• Теги
    • избранные теги
    • Компании2571
      • Показать ещё
      • Показать ещё
      • Показать ещё
      Страны / Регионы232
      • Показать ещё
      Международные организации28
      • Показать ещё
      • Показать ещё
      • Показать ещё
23 мая, 23:30

Frontier Communications Faces Downgrade in Credit Ratings

Frontier Communications Corp. (FTR) recently suffered a setback as Moody's Investors Service downgraded the corporate family rating (CFR) of the company.

22 мая, 21:46

Cable MSOs Maintain Lead in High-Speed Broadband Market

Per a recent report by Leichtman Research Group Inc., the cable multi service operators in the U.S. have successfully maintained their lead over telecom operators in the high-speed broadband (Internet) market.

22 мая, 12:19

How is ClearBridge Dividend Strategy C Fund (SBPLX) Performing?

ClearBridge Dividend Strategy C (SBPLX) a Zacks Rank #2 (Buy) seek total return (a combination of income and long-term capital appreciation).

19 мая, 19:05

James Jaeger: New Documentary “Mainstream” on The Globalist Agenda in Movies

Via The Daily Bell James Jaeger is an award-winning filmmaker who co-founded Matrix Entertainment which has partnered with Bill Van Alen, of Cornerstone Entertainment, Constitutional attorney, Edwin Vieira, Jr., and independent producer, Richard B. Iott, to produce a series of feature-length political documentaries centering on the U.S. Constitution.  The first documentary — “FIAT EMPIRE” about the Federal Reserve System, featuring Congressman Ron Paul — garnered a Telly Award and went viral as the #1 film on the Internet for six months.  That inspired James and his associates to develop, produce and release additional cutting-edge motion pictures including SPOILER, MOLON LABE and MIDNIGHT RIDE featuring such experts as Ron Paul, Pat Buchanan, Alex Jones, G. Edward Griffin, Stewart Rhodes, Larry Pratt, John McManus, Sheriff Mack and other Freedom Movement celebrities.  The Daily Bell: What are you doing as far as your current film project? James Jaeger: I am working on a new film entitled MAINSTREAM – How Hollywood Movies and the New York Media Are Promoting the Globalist Agenda.  Because this is a large subject, we have broken it down into a 4-part mini series.  MAINSTREAM Part 1 – “Moving Images” [premiered] Wednesday, 17 May. We are hoping that people will see merit to Part 1 and help us complete Part 2, which is currently in rough-cut stage.  We do not need very much money to complete Part 2, but frankly, if donations don’t come in, we will shelve the entire project; the Globalists that control the Mainstream Media will have won.  I don’t mean to be overly dramatic here, but I want to let your readers know up-front that this movie project has been the most difficult to get made of all 7 of my previous documentaries. Although OATH KEEPERS has been very supportive of MAINSTREAM — and about 400 of their Members have donated — one of our key producer/donors died (loss of $27,000), another one bailed out because he’s leery about being blacklisted by Hollywood (loss of $25,000) and the last recently signed a deal with a major studio (loss of $20,000).  Given these losses, and in the absence of an eagle who steps in, we are more dependent on Mom & Pop donors than ever.  Such donors gave us great support for the previous two “gun” movies, MOLON LABE and MIDNIGHT RIDE, and they got done with good effect. I send one of our 7 movies to Donald Trump’s office every week and I have been sending MOLON LABE and MIDNIGHT RIDE to Wayne LaPierre’s  office every three or four months.  And have you noticed his change in tone as he and his organization start to “git”  the Second, as Sheriff Mack might say. So these movies are making an impact.  Trump’s entire platform on free trade is a practically word-for-word duplicate of ORIGINAL INTENT, one of the movies you here at the Daily Bell promoted and supported early on.  So YOU are making a difference through this publication and our movies. My solution to sluggish funding is to double down, work harder and try to make an even better film than all 7 of the previous films.  MAINSTREAM will certainly be the most controversial and complex film and the reasons for this will slowly unfold as audiences get into Parts 2 and 3.  There are a lot of nasty little business practices going on in Hollywood and the media that have kept a “control group” in power for well over 100 years.  We will explain exactly how they have done this so if you want to help us educate Americans, and even the Trump Administration, about the MEDIA MONSTER that is strangling the Republic, go to www.MainstreamMedia.us and allocate what you can. The Daily Bell: You are doing a history of movies and how it was taken over by the left? James Jaeger: True but it was also taken over by corporations.  The MAINSTREAM MEDIA is both liberal AND corporate. A synopsis of the series is as follows:  MAINSTREAM traces Hollywood’s origins from the early art-driven movie moguls to the profit-driven corporations of today. With the government-decreed divestiture of movie theaters in 1948, the Golden Age of Hollywood was destroyed.  Along with this destruction of the “studio system,” movies became increasingly formulaic, exploitative, violent and produced by a small “control group” of insiders.  Then, with the advent of TV and various influences from Europe, Hollywood movies descended into a morass of political correctness and fake news that gave birth to what we know as the MAINSTREAM MEDIA. Now governed by just 6 huge conglomerates, Hollywood movies and the New York-based media have become involved with hundreds of predatory, unethical and often times illegal business practices that result in discrimination against talents, crews, executives and whole populations.  Worse, the movies and network news have become a tool of the Globalist Agenda, an agenda to outsource the U.S. manufacturing base in the name of “free trade” and destroy the American Middle Class in the name of “stockholder value.”  Hollywood has become one of the “big bad” corporations it endlessly dramatizes in its movies. And all this started as a consequence of government intervention into the right of the movie moguls to market their own movies in their own theaters. The Daily Bell: Are central banks going to win out?  If so, doesn’t this basically do away with private money? James Jaeger: Since the Federal Reserve infestation, the entire world now operates with so-called central banks.  Each bank thus emits its own “fiat currency” and as it does it dilutes all its existing fiat currency.  As its purchasing power in the world market decreases, each central bank is forced to devalue its currency by changing exchange rates and printing more money.  Thus all of the world’s central banks are in a race to the bottom.  The bottom will come when paper currency has a value of zero. Enter gold and crypto-currency, what I guess you are calling private money.  The beauty of gold and crypto-currency is central banks can’t print them, thus the only thing that affects their value is market demand.  In MAINSTREAM we will go into the Federal Reserve System and how Hollywood and the New York networks do everything in their power to suppress the issue of fiat currency and invalidate things like gold and silver.  