After Trump took office in January 2017, he picked Pai as FCC chair, then renominated him to the leadership role that March, which the Senate confirmed that October.

The month after Trump lost to Biden in 2020, the Senate confirmed the outgoing president's nomination of Nathan Simington to the FCC, despite critics' warnings. Fight for the Future's Evan Greer said at the time that he was "even worse than Ajit Pai." Simington remains at the FCC, along with Republican Brendan Carr and Democrats Geoffrey Starks and Jessica Rosenworcel, the current chair. Sohn addressed the impact of the vacancy for the fifth commissioner post in her testimony Tuesday.

"The FCC has been without a majority for the entirety of the Biden administration—over two years—at a time when closing the digital divide is front and center," she said. "There are too many important issues in front of the commission to lack a full complement of members, including improving the broadband maps, fixing the Universal Service Fund, closing the homework gap, ensuring fair access to broadband, and protecting consumers' privacy. Americans deserve a full FCC where I could play a critical role in addressing every one of these, but time is of the essence."

Sohn also said that "I believe deeply that regulated entities should not choose their regulator. Unfortunately, that is the exact intent of the past 15 months of false and misleading attacks on my record and my character. My industry opponents have hidden behind dark money groups and surrogates because they fear a pragmatic, pro-competition, pro-consumer policymaker who will support policies that will bring more, faster, and lower-priced broadband and new voices to your constituents."

Rights groups echoed Sohn's criticism of industry attacks on her and agreed that the Senate needs to act urgently. As Seeley George put it: "There is no question that Gigi Sohn is qualified to sit on the FCC. The only reason we are going through yet another hearing is because telecom companies, and the lawmakers shilling for them, know that when she is appointed she will put what's best for the American people over industry profits."

"The opposition to Sohn has been unprecedented, and has included personal, blatantly homophobic attacks (something we're disappointed Democratic lawmakers did not condemn during the hearing). But, as Sohn said today, regulated entities should not get to pick their regulator," she continued. "Over the past year and a half the FCC could have been getting to work to restore net neutrality, ensure universal access to affordable broadband, address unregulated use of cellphone location data and the risk it poses to abortion rights, and protect the public from the abuses of telecom monopolies."

Free Press Action general counsel and vice president of policy Matt Wood similarly asserted that "confirming Gigi Sohn to serve at the FCC is the best thing the Senate can do to ensure media, tech, and broadband policy actually serves the public. No other nominee in the FCC's history has had to wait so long for a confirmation vote. She is obviously and supremely qualified to serve as a watchdog for ordinary people across the country."

He continued:

As commissioner, Sohn will fight on behalf of working families trying to pay their high monthly phone and internet bills. She will work to ensure that the benefits of broadband reach everyone, and to curb the runaway media consolidation that has decimated local journalism and harmed Black and Brown communities in particular. Without Sohn's crucial fifth vote at the agency, the FCC cannot fully accomplish its mission.

Sohn's impeccable credentials are the very things that have compelled the telecom and broadcast industry to hold her nomination in limbo. We've had to wait for far too long—with endless delays and bigoted attacks that have prevented the deadlocked agency from adopting some crucial policies that would help people connect and communicate.

After calling out Cruz for "aiding and abetting the smear campaign designed to benefit the massive communications firms subject to FCC oversight," Wood declared that "the Commerce Committee and then the full Senate should advance this nomination without further delays, which only benefit those big companies orchestrating this impasse."

According to Wood, "If the Senate genuinely wants to improve the lives of internet users, cellphone customers, TV watchers, and radio listeners—aka, everyone—it can start by confirming this excellent public servant to the FCC immediately."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Jessica Corbett.

Janine Jackson interviewed Fight for the Future’s Evan Greer, on the nomination of Gigi Sohn to the FCC, for the February 10, 2023, episode of CounterSpin. This is a lightly edited transcript.

Janine Jackson: Gigi Sohn was nominated by Joe Biden to fill the vacant fifth seat at the Federal Communications Commission in October of 2021, and renominated for a third time last month. Sohn is a veteran legal telecom expert, a fellow at Georgetown Law, co-founder of the group Public Knowledge, and for years an advisor to former FCC chair Tom Wheeler.

