February, 24 2014, 02:06pm EDT
Free Press: Comcast-Netflix Deal Shows How ISPs Can Abuse Their Market Power
WASHINGTON
On Sunday, Netflix reached an interconnection agreement with Comcast to ensure its videos would be streamed directly to consumers. The deal ends the standoff that had led to poor performance of Netflix offerings to Comcast customers. The Wall Street Journal reported that the deal involved Netflix paying Comcast to deliver traffic onto its network.
Free Press President and CEO Craig Aaron made the following statement:
"The exact terms of the Comcast-Netflix deal are still secret, but this much is clear: Millions of consumers who have already paid handsomely for a premium broadband experience received poor service for months on end. Comcast refused to make minimal investments to deliver what their customers had already bought, while simultaneously pushing people to upgrade to more expensive services.
"This should be a wake-up call to regulators at the Federal Communications Commission about how ISPs will try to abuse their market power. The average user is at the mercy of powerful companies like Comcast and Verizon, both of which won't hesitate to degrade their services as a negotiating tactic. We need a watchdog in Washington who will demand transparency and who has the authority to stop discrimination and anti-competitive behavior.
"This agreement is in no sense the outcome of a free market. This isn't voluntary. This is Comcast having Netflix over a barrel, and striking a deal only once it became clear that degrading Netflix could derail their merger with Time Warner Cable.
"This deal is a glimpse of the future of the Internet -- and that future will look even worse if Comcast is allowed to take over Time Warner Cable."
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
'The People Will Not Forgive This': South Korean President Faces Impeachment After Martial Law Gambit
"The Yoon Suk Yeol regime has declared its own end of power," said the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions.
Dec 04, 2024
South Koreans took to the streets en masse Wednesday to protest conservative President Yoon Suk Yeol's brief imposition of martial law, a move that sparked an immediate political crisis and calls for his resignation or removal.
The Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (KCTU) led marches Wednesday and vowed that its 1.2-million-strong membership would strike until Yoon steps aside. Prior to Tuesday night, martial law was last imposed in South Korea more than four decades ago.
Yoon's decree prompted the resignation of his chief of staff, defense minister, and other officials.
"While the stated reason for declaring martial law is 'to eradicate pro-North Korean forces and maintain the constitutional order,' all citizens except Yoon Suk Yeol understand the true meaning of this martial law declaration," KCTU said in a statement. "Yoon Suk Yeol has chosen the irrational and anti-democratic method of martial law to extend his political life as he has been driven to the edge."
"The people will not forgive this," the labor organization added. "They remember the fate of regimes that declared martial law. The people clearly remember the end of regimes that deceived the citizens and damaged democracy. The people never forgave regimes that suppressed citizens and violated democracy. The Yoon Suk Yeol regime has declared its own end of power."
VIDEO: South Korean protesters call for President Yoon's arrest after martial law attempt.
South Koreans gather at Seoul's downtown Gwanghwamun in a protest to demand the resignation of President Yoon Suk Yeol after he abandoned a short-lived attempt at martial law that plunged… pic.twitter.com/6b2y2i8tUH
— AFP News Agency (@AFP) December 4, 2024
Just hours after issuing it, Yoon withdrew the martial law order in the face of large-scale backlash from the public and members of South Korea's Legislature, who are now looking to impeach the president after unanimously rejecting his ill-fated declaration.
The Financial Timesreported Wednesday that "about 190 lawmakers from six opposition parties submitted an impeachment motion, intending to discuss the bill in parliament on Thursday before a vote on Friday or Saturday." For impeachment to succeed, some members of Yoon's party would have to support the president's removal.
"As pressure built on members of Yoon's own party to support the impeachment bid, thousands of protesters against the president gathered in central Seoul," FT observed. "South Korea's main opposition, the Democratic Party, labeled the declaration of martial law 'a clear act of treason' and 'a perfect reason' to impeach the president."
Lee Jae-myung, the opposition party's leader, said Yoon "is likely to make another attempt" at imposing martial law if given the opportunity.