This is, of course, one of the reasons the Mainstream Media ignored our documentary, “FIAT EMPIRE — Why the Federal Reserve Violates the U.S. Constitution” even though Ron Paul starred in the film and it went viral with millions of viewers. The Daily Bell: Why don’t central banks want private money? James Jaeger: Because they can’t manipulate it.  There is nothing that drives a banker wilder than a citizen making his or her own choices.  The idea that a citizen could originate or use a currency that was totally PRIVATE and not issued or controlled by the central banking oligopoly is like tossing acid in one’s face.  This is why gold, silver and now crypto-currencies like BitCoin, are not only the Devil incarnate to the central banker, but models they are feverishly seeking to imitate.  BUT, once imitated, you can be sure they will be loaded with plenty of “back doors” — for what good is ANY currency if the Central Banking Mob can’t get its clutches into it and pervert it for its Globalist Agenda.  And no one in this scenario serves the Central Banker’s nefarious mission more than the Mainstream Media — first failing their FCC-licensed duty to inform the public about any criminal banking Establishment, and second by profiteering off same.   How many bank commercials do you see on network TV every day?  Plenty!  How many BitCoin commercials do you see?  Zip! The Daily Bell: Why is the film in four parts? James Jaeger: When I got into the research for MAINSTREAM I had to go through about 50 books — all of which I ended up purchasing so they would be permanently available for me to study and cross index.  Out of these 50 books, I was then able to narrow them down to the 6 books that best explicated the vital points to be covered in the documentary.  The books are: HOLLYWOOD WARS by John W. Cones THE MEDIA MONOPOLY by Ben H. Bagdikian AN EMPIRE OF THEIR OWN by Neal Gabler HOLLYWOOD STUDIOS by Ethan Mordden IT’S THE MEDIA, STUPID Intro by Ralph Nader HOLLYWOOD VS AMERICA by Michael Medved To make a very long story shorter, the research for MAINSTREAM took an entire year and when I tried to stuff all this information into even a 180-minute film, it simply would not fit.  So I broke it up into 4 Parts, each part between 47 and 55 minutes.  And smaller parts may be best because MAINSTREAM is a mind-numbing course on Hollywood and the New York media few will be able to absorb in more than a 55-minute sitting. Also, since I have been a film producer/director since 1964, I have picked up a few ideas about The BIZ myself, and thus appear in MAINSTREAM as one of the “experts” along with the following “cast”: Chuck Baldwin; Edwin Vieira, Jr; Edward Griffin; Jack Rooney; John Cones; John McManus; Ken Gullekson; Larry Pratt; Nikola Lonchar; Paul Gibbons; Richard Gage; Ron Paul; Rosie Haas; Sam Chew; Sheila Matthews; Stewart Rhodes; and Ted Baehr. The Daily Bell: What part is being premiered and when will the next part be available? James Jaeger: For a limited amount of time you will be able to screen the first part of MAINSTREAM for free at www.MainstreamMedia.us/premiere. Again, MAINSTREAM Part 1 is about 55 minutes long.  If you go to the Premiere site you can watch several trailers and various clips of some of the experts, among which is EDWIN VIEIRA, CHUCK BALDWIN and STEWART RHODES.  More clips are at the official website. The Daily Bell: I understand Part 1 goes right up to the takeover of the movies and how and why this occurred? James Jaeger: Part 1 takes us through the formation of Hollywood and its control by the original immigrant movie moguls who were ostensibly forced out of the Eastern Establishment by the likes of Edison and Ford.  We discuss the incredible art-driven industry the Moguls built and then what happened to this “studio system” when the Paramount Case came down and chopped off the movie theaters.  We then go into how and why Hollywood, and later the TV industry/networks, became predatory and dominated by a small group of agents, lawyers, and top executives that are 70%  “politically liberal, not-very-religious Jewish males of European heritage” — as entertainment/securities attorney, John W. Cones,  says.   Thus Part 1 takes us up to the point where cultural Marxism and corporate fascism infect the Hollywood movies and Part 2 goes into what influence they had, not only on you and I as adults, but our kids. The Daily Bell: Was it somehow Russian-backed? James Jaeger: Well Marxism is the basis for Communism and its milder flavor known as socialism.  Given the rise of Bernie Sanders — a self-pronounced socialist — Americans should easily be able to see that flavors of Marxism are becoming normalized in the U.S. Republic — at least to the youth and college kids.  And this is, of course, because of the Frankfurt School’s “long march through the cultural institutions” — mainly the movies and academia. One of the things we do NOT mention in MAINSTREAM (to the praise of some and the horror of others) is that Marx was Jewish and so were most of the “leading lights” at the Frankfurt School.  So if movies reflect their maker’s interests, values, cultural perspectives, and prejudices, does it really need to be stated that Marxism and Hollywood as a culture go hand in hand?  Unfortunately, few in “politically correct”  America want to mention, let alone discuss, this for fear of being branded anti-Semitic. So the movie industry and Mainstream Media are not Russia-backed per se, but the same political philosophy that infected the people of Europe infected the control group that dominates the Hollywood studios and eventually the New York networks.  In MAINSTREAM we address all this discuss its ramifications.  Unfortunately, there will be some that may try to label this movie anti-Semitic so the unthinking masses will ignore it, but I can assure you MAINSTREAM is not anti-Semitic in any way for we support Abe Foxman, former head of the Anti-Defamation League’s, assertion that ‘Jews, in general, do not run Hollywood.’ The twist in the plot, however, is that Hollywood IS dominated by a very narrowly defined control group, Jewishness being only one of the factors — albeit the factor Hollywood apologists obsess over.  We delve into this obsession and explain how and why it shrouds the real issues of control, domination, and private propaganda. The Daily Bell: Why would Wall Street want the movies to become more leftist? James Jaeger: As we will discuss in MAINSTREAM, the Hollywood Control Group — and by extension the Network and Conglomerate Control Groups —are both liberal AND corporate.  The Conglomerates — COMCAST, DISNEY, SONY, TIME WARNER, 21ST CENTURY FOX and VIACOM.  To understand how this mix of corporate and liberal work, one must understand the mechanisms behind “creative control” and “ownership control” and how the entertainment industry has come to divvy up these hats.  We go into this in Part 1 of MAINSTREAM, so I won’t go into it here. The Daily Bell: We notice that Hollywood makes movies about evil corporations but very rarely about the American or British government. Does Hollywood stay away from the government on purpose? James Jaeger: Yes the corporation and its executives are usually the “bad guys” in Hollywood movies and the government and its FBI are usually the “good guys.”  