Hundreds of groups, officials, companies—left, right and center—have publicly endorsed her. So why has her nomination languished?

Therein lies the tale—a disheartening one of outsized corporate power and the denaturing of government’s public interest obligation, and of transparently scurrilous right-wing attacks, and lagging, inadequate response.

And back of it all, the critical fight for a media universe that lives up to the promise to be open, diverse, creative and liberatory, and not yet another sphere of corporate power and might makes right.

Here to bring us up to date on the attacks on Gigi Sohn’s FCC nomination, and why it matters is, Evan Greer. She’s director of Fight for the Future, and she joins us now by phone. Welcome back to CounterSpin, Evan Greer.

Evan Greer: Yeah, thanks so much for having me.

Fast Company (2/2/23)

JJ: I want to talk about the nature of the latest round of attacks on Gigi Sohn that you call out in your Fast Company piece with Yvette Scorse, from the National Digital Inclusion Alliance. But before we got to Fox and Breitbart and “she-male” and “sex trafficking,” it seems like there was another plan to say that Sohn was just too left, and would censor conservative voices, and hated rural people, and that was what made her unqualified, right? This is almost like a plan B, if you will.

EG: Yeah, for sure. And to really understand both what’s going on in this situation, and just the utter hypocrisy behind it, you have to go back even a little further to remembering why the Federal Communications Commission is important, and what the recent history there is.

Some of your listeners probably remember that, as you mentioned, during the Obama administration, millions of people from across the political spectrum spoke out and fought really hard for the enactment of strong oversight of the telecom industry.

And that fight was mostly talked about as the net neutrality fight, and it certainly did have to do with those net neutrality rules, although it also had to do with, again, the broader battle around the FCC’s ability to protect the public interest from what are effectively natural monopolies in these giant telecom companies, like Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, etc.

And during the Trump administration, Ajit Pai, the chair that Trump nominated, swept through the Senate very, very quickly, and within months had already begun the process of repealing those rules.

We are now two years into the Biden administration, and Biden does not even have a fully functional FCC.

So those delays—we’re going to talk in a moment about the smears that Gigi Sohn has faced, but I think it’s important that we first just talk about the impact of that, which is that this agency, that plays an essential role in protecting the public interest and protecting us from being, frankly, scammed and screwed over by these large and incredibly powerful monopolies, has been totally unable to do their job, because of the dark money–funded smear campaign that has slowed down Gigi Sohn’s nomination.

And I think it’s important to understand that, because folks like Ajit Pai, who is a former top lawyer for Verizon, and had tremendous conflicts of interest for the job, again, were approved very, very quickly by the Senate, because, historically, confirmation processes for these types of roles have been largely pro forma, just sort of a, yeah, sure, we’ll approve your guy, you approve our guy, and all is well and good.

And this has been the exception to that, where Gigi Sohn has faced relentless smear campaigns, some of which we know is funded directly by the telecom industry, because it’s coming from groups that they’ve effectively used as their mouthpieces in the past, folks like the Taxpayers Protection Alliance and others, that have taken large amounts of money from the industry, and routinely put out statements more or less in line with their policies.

And so they started a lot of the attacks on Sohn, calling her left wing, playing into these tropes around claims of anti-conservative bias, saying that she supports censorship.

All of that’s completely ridiculous. Sohn, like myself, is a staunch defender of the First Amendment, and has actually been very outspoken about the need for protecting speech from across the political spectrum. It’s actually rare these days in DC to have someone that does stand up for the free speech rights, even of their political opponents. And Gigi is really one of those people who has a strong dedication to free speech and free expression.

But the folks that are laundering these attacks don’t really care about their veracity. The goal is just to create confusion, and they’ve been very successful in creating a lot of flack that has now been picked up by the right-wing media, who are emboldened by these telecom-funded attacks, and they’ve really taken that and run with it. And they’ve now run off the deep end, and we can talk about that a bit more in a minute.

Gizmodo (12/1/21)

JJ: Thank you very much for pointing to the complicated nature of it, because, yeah, it’s very hard to push a line that Gigi Sohn would censor conservative voices when you have public support for her from the likes of Chris Ruddy, the head of Newsmax, and Preston Padden, the former Fox and ABC executive, who are coming forward, saying she’s never said anything that indicated to me that she would censor conservative voices.

