astorefolder.com

{{tasks|news|re-review}}Tuesday, January 9, 2018

On Monday, Democrats in the United States Senate announced they had gained enough sponsors to perform a congressional review of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)’s December 2017 reversal of previous rules regulating Internet service providers, commonly called Net Neutrality.

Under the Congressional Review Act, if 30 senators co-sponsor the action, United States Congress can vote on whether to overrule a decision made by a federal agency such as the FCC. Both the House of Representatives and the Senate would have vote in favor, and President Donald Trump would have to sign the review.

On Monday, Claire McCaskill of Missouri announced she was the 30th senator to agree to sponsor the floor vote. “What I’ve heard from the thousands of Missourians who’ve contacted my office is simple — consumers should have protected, free, and open access to the online content of their choosing,” she said in a statement.

The Obama-era Net Neutrality rules were revoked last month. On December 14, as protesters gathered in Washington D.C., the United States Federal Communications Commission under Chairman Ajit Pai voted 3-2 to overturn the 2015 decision, which forbade Internet service providers (ISPs) such as Verizon, Comcast, and AT&T from blocking individual websites or charging websites or customers more for faster load times.

Specifically, the 2015 decision placed the Internet under Title II of the 1934 Telecommunications Act, which established that Internet access must be regulated under the same rules as a utility. Currently, in the U.S., telephones are regulated in this way, but cable television is not. Cable providers can offer bundled services and otherwise select which channels to offer customers; they do not have to offer access to every channel the way ISPs have offered access to the whole Internet. The new rules voted on December 14 transfer the Internet from the jurisdiction of the Federal Communications Commission to the Federal Trade Commission, which means instead of being forbidden from blocking websites or offering different access speeds, ISPs will only be required to disclose having done so.

Telecom analyst Gigi Sohn, who worked with Pai’s predecessor Tom Wheeler in 2015, said, “There are going to be fast lanes and slow lanes[…] As a consumer, that means some of your favorite websites are going to load more slowly, and it also may mean some of your favorite content goes away because the provider just can’t pay the fee.”

Former Etsy CEO Chad Dickerson said, “Net neutrality allowed something like Etsy to hang out a shingle on the web and give it a try”.

Supporters of the new rule argue Net Neutrality regulations were unnecessary. Commissioner Michael O’Reilly pointed out the Internet “has functioned without net neutrality rules for far longer than it has without [sic] them.”

“Quite simply, we are restoring the light-touch framework that has governed the internet for most of its existence,” said Chairman Pai, who argued removing the rules would make the Internet freer and more open.

“[T]he internet will continue to work tomorrow just as it always has,” promised AT&T Senior Executive Vice President Bob Quinn, who said his company would not block websites or discriminate with respect to content.

Opposition was organized almost immediately and was not limited to plans for congressional review: The Attorneys General for the states of New York and Washington have both announced plans for lawsuits against the new rules.. The United States Congress also has the authority to overrule the FCC’s decision by passing legislation. One such bill, House Resolution 4585, or the “Save Net Neutrality Act of 2017,” was introduced to the U.S. House of Representatives on December 7.

According to a poll conducted the week of December 6 by the University of Maryland, more than 80% of registered U.S. voters opposed the repeal of Net Neutrality, 75% of registered Republicans, 89% of registered Democrats, and 86% of independents, those not registered to either party. Before the vote, the FCC had accepted comments on the measure from the public through its website, FCC.gov. However, there have been allegations that many of the comments offered in support of the rollback were fakes. Before the vote took place, attorneys general from seventeen states and the District of Columbia sent a letter to the FCC asking the vote be delayed until the matter could be investigated.

The FCC’s decision must be published in the U.S. Federal Register before congressional review can take place or any lawsuits filed.

[edit]

Wednesday, January 18, 2012

India and China planned to resolve boundary disputes peacefully and develop friendly relations with each other in the 15th round of boundary talks begun Monday. Shivshankar Menon, National Security Advisor, represented India while Dai Bingguo represented China.

To control the Sino-Indian border effectively, Liu Zhenmin, China’s Assistant Foreign Minister, and S. Jaishankar, India’s ambassador to China, signed an agreement titled “Working Mechanism for Consultation and Coordination on India-China Border Affairs”. The text of the agreement, as released by the Indian Ministry of External Affairs, states, “[The mechanism will] undertake other tasks that are mutually agreed upon by the two sides but will not discuss resolution of the Boundary Question or affect the Special Representatives Mechanism.”

The agreement allows live contact between the countries’ foreign offices for problems along the Sino-Indian border, officially called the Line of Actual Control (LOAC). Also, meetings are to be held in each of the two countries alternately, once or twice annually. The two sides see the agreement as an important step in gaining trust and strengthening each other.

Relations between the two countries have not been good since the Sino-Indian War of 1962. The relations lapsed in 2011 due to visa rows and exploration of oil in South China Sea. Further, the Dalai Lama’s refuge in India has caused friction with China. China also claims 90,000 square kilometers of land governed by India in the Tibetan region and India claims 38,000 square kilometers of Kashmir held by China.

Analysts say China is facing both economic problems, and difficulties with neighbouring countries. Its major allies North Korea and Pakistan have their own troubles. China maintains unfavorable relations with other neighbours like Vietnam, Australia, and Japan.

The ‘return to Asia’ strategy of the United States focuses on China, and India figures in it as an important ally.

Dai wrote in a newspaper column, “What we face is a golden period to grow China-India relations. The world has enough space for China and India to achieve common development, as there are so many areas for us to work together”. He further added during the session, “While working hard to develop itself, China is fully committed to developing long-term friendship and cooperation with India.”

Dai claimed trade between the two countries has increased by a factor of 20 in the last ten years. He summarized, “As neighbors and two big countries with a combined population of 2.5 billion, China and India can join hands, seize the historic opportunity, and work together to further advance our friendship and cooperation”.

The boundary talks were to be held in November, but were postponed over Chinese disapproval of India allowing the Dalai Lama into a Buddhist meet in New Delhi.

Thursday, September 17, 2009

Two teenagers in the United Kingdom have been acquitted of planning a high school massacre similar to the 1999 Columbine High School massacre in the United States. Police and the Crown Prosecution Service have been criticised for bringing the case to trial.

Matthew Swift, 18, and Ross McKnight, 16, were cleared of accusations they planned a copycat attack at their school in Manchester to coincide with the April 20 anniversary of the original mass shooting. They had been charged with conspiracy to murder and conspiracy to cause explosions likely to endanger life or cause serious injury to property. Swift and McKnight have spent the last six months behind bars on remand, Swift in prison and McKnight a young offenders institute.

Police had thought they had found a criminal plot when they were alerted after a girl received a drunken phone call from one boy talking about a school shooting. They discovered a second girl had received a text saying “If I ever text you not to come into school don’t question it, just don’t go in.” The pair were found to be in possession of The Anarchist Cookbook and a BB gun . No guns or explosives were found even though the prosecution alleged to have video footage of the pair manufacturing explosives.

The prosecution case further focused on diary entries and plans talking of how they would perpetrate the “greatest massacre ever.” “Audenshaw high,” wrote Swift “will be no more. Unlike Columbine, my propane bomb will actually fucking explode and I will walk from classroom to classroom killing the fuck out of everybody, then maybe people will learn.”

The 2007 plans were alleged by prosecutors to have included a diversion bomb away from the school, which was the main target, even though they also suggested attacks on several other buildings. Swift explained that his writings were “naive and pathetic ways to channel my teenage angst. I was 16 with a vivid imagination.” The defense had focused on the notion that the plot was pure fantasy.

Supporting this was testimony, including that of McKnight’s police officer father Ray, that the duo had plenty of other weird and wonderful schemes. Much as the shooting idea had come from Michael Moore‘s documentary Bowling for Columbine, so too had they discussed living off the land in Alaska after watching Into the Wild. Other ideas included a winter mission to climb Ben Nevis and launching a dinghy service on local canal routes.

The five men and seven women that comprised the jury agreed, and took just 45 minutes to reject the charges. They even waited for defence counsel so they could wave and smile at them. It was, according to McKnight’s lawyer Roderick Carus QC, perhaps the “quickest acquittal of this apparent gravity” he had ever witnessed. He said the case was a weak one that should never have gone to court. One of the lawyers on the case described the teens as victims of an “unnecessary, heavy-handed prosecution” that was a waste of several hundred thousand pounds.

British officers working the case flew to the United States to speak with those that worked upon the Columbine massacre. Later, the former head of the Columbine investigation traveled to the UK.

Ray McKnight did not comment on the decision to try the case, but he did say both defendants had experienced “purgatory” and “absolute agony” while imprisoned. “We are all just incredibly relieved,” he said, stating that he never doubted his son’s innocence for a moment. His son read the following statement outside Manchester Crown Court: “I would like to make it clear that at no time was any person put at risk. This was just a fantasy. This was never a reality. I would just like to say that during my time in custody, I have taken my GCSEs. I hope that my wish to join the army has not been harmed.”