As we emphasize over and over, MOVIES REFLECT THEIR MAKERS: Interests, Values, Cultural perspectives, Prejudices. Thus the Control Group is NOT interested in green-lighting movies that make corporations the “good guys” or the government the “bad guys.”  This is their interest, value, perspective and prejudice.  The state is all —  the individual is subordinate.  The last movie about good corporations that never got made in Hollywood was called ATLAS SHRUGGED.  Hollywood never funded the development or production of this best-selling book by Ayn Rand even though it was kicking around the industry for almost 50 years — and even though Ayn Rand was Jewish. So in every Hollywood movie, the corporation is the greedy “bad guy” and the Uncle Sam government is the “good guy.”  And this is simply because the government takes care of the nice poor Democrats and the corporations take care of the mean rich Republicans.  And since Hollywood is dominated by politically liberal, secular Jewish males of European heritage it’s only natural for Hollywood’s movies to have a socialist, liberal, anti-free market, anti-capitalist bias to them because most Jews are Democrats and most Europeans are socialists.  But again, to understand how Hollywood exists as both CORPORATE and LIBERAL, you will simply have to watch MAINSTREAM very carefully.  Or you could read some of John Cones’ 17 books, for instance, one on “Patterns of Bias” in the motion picture industry, available at Amazon. The Daily Bell: Usually America and Britain are seen as saving the day. We find this highly problematic. James Jaeger: Yes. Again this is because of the interests, values, cultural perspectives and prejudices of the 56 males that dominate the U.S. Mass Media Oligopoly. The Daily Bell: The central banks are working overtime to develop their own crypto-currency.  Are they working without publicity by the mainstream media so they can spring their “solutions” on the world? James Jaeger: Of course.  We go into the Fed’s relationship with the Mainstream Media Control group in MAINSTREAM in Part 4 — and other subjects they ignore or invalidate.  In brief, the MSM never promotes anything that does not align with its interests and prejudices and, as anyone can see, banks pay for a lot of spots on the network TV.  Also Big Pharma, oil and oil-burning internal combustion automobiles. All over the place. When do you see ads for electric cars, solar, fusion, vitamins or BitCoin?  Rarely, if ever.  So, once the central banks sufficiently steal the blockchain technology and alter it for their control purposes, you can bet you will see it plastered all over network TV and into the MPAA Hollywood movies.  Our “solution” to your money problems, they will say.  Then the stupid public will lap it all up — hey it’s on TV — and start purchasing their new “financial services”. God knows what these financial “services” will be but they will probably make collateralized debt obligations look like Monopoly Money.  In such a way, the Mainstream Media gets almost all Americans brainwashed out of their minds and ready for any new Ponzi. In fact, it has everyone so brainwashed, WE THE PEOPLE now seem to “love” movies and guns more than we love our kids.  After all, by 18, we have allowed our kids to watch over 16,000 stabbings and shootings or 200,000 other violent acts in movies and on network TV.  Many of these acts are even peppered with (toilet) humor and the consequences of human suffering are rarely depicted.  Also, much of the violence is even glamorized with big “name” stars, all of which denounce the guns in liberal media interviews, yet secretly and hypocritically keep and bear guns for their own personal security. The Daily Bell: Is the idea to offer their solutions after they are fully done in order to take over blockchain and crypto-currencies? James Jaeger: I would think so. The Globalist Agenda requires a global currency.   I would thus think it’s only a matter of time before the world governments try to outlaw BitCoin and all crypto-currencies.  And of course, they will attempt to make their new “world crypto-currency” all as normal as apple pie with a little help from their global brainwashing friends in the Hollywood movies and New York Networks.  This is another WHY the MSM is promoting the Globalist Agenda. The Daily Bell: This same thing was done with the movies, wasn’t it?  Are they trying to shut down independent films now or is it too late? James Jaeger: John Cones, one of our experts in MAINSTREAM, more fully answers this question, how the major studios have bought up most of the independent production companies so they can absorb even THEIR share of the market. The Daily Bell: We see things changing.  Maybe the movie domination of Wall Street and the City is over? James Jaeger: I don’t know if things are changing.  Last night I was reading the 2017 TIME WARNER Annual Report the big news is that AT&T will be acquiring TIME WARNER and the Board approved the “Merger Agreement” on 22 October 2016 as a cash + stock deal.  So here we go again, yet more consolidation of the U.S. MASS MEDIA OLIGOPOLY. We will discuss this Oligopoly in MAINSTREAM — a movie NOT coming to a theater near you.  And why is this?  BECAUSE the very companies we will be DISCUSSING will not make themselves the ISSUE. The ramifications of only 6 conglomerates dominating 95% of the mass media should cause all Americans that love their kids to be FREAKING out.  As discussed earlier, TIME WARNER is one of the six hyper-brainwashers and TIME WARNER owns everything. They used to even own the song “Happy Birthday To You” but recently got rid of this.  Good PR move as this made them look greedy and predatory.  But they still own everything else.  And if “they” don’t own it, one of their teenage subsidiaries — Turner, Warner Bros. or HBO — owns it.  So the TIME WARNER Report goes on and on about how profitable and diversified these taxable entities are, yet no one there pays many taxes. The Daily Bell: Any other points you want to make? James Jaeger: If you like what we have done so far, please donate whatever you can to help us get Part 2 done.  If donations don’t come in, this series stops at Part 1, dead forever.  If generous donations come in — in other words, everyone reading this and screening the movie donates at least 100, 50 or 25 dollars — we get Part 2, and maybe even Parts 3 and 4, all done by the end of the Summer. If this documentary series doesn’t get completed, I will assure you it will be a cold day in hell before anyone else attempts this insane and unrequited task.  And by then the Internet may not even exist as we know it for somehow the Conglomerates will have swallowed even that.  So here’s the URL: www.MainstreamMedia.us/donate   Eat out one less time this month and I promise you we at Matrix Entertainment we will put your money to better use than the restaurant owner. The Daily Bell: We’ll look forward to Part 2 and thank you for your time. James Jaeger: Thank you for granting me a “platform” — something the Mainstream Media denies anyone with a worthwhile message about Constitutional principles, free markets or responsible capitalism.  