"But we face a bigger risk where he can provoke North Korea and run the risk of an armed clash with North Korea by destabilizing the divided border," he added.
Cho Kuk, leader of the Rebuilding Korea Party, said Yoon should face investigation for treason and warned the president "is someone who can press the button to start war or declare martial law again."
"He is the one who can put South Korea in the biggest jeopardy now," he said. "We should immediately suspend his presidential duties by impeaching him."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Offers Key Pentagon Job to Billionaire Whose Firm Trained Khashoggi's Murderers
Stephen Feinberg is co-CEO of Cerberus Capital Management, which owns a company that provided training to members of the hit squad that murdered Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi.
Dec 04, 2024
President-elect Donald Trump has reportedly offered the number-two Pentagon job to a secretive billionaire investor with close ties to the military-industrial complex, potentially introducing additional conflicts of interest to an incoming administration that is set to be rife with corporate executives and lobbyists.
Stephen Feinberg is co-founder and co-CEO of the private equity behemoth Cerberus Capital Management, which owns a firm that provided paramilitary training to members of the elite team that murdered Saudi journalist and U.S. resident Jamal Khashoggi in 2018.
Trump drew global outrage for publicly defending the Saudi regime in the wake of the assassination, even after U.S. intelligence agencies established that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman authorized Khashoggi's murder.
The New York Timesreported in 2021 that four Saudis who took part in the 2018 Khashoggi assassination "received paramilitary training in the United States the previous year under a contract approved by the State Department." Tier 1 Group, an Arkansas-based company financed by Cerberus, provided the training.
"The instruction occurred as the secret unit responsible for Mr. Khashoggi's killing was beginning an extensive campaign of kidnapping, detention, and torture of Saudi citizens ordered by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, Saudi Arabia's de facto ruler, to crush dissent inside the kingdom," the Times noted.
"Having this revolving door of people who sit on boards of major defense contractors and then cycle in and out of the Pentagon is a problem that did not begin with Trump, but is a problem nonetheless."
It's not yet clear whether Feinberg intends to accept Trump's offer to serve as deputy defense secretary, but news of the choice prompted speculation that Feinberg could be elevated to the top Pentagon spot as Fox News host Pete Hegseth—the president-elect's nominee for the role—faces skepticism from senators amid new details of the sexual assault allegations against him. (Update: The Times reported Wednesday morning that Trump's support for Hegseth is "wobbling" and he is "openly discussing other people for the job, including Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida.")
Citing an unnamed person familiar with his thinking,
Politicoreported that Feinberg is expected to accept the job offer for deputy defense secretary. Feinberg would also have to be confirmed by the Senate.
The Washington Post, which first reported Trump's offer on Tuesday, noted that the private equity billionaire is a major donor to the president-elect and has "investments in defense companies that maintain lucrative Pentagon contracts." The Post observed that Cerberus "has invested in hypersonic missiles" and "previously owned the private military contractor DynCorp."
Matt Duss, executive vice president at the Center for International Policy and a former foreign policy adviser to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), told the Post that "having this revolving door of people who sit on boards of major defense contractors and then cycle in and out of the Pentagon is a problem that did not begin with Trump, but is a problem nonetheless."
"Is he going to be listening to a whole range of constituencies or primarily business constituencies?" Duss asked of Feinberg.
If he accepts the president-elect's offer, Feinberg would join a number of conflict-of-interest-ridden nominees for high-level positions in the incoming Trump administration.
Jeff Hauser, executive director of the Revolving Door Project, characterized Trump's Cabinet picks so far as "chaotic evil" and warned that their conflicts of interest could bring horrible consequences for the American public.
"Corruption is not only bad in and of itself," Hauser told the Institute for Public Accuracy on Tuesday. "It's also a bad thing that makes other terrible things more likely to happen. If you corrupt the enforcement of environmental protection laws, people will be poisoned by the water they drink and air they breathe. If you corrupt the Department of Labor, workplace safety will collapse over time and wage protections will disappear."
"That's what happened under the last Trump administration. This is going to be worse," Hauser warned. "Food safety issues, automobile safety with driverless cars, rail safety—these are all risks that the Trump team will be taking with the lives of ordinary people."