And then the anti-rural thing was just a textbook thing where you circulate a video that you deceptively edited, and folks just run with it.

But now we see a certain kind of machine has been activated. You know, copycat headlines. The Daily Mail, for Pete’s sake, is involved. So let’s talk about, then, what you call going off the rails, the nature of this current attack, and, just because it’s what listeners may have seen, what the heck does Gigi Sohn have to do with sex trafficking?

EG: Absolutely nothing. But again, that doesn’t deter these outlets that tend to play pretty fast and loose with the facts. But let me explain what these attacks are, and what the argument that they’re trying to make is, and then I’ll very quickly explain why that’s a load of bleep, if you will.

So as you mentioned, in the last week and a half, we saw a bunch of far-right-wing news outlets publish more or less identical articles claiming that Gigi Sohn, this nominee, has opposed efforts to combat sex trafficking. That’s the argument that they’re making.

Now, even these outlets that, again, don’t particularly care about the facts, have a fair amount of trouble backing up that claim, because, again, it’s utterly nonsensical. But what they’re basically saying is, they’re attacking Gigi, who was sitting on the board of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the EFF, which is an organization probably many of your listeners know about, maybe even have donated to. They’re like an ACLU for the internet. They have been staunch defenders of free speech, and opponents of government censorship and surveillance, unapologetically, for many years.

Appeal (1/26/18)

And EFF is one of dozens of human rights organizations from around the world that oppose a piece of legislation called SESTA-FOSTA. This was legislation that created a carve out in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act around content online that could theoretically be related to sex trafficking. The bill was so poorly written that, again, it was opposed by the entire human rights community, and, in fact, the US Department of Justice came right out and said, a couple years later, that the law has been utterly ineffective in aiding them in actual prosecutions of real sex trafficking and other related crimes. It’s actually made it harder for them to do so.

So EFF and many organizations oppose this law, not because they oppose efforts to combat sex trafficking, but because they opposed a terrible law that actually made it harder to combat sex trafficking, while in the process opening the floodgates for widespread online censorship of a wide range of content that had absolutely nothing to do with sex trafficking, like LGBTQ content, content related to sexual health, content related to learning about consent, and positive models for healthy and consensual adult relationships.

This is the type of stuff that got scrubbed off the internet by a ham-fisted law that, again, was opposed by many organizations, not just the EFF.

But these headlines gloss over all of that, and just wave their hands and try to say, Gigi Sohn, SESTA-FOSTA, sex trafficking.

But here’s the thing, is that none of this actually matters at all to Gigi’s candidacy for a role at the FCC, because even if she had taken a position on SESTA-FOSTA, which she never has, and even if, somehow, her role on the board of a highly respected organization like EFF implicated her in every single one of EFF’s positions on many, many issues, the FCC has absolutely no jurisdiction in this area whatsoever. They have nothing to do with the online content moderation rules of platforms like Facebook or Instagram or YouTube.

The FCC is laser-focused on providing oversight of telecom companies, the companies that connect us to the internet, your phone company, your cable company. And so this is just completely smoke and mirrors. This is an issue that the FCC doesn’t even touch, and it’d be like complaining that you don’t like Gigi’s position on climate change, another area that the FCC has no jurisdiction over.

So it’s a completely non-substantive attack. It’s very much driven by these homophobic tropes that we’ve seen going more and more mainstream, among both Republican lawmakers and the right-wing media ecosystem, that’s about conflating queerness with predatory behavior, and conflating queerness with deviance and harm.

And so that’s really what this is all about. These attacks are thinly veiled homophobia, because Gigi Sohn is not just a highly qualified nominee for the FCC, she’s also the first openly gay nominee for the position.

And so that’s really what this comes down to, is folks are weaponizing homophobia to try to derail what is a highly qualified nominee for an agency that needs to be fully staffed in order to advance the important priorities that the Biden administration has laid out, around ensuring that everyone has access to affordable broadband, around restoring net neutrality and broadband privacy rules, and updating the maps.

This whole smear around rural folks is ridiculous, because Gigi has actually an impeccable track record on working across the aisle to expand broadband access into rural communities. That’s something she’s really passionate about.

Evan Greer: “Senate Democrats, …have been pretty slow to stand up and speak out and condemn these attacks for what they are.”

So, again, when you get into the substance of it, you actually find, as you mentioned, that people from across the political spectrum really support Gigi’s candidacy, but what’s been slowing her down is these dark money smear campaigns, the homophobic smear campaigns, and, to be frank, the silence of Senate Democrats, who have been pretty slow to stand up and speak out and condemn these attacks for what they are, and who have repeatedly delayed the confirmation proceedings at the behest of the disingenuous opposition coming from Republicans and right-wing media outlets.

So Gigi now does have a hearing coming up on Valentine’s Day, so hopefully that’ll be a match made in heaven, and we will put some of this behind us, and we’ll see Senate Democrats stand strong against these attacks. But it has been a harrowing experience to see how an LGBTQ nominee, who’s highly qualified for their position, has been so viciously smeared in this blatantly homophobic way, and that Democrats have not come to her defense as loudly and swiftly as they absolutely should.

JJ: I have to say, I would kind of add elite media to the shamefully silent crowd. Not that they aren’t dutifully recounting the slurs, and even the complaints about the slurs, but large scale, I see a failure to identify astroturf at every occurrence, to say that this group that calls itself “decency” or “accountability,” they won’t let us know whether they’re in fact bankrolled by cable companies and ISPs, and we’re not going to evince a lot of curiosity about that.

I would like to see more from corporate media, and separating out in terms of seeing the homophobia for itself, first of all, as corrosive to any kind of conversation that we’re trying to have, but in this context, also identifying it as the smoke screen that it is.

And I wonder what you would like to see media doing in this instance.

EG: Yeah, I think this is a really valid point, and I think it’s a broader systemic problem with our media ecosystem. And in some ways, this is one of the reasons why, again, it’s so important that we have a fully functional FCC, whose role it is to ensure fairness in internet rules, etc., to allow the fostering of independent media.

But I agree. I think a big part of the problem is a lot of reporting is, to create this “fair and balanced” perception, is very much a “he said, she said” of lobby groups, where they’ll say, Evan Greer of Fight for the Future said this, and so-and-so of such-and-such organization said that.

And maybe sometimes they’ll include, “and that organization is funded by the industry,” but that’s more of a footnote. And that doesn’t necessarily give readers context, right? That just leaves them thinking, OK, well, this group is saying this, and that group is saying that, and of course they all have their various different interests, but I’m left not being sure what’s true.

And I do think that outlets could do a lot more to unpack what is the real context around this, and not just say this group said this and that group said that, but help readers truly understand what the motivations are at play, and, frankly, call out BS when it is as obvious as it often is.

And in this circumstance, I think it is very, very clear, and there could be more incisive reporting on just how blatant the smear campaign has been.

JJ: I find a big picture problem to be a tacit acceptance of the idea that there are just some folks who want regulators who oppose regulation, and that in the interest of fairness, those folks should have their perspective represented in regulatory policy.

This seems like one of the “so big that it’s off the page” presumptions that, of course, for balance, we should have, directing regulatory agencies, people who have said, explicitly or implicitly, that they just oppose regulation of industry, period.

I just find that a weird situation.

EG: It’s an even weirder situation than that, in some ways, because that deregulatory instinct, that has tended to come from the libertarian right, has been replaced in a lot of ways by what is actually, I would argue, an even more concerning turn toward right-wing politicians wanting to use the regulatory state to enact their frightening moral vision on the rest of us, right?

Vox (1/17/23)

Where we see folks like Ron DeSantis, very happy to use his state government apparatus to criminalize and crack down on venues that host drag shows, or other types of speech that he doesn’t like, or to reform the education system in his vision.

And so, I’m actually someone that is generally pretty skeptical about granting (especially federal) regulatory agencies too much power. But that’s what, again, is so absurd in this situation, when we’re talking about the types of rules that the Federal Communications Commission can and does put into place. They’re not limiting speech. They’re not restricting what you, a person, can do on the internet. They are holding your cable and phone company accountable so that you have freedom.

