Old Fucking Punk @lwriemen@librem.one

Scientific consensus on humans causing #GlobalWarming passes 99% | #Science | The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/jul/24/scientific-consensus-on-humans-causing-global-warming-passes-99

#ClimateChange #Environment

Activists Camped at Hawaii’s Mauna Kea Face Government Opposition as They Attempt to Block Telescope Construction on Sacred Land

Gov. David Ige gave law enforcement more authority to remove activists and ensure delivery of materials to the Thirty Meter Telescope construction site.

The post Activists Camped at Hawaii’s Mauna Kea Face Government Opposition as They Attempt to Block Telescope Construction on Sacred Land appeared first on The Intercept.

A New Study Found that 15,000 People Died Because Their State Didn’t Expand Medicaid

Approximately 15,600 people died between 2014 and 2017 as a result of their states refusing to expand Medicaid coverage under the Affordable Care Act, according to a new working paper by the National Bureau of Economic Research. The ACA promised to expand Medicaid coverage to individuals whose income was at or below 138 percent of the […]

House Intelligence Chairman Blasts Trump’s “Disloyalty to Country”

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) offered a striking review of President Donald Trump at the hearing with Special Counsel Robert Mueller on Wednesday, accusing him of “something worse” than criminality: “Disloyalty to country.” “Your investigation determined that the Trump campaign—including Trump himself—knew that a foreign power was intervening in our election and welcomed […]

30,000+ US lives could be saved by reducing air pollution levels below current standard

Research findings show significant human health benefits when air quality is better than the current national ambient air quality standard. The estimate of lives that could be saved by further reduction of air pollution levels is more than thirty thousand, which is similar to the number of deaths from car accidents each year.

The Only Thing to Say About Boris Johnson, Prime Minister

Alex Norris on the UK’s new leader.

The Protests in Puerto Rico Against Gov. Rosselló Are About Life and Death

Police donning anti-riot gear—many with their names and badge numbers covered—used teargas, pepper spray, rubber bullets, and batons to dislodge protesters from the streets surrounding the Puerto Rican governor’s mansion in Old San Juan on Wednesday evening. Earlier that day, tens of thousands assembled at the Capitol building before marching to the governor’s mansion to demand the resignation of Governor Ricardo Rosselló. This marked the fifth day of protests and a significant escalation in police violence against civilians. A series of leaked chat conversations involving the governor and other members of his inner-circle provided an unlikely spark that ignited mounting frustrations with the abuses of local elites and the colonial government. 

Last Tuesday, a small trove of messages from a private chat between Rosselló and a number of high-ranking officials sent on the encrypted messenger service Telegram were leaked to the press. The messages showed Rosselló and members of his administration using derogatory language to mock political rivals. Although the 11 pages of the chat initially released were damning on their own, Puerto Ricans were shocked by what they read when the Center for Investigative Journalism released a total of 889 pages to the public on Saturday.

The full leaked chat—although there are rumors that more leaked chats involving additional members of the Rosselló team could be on the way—demonstrated the utter contempt and disregard that the political ruling class has for the people of Puerto Rico. The chat paints Rosselló and his inner circle as little more than a pack of overgrown frat boys. The men in the chat engage in all manner of homophobic, transphobic, and misogynist “locker room talk,” calling political opponents putas (whores) and mamabichos (cocksuckers), commenting on women’s bodies, and insulting feminists and members of the LGBTQ+ community. While this alone is certainly worthy of condemnation, protesters are not taking to the streets because of the profanity in the chats. Rather, protesters are situating the chats within a broader context of structural violence, degradation, and exploitation that mark contemporary Puerto Rican society.