19 мая, 18:28

As Global Policy Moves To Expand Digital Rights, U.S Faces Crucial Fight Over Equal Access To The Internet

By: Karin Deutsch Karlekar and Christopher Hamlin In 2013, inventor of the internet Tim Berners Lee reflected, “When you make something universal … it can be used for good things or nasty things … we just have to make sure it's not undercut by any large companies or governments trying to use it and get total control.” In what seemed like a momentary delay of his prediction—and a win for internet freedom advocates—in late April, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit denied the telecommunications industry’s request for an appeal of a 2016 decision that upheld the net neutrality regulatory framework. In 2015, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) had reclassified the internet as a utility much like regular phone service (where, for instance, the phone company can’t block a call because they don’t like the caller). This allowed for stronger enforcement of existing net neutrality rules that prevent internet service providers (ISPs) such as Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T from arbitrarily price-gouging or discriminating against legal content, users, or platforms by slowing or preventing access to them. The landmark ruling is now under threat as the FCC—under its newly appointed chair, former Verizon lawyer Ajit Pai—took an important vote on May 18 to weaken federal oversight of ISPs by no longer applying the Title II “common carrier” classification of the Communications Act to ISPs. This proposed fast-track roll-back of the 2015 protections represents the latest move by the new administration to strip consumer internet access and privacy protections adopted in the Obama years, which included preventing ISPs from selling your browsing history without permission and expanding broadband subsidies for the poor. Pai’s adamant predisposition against a more enforceable framework for net neutrality is concerning, and he may have violated a legal statute by taking an FCC policy position before allowing a public comment period. Despite the traditional U.S. role as an advocate for individual freedoms around the world, the FCC’s reversal on this issue is also at odds with modern global attitudes and governance on the right to unrestricted, affordable digital access. A 2014 CIGI-Ipsos survey of 23,376 internet users from 24 countries found that 83 percent of them believe that affordable access to the internet should be a basic human right. In 2016, this evolving consensus was enshrined by the United Nations Human Rights Council as a non-binding resolution, which denounced “measures to intentionally prevent or disrupt access to or dissemination of information online” as a human rights violation, given that “the same rights people have offline must also be protected online.” This includes the right to freedom of expression under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Governments across the developing and developed world have already begun to codify this concept domestically or to invest in projects that operationalize it. Germany, Costa Rica, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece, and Spain have all had some form of legal right to broadband access for years. That says nothing of the multitude of nations with laws to protect net neutrality, including the European Union. Most recently, in March, the Indian state of Kerala declared that access to the internet is a basic human right, promising to provide free access to all its citizens. This promise is increasingly easier to make as privately funded projects such as Google’s Project Loon partner with governments to provide affordable, universal internet access to its citizens through the use of high altitude balloons. At the same time, Facebook’s Free Basics application has brought free internet to 25 million people across the world. However, last February, India’s telecom regulator banned the free Facebook application over concerns that it undermined net neutrality by favoring certain services over others. Along this vein, it is interesting to consider that China consistently outpaces democratic India in providing its citizens internet access, yet it also consistently ranks as one of the most oppressive on internet freedom indexes. This begs the questions: Can internet access truly be considered a fundamental right—affording the respective essential benefits to be labeled as such—if it means sacrificing uncensored access to all legal content? And what constitutes a healthy regulatory relationship between the governments and ISPs that determine that balance? Chairman Pai contends, alongside ISP giants, that regulating the telecommunications industry like a utility makes it less attractive to investment, resulting in telecom cutbacks on the capital expenditure that bridges the digital divide by allowing them to build out infrastructure to low income and rural neighborhoods. Addressing this reasoning, industry leaders of the Internet Association, including Facebook, Google, and Amazon, have instead underscored net neutrality’s importance to the competition and innovation of their industry. They have also pointed to evidence that shows many ISPs have actually expanded their investment in network infrastructure build-out and innovative technologies like fiber optics, while those that decreased investment had been undergoing major restructuring deals. Perhaps it should also come as no surprise then that last month more than 800 tech start-ups made the case to Chairman Pai that gutting the legal framework preventing service discrimination impedes not only consumer choice, but also their ability to “start a business, immediately reach a worldwide customer base, and disrupt an entire industry” through the unfettered marketplace of ideas. This echoes arguments of free expression advocates, including PEN America, who believe Americans stand to lose essential capabilities for free expression and critical information sharing. Having taken part in the large-scale 2014 advocacy campaigns that persuaded the FCC to reclassify net neutrality protections in the first place, PEN America is concerned that telecom giants may once again receive the discretionary legal power to scrutinize information in their networks and discriminate against the delivery of certain content or its creators. Equally concerning is the potential creation of “pay-to-play” slow and fast lanes, in which only those willing to pay a premium to have their content reach its audience will enjoy that unrestricted right. The right to know, to free expression, and to association are core freedoms that are put in jeopardy through the creation of this power dynamic. It has the potential to establish a system of privatized censorship that restricts the flow of free thought necessary to the work of the writers and readers that PEN represents. Over the past half decade, the internet has become such an internationally recognized foundation for expression, as well as political and commercial interaction, that it has broached the realm of essential “public commodities” such as water, electricity, or telephone service. Allowing private industry to selectively inhibit citizens’ ability to use that commodity is detrimental to standards of living in many modern societies, and moderate government regulation may therefore be inherently necessary to protect its citizens’ democratized access to it. The current administration can stay on the path of newly established international norms—and even rise to lead their continued modernization—or inch closer to the trend of authoritarian governments of crafting policy frameworks that serve to limit access. As the FCC vote represents the first step in this anti-democratic process, we reiterate the call not to reverse the gains made in ensuring equal access to this essential means of communication and interaction. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

18 мая, 23:01

Telecom Stock Roundup: Comcast, Charter Communications Collaborate for Wireless

The U.S. telecom industry remained rather subdued last week. Nevertheless, a few developments were worth noting.

18 мая, 15:00

FCC kicks off effort to roll back net neutrality rules

Scandal isn't slowing down one part of the Republican agenda: The Federal Communications Commission is poised to take the first formal step toward dismantling Obama-era net neutrality rules Thursday, kicking off what's likely to be a bitter and months-long lobbying battle over the future of internet regulation. The commission is expected to vote along party lines to begin the process of rolling back the rules, which require internet service providers like Verizon and Comcast to treat all web traffic equally. The telecom industry has criticized the rules as burdensome and unnecessary regulations, but supporters among startups and online tech companies say they ensure ISPs don't abuse their position as internet gatekeepers to favor some websites over others. The net neutrality order, passed by the FCC's then-Democratic majority in 2015, represents one of the signature policy achievements of the Obama administration. Republican FCC Chairman Ajit Pai has sharply criticized the net neutrality rules, and since being appointed chairman by President Donald Trump in January, he's moved quickly to scrap the legal foundation of the order. He argues that the FCC, in applying utility-style regulation to ISPs, was too heavy-handed and threatened the longstanding tradition of government keeping its hands off the internet. “For decades before 2015, we had a free and open internet,” the chairman said in April as he unveiled his proposal. “Indeed, the free and open internet developed and flourished under light-touch regulation.” Net neutrality supporters disagree, arguing that the rules provide important protections for consumers who may not have many options in buying internet service and also allow online companies to thrive, increasing consumer demand for broadband services. The FCC's action Thursday doesn't repeal the rules yet but instead launches a lengthy proceeding that will pit ISPs and conservative groups, which back Pai's efforts, against left-leaning digital activists and leading tech companies that say the net neutrality rules are crucial to creating a level playing field online. Already, the debate has begun to echo the bitter fight over the issue two years ago, and the number of public comments filed in the proceeding has skyrocketed to 1.6 million at last count. HBO host John Oliver, whose viral 2014 segment on net neutrality flooded the FCC's website with comments during the earlier debate, returned to the issue this month to skewer Pai's proposal. His show generated a new wave of comments. But after the FCC website appeared to sputter under the load, officials there blamed the malfunction on a bombardment of malicious traffic. The fight quickly turned ugly, with racist messages aimed at Pai's Indian heritage in the online docket and accusations of spam bots filing a barrage of anti-net neutrality comments. Pai’s proposal would eliminate the rules' legal foundation — which allows the FCC to impose utility-style regulation originally written for telephone companies — and jettison a provision giving the FCC broad authority to oversee ISP behavior. It also seeks public input on whether to modify or eliminate rules preventing ISPs from blocking or throttling web traffic, or negotiating paid deals with websites for so-called internet fast lanes. Supporters of the current approach say it gives the commission the necessary authority to enforce the rules. "The FCC’s Open Internet rules promote a virtuous cycle of innovation that has catalyzed the growth of startups and fueled the digital economy," said Ed Black, president of the Computer and Communications Industry Association, in a statement. “It is disturbing that the agency founded to protect the public interest would instead remove its authority to intervene if internet service providers engage in content discrimination for their own financial benefit.” Unlike his Democratic predecessor, Pai released the full text of his proposal ahead of the agency’s vote, giving an early jump-start to the fight as groups on both sides launched online campaigns. Following Thursday's vote, the commission will seek more comment over the summer before putting together a final set of net neutrality rules, likely in the fall. Pai has said he wants to complete the rulemaking process this year.

18 мая, 12:29

5 things to watch in Trump’s financial disclosures

President Donald Trump may boast about it, but he won’t be breaking new ground by releasing updated financial disclosure forms one year before it’s required.Every president since Ronald Reagan has done the same.Still, his 2016 disclosure to the Federal Election Commission—expected out as soon as this week—promises to generate intense scrutiny. The report, which aides said he would release voluntarily, will open a window into his books, likely showing how much cash flowed into his golf courses and hotels and more detail on how he wound down his business operations after winning the election.But don’t expect the kitchen sink. The report won’t show how much Trump paid in taxes last year or his total business debt—the kinds of details that could show whether his businesses create conflicts of interest with his government gig.Here are five things to watch when the forms come out:How’s the Trump brand doing in the limelight?Trump’s disclosure may put dollar figures around how his businesses fared financially during his presidential campaign. He’s already boasting that his last two disclosure forms showed how rich he was. Last May, he claimed to be worth “in excess of $10 billion” when filing a form that he declared the “largest in the history” of the FEC. A year before that, he complained that the FEC document didn’t have boxes to check off for some of his most valuable properties. “This report was not designed for a man of Mr. Trump’s massive wealth,” Trump’s press release said.Now Trump finds himself in a different position. He’s faced allegations for months that he’s profiting off his presidency, and the documents he’s set to release may make that case. Not only is Trump positioned to give a new net worth figure, he’ll also reveal revenue generated at Mar-a-Lago, the South Florida private club he visited frequently during the campaign and where he recently increased membership fees to $200,000; the Bedminster, N.J., club that’s been dubbed the “summer” White House; and the Trump National course in northern Virginia that he frequently visits when he’s spending weekends at the White House.But wait, there’s more: Trump likely will disclose revenue he earned in 2016 on everything from his Charlottesville, Va., winery to royalties received from his 1987 autobiography “The Art of the Deal,” as well as other books that previously languished in the back catalogs but have since earned a new audience. Important caveat: Figures spelling out the value of Trump’s assets won’t be official appraisals. They’ll be good-faith estimates—which Trump himself once acknowledged in a 2007 lawsuit deposition can fluctuate based on “even my own feelings.”Most important, Trump will only disclose revenues, which means he’s only offering limited insight into the Trump Organization operation.“It may be useful for boasting purposes,” said Kathleen Clark, an ethics and law professor at Washington University in St. Louis. “It also is misleading. The company has business expenses, for goodness sake.”Is Trump still in charge of his companies?Trump’s financial disclosure forms are expected to shed some light on how he’s rearranged his businesses since winning the White House in November. The 2015 report he filed last year outlined 564 organizations – including corporations, partnerships, LLCs, foreign entities, non-profits and trusts – where Trump served in a senior leadership role, from president down to board member. Each of those roles should be significantly diminished, if not gone, in this report. In January, Trump pledged to hand over day-to-day operations of his company to his adult sons Eric and Donald Trump Jr, as well as longtime senior Trump Organization executives. Trump’s report also should show how many of those 564 organizations still exist. Media reports since the November election have cataloged some being shuttered, including licensing deals for hotels in Azerbaijan, Brazil and Georgia. But Trump may also have added new LLCs too, accounting for businesses like trademarks he’s won in China.Important caveat: These disclosures will depend on the date range that Trump uses for his forms. Since it’s voluntary, he could detail his businesses for just 2016 or he could include the first few months of 2017 after he was sworn into the White House. Ethics experts also say Trump could juggle entities into different corporate shells, making it hard to tell which ones he’s actually eliminated. “It’s like moving the Mercedes from one garage to another,” said Richard Painter, the former George W. Bush White House ethics lawyer. “He still has the Mercedes in the garage.”What about those June 2016 stock sales?Under fire to explain what Trump would do to address his business conflicts of interest in the weeks after he won the presidential election, a transition spokesman last December said the president-elect had sold all his stocks in June 2016. Now it’s time for Trump to prove it.It should be fixed to say: In his 2015 disclosures, Trump detailed at least $61 million that he owned in stocks, hedge funds and mutual funds—the totals were spelled out in wide financial ranges. Among his holdings: at least $25 million in the Blackrock’s Obsidian hedge fund, $1.1 million in Apple, $600,000 in Google, $500,000 in Chevron and $500,000 in Comcast.The fire sale likely crimped Trump’s bottom line. The Dow Jones Industrial Average has gone up more than 15.8 percent since last June, fueled by strong economic data, rising oil prices and the prospect of financial deregulation.Important caveat: Trump’s stock portfolio is only a small portion of his wealth, and the FEC filing he’s releasing won’t require him to say how much he made on the transactions. Who does Trump owe money?Trump’s disclosure will allow closer scrutiny into how much debt he carries and whether any of the terms to his financing – interest rates or maturation terms -- changed during the presidential campaign or transition.In his 2015 form, Trump reported 16 major liabilities worth at least $315 million, including mortgages on Trump Tower and his golf courses in Miami, northern Virginia and Monmouth County, N.J. He also reported loans for the 40 Wall Street skyscraper in New York and the new Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C. Important caveat: The form won't be detailed enough to get a full read on Trump’s debt. He doesn’t need to say which foreign governments’ financial institutions he’s on the hook to. And he won’t disclose corporate debt, so the forms likely show only a fraction of what he owes.“It’s absolutely not a complete representation of the debt Donald Trump owes through his businesses,” said Clark. She pointed to an inconsistency: Trump in the past reported on his FEC form his total asset values and income that appeared to include his wider company properties but didn’t follow the same criteria for his liabilities.“Imagine applying for a credit card or a loan and listing all your revenue and all your income but not all your debt,” she said.What do the first lady’s finances look like?Melania Trump barely registered a year ago when Trump filed his financial disclosure form. The only income listed for the future first lady—in a range from $15,001 to $50,000—came via royalties tied to a licensing agreement with a company called Melania Marks Accessories. She also reported up to $5 million in value from residential real estate in New York.But media reports since May 2016 show there’s more to Melania Trump’s books.In February, McClatchy reported that several companies connected to Melania Trump no longer had relationships to manufacture products tied to the first lady, including watches, jewelry and skin-care products. Melania Trump in April also reached a $2.9 million settlement with the Daily Mail and Mail Online to close a defamation lawsuit she brought after the tabloid published a story falsely suggesting she’d worked for an escort service. Important caveat: Since these developments happened recently, Trump might not include them on the form, meaning the world would wait until next May to see the changes in her finances.

18 мая, 09:30

После истории с Лавровым Трампу хотят прописать цензуру

Заявив накануне о господствующей в настоящее время в Вашингтоне "политической шизофрении", президент Путин имел в виду в первую очередь разразившийся буквально на пустом месте скандал вокруг встречи Дональда Трампа с главой российского внешнеполитического ведомства, которую американская пресса жёстко раскритиковала из-за отсутствия на ней американских репортёров. Помимо участившихся и ставших уже некоторой обыденностью "сливов" конфиденциальной информации из Белого дома, противники Дональда Трампа хотят буквально навязать ему собственные правила игры, обязав дать доступ избранным представителям СМИ ко всем "важным для американской публики" материалам и документам.  В палату представителей Конгресса США конгрессменами-демократами Джейми Раскиным и Джайапал Прамилой была внесена специальная резолюция H.Res.325 "О создании защищённого журналистского пула для освещения деятельности президента США". Стоит отметить, что в резолюции в качестве обоснования создания "защищённого пресс-пула" приводится история с публикацией фотографом ТАСС фотографий после встречи Трампа с министром иностранных дел России Лавровым, на которую не были допущены представители американских СМИ. Эта история вызвала огромный скандал в американских средствах массовой информации, причём тон обвинений в адрес действующей администрации сместился с эпизода вокруг фотокорра ТАСС, выступавшего на встрече в роли личного фотографа российской стороны и затем опубликовавшего снимки, которыми за неимением других источников были вынуждены воспользоваться топовые американские СМИ, до обвинений в том, что Трамп и Лавров за закрытыми дверями обсуждали некие "секретные" детали, касающиеся вопросов национальной безопасности и борьбы с терроризмом. В итоге, помимо уже стандартных призывов демократов создать спецкомиссию и назначить независимого прокурора для расследования влияния России на американские выборы и администрацию Трампа, во внесённой резолюции требуется фактически поставить всю информационную работу и взаимодействие со СМИ под контроль избранного журналистского пула. Так, в частности, речь идёт о том, чтобы обязать президента США создать "защищённый пресс-пул" из американских медиа не позднее 30 дней с момента вступления в должность. Под термином "защищённый пул" понимается невозможность проводить какие бы то ни было значимые мероприятия без участия репортёров пула, чтобы, видимо, избежать ситуации, которая произошла во время визита Сергея Лаврова. Впрочем, это означает полную информационную зависимость Трампа и его окружения от прихоти владельцев и руководства американских медиагигантов.  Из первого пункта логически вытекает и второй: демократы добиваются того, чтобы этому "избранному пулу" был дан доступ к информации о встречах президента, его рабочем графике, а также, что и вовсе представляется нонсенсом, — к информации о передвижениях его кортежа. Также в резолюции содержится положение "дать пресс-пулу доступ ко всей информации", которую журналисты, входящие в него, сочтут "важной для американской публики и общественного интереса". Фактически этой резолюцией демократы хотят не только перекроить сложившиеся взаимоотношения исполнительной власти с прессой (причём в любой стране мира), но и, прикрываясь "русской угрозой", получить доступ к чувствительной информации, с одной стороны поставив информационные "утечки" практически на поток. А с другой — осуществлять своеобразную цензуру, определяя информационную повестку в соответствии со своими корпоративными нормами и представлениями.  Именно гигантская концентрация американских СМИ ставит под вопрос не только освещение внутриполитической повестки в США, но и работу на международном уровне. Следует отметить, что 90% национальных телеканалов, радиостанций, газет и интернет-порталов контролируются всего пятью крупнейшими корпорациями. Так, в частности, корпорация Comcast владеет вещательной корпорацией NBC, а через неё — широчайшей сетью кабельных каналов по всей стране, которая включает непосредственно 11 кабельных каналов на уровне штатов, а также порядка 200 каналов, передающих сигнал по франшизе. В империю Comcast также входит сеть кабельных каналов USA Network, а также целая кабельная сеть Esquire Network, которая управляется совместно с корпорацией "Херст". Общие активы "Комкаста" превышают 80 миллиардов долларов. Не менее масштабен и бизнес Walt Disney Company, которая давно уже переросла мультипликацию и управляет, в частности, телевизионной кабельной сетью ABC, включающей непосредственно восемь сетей на уровне штатов и порядка 232 местных партнёрских кабельных сетей. Бизнес конгломерата Уолта Диснея тоже огромен — почти 53 миллиарда долларов. А вот корпорация "21 век Фокс", владеющая сетью Fox News и множеством аффилированных бизнес- и фешен-каналов, сама является частью конгломерата Руперта Мердока News Corp. Корпорация "Тайм Уорнер", в свою очередь, владеет сетью CNN, а также таким известным каналом, как HBO, и голливудскими киностудиями типа Warner Brothers. Замыкает лист крупнейших "держателей" американских медиа корпорация National Amusements, контролирующая CBS, десятки радиостанций, а также кабельную сеть MTV.  Причём большая часть головных компаний этих пяти медиахолдингов находится в сложной и чрезвычайно переплетённой системе взаимного владения капиталом, правами на вещание, брендами и авторскими правами на контент (как в случае с сетью кабельных каналов "Эсквайр" или кабельной сетью CW, которая вообще оперирует в США, Канаде и Мексике, включает в себя десятки местных филиалов, а управляется совместно двумя вроде конкурентами – CBS и TimeWarner).  Естественно, что при таком глубоком финансовом и корпоративном взаимопроникновении о какой-то "независимой позиции" американских медиа говорить не приходится и выкладки о том, что Трампу противостоят не столько либеральные журналисты, сколько так называемое "глубинное государство", обретают вполне себе логичное обоснование. Тот факт, что в качестве отправной точки для продавливания своей повестки ими избраны именно "русские" и что версия о вмешательстве России рассыпается при малейшем взгляде на факты, на самом деле ничего не означает. При этом уровне контроля и управляемости американских СМИ со стороны медийных конгломератов можно внедрять в массовое сознание какие угодно политические и идеологические небылицы.

16 мая, 18:20

Here's Why You Should Buy Comcast Corp (CMCSA) Amid Risks

Comcast (CMCSA), Charter Communications' (CHTR) joint wireless venture, marks a strategic business move. However, spiraling programing expenses always remains a concern for Comcast.