And I think that’s what’s been so absurd, is the far right has, again, really spread the smear, this idea, that Gigi Sohn and the Biden FCC are going to take over the internet and regulate it, when really what they’re doing, or what they want to do, is preserve the internet as a free and open place, where anyone can run a website and the government can’t shut it down, and nobody can shut it down, and can’t lean on telecom companies to censor content.

So a lot of these politics have just gotten very topsy-turvy, where it’s actually often, at this point, Republicans who are looking to use the regulatory state to bully corporations into doing things that they want them to do, or stop them from doing things they don’t want them to do.

So I think we just shouldn’t take them very seriously when they say, oh, well, we need a light-touch regulation, when these are some of the same folks that are looking to use the coercive power of the state to silence actual speech, to ban books, etc.

I think we, as progressives, need to reclaim our passion and commitment to free expression as a value, and be very clear that, actually, I want a fully functional FCC because I think it’s the FCC’s job to preserve free speech and free expression, and that’s why I’m fighting for this and that’s why I care about it, and not let people that are actually very into censorship go around laundering these bogus claims of anti-conservative bias or censorship from someone like Gigi Sohn, when it just couldn’t be further from the truth.

JJ: We’ve been speaking with Evan Greer. She’s director of Fight for the Future. They’re online at FightForTheFuture.org. Evan Greer, thank you so much for taking time for us this week on CountersSpin.

EG: Anytime. Thanks so much for having.

The post ‘Gigi Sohn Has Faced Relentless Smear Campaigns, Some Funded by the Telecom Industry’ appeared first on FAIR.

This content originally appeared on FAIR and was authored by Janine Jackson.

The post The Cartel Economy & the Telecom Cartel appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by David Rosen.

A coalition of nearly 250 advocacy groups sent a letter Friday urging U.S. Senate leaders to quickly confirm Democratic nominee Gigi Sohn as the fifth commissioner at the Federal Communications Commission following a year of relentless attacks on the open internet champion from telecom giants and right-wing media outlets.

"She's the decisive vote we need to close the digital divide, lower the cost of broadband, and hold companies like Comcast and AT&T accountable."

Twenty-one months into President Joe Biden's tenure, the FCC is still hampered by a partisan 2-2 divide. The ongoing lack of a Democratic majority at the key regulatory agency has undermined White House-backed efforts to secure universal access to high-speed internet and restore Obama-era net neutrality rules gutted by the Trump administration.

"The FCC needs a full commission as it begins to deliberate on upcoming critical decisions that will have profound impacts on the economy and the American people," wrote the coalition, which includes consumer protection and civil rights organizations such as Fight for the Future and MediaJustice.

The groups implored Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), and Sens. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) and Roger Wicker (R-Miss.)—the chair and ranking member, respectively, of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation—to bring Sohn's FCC confirmation vote to the floor "before Congress adjourns."

"We call on the Senate to give the consideration that is due to this highly qualified individual, who has dedicated her career to ensuring consumers have access to communications services available to everybody, regardless of income, race, ethnicity, gender identity, sexual orientation, geography, or political viewpoint," the letter states. "Her life's work is the embodiment of the FCC's mission, and we simply cannot [allow] a less than fully functioning FCC to persist any longer."

Notably, former President Donald Trump tapped Ajit Pai to lead the FCC on the fourth day of his term, and by December 2017, the corporate-friendly commissioner was giving internet service providers the power to block or slow down certain websites—opening the door to charging extra fees for access to "fast lanes," which would betray the principle of treating online traffic equally.

By contrast, Biden waited until October—nine months into his term—to name then-acting FCC Chair Jessica Rosenworcel as the agency's permanent leader and nominate Sohn to fill the last seat on its five-person board. While Rosenworcel was confirmed in December, Sohn has faced a barrage of opposition since being nominated nearly one year ago.

Greg Guice, the director of government affairs at Public Knowledge—which was co-founded by Sohn and signed the letter—called the campaign against the nominee "insane," though he acknowledged that it's fueled by corporate opposition to Sohn's progressive policy positions.

Lobbyists, Guice told The Washington Post on Friday, "know that being down one seat means they can better control the agenda."

For the past year, Sohn, a distinguished fellow at the Georgetown Law Institute for Technology Law & Policy and longtime public interest advocate, has "been frequently attacked as a partisan in publications including Fox News, the New York Post, and The Wall Street Journal op-ed pages," the Post noted. "The process has taken a personal toll, opening Sohn up to threatening phone calls and emails and name-calling. Sohn, who would be the first openly gay FCC commissioner, has also faced attacks on her sexual orientation."

Sohn's nomination has been strongly opposed by GOP lawmakers, with all 14 Republicans on the Senate Commerce Committee refusing to advance her nomination.

In addition, "some companies appear to be taking steps to target moderate Democrats who could decide her nomination," the Post reported. For instance, "Comcast this year paid former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) and his firm $30,000 to lobby on the 'Status of FCC nominations,' among other issues, according to a July disclosure filing. Sohn is the only pending nomination for the commission."

According to the newspaper:

The company in January also tapped a former state lawmaker who served alongside Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.), widely seen as a crucial swing vote on the Sohn nomination, to lobby on FCC nominations. The filing disclosing the lobbying focus was later resubmitted and amended to scrub mention of the FCC nomination, as news outlets reported at the time. Comcast also retained Larry Puccio, the former top aide to Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), another critical Democrat to lobby on telecommunications issues, though it did not mention nominations.

Preston Padden, a former top executive at Fox and Disney, said he could recall no other occasion where companies "microtargeted" specific lawmakers to oppose a FCC nominee.

"What Comcast has done to Gigi Sohn in my experience is absolutely unprecedented," Padden said.

"Don't be fooled by the latest Comcast-funded talking points," Joshua Stager, policy director at Free Press Action, which signed the letter, said in a statement. "The companies lobbying against Gigi Sohn are simply trying to do one thing: keep the FCC deadlocked for as long as possible."

"Sohn is an exceptionally qualified nominee and it's well past time to confirm her," said Stager. "We need a fully functioning FCC."

Friday's letter notes:

Over Ms. Sohn's 30 years of experience in telecommunications, broadband, and technology policy, she has shown a strong commitment to the First Amendment, and proven to be a leader in promoting innovation, U.S. jobs, and a strong economy. She has regularly worked with organizations representing diverse media interests and across the aisle to ensure all voices and views are heard both as a consumer advocate and as a government official...

Ms. Sohn has also worked extensively during her career to expand broadband access to those who can't afford it. Her work with industry and members of Congress in developing programs which support low-income Americans, including those in rural and tribal lands, is an example of her commitment to work with all sides to arrive at commonsense solutions. With the FCC having been tasked by Congress to ensure all Americans gain access to open, affordable, 21st-century ready broadband service under the bipartisan infrastructure law, the agency will benefit from Ms. Sohn's involvement as it works to expand work and business opportunities to Americans in unserved and underserved areas.

Stager said that "the hundreds of groups demanding Sohn's confirmation know that she's the decisive vote we need to close the digital divide, lower the cost of broadband, and hold companies like Comcast and AT&T accountable."

"Sohn is a dedicated public servant who won't cater to industry—which is why some of the nation's biggest phone and cable companies are spending tens of millions of dollars to lobby against her nomination," he added.

"We need a fully functioning FCC."

AT&T, Comcast, Verizon, and T-Mobile have spent more than $23 million lobbying Washington so far this year, according to Open Secrets.

Stager's assessment was echoed by David Segal, the founder of Demand Progress, another signatory.

The telecom lobby "still wields extraordinary political power" in Washington, which companies have used to thwart efforts to combat their "increasingly extractive business models," Segal told the Post, adding that the industry stands to benefit from an FCC without Sohn.

"The Biden administration has been strong on competition policy, and the FCC has important jurisdiction there that can't be deployed to full effect without a full commission," said Segal.

The absence of a Democratic majority at the federal agency tasked with reining in the telecommunications industry has coincided with a wave of corporate consolidation, including Amazon's $8.5 billion acquisition of MGM Studios, and AT&T's $43 billion merger of WarnerMedia and Discovery.

"It's outrageous that such underhanded tactics have kept people without the policies and protections they need to connect and communicate," Stager said.

"Sohn has a well-earned reputation for bipartisanship and consensus-building, which is why she has been endorsed by such a wide array of people and organizations from across the political spectrum," he added. "What's more, her confirmation would break barriers for the LGBTQIA+ community, helping the federal government better reflect the people it serves. Senate Majority Leader Schumer needs to call a vote on Sohn's confirmation as soon as possible."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams - Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community and was authored by Kenny Stancil.

The Solomon Islands government has secured a US$66 million (NZ$106 million) loan from China for tech giant Huawei to expand the country’s telecommunications network.

The Solomon Islands National Broadband Infrastructure project is being described as a “historical financial partnership”.

It aims to see up to 161 telecommunication towers constructed around the country over the next three years.

• READ MORE: Other Huawei reports

It is the first major loan the country has received from Beijing since the signing of its security pact with China earlier this year.

The stadium infrastructure for the 2023 Pacific Games being constructed by China in the capital Honiara is purportedly all being paid for by grants from Beijing, a gift to the country after Taiwan cut diplomatic ties with Honiara in 2019.

The work is set to be funded through a 20-year concessional loan from the state-linked Bank of China.

The government hoped local telecom company contracts could be finalised by the end of this year so the project could get underway.

A hoped-for completion ahead of the Pacific Games in November 2023 would allow people who were unable to travel to Honiara to enjoy the games’ coverage via the internet, the government said.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

Supporters of Federal Communications Commission nominee Gigi Sohn and other critics of the telecommunications industry's efforts to thwart her U.S. Senate confirmation this week called out not only those behind the smear campaign but also Democratic leaders.

"Dem leadership is nowhere to be found defending their nominee."

The digital rights group Fight for the Future tweeted late Thursday that President Joe Biden and Senate Majority Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) promised to restore Obama-era net neutrality rules, of which Sohn was a chief architect.

"But instead they're sitting on the sidelines while Big Telecom mounts a massive dark money-funded smear campaign against their nominee to the FCC, Gigi Sohn," Fight for the Future added. "Where's the leadership? Do what you said you would do."

Fight for the Future director Evan Greer said Thursday that "it is absolutely absurd that millions of people from across the political spectrum fought for and won net neutrality at the FCC."

Ajit Pai, who chaired the FCC during the Trump administration, "repealed it, Dems promised to restore it, and they've so far failed to do so by caving to industry pressure and slow-walking" Sohn's nomination, Greer added.

"The only reason for this is corruption. Plain and simple," she charged, adding that it is a "good time to remember that Comcast, AT&T, Verizon etc. are huge donors to Democratic leadership and candidates. They've got their hands all up in there."

The campaigner also said that while the telecom sector and others—including the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP)—attack Sohn, "Dem leadership is nowhere to be found defending their nominee."

Greer pointed to a piece that Scott Roberts, senior director of criminal justice campaigns for Color of Change, wrote for The Root last year, declaring that the FOP is "one of the largest and most powerful hate groups in the country" and "acts as the guardian, enforcer, and perpetuator" of "racist police culture."

The FOP has openly opposed Sohn, citing her "forceful advocacy of end-to-end encryption and 'user-only-access'" and claiming that her employment history, public policy stances, and social media activity "indicated serious animus towards law enforcement officers and the rule of law."

The FOP on Wednesday released polling it commissioned from Morning Consult, which asked U.S. registered voters various questions, including some about Sohn.

"In the poll, 65% of voters had no opinion on this nominee. But after seeing information and social media posts about her extreme positions on policing issues, 6 in 10 said they would be less likely to support the nomination," said FOP national president Patrick Yoes. "For those who say Ms. Sohn's nomination will impact their vote in the Senate's midterm elections, 60% say they are more likely to vote for a Republican candidate—which is very significant in states like Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Nevada, and Washington."

Critics framed the FOP polling as part of the ongoing efforts to tank Sohn's nomination.

"The smear campaign against [Sohn] has been beyond ridiculous," said Techdirt founder Mike Masnick. "Everyone who knows anything about her knows that it's pure nonsense, that she's beyond qualified, and that she will do an amazing job."

"The smear merchants are doing it *because* they know she'll do a good job," added Masnick, who was responding on Twitter to similar comments from technology writer Karl Bode.