The combined catastrophes of the island’s debt crisis and Hurricane María have forced Puerto Ricans to endure an onslaught of both symbolic and material violence that must be negotiated on a near daily basis. From a surge in police killings and repression to rampant government corruption to the regular insults emanating from the colonial government, Puerto Ricans are confronted with constant attacks on their communities, bodies, mental health, and very humanity. The leaked chats painfully show how the current political formation in Puerto Rico, and the economic and political elites who sustain it, devalue life and facilitate the premature deaths of Puerto Ricans—particularly those who occupy the most vulnerable positions in society. The rhetoric and attitudes of the governor and his closest allies captured in the chat are ones that promote harm and death in myriad ways, from the outright incitement of violence to the promotion of a neoliberal politics of deadly neglect. This is something that protesters have been clear about since the beginning of the protests, although the mainstream media, and particularly U.S. based outlets, have narrowly framed the story around the governor and his associates’ inappropriate language and conduct. To suggest that thousands upon thousands from across the political spectrum are pouring into the streets with an intensity that has not been seen in years over foul language minimizes the ways that, for Puerto Ricans, these protests are quite literally about life and death.

It’s not just that Rosselló and others in the chat referred to women as putas and gatitas (kittens)—it’s that they did so in a context where feminist organizers have been calling on the governor to declare a state of emergency to deal with high rates of gender-based violence for over a year. The governor, when asked about the misogynistic, homophobic, and transphobic language used throughout the chat, said that he was overworked and blowing off steam. But as feminists in Puerto Rico are quick to note, dozens of women have been killed at the hands of stressed out men who were just blowing off steam. The governor’s words aren’t just profane— as he has repeatedly refused to address the high rates of violence that women and queer people confront in Puerto Rico, they translate into lives lost. As Vanessa Contreras Capó, a spokesperson for the Colectiva Feminista en Construcción put it, “His attack was not that he called us ‘whores,’ ‘kittens,’ or any other macho epithet; the governor’s attack is that he still has not declared a state of emergency against gender violence.”

In one of the most disgusting exchanges in the chat, the “brothers,” as the participants refer to themselves, made light of the unprocessed bodies that accumulated in the Office of the Medical Examiner following Hurricane María. In response to comments made by Rosselló’s chief of staff Ricardo Llerandi, Rosselló notes in the chat that they have to work to bury the story—“Hay que matar esa historia rápido” (We have to kill that story quickly). Former chief financial officer and the governor’s representative to the Financial Oversight Board, Christian Sobrino, then replies, “Now that we're on that subject, do we not have a corpse to feed our crows? They clearly need attention.”

As numerous studies have shown, thousands lost their lives as a result of government ineptitude following Hurricane María. Yet the dead emerge in the chat as little more than a problem of optics. The punchline of this macabre joke drives home what many Puerto Ricans already knew—that their lives mattered little to the local government or Washington, and that their deaths mattered only insofar as they represent a problem to be managed. The past couple of days have seen protesters outside of the governor’s mansion holding signs with the names of loved ones who died as a result of the crisis provoked by Hurricane María. These protestors connected the chat’s disrespect of the dead to the larger structural violence of the Rosselló administration’s mishandling of the recovery, as well as its efforts to cover up the true scale of the disaster. For Puerto Ricans, this wasn’t just a crude or distasteful joke—it was proof of the callousness and disdain for the public with which elites govern.

For Puerto Ricans, the leaked chat was only the latest reminder of the ways that their lives are devalued and their futures circumscribed by both colonial rule and the avarice of local elites. Protesters are speaking out against the content of the chats, but they also are voicing a set of much broader demands to fundamentally reshape Puerto Rican society. People are demanding a life-affirming and more just society as they fill the streets of Old San Juan. They are demanding an end to the austerity measures that have already caused great suffering and threaten the ability of future generations to remain in Puerto Rico and live a dignified life. They’re demanding an audit of the island’s $124 billion debt and the dissolution of the Financial Oversight Board, which critics slam for deepening Puerto Rico’s colonial relationship with the United States. They’re demanding that government officials be held responsible for acts of corruption and profiteering that further deplete public funds and strip nurturing institutions of necessary resources. They’re demanding a future where lives are valued and deaths are mourned.

What the chat makes clear is that the current political arrangement cannot provide that future for Puerto Ricans. That’s why people are taking to the streets—not only to demand Rosselló’s resignation, but also to clearly express that the current political situation is unacceptable. Wednesday’s protest was one of the largest in recent history and some are even likening the protests of the past few days to the mobilizations to eject the U.S. Navy from the island municipality of Vieques. Indeed, the protests have brought together an important cross-section of Puerto Rican society speaking to widespread discontent with the current political situation.