16 мая, 08:19


Оригинал взят у ded6442 в НЕВИДИМАЯ РУКА РЫНКА ИЛИ ПЛАНОВАЯ ЭКОНОМИКА? ЧИСТЕЙШИЙ РАЗВОД ДЛЯ ЛОХОВ.Словосочетание "плановая экономика" заставляет многих у нас биться в припадке, крутить пальцем у виска или осенять себя крестным знамением. Это тоже не чудо, а естественный результат либеральных реформ — как в народном хозяйстве, так и в образовании. Со школьной скамьи нам прививают мысль о том, что плановая экономика неэффективна. Между тем, даже самая рыночная экономика является по сути своей плановой. Хотя бы задним умом это должен понимать любой офисный работник, любой мерчандайзер или сейлс-менеджер.Даже на уровне мелкой фирмы всегда планируются продажи и закупки, планируется сбыт, планируются издержки и прибыли. В микромасштабах каждая фирма — это вообще тоталитарное государство со всеми ненавистными атрибутами: единоличным руководителем (генеральный директор), сдерживающей его партократией (совет директоров), бессловесным народом (сотрудники, рабочая сила), ГУЛАГом (ЧОП, вышибалы, служба безопасности) и, разумеется, Госпланом (от финансового директора до последнего бухгалтера). Назовите фирму или корпорацию любого размера, которая изнутри (а не в своем поведении на рынке) руководствовалась бы принципами свободной конкуренции и демократии?Вот пришлось мне однажды проходить стажировку на американском телеканале NBC (принадлежит Comcast, то есть General Electric). Все началось с принесения полуторатысячным коллективом практикантов (interns) обязательной присяги на верность ее величеству Корпорации в громадном зале головной конторы NBC, разместившейся в похожем на зиккурат небоскребе Rockefeller Plaza. Стены небоскреба, между прочим, украшены изображениями масонских циркулей и цитатами из английского поэта У.Блейка, воспевающими разумное обустройство Вселенной человеком. Но это так, мелкая подробность. Клятва будущих интернов более всего напоминала принесение нашим взводом военной присяги на плацу 32-го военного городка в Екатеринбурге. Худосочная тетка армейским голосом выкрикивает со сцены фамилию за фамилией. Фамилия поднимается и рассказывает, почему она пришла именно на NBC, в лучшую на свете компанию. Затем все дружно смотрят короткий фильм о лучшей на свете компании. Затем несколько раз в форме похожего на ЕГЭ теста разъясняются правила поведения в лучшей на свете компании. Это чтобы не вылететь из неё на следующий день, да еще и с перспективой судебного разбирательства. Солженицын и Оруэлл, Замятин и Хаксли, Лондон и Уэллс не смогли бы покурить в сторонке, потому что курение в радиусе нескольких сотен метров от офиса лучшей на свете компании, конечно же, запрещено.Перед одной из поездок на БАМ мне доводилось бывать в головной конторе нашего Трансстроя, тоталитарном здании с массивными дверями и окнами. Так вот стилистически между сталинскими высотками и небоскребами рокфеллеров нет никакой разницы. И там, и там гигантские проекты, гигантские задачи, требующие непременного планирования. Цели разные. Вектор задач разный. Но механика повседневной жизни корпорации как две капли воды напоминает работу какого-нибудь советского министерства. Вот, скажем, на NBC, в нашем ничтожном по размерам и уровню ответственности подразделении вся съемка производилась на допотопные и медлительные камеры Sony.— Давайте заведем ходя бы один фотоаппарат, к примеру, Canon?— Нет, отвечают, не положено. У General Electric корпоративное соглашение с Sony. Мы получим судебный иск. Полетят головы.И так во всем. Контроль, систематизация, планирование. Контроль, систематизация, планирование. Контроль, систематизация... От общей базы данных, в которой фигурируют все сотрудники Comcast, до субсидирования корпоративных забегаловок.На другой телекомпании, CBS, через которую мы когда-то перегоняли репортажи в Москву:— Не смейте прикасаться к кнопке "Перемотка вперед"!— Почему?— По трудовому соглашению управлять этим магнитофоном может только уполномоченный корпорацией сотрудник.То же самое ведь, ненавистное вам, планирование. Вид сбоку. Просто поскольку на Западе государство, по сути, приватизировано разросшимися до размера государства корпорациями, Госплан там — это КорпПлан. Но без КорпПлана не было бы ни Apple, ни Microsoft, ни Samsung, ни Boeing. Все это, конечно, видят и сами американцы, воспитанные на сказках Айн Рэнд и Мильтона Фридмана. И они, наверное, не могут не замечать, как мало общего осталось между описанным в этих книжках миром свободной конкуренции и миром КорпПлана, где властвуют всесильные ТНК. Однако сделать следующий шаг, осознать, что происходящее — лишь закономерное следствие развития капитализма, результат неотвратимого процесса монополизации/укрупнения капитала, американцы в большинстве своем не в состоянии. Их "левые" бредят о том, что приватизированное государство сможет (если победят демократы) "доить" КорпПлан и получать дополнительные деньги на здравоохранение. Их "правые" бредят о том, что когда-нибудь фарш удастся провернуть назад, сверхкорпорации исчезнут, а на их месте вновь появятся шустрые фермеры и ковбои, со своими маленькими и независимыми деловыми интересами.Вывод, к которому я пытаюсь аккуратно вырулить, состоит в том, что при любом экономическом укладе и общественном строе Госплан в явной или неявной форме существует. Отказываясь от самой идеи планирования (соотнесения отраслевых интересов), регулирования народного хозяйства, мы просто-напросто отдаем свою экономику под контроль другой, более мощной регулирующей системы — КорпПлана. Стремление к укрупнению, рационализации и планированию свойственно всей человеческой цивилизации. Иным способом стоящие перед человечеством задачи (одна из которых — выживание самого человечества) решить невозможно. Мысль о том, что несогласные с доктриной Золотого Тельца/Вавилонской Башни национальные государства смогут закупориться в своих норах и как-то перезимовать — абсурдна и нелепа. Можно либо быть раздавленным или переработанным одним глобальным проектом, либо противопоставить ему свой собственный, но обязательно глобальный. Сталинская идея строительства социализма в отдельно взятом государстве, за которой пытаются спрятаться современные традиционалисты, не являлась ведь окончательной задачей. Это был способ сохранить СССР, дать ему окрепнуть и подняться на ноги, чтобы продолжить движение. В этом смысле ненависть КорпПлана к Госплану, выплеснувшаяся сначала во Второй Мировой, а потом в Холодной Войне, абсолютно рациональна и обоснованна. Боливар не выдержит двоих.Предрассудки о плановой экономикеОднако существует принципиальная разница между проклятым либеральными теоретиками Советским Государственным Планированием и западным Корпоративистским/фашистским планированием. Как уже было сказано, разница эта — в целях. И в средствах. Западный мондиализм замешан на иудео-протестантской, социал-дарвинистской этике. Этике выживания сильнейших/мудрейших. Поскольку ориентированный исключительно на извлечение прибыли капиталистический способ производства неизбежно рождает диспропорции и противоречия (мы чаще называем их кризисами, рецессиями или депрессиями), КорпПлан, со свойственным ему рационализмом, не задумываясь заносит в графу "издержки" миллионы "не вписавшихся в смету" людей. Собственно, Хиросима и Нагасаки нагляднейшим образом это подтверждают. Советский проект, появившийся как ответ на первое такое "списание издержек" (1914-1918) предлагает противоположную по смыслу бухгалтерию, противоположное планирование. Во главу угла такой проект ставит не прибыль, не бабло, а Человека, его потребности и его развитие.В эсхатологическом смысле разница между двумя системами планирования аналогична разнице между добром и злом. При этом, разумеется, для КорпПлана злом всегда будет Госплан ("Империя Зла"), а для Госплана — наоборот.Что же касается распространенных у нас предрассудков о слишком сложном характере экономический отношений, которыми человек, якобы, не в состоянии управлять в принципе, то здесь помогут простые аналогии. Каждый день в небо поднимаются десятки тысяч самолетов. Они движутся по разнонаправленным траекториям, подвергаются воздействию многих непредсказуемых природных факторов. Однако разве в небе царит броуновское движение, хаос? Нет, каждая траектория находится под полным контролем диспетчерских служб. Таких, например, как американская NORAD. Американская же, КорпПлановская спецслужба АНБ способна контролировать каждый байт получаемой и отправляемой вами информации, прямо сейчас, когда вы читаете этот текст. Иными словами, современный уровень автоматических систем управления делает экономическое планирование любого уровня абсолютно посильной задачей. В СССР это тоже предчувствовали, поэтому группа ученых под руководством академика В.Глушкова (Киевский Госуниверситет им. Т.Шевченко) занималась разработкой систем, которые позволили бы Госплану перейти от бобин и перфокарт к более современным и восприимчивым способам организации народного хозяйства.Сегодня о Викторе Михайловиче Глушкове вспоминают довольно редко. Зато регулярно собирается гайдаровский экономический форум. Это не говорит о том, что мы отказались от планирования. Это говорит лишь о том, что похоронив Госплан, мы дали себя вписать в балансовую ведомость КорпПлана.Евгений Васин

Выбор редакции
15 мая, 17:25

Comcast Is Getting Close to Offering Internet TV Service

New service won't require cable television subscription.

11 мая, 23:29

Can Snap Bounce Back from Its Disastrous First Earnings Report?

The buzz surrounding Snap Inc.'s (SNAP) first earnings report on Wednesday was something Wall Street hadn't seen in a while. Can the tech company bounce back from its disastrous first earnings report?

11 мая, 15:44

Comcast, Charter Communications to Join Wireless Wings

On May 8, 2017, Comcast Corp. (CMCSA) and Charter Communications (CHTR) agreed to jointly work on their wireless services businesses so as to better explore their opportunities.

Выбор редакции
Выбор редакции
09 мая, 21:54

America's two biggest cable companies just struck a deal. Here's how it will affect you.

Comcast and Charter have an agreement on selling wireless service.

Выбор редакции
09 мая, 21:54

America's two biggest cable companies just struck a deal. Here's how it will affect you.

Comcast and Charter have an agreement on selling wireless service.

09 мая, 01:51

John Oliver again fires up net neutrality debate

The Republican-led Federal Communications Commission has been marching along with its effort to roll back the agency's Obama-era net neutrality rules.Then comedian John Oliver stepped in. Again.The HBO host took aim at FCC Chairman Ajit Pai's proposal to gut the rules — and ridiculed Pai and his oversize coffee mug — in a fiery Sunday night segment that ended with another call to arms for viewers to make their voices heard at the agency. The show echoed Oliver's intervention in 2014, when he did a brutal takedown of then-Chairman Tom Wheeler's early stab at an Open Internet order."Every internet group needs to come together like you successfully did three years ago. Every subculture must join as one: gamers, YouTube celebrities, Instagram models," Oliver said, calling on "trolls" from 4chan and Reddit to join the fight.Following the Oliver show, which first aired at 11 p.m. Sunday, the FCC's comment site sputtered and went down at times. But FCC Chief Information Officer David Bray had a different explanation for the disruption, saying the the agency was the victim of distributed denial-of-service, or DDoS, attacks, in which hackers flood a target with fake traffic to force it offline."These were deliberate attempts by external actors to bombard the FCC’s comment system with a high amount of traffic to our commercial cloud host," Bray said in a statement. "These actors were not attempting to file comments themselves; rather they made it difficult for legitimate commenters to access and file with the FCC."FCC spokesman Mark Wigfield said he doesn't know the motive for the alleged attack and declined to provide the specific number of comments the agency received following Oliver's segment. According to the FCC's site, more than 200,000 comments have been filed since Pai made his draft proposal public on April 27, with more than 100,000 comments coming in between Sunday and Monday.Wigfield said there were similar DDoS attacks in 2014 right after the Oliver episode aired in June of that year, though at the time the Democratic-led agency did not report a cyberattack.Some activists appeared skeptical of the DDoS explanation. "Very ~*interesting*~ that the @FCC is claiming a DDos attack took down its site and not just concerned Americans fighting for #netneutrality," the activist group Color of Change tweeted Monday. "We know better. And we won't be ignored or intimidated."The debate that led to the 2015 Open Internet rules generated roughly 4 million online comments. Since then, there have been upgrades to the FCC's systems, but senior agency officials have warned that there could still be problems, saying there's no guarantee the system will stay up if an overwhelming number of people try to file at the same time. Officials have offered alternative filing guidance for those who want to submit group comments.Pai's proposal, set for a vote at the May 18 meeting, would weaken the FCC's power over internet service providers like Comcast and Verizon by repealing the regulatory underpinnings of the 2015 Open Internet order. The item also seeks comments on whether the agency should modify or eliminate the net neutrality rules of no blocking, no throttling and no pay-for-play internet fast lanes.Activists groups have offered their own platform for people to submit comments in case the FCC's website goes down. Demand Progress, Fight for the Future and Free Press have relaunched BattleForTheNet.com."We are thrilled that Oliver spurred so much pro-net neutrality activism last night," the groups said in a statement.

Выбор редакции
09 мая, 00:21

Why a Cable Deal is Bad for the Phone Industry

A wireless deal between Comcast and Charter will help them lower their costs, posing a greater threat to Verizon and AT&T.

Выбор редакции
08 мая, 22:20

Comcast And Charter Join Forces To Expand Xfinity Mobile Offering

Comcast and Charter team up to bring Xfinity Mobile to even more customers. There are positives and negatives.