Bode had tweeted of the FOP polling that "this is part of a manufactured smear campaign being run by AT&T and Comcast against a highly qualified and extremely popular FCC nominee literally everyone in the telecom/media space knows would be great on telecom monopolization, broadband affordability, and media consolidation."

Writing for Techdirt on Friday, Bode blasted the FOP's "not-at-all-scientific poll" as well as the "grotesque campaign" by telecom giants to "spread harmful gibberish in a bid to either flip or provide flimsy justification" for right-wing Democratic senators opposing her nomination.

He also wrote:

The Biden team isn't faultless here either. It took the Biden administration nine months to even nominate Sohn, giving the telecom industry… ample time to galvanize opposition. Team Biden also hasn't done anything to defend Sohn publicly, or apply any meaningful pressure on the Senate confirmation voting process. Nor have Sohn's future FCC colleagues voiced any public support, despite the shamelessness of the attacks.

Which, in turn, is fairly reflective of how the federal government doesn't really take stuff like telecom monopolization and telecom consolidation seriously, especially in an era where "Big Tech" has sucked all the oxygen out of the D.C. policy room. And again, this is all occurring in an era when D.C. pretends to be interested in "bipartisan antitrust reform," revealing the hollowness of the gambit.

In a series of tweets Friday, Bode warned that "it is going to be an EXTREMELY long and painful decade if Democratic strategists don't start pulling their heads out of their asses and start displaying something vaguely resembling urgency, passion, and creativity."

"The phony appeal of authoritarianism can only be defeated if the [Democratic National Committee] shakes off corruption and truly represents the public interest," Bode added. "You don't accomplish this by letting a hugely popular media and telecom reformer drown under unopposed GOP/telecom propaganda attacks."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams - Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community and was authored by Jessica Corbett.

Associations representing the telecommunications industry on Wednesday dropped their legal fight to block California's "gold standard" net neutrality law following a string of losses in federal courts.

"With this victory, we've secured a free and open internet for California's 40 million residents once and for all."

The stipulation of dismissal was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, bringing to an end a yearslong challenge from major companies including AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast to Senate Bill 822.

Passed in 2018 despite massive spending by the telecommunications industry, the state-level bill restored the Obama-era net neutrality protections repealed by the Republican-controlled Federal Communications Commission in 2017.

Evan Greer, director of Fight for the Future, called the development a "huge win for digital rights and the open web."

"Following multiple defeats in court, internet service providers have abandoned this effort to block enforcement of California's net neutrality law," said state Attorney General Rob Bonta. "With this victory, we've secured a free and open internet for California's 40 million residents once and for all."

In a statement calling the lawsuit's withdrawal "a historic win for Californians and the open internet," Barbara van Schewick, professor of law at Stanford University and director of its law school's Center for Internet and Society, referenced the industry groups' court losses, the latest of which occurred last month when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit unanimously rejected the ISPs' request for a hearing by all the judges on the court.

"After losing three times in federal court," said van Schewick, "the ISPs have finally realized that they can't overturn California's net neutrality law and that they should just stop trying."

"Californians are protected by the best state net neutrality law in the country," she added, and that "thanks to the law's lead author, Sen. Scott Wiener, who fought tenaciously on its behalf, California's law restores all the crucial protections the Trump FCC abolished in 2017 and is a model bill for other states.”

John Bergmayer, legal director at Public Knowledge, also welcomed the lawsuit's withdrawal as "great news."

However, he added, "the effort to enact net neutrality rules nationwide must continue," which means "the Senate must act to ensure we have a full Federal Communications Commission that can restore these important consumer protections for all Americans."

Other open internet defenders have recently urged Senate confirmation of President Joe Biden's nominee to fill the empty and tie-breaking seat on the FCC, Gigi Sohn.

The founder of Public Knowledge and a strong net neutrality defender, Sohn has faced what her advocates call a telecommunications-backed "dishonest astroturf campaign" to thwart her confirmation.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams - Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community and was authored by Andrea Germanos.

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.

"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."

"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."

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.

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.

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."

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."

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.

"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.

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."

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."

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."

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."

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."

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.

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."

"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.

"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."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams - Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community and was authored by Julia Conley.

The post AT&T Fumbles: the Tyranny of Big Telecom appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by David Rosen.