Tellingly, one of the most galvanizing figures of the protests has been El Rey Charlie, who mobilized motorcycle and four track enthusiasts to join the protests and wage audio warfare against the governor by revving their engines outside of the governor’s mansion at night. El Rey Charlie has successfully brought working class Puerto Ricans who are often ignored by both political elites and activists into the heart of these protests. On Wednesday night, El Rey Charlie and his crew rode through working class neighborhoods and public housing communities encouraging people to join their caravan to the governor’s mansion. Just as a motorized cavalcade of an estimated 3,000-4,000 people were about to ride into Old San Juan, the police declared the protest over, said the constitution no longer applied, and started to forcibly remove people from the area, nearly causing a stampede.

Protesters have committed to remain in the streets until Rosselló resigns despite threats from police commissioner Henry Escalera to defend the “democratic” government of Puerto Rico “to the last drop of blood.” It’s not clear what exactly will come next, as the governor refuses to step down in the face of mounting protests. Still, one thing is certain: For people taking to the streets, Rosselló and the elite boys’ club that he represents have no future in Puerto Rico.

This story first appeared at NACLA.

The Just Transition for Coal Workers Can Start Now. Colorado Is Showing How.

This past May, Colorado’s Democratic governor Jared Polis signed a series of new environmental bills into law, with the enthusiastic backing of the state’s labor movement. Legislation ranged from expanding community solar gardens to establishing a “Just Transition” office for coal-dependent communities.

Robert Mueller’s Testimony So Far

Lieu: “The reason again that you did not indict Donald Trump is because of OLC opinion stating you cannot indict a sitting president, correct?” Mueller: “That is correct.” pic.twitter.com/yemIYmMkmb — Brian Beutler (@brianbeutler) July 24, 2019

Read Robert Mueller’s Full Opening Statement Before the House Judiciary Committee

The USDA Didn’t Publish Its Plan to Help Farmers Adapt to Climate Change. Here’s Where They Need it the Most.

The Trump administration’s department of agriculture has apparently settled on its strategy for preparing the food system for an uncertain future: ignore climate change.  This wasn’t always the agency’s tactic. Back in 2017, as Politico’s Helena Bottemiller Evich recently reported, the USDA was set to release a big plan on how to “help the agriculture industry […]

#GNOME is going mobile on the #Librem5 and we want to help you design and build amazing #convergent #mobile apps. Follow our tutorial series on our blog to get started https://puri.sm/posts/librem-5-app-design-tutorial-naming-your-app/ and join the active community of developers on Matrix https://matrix.to/#/!wrRnhiBGdsithqslNz:talk.puri.sm?via=talk.puri.sm&via=matrix.org&via=librem.one #linux #linuxphone

Joe Biden’s New Foreign Policy Adviser Supported Iraq War and Dubbed Edward Snowden a “Traitor”

Nicholas Burns worked under presidents George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush before leaving public service and becoming a lobbyist.

The post Joe Biden’s New Foreign Policy Adviser Supported Iraq War and Dubbed Edward Snowden a “Traitor” appeared first on The Intercept.

Here's Your Reminder That Google Has Always Been Evil
https://gizmodo.com/heres-your-reminder-that-google-has-always-been-evil-1836628967 #privacy #libremone

Climate changes faster than animals adapt
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/07/190723121912.htm #climatechange #climatecrisis #extinction

The Democratic Party’s Iran Warhawks Who Fly Under the Radar

On July 12, seven Democratic representatives quietly voted against an amendment to the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act prohibiting “unauthorized military force in or against Iran.” Introduced by Reps. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) in the midst of the Trump administration’s escalating provocations toward Iran, the amendment ultimately was approved 251-170. By voting against it, these Democrats were placing themselves in the most hawkish wing of the Democratic Party. Yet most are new to Congress and relatively low-profile.

According to Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) records, which disclose lobbyists’ and other agents’ political relationships with foreign governments, four of the Democratic representatives who voted against the amendment—Tom O'Halleran (Ariz.), Stephanie Murphy (Fla.), Josh Gottheimer (N.J.) and Henry Cuellar (Texas)—have been aggressively courted by lobbyists for Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. And three—O’Halleran, Gottheimer and Murphy—have collectively received $18,000 in contributions from lobbying firms representing Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

Saudi Arabia and the UAE are geopolitical foes of Iran and have secured U.S. backing for a ruthless war on Yemen that they claim is a proxy war with Iran (greatly overstating Iran’s role). Both have pressed the U.S. to take a more confrontational stance toward Iran. The Pentagon announced July 19, in the midst of rising U.S. tensions with Iran, that it is deploying military “personnel and resources” to Saudi Arabia, a key U.S. ally in the region.

On Sept. 7, 2017, after Hurricane Harvey devastated southeastern Texas, Texas Rep. Cuellar received an email from the lobbying firm Hagir Elawad & Associates, which represents the UAE, “providing notice of UAE’s intended contribution to Hurricane Harvey recovery efforts,” a FARA document shows. While Rep. Cuellar’s office did not respond to In These Times’ questions about what communications ensued, the UAE pledged that same day to give $10 million to “help with local and state recovery efforts.” 

Cuellar was also courted by Saudi Arabia. Lobbyist Glover Park Group emailed the Texas Rep. in March 2018 “regarding an invitation to an event” on behalf of the Saudi embassy. While Cuellar’s staff did not respond to In These Times’ questions about that contact, chances are the event related to Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman (MBS), who soon after went on a high-profile visit to the U.S.

Saudi lobbyists also made overtures to Reps. O'Halleran and Murphy that month. Both were invited to dine with MBS by Saudi lobbying firm Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, FARA documents show. Neither office responded to In These Times’ questions about whether they accepted the invitation. However, according to a January 2018 press release from the Saudi government, Murphy attended a meeting with MBS and then-House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.).

Murphy was also courted by Hagir Elawad & Associates on behalf of the UAE. The firm set up a January 2018 meeting between the congresswoman and Sheikh Mohammed Bin Zayed Al Nahyan, Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi and Deputy Supreme Commander of the UAE Armed Forces, and UAE ambassador Yousef Al Otaiba.

Rep. Gottheimer’s office, meanwhile, received three separate emails in March 2018 from Glover Park Group inviting the congressman to an unspecified event on behalf of the Saudi embassy. The FARA documents do not provide more details about what the call entailed, and Gottheimer also did not respond to queries from In These Times.

As The Intercept’s Ryan Grim reported in May, Gottheimer has deep ties to the Saudi and right-wing Israeli lobbies (which are in a de facto alliance), and has organized behind the scenes to sink congressional efforts to end U.S. involvement in the Saudi-UAE war on Yemen. Grim describes Gottheimer hobnobbing with pro-war conservatives, “This spring, he was one of just a handful of Democrats at a private retreat on Sea Island, Georgia, hosted by the conservative American Enterprise Institute, mingling with Vice President Mike Pence, Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and other Republican heavyweights.” The AEI is the former employer of notorious Iran hawk John Bolton and has long advocated for war with Iran. Pompeo, for his part, has joined Bolton—now Trump’s national security advisor—in pushing the Trump administration to escalate towards Iran.

According to Ben Freeman of the Center for International Policy, the many overtures to these three Congress members should raise eyebrows. “These are all fairly junior members that wouldn't otherwise get much attention from Saudi and UAE lobbyists unless those lobbyists thought there was a chance they'd vote their way,” says Freeman, who provided In These Times with the FARA documents cited in this report. “This vote is at least one indication those lobbyists bet right.”

Reps. O'Halleran Murphy and Gottheimer have only served in Congress since 2017; Rep. Cuellar has been in Congress since 2005.

It’s not just meetings: These junior members of Congress are also notable recipients of contributions from lobbyists for Saudi Arabia and the UAE. In 2017 and 2018, Reps. Gottheimer, Murphy and O'Halleran have collectively received $15,250 from lobbying firms representing Saudi Arabia, and $2,750 from firms representing the UAE. Rep. Gottheimer accounts for 75 percent of these donations, receiving a total of $13,500 from firms representing the UAE and Saudi Arabia.

(While Hagir Elawad & Associates lobbies solely on behalf of the UAE Embassy, the other firms have multiple clients, and federal disclosure rules don't indicate on whose behalf the firms are donating to campaigns.)

“Gottheimer is absolutely extraordinary for such a junior member of Congress,” said Freeman. “He's one of the top recipients of money from Saudi and UAE lobbyists. Just about everyone ahead of him is either a member of leadership or chairs key committees.”

The left-leaning groups Roots Action and Indivisible NJ 5th District said they are considering Rep. Gottheimer as a target for a progressive primary challenge, due to his conservative track record. Cuellar faces a primary challenge from Jessica Cisneros, a progressive endorsed by Justice Democrats.

Hassan El-Tayyab is co-director of Just Foreign Policy, which agitates against war. He told In These Times, “It's a very unfortunate decision by these seven Democrats to vote with the Republican Party against the ability of Congress to keep presidential authority in check. And to know that they're receiving contributions from foreign governments in exchange for these votes is even worse.”

In These Times requested comment from all of the Democratic representatives who voted against the amendment to end the war with Iran, including the three who are not listed on FARA documents as recipients of contributions or lobbying communications from Saudi Arabia and the UAE: Reps. Stephen Lynch (Mass.), Kathleen Rice (N.Y.), and Jefferson Van Drew (N.J.). Of the seven, only Rep. Lynch provided an explanation for why he voted against the Iran amendment.

“During the debate over the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the gentleman from California, Mr. Khanna offered an amendment which in relevant part stated, ‘[N]othing in this Act may be construed to authorize the use of military force,’” Rep. Lynch’s spokesperson told In These Times over email. “Since the singular and central purpose of the NDAA is to authorize and provide funds for the defense of U.S. forces and of our Nation, Congressman Lynch was compelled to vote nay.”

But according to Robert Naiman, policy director for Just Foreign Policy, this explanation doesn’t hold up. The text Lynch found objectionable is boilerplate that simply restates the U.S. law that only Congress can declare war. In fact, this language is included in numerous bills, including one Rep. Lynch supported. The recent War Powers Resolution to withdraw unauthorized U.S. forces from Yemen states, “nothing in this joint resolution may be construed as authorizing the use of military force.” On April 4, Rep. Lynch voted for this resolution without complaint.

According to El-Tayyab, all seven Democratic votes against the amendment are inexcusable: “Everybody should want to keep President Trump from starting an unauthorized war with Iran.”

When Will We Get the Full Truth About How and Why the Government Is Using Face Recognition?

Earlier this month, the House Committee on Homeland Security held a hearing to discuss the role of face recognition and other invasive biometric technologies in use by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Despite some pushback from some lawmakers on the committee, John Wagner of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Austin Gould of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), Joseph DiPietro of the Secret Service, and Charles Romine from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) argued that face recognition and biometric surveillance is safe, regulated, and essential for the purposes of keeping airports and U.S. borders secure. This hearing made clear: this technology is not well-regulated, it does impact the privacy of travelers, and its effectiveness has yet to be proven.

Oddly enough, the group most in need of a check on how they use these technologies, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), was not in attendance at this hearing.

By far, the most questions from the committee were directed toward CBP, which recently announced that data, including photographs taken of license plates at checkpoints, had been accessed in a hack of the third-party contractor that provided the cameras. Although Wagner, of the CBP, said they were unaware that the camera provider could extract data, he offered little assurance—outside of saying that CBP would review protocol—that cameras feeding traveler photos into face recognition software could avoid similar vulnerabilities. What this exchange makes clear is that the best way to avoid the risk of having photographs of travelers’ faces hacked and leaked to the world is not to put up the cameras in the first place.

Chairman Thompson also expressed concern over face recognition software’s well-documented tendency to have a higher error rate when analyzing the faces of people of color. On the mind of Chairman Thompson was the recent test of Amazon’s Rekognition software, which falsely matched 28 members of Congress to mugshots in a database. As he stated in the hearing, while not all of the Members of Congress misidentified were people of color, a disproportionate 40% were. Although false positives continue to be a grave concern as face recognition becomes more ubiquitous, improving the software’s accuracy does not negate the more overwhelming dangers posed by face recognition. The use of face recognition and other biometric surveillance threaten to chill free speech and the freedom to travel. This is particularly true for people of color, religious minorities, and other groups who have been stereotyped and whose presence at protests, in airports, or in public, have been met with unfair suspicion and sometimes violence by authorities.

Another one of our concerns is the slow expansion of how and why CBP is using face recognition and Rapid DNA identification at the border. Wagner said, “U.S. citizens are clearly outside the scope of the biometric entry/exit tracking.” However, he went on to say, “The technology we’re using for the entry/exit program, we’re also using to validate the identity of a U.S. citizen. Someone has to do that. Someone has to determine who is in scope or out of scope.” Determining that involves scanning, but allegedly not storing images for a prolonged period of time, or sending those images to DHS for additional screening. This is exactly what face recognition on U.S. citizens sounds like.

Wagner also had no specific time frame for when CBP would release a long-awaited report that would document how their security measures at the border have helped to keep the United States safe. These invasive technologies continue to be deployed under the promise that they are deterring countless criminals and terrorists. It is past time for the CBP to prove that these averted threats actually exist.

It’s also not convincing when a representative of TSA, Austin Gould, boasts that 99% of all people traveling through their face recognition airport security trial were happy to let the government scan their faces. After all, we know it can be quite tricky and unclear for a person to assert their rights to opt out of such invasive procedures.

Although we can all be encouraged by the fact that people across the country are slowly recognizing the threat that face recognition poses to privacy and are pushing to ban its use, the government’s expansion of these programs continues. In spite of this changing public perception, the U.S. government continues to push its expanding use of face recognition and biometric surveillance. It’s up to us to stop it.

Google Continues Investments in Military and Police AI Technology Through Venture Capital Arm

Google promises interested firms access to its own AI training data and sometimes places Google engineers within the companies as a resource.

The post Google Continues Investments in Military and Police AI Technology Through Venture Capital Arm appeared first on The Intercept.

Thank Laws Supported By AT&T and Comcast for California’s Broadband Monopoly Problem

If you, like a great many Californians, have shopped for high-speed broadband options (in excess of 100 mbps) and found that you always ended up with Comcast, it is because the state’s legislature has failed to promote broadband competition for more than ten years. That reality has resulted in the death of competitive access in many parts of the state with a disproportionate impact on low income residents and rural Californians. With the exception of last year's S.B. 822 (the state’s net neutrality bill) and A.B. 1999 (legislation that made it legal for local governments to build their own ISPs), the big ISPs have gotten exactly what they want out of Sacramento—which is for the state to abandon its residents to broadband monopolies so they can charge monopoly rents.

Take, for example, the debate this year regarding an AT&T and Comcast bill being moved by Assembly Member Lorena Gonzalez (A.B. 1366). Very few lawmakers in the state’s legislature have willingly opposed this bill, which will hurt consumers. The legislation’s premise is in lockstep with the Trump Administration’s FCC agenda to abandon all means of using the law to promote competition policy. The bill maintains a restraint on state and local authority to promote broadband access competition that was originally instituted in 2012 after heavy lobbying by the major ISPs.

Take Action

Don’t Let California’s Legislature Extend Broadband Monopolies for Comcast and AT&T

Commissioner Maria Guzman Aceves, a California regulator from the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) pleaded with the Senate Utilities Committee earlier this month to block the bill in its most recent hearing (see video below). She cited the fact that millions of Californians face a monopoly market that lacks any semblance of competition. The Commissioner further stated that the lack of access and lack of investment in the broadband infrastructure of California carries serious risks to public safety, as these are essential means for communications during emergencies.

%3Ciframe%20src%3D%22https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fembed%2FNA9yw_7MxIY%3Fautoplay%3D1%22%20allow%3D%22accelerometer%3B%20autoplay%3B%20encrypted-media%3B%20gyroscope%3B%20picture-in-picture%22%20allowfullscreen%3D%22%22%20width%3D%22560%22%20height%3D%22315%22%20frameborder%3D%220%22%3E%3C%2Fiframe%3E Privacy info. This embed will serve content from youtube.com

But, despite all of these facts and the realities on the ground, only three state Senators voted against the bill in committee— Sens. Hill, McGuire, and Wiener. The legislation is now heading for the Senate floor, when session resumes in a month.

Just How Bad is the High-Speed Market in California? Really Bad!

Thanks to help from the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, we have the latest data to show what the future holds if the state decides to do nothing—the outcome of passing A.B. 1366—broken down by Senate district. Literally every California Senate district is facing a monopoly broadband market in high-speed access—with the exception of San Francisco, which has enjoyed the advent of gigabit broadband competition. That is mostly thanks to one small regional ISP called Sonic Fiber, which was recently found to be the country’s fastest ISP.

Competition Maps and Charts based on FCC Form 477 December 2017 v.2, FCC Population and Household Estimates 2017. Assembled by the Institute for Local Self-Reliance for EFF.

Source: FCC Form 477 December 2017 v.2, FCC Population and Household Estimates 2017 

At the end of 2017, the most recent government data showed a vast majority of Californians did not have access to gigabit networks that can be delivered by fiber or another high-speed telecommunications standard, DOCSIS 3.1. 2018’s data is still being compiled by the government, but we know two things that have happened between 2018 and today, and would inform the data.

First, the cable industry has generally converted their systems across the board to DOCSIS 3.1, allowing them to sell broadband download speeds (not uploads) at the gigabit range. That means the percentage of Californians with no access to gigabit networks will drop, but the "one choice" monopoly percentage will grow for 2018—and not the green bar indicating at one competitor.

Second, large competitors are leaving the market, not entering it. AT&T, the only major national ISP in California that can rival Comcast, has abandoned its plans to build fiber to the home. and has started laying off workers that build those fiber networks. If the major national competitor to Comcast is not building infrastructure that will rival DOCSIS 3.1, it means they do not intend to compete with Comcast. Rather, what we have seen from AT&T is an intent to invest in their wireless products and promote (albeit falsely at times) 5G wireless access. Despite AT&T’s efforts to argue otherwise, wireless has never, nor ever will be, competitive with wireline services in the broadband market when it comes to capacity, reliability, and speeds. Choosing not to compete would normally prompt a regulatory and policy response. But if ISPs can strip the state regulator and local governments of their authority to promote competition, as envisioned under A.B. 1366, then they do not have to worry about any response, since the FCC also abandoned its authority in this area in 2017.

Our future does not have to look like this. Right now, each Californian has a chance not only to tell their state Senator to vote NO on A.B. 1366, but also to demand that lawmakers start doing their jobs and promote universal, competitive, and affordable access to 21st century broadband infrastructure. It is long past time the California legislature realized it has been too deferential to the incumbent ISPs, and their constituents are suffering monopoly rents today due to their unwillingness to act.

Rather than renew a law crafted by AT&T and Comcast —and handed to a willing legislator in Assembly Member Lorena Gonzalez—it is about time they start looking at states that are skyrocketing past California when it comes to broadband access. In Utah, people have a dozen choices in gigabit fiber broadband. North Dakota now has a staggering 60 percent of its homes connected to fiber networks, despite being a very rural state. New York retained its authority and expert state regulator over broadband, and was going to literally kick out their cable company for failing to deliver to its residents—forcing the ISP to invest in the state and upgrade its facilities as part of its settlement. California leaders can also learn from the EU, which adopted a gigabit-for-all plan years ago, or the advanced Asian markets that long ago surpassed the United States. The point is, doing nothing and passing a law that makes doing nothing the mandate of the state only favors the incumbents. That is why they wrote the legislation. The only result of renewing this law, via A.B. 1366, is that a vast majority of Californians will remain stuck with Comcast as their only choice for a very long time.

North Carolina coastal flooding is worsening with climate change, population growth

Researchers can confirm what data modeling systems have predicted: Climate change is increasing precipitation events like hurricanes, tropical storms and floods.