Keep ReadingShow Less
For Wall Street-Fueled Philanthropy Industry, Every Day Is Giving Tuesday
"The financial industry aggressively markets DAFs for uncharitable reasons: advantages as tax avoidance vehicles, especially for complex assets; no payout requirements—and secrecy to donors and grantees alike," said one of the report's authors.
Dec 03, 2024
A new report released on this year's philanthropic holiday known as Giving Tuesday details how the "profit motives of the financial services sector have increasingly and disastrously warped how charitable giving functions."
The analysis by the Institute for Policy Studies—titled "Gilded Giving 2024: Saving Philanthropy from Wall Street"—shows how donor-advised funds (DAFs) increasingly serve the economic interests of donors and the Wall Street firms that manage the funds, rather than the interests of nonprofit charities.
Rather than donate to a cause directly, wealthy people have the option to donate to foundations or DAFs, which can be sponsored by for-profit wealth management firms like Fidelity Investments or Charles Schwab. Firms like Fidelity Investments, in turn, benefit from being able to offer this type of service to wealthy clients.
"At last count," according to the report's authors, "DAFs and foundations together take in 35 percent of all individual giving in the U.S." If they continue to grow at the rate they have for the past five years, they're expected to take in half of all individual giving in the country by 2028.
Why is this a problem? For one thing, according to the report, some of the money that's intended for donation is scraped up by the DAFs and foundations, meaning that dollars meant for a cause are diverted elsewhere.
"With each passing year, an additional 2 cents of each dollar donated by individuals is funneled into intermediaries and away from working charities. Assuming that their assets will grow at the same rate they have over the past five years, the assets held in DAFs and foundations will eclipse $2 trillion by 2026," according to the report's authors.
What's more, there is no requirement that DAFs disburse their assets, according to the report's authors—meaning there's no guarantee the money is given to charity, and in practice the money in these accounts tends to move slowly, often generating gains instead of being dispersed.
DAFs also facilitate anonymous giving, because donations from them need only be credited to their sponsors, not the original person directing the contribution, according to Inequality.org, a project of IPS.
The report's authors argue that DAFs are part of a wider “wealth defense industry” — tax lawyers, accountants, and wealth managers whose interests are more geared towards helping their clients increase assets, minimize taxes, maximize wealth transfer to descendants, and net some of those assets for themselves in the form of fees, as opposed to supporting charitable causes.
DAFS are used strategically in this way, for example, by giving donors the ability to dispose of noncash assets, according to the report. In practice, this means that DAF donors can give stocks, real estate and other noncash assets directly to DAFS when markets are doing well, meaning they are able to get income tax deductions from their contribution while side stepping paying capital gains tax on appreciation of those assets.
"The financial industry aggressively markets DAFs for uncharitable reasons: advantages as tax avoidance vehicles, especially for complex assets; no payout requirements—and secrecy to donors and grantees alike," said Chuck Collins, co-author of the report and director of the Charity Reform Initiative at IPS.
Other key insights from the study include:
- Tech companies are offering DAF-related platforms, apps, and widgets in order to make DAF granting, and by extension charitable giving, more "frictionless." Yet, these companies, also promote DAFs to advisors and donors in terms of tax efficiency and their ability to help investment advisors "maintain AUM"—or assets under management.
- That the financial industry is "blurr[ing] the distinction between investment and philanthropy." Investors will talk about philanthropy as part of a wider portfolio of financial behaviors, as opposed to something fundamentally different—"something that, by its nature, requires individuals to relinquish personal interest and control."
The report recommends a number of reforms in order to take back philanthropy from Wall Street, including enacting regulations that would ensure donations reach working charities on reasonable timelines, undertaking {agreement} reforms to eliminate "shell games and tax dodges that financial advisors craft to diminish and delay the flow of funds to qualified charities," organizing a coalition of interested partners that would apply pressure on Congress and state governments to take action, and uplifting good examples of DAF sponsors who facilitate steady and generous giving despite gaps in the law.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular