May, 07 2010, 09:53am EDT
Free Press Rebuttal to the Telecommunications Industry's Predictable Response to the FCC's Announcement of Jurisdictional Intent
The
telecommunications giants released predictable reactions to the FCC's
measured announcement about its intent to consider broadband as a
telecommunications service on Thursday. Below are Free Press's
responses to statements from the big phone and cable companies.
Responding to AT&T's reaction, Free Press Research Director S. Derek Turner said:
WASHINGTON
The
telecommunications giants released predictable reactions to the FCC's
measured announcement about its intent to consider broadband as a
telecommunications service on Thursday. Below are Free Press's
responses to statements from the big phone and cable companies.
Responding to AT&T's reaction, Free Press Research Director S. Derek Turner said:
"AT&T continues its campaign of spreading fear, uncertainty and
doubt about policies needed to keep companies like it from harming
consumers.
"AT&T is wrong on the facts. Contrary to what AT&T says, the
FCC is not proposing to regulate the Internet and in fact has
specifically disavowed the possibility. The `Internet' is not the wires
that deliver the content and applications, but the content itself. The
FCC is not proposing to regulate CNN.com or hulu.com;
it is merely placing light-touch rules of the road on the few powerful
incumbents that control the duopoly broadband access market. AT&T
ignores a central distinction running through decades of FCC history -
the distinction between transmission and information.
"AT&T shows repeated confusion as to the scope of FCC proposals.
Just as in its open Internet filings - where AT&T seemed unable to
perceive the difference between DSL networks and search engines -
AT&T here seems unable to tell the difference between the last mile
and the backbone. The FCC's general counsel made clear that the
proposal applies only to service that is offered directly to the
public, and the last time we checked, the public was not offered
backbone Internet connections.
"AT&T also is wrong to portray our Communications Act as one meant
for a 1934-era `monopoly voice network,' as they know perfectly well
that Congress modernized the law in 1996, paving the way for the era of
convergence and competition.
"Finally, it is simply disingenuous for AT&T to say that they
support Internet openness, and were the first to embrace open Internet
principles. The truth is, the company has spent millions fighting Net
Neutrality, and only begrudgingly agreed to follow the principle of
non-discrimination in order to gain approval of its massive
consolidation with Bell South. We hope going forward AT&T will drop
its irrational opposition to sensible pro-consumer policies and work
constructively with the FCC to make our broadband markets work for
consumers, not just shareholders."
In response to Verizon's statement about the FCC's announcement on broadband reclassification
S. Derek Turner, Free Press Research Director said,
"Verizon's reaction to the FCC's very moderate plan to put its
regulatory framework back in harmony with the law is the expected
industry overreaction. The FCC should put little stock into what
Verizon has to say about actions that will "harm consumers," while
Verizon itself harms consumers by dumping millions of its rural
customers on Frontier in a debt-laden deal destined for bankruptcy.
"Verizon is also wrong on the history of the law and congressional
intent. Congress did not intend for the FCC to regulate Internet
content and applications, but clearly envisioned basic rules of the
road for the companies that sell access to this content. It's clear
that the FCC's move is perfectly consistent with Congress' vision, and
repairs the harm done by the Bush-era FCC's blind deregulation."
"And as the FCC's general counsel noted Thursday, Tom Tauke himself
told Congress in 2001 that the `light Title II' approach produced what
is arguably one of the greatest successes in this industry in the last
twenty years: the growth of wireless services -- and it `will work' for
wireline broadband as well. We're inclined to think Mr. Tauke was
right then and wrong now."
In response to Comcast's statement about Thursday's FCC announcement on reclassification of broadband
M. Chris Riley, Free Press Policy Counsel said,
"It's ironic that Comcast believes the Commission continues to have the
authority to preserve the open Internet under a Title I approach, as it
is Comcast's own legal challenge to that authority that left the FCC in
the position it is in. We're not sure what sort of 'regulatory cloud'
Comcast fears, particularly when substantial research has demonstrated
that open Internet rules are pro-investment and pro-innovation; nor
would we agree with Comcast's characterization of the balanced
Congressional framework of Title II as "extreme". But, overall,
Comcast's measured response reinforces arguments that the proposed
action is a non-controversial preservation of the status quo, contrary
to the comments of "Chicken Little" organizations who will assert that
the regulatory sky is falling no matter what the FCC attempts to do."
Free Press response to the National Cable Telecommunications Association's reaction to Thursday's announcement from the FCC.
Free Press Policy Counsel M. Chris Riley said:
"We trust that the NCTA will be reassured by the FCC's repeated
assertions that they have absolutely no plans to regulate the
Internet. Being the expert agency for communications, the FCC
recognizes that broadband communications services are not "the
Internet", contrary to NCTA's deliberately misleading statements.
Furthermore, the FCC has demonstrated in its national broadband plan
that the broadband marketplace is not competitive, and that much work
must be done to ensure open, affordable, and universal broadband access
- work that would prove impossible under a Title I framework."
Verizon https://investor.verizon.com/news/view.aspx?NewsID=1052
Free Press was created to give people a voice in the crucial decisions that shape our media. We believe that positive social change, racial justice and meaningful engagement in public life require equitable access to technology, diverse and independent ownership of media platforms, and journalism that holds leaders accountable and tells people what's actually happening in their communities.
(202) 265-1490LATEST NEWS
Listen Live: US Supreme Court Hears Outrageous Argument That Trump Is Above the Law
"The American people deserve a Supreme Court that does not hesitate to declare that no one is above the law, including a former president," said one campaigner.
Apr 25, 2024
After months of delay, the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday will hear oral arguments in a closely watched case on whether former President Donald Trump should be immune from criminal charges stemming from his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss—an argument that legal experts say is both absurd and dangerous.
Listen live to the oral arguments, which are set to begin at 10:00 am ET:
Thursday's proceedings mark the high court's final argument of its current term, and pro-democracy campaigners are calling on the justices to quickly reject the former president's sweeping immunity claim so he can face trial on federal election subversion charges before his November rematch with President Joe Biden.
As Bloomberg's Greg Stohr noted earlier this week, Thursday's oral arguments give "Special Counsel Jack Smith only a narrow window to put the former president in front of a Washington jury before voters go to the polls on November 5."
"With the trial on hold until the high court rules," Stohr added, "Smith needs a clear-cut victory, and he needs it quickly."
Sean Eldridge, founder and president of the progressive advocacy group Stand Up America, said in a statement Thursday that "the Supreme Court's right-wing majority has already handed Trump a temporary victory by stalling this case for months, allowing him to delay accountability for his criminal attempts to cling to power."
"With so much at stake for our democracy, the Supreme Court should rule swiftly and decisively in this case," said Eldridge. "Accountability delayed could mean accountability denied."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Grand Jury Indicts Top Trump Aides, 11 Arizona Republicans Over 'Fake Electors' Scheme
Had it succeeded, said the state's attorney general, the scheme would have "deprived Arizona's voters of their right to have their votes counted for their chosen president."
Apr 25, 2024
A grand jury in Arizona on Wednesday charged seven aides to Donald Trump and nearly a dozen Republican officials over a "fake electors" scheme in the state that aimed to keep the former president in power after his 2020 loss to President Joe Biden.
Trump, who is currently facing nearly 90 charges across four criminal cases as he runs for another White House term, was described as "unindicted co-conspirator 1" in the 58-page indictment, which was announced by Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes.
"The people of Arizona elected President Biden," Mayes, a Democrat, said Wednesday. "Unwilling to accept this fact, the defendants charged by the state grand jury allegedly schemed to prevent the lawful transfer of the presidency. Whatever their reasoning was, the plot to violate the law must be answered for."
The indictment names former Arizona Republican Party Chair Kelli Ward, sitting state Republican Sens. Jake Hoffman and Anthony Kern, former U.S. Senate candidate Jim Lamon, and seven others as the "fake electors" who sought to declare Trump the rightful winner of the state's presidential contest.
The names of other individuals indicted by the state grand jury are redacted, but the document's descriptions make clear that former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, former Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani, and top Trump legal strategist Boris Epshteyn are among those facing felony charges—including fraud, forgery, and conspiracy.
"In Arizona, defendants, unindicted coconspirators, and others pressured the three groups of election officials responsible for certifying election results to encourage them to change the election results," the document reads. "Discussions about using the Republican electors to change the outcome of the election began as early as November 4, 2020. Those plans evolved during November based on memos drafted by [an attorney for the Trump campaign, Kenneth Chesebro]."
Mayes said Wednesday that had the fake elector scheme succeeded, it would have "deprived Arizona's voters of their right to have their votes counted for their chosen president."
"It effectively would have made their right to vote meaningless," said Mayes.
A state grand jury, made up of everyday, regular Arizonans, has handed down felony indictments in the ongoing investigation into the fake elector scheme in Arizona. pic.twitter.com/Nu8GcD4ZqJ
— AZ Attorney General Kris Mayes (@AZAGMayes) April 24, 2024
Alex Gulotta, state director of All Voting Is Local Action Arizona, said Wednesday that "the indictment of the eleven fake electors is one of the first steps required in holding these election deniers accountable for their alleged attempts to take power away from voters by disrupting our free and fair elections."
"Arizonans deserve to trust the election officials responsible for administering our elections and preserving our democracy," said Gulotta, "and this is a positive step forward as we continue to strengthen the foundations of our democracy and restore faith in our elections."
The Arizona Republicreported Wednesday that "several of the Arizona electors have previously claimed they were merely offering Congress a backup plan, though nothing in the documents they sent to Congress and the National Archives backs up that assertion."
"The indictment includes several statements the false electors made on social media that contradict those claims," the newspaper observed.
Jenny Guzman, director of Common Cause's Arizona program, said the indictment "marks the start of a new chapter for the fake elector scheme that has plagued Arizona."
"Arizonans are still dealing with the fallout from the false electors and the Big Lie about the 2020 elections," said Guzman. "We are relieved that the investigation by Attorney General Mayes has concluded and Arizonans can now know that what comes next is accountability. These efforts by these fake electors to undermine the will of Arizona’s voters have had implications far beyond their failed attempt to overthrow the 2020 election."
"This indictment can reassure all Arizonans that if anyone, regardless of their political affiliation, attempts to undermine their vote, consequences will follow," Guzman added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Watchdog Urges FEC to Investigate Trump Campaign Over Scheme for Legal Fees
"By not disclosing the vendors that actually provided legal services, the Trump-affiliated committees effectively blocked the public from knowing which attorneys and firms are being paid—and how much."
Apr 24, 2024
A campaign finance watchdog on Wednesday filed a Federal Election Commission complaint accusing former President Donald Trump's 2024 campaign, affiliated political groups, and an accounting firm of violating U.S. law in a scheme "seemingly designed to obscure the true recipients of a noteworthy portion of Trump's legal bills."
The Washington, D.C.-based Campaign Legal Center (CLC) said that "evidence appears to show an illegal arrangement between several Trump-affiliated committees and a compliance firm named Red Curve Solutions that is designed to obscure the identities of those providing legal services and how much they are being paid."
"Voters have a right to know how the presidential campaigns and other committees supporting presidential candidates spend their money."
CLC alleges that the Trump campaign, Trump's political action committee (PAC) Save America, and three affiliated organizations "violated federal reporting requirements based on a scheme in which the committees reportedly paid over $7.2 million—described as 'reimbursement for legal' costs or expenses"—to Red Curve.
The watchdog also said that Red Curve appears to be "making or facilitating illegal contributions that violate either federal contribution limits or the prohibition on corporate contributions."
According to CLC:
Red Curve is a domestic limited liability company that offers compliance and FEC reporting services but does not appear to offer any legal services. It is managed by Bradley Crate, who also serves as the treasurer for each of the five Trump-affiliated committees concerned in this complaint, as well as over 200 other federal committees.
According to filings with the FEC, Red Curve appears to have been fronting legal costs for Trump since at least December 2022, with Trump-affiliated committees repaying the company later. This arrangement appears to violate FEC rules that require campaigns to disclose not only the entity being reimbursed (here, Red Curve) but also the underlying vendor. By not disclosing the vendors that actually provided legal services, the Trump-affiliated committees effectively blocked the public from knowing which attorneys and firms are being paid—and how much they are being paid—through this arrangement.
"Voters have a right to know how the presidential campaigns and other committees supporting presidential candidates spend their money," CLC senior director of campaign finance Erin Chlopak said in a statement. "When campaigns and committees obscure that information from the public, not only do they make it difficult to determine if the law has been violated, but they deny voters the ability to make an informed choice when casting a ballot."
"The steps taken by the Trump campaign, its affiliated committees, and Red Curve Solutions concealed information about how campaign funds were used to pay former President Trump's legal expenditures, including the amounts and ultimate recipients of these expenditures—and the FEC must investigate immediately," Chlopak added.
Trump—who is the presumptive 2024 GOP presidential nominee—faces 91 federal and state felony charges related to his role in the January 6 insurrection and his organization's business practices. He is currently on trial in New York for allegedly falsifying business records related to hush money payments to cover up sex scandals during the 2016 election cycle. The twice-impeached former president has been open about his use of campaign donations to pay his legal costs.
The new CLC filing comes a day after the watchdog filed separate FEC complaints urging investigations into a pair of Trump-affiliated "scam PACs," which "pretend to fundraise for major candidates or issues while secretly diverting almost all of their donors' money back into fundraising or the fraudsters' own pockets."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular