China is Bullying India and Australia over Maldives for Silk Road

Image result for china bullying india silk road

photo

China is bullying India, Australia and the United States to change the balance of power globally. Anyone paying attention?

Related reading: Indian Ocean Geopolitical Contest in the Spotlight

Maldives crisis: China sends a naval task force to muscle India, Australia out of power game

CHINA is muscling its way into Australia’s backyard. With an island paradise deep in crisis, the superpower sees a chance.

CHINESE warships have entered the Indian Ocean, marking a significant shift in regional power. They’re there to keep India away from Beijing’s interests in the strife-torn Maldive Islands.

And their presence has implications for Australia.

Naval posturing is nothing new. Gunboat diplomacy has been a major player in great power games of thrones for centuries.

But it is odd for it to be played out so close to home.

A scattering of pristine coral islands in the Indian Ocean is becoming the next flash point between New Delhi and Beijing.

The Maldives islands are in the throes of a constitutional crisis.

The little democracy has traditionally been part of India’s “sphere of influence”. And the eastern Indian Ocean is, of course, of significant strategic importance to Australia.

But recently a new kid has arrived on the block.

And now Beijing’s grown enough confidence to let its presence be felt in the area’s affairs.

A naval force of at least one modern destroyer, a frigate, an amphibious assault ship and a support tanker entered the Indian Ocean last week. It is believed destined to linger off the scenic scatterings of coral, sand and palm trees.

International affairs analysts believe they’re there to stop India from intervening.

Beijing, after all, has big plans for these little islands. And it doesn’t want the locals getting in the way.

Blue skies. White sand. Clear water. The international tourist resorts of the Maldives have been sidelined by the archipelago’s strategic importance. Picture: AFP

Blue skies. White sand. Clear water. The international tourist resorts of the Maldives have been sidelined by the archipelago’s strategic importance. Picture: AFPSource:AFP

TROUBLE IN PARADISE

These islands are unlikely to appear on anyone’s radar — unless you’re after an idyllic island paradise getaway.

But the Maldives have suddenly become the centre of a struggle for international influence.

It’s in the grip of a constitutional crisis.

Opposition leader Mohamed Nasheed recently dared to state that China was “buying up the Maldives” through President Abdulla Yameen. He highlighted the tiny nation was massively in debt to Beijing, and faced seizure of public assets — such as ports — to help pay it back.

It wasn’t long after this Yameen had key opposition figures arbitrarily arrested.

Then Yameen sprung a state of emergency on his people on February 5. It came as the Supreme Court ordered the opposition leaders be released as their arrests had been politically motivated.

So Yameen sent his security forces to arrest the Supreme Court’s judges.

Maldivian police detain a protester demanding the release of political prisoners during a protest in Male, Maldives. Picture: AP

Maldivian police detain a protester demanding the release of political prisoners during a protest in Male, Maldives. Picture: APSource:AP

This has Beijing bothered. It has invested big in a major port project there.

But it’s not the money it’s worried about.

Nor is it the potential collapse of a fragile democracy.

It has implications for its grand ‘One Belt, One Road’ infrastructure campaign. This is intended to vastly expand China’s economic network — and influence — through Asia, the Middle East and into Europe.

“Although traditionally within India’s strategic sphere, in recent years the Maldives has become unstable, impoverished and increasingly desperate,” says the Lowy Institute’s Dr David Brewster.

“Indeed, much of the nation could soon disappear beneath rising sea levels. We may soon see China’s ‘magical island-building ship’ pay a visit to the Indian Ocean.”

India has always been a roadblock in these plans. But now Beijing’s bypass via the Maldives may be in trouble.

Which is why it wants to New Delhi to keep out.

A screen capture of Chinese media footage showing the naval task force currently operating in the eastern Indian Ocean. It includes an amphibious assault ship, a guided missile destroyer and frigate, and a supply ship. Picture: CCTV7

A screen capture of Chinese media footage showing the naval task force currently operating in the eastern Indian Ocean. It includes an amphibious assault ship, a guided missile destroyer and frigate, and a supply ship. Picture: CCTV7Source:Supplied

BELT AND ROAD AMBITIONS

Every day, more than 40 million barrels of oil passes through the strategic “chokepoints” at either end of the Indian 0cean. This includes the Straits of Hormuz, the Gulf of Aden and the Malacca Strait.

All pass through the waters between the Maldives and Ceylon, to India’s south.

It’s a vital arterial supply line. Not least of all to Beijing.

Chinese media is boasting about its new naval presence in the Indian Ocean. It’s been proudly displaying photos and video of its modern ships refuelling and reprovisioning at sea on a mission that is certainly a long way from home.

It’s by no means the first time a Chinese task force has entered the Indian Ocean.

This time things may be different.

The Australian Strategic Policy Institute says Beijing’s infrastructure activity is part of a determined strategy to extend its influence across the Indian Ocean — at the expense of India.

“India has long been concerned about China’s growing maritime interest in the Indian Ocean region,” says ASPI executive director Peter Jennings. “Over the last decade the PLA-Navy has transited through the region many times to participate in UN and EU backed counter-piracy missions off the Horn of Africa. China has established its first overseas military base at Djibouti and is using the ‘One Belt One Road’ strategy to build extensive port infrastructure in Pakistan and Sri Lanka.”

In that context, the timing of this task force’s arrival in the eastern Indian Ocean is likely to be significant.

A Chinese Type 052D guided missile destroyer tests its antimissile gatling gun during a recent exercise. One of these potent warships is among Beijing's task force in the eastern Indian Ocean. Picture: Xinhua

A Chinese Type 052D guided missile destroyer tests its antimissile gatling gun during a recent exercise. One of these potent warships is among Beijing’s task force in the eastern Indian Ocean. Picture: XinhuaSource:Supplied

“Sending warships to operate off the Maldives is a new and concerning development, because it shows that China is trying to exercise influence over a small state more usually within India’s strategic view. New Delhi will read this as a worrying move. It will intensify strategic competition and increase mistrust between China and India.”

Some international observers had been expecting New Delhi to send its own task force to exert influence over the tiny islands’ fate. Instead, it has taken a hands-off approach through an appeal to the United Nations. It wants help to help pressure Yameen into restoring democratic values.

So Beijing has stepped into the power vacuum with a task force of its own.

But does India have a strong enough presence to keep Beijing out of its own backyard?

The presence of four modern Chinese warships near the Maldive Islands has significant implications for the balance of power in the Indian Ocean. Picture: CCTV7

The presence of four modern Chinese warships near the Maldive Islands has significant implications for the balance of power in the Indian Ocean. Picture: CCTV7Source:Supplied

OPTIONS OPEN

The chances of any clash between India and China are very low.

But the true impact of the Beijing’s warships is being felt in the corridors and back rooms of power throughout the region.

The warships give Beijing options. And status.

If things take a sudden turn for the worse in the Maldives, it can present itself as an international hero by quickly landing its troops in a “humanitarian intervention”.

It could lift its own citizens out of trouble — and those of other nations. It could impose in a “peace keeping” force to support the local political entity of its choice.

That such acts would irreparably damage India’s influence and status is an unspoken benefit.

It would also cement Beijing’s intimidating presence in what is a key “chokepoint” for its “belt” project.

The under-construction China Maldives Friendship Bridge is pictured near the city of Male. The international community has censured Maldives President Abdulla Yameen for imposing a state of emergency. Picture: AFP

The under-construction China Maldives Friendship Bridge is pictured near the city of Male. The international community has censured Maldives President Abdulla Yameen for imposing a state of emergency. Picture: AFPSource:AFP

If, however, the Maldives crisis does not worsen, the mere presence of Chinese warships acts as a deterrent to Indian intervention. It’s also a neon-sign of Beijing’s determination to wield its new-found influence worldwide.

The force Beijing appears to have deployed may seem small. But it is capable.

The Type 052D guided missile destroyer (Luyang-III class) is among its most modern combat ships. With a crew of 280 and weighing some 7500 tons, it carries a helicopter, land-attack cruise missiles, surface-to-air missiles, surface-to-surface missiles and anti-submarine missiles.

The Type 054A frigate (Jiangkai II) is one of more than 21 of these modern frigates deployed by Beijing. It is a stealthy design, intended primarily to supplement the air defence of a task force, though it also has some anti-surface and submarine capability.

The Type 071 amphibious transport dock is ideal for humanitarian relief — and landing forces of troops. It can carry a variety of amphibious assault vehicles and landing craft, along with two helicopters. But it also operates hospital and command-and-control facilities. It has accommodation for up to 800 troops.

It’s also backed-up by China’s 28th Anti-Piracy Task Force out of Africa. It’s believed to have wandered closer to the middle of the Indian Ocean in recent weeks.

Indian Navy personnel stand on the INS Vikramaditya, a modified Kiev-class aircraft carrier, similar to the aircraft carrier Liaoning operated by China. Picture: AFP

Indian Navy personnel stand on the INS Vikramaditya, a modified Kiev-class aircraft carrier, similar to the aircraft carrier Liaoning operated by China. Picture: AFPSource:AFP

DEEP IMPLICATIONS

India has not been sitting idle. It has been modernising its own navy. Like China, it is one of just a few nations operating fixed-wing aircraft carriers.

Neither is currently operating near the Maldives.

But New Delhi has also just signed a deal with the Seychelles islands to establish a mid-Indian Ocean naval facility of its own.

“Despite these dramatic developments, the shape and future purpose of China’s naval presence in the Indian Ocean remains an open question,” Dr Brewster says. “We should not automatically assume that the Chinese navy intends to challenge the US Fifth Fleet, at least in the short term. China will remain at a big geographic disadvantage in the Indian Ocean.”

This is because it does not have the complex and extensive supply network that the other major international influence in the region — the US 5th Fleet — has.

But it’s working on it.

Royal Australian Navy ships HMAS Adelaide, Toowoomba and Darwin in formation as part of the Joint Task Group for Indo-Pacific Endeavour 2017. Picture: Defence

Royal Australian Navy ships HMAS Adelaide, Toowoomba and Darwin in formation as part of the Joint Task Group for Indo-Pacific Endeavour 2017. Picture: DefenceSource:Supplied

There’s also bound to be pushback.

“China’s move may reinforce a growing Indian interest to co-operate more closely with Australia,” Mr Jennings says.

“The idea of quadrilateral co-operation between India, Australia, Japan and the US — which was abandoned a decade ago because of worries it would be seen to contain China — is now firmly back on the agenda.

“It would be ironic if China’s rather amateurish attempts to build political influence in the Maldives led to enhanced co-operation between the democracies on Indian Ocean security.”

5 Former Venezuelan Officials Charged, Money Laundering/Bribery

5 former government officials from Venezuela charged in Houston federal court with money laundering scheme involving foreign bribery

Criminal complaint is here.

Some of the vendors lived in the United States, the DOJ said, or owned and controlled businesses incorporated and based in the United States.

The defendants allegedly laundered some of the bribe money through real estate transactions and other investments in the U.S.

The indictment alleges two PDVSA vendors sent over $27 million in bribe payments to an account in Switzerland.

De Leon and Villalobos controlled the account.

Some of the money went to another “foreign official” who wasn’t named in the indictment. That’s the basis for the FCPA conspiracy charges against De Leon and Villalobos.

Related reading: Venezuela’s PDVSA: The World’s Worst Oil Company

Image result for Petroleos de Venezuela S.A photo

HOUSTON — Five former government officials from Venezuela were charged Monday for allegedly participating in an international money laundering scheme involving bribes made to corruptly secure energy contracts from Venezuela’s state-owned and state-controlled energy company, Petroleos de Venezuela S.A. (PDVSA).

Two of the five defendants are also charged with conspiracy to violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) investigated this case.

In October 2017, Spanish authorities arrested four of the following defendants on arrest warrants based on a 20-count indictment returned Aug. 23, 2017, in the Southern District of Texas:  Luis Carlos De Leon Perez (De Leon), 41, Nervis Gerardo Villalobos Cardenas (Villalobos), 50, Cesar David Rincon Godoy (Cesar Rincon), 50, and Rafael Ernesto Reiter Muñoz (Reiter), 39.

On Feb. 9, Cesar Rincon was extradited from Spain and made his initial appearance Monday in federal court in the Southern District of Texas. De Leon, Villalobos and Reiter remain in Spanish custody pending extradition. A fifth defendant, Alejandro Isturiz Chiesa (Isturiz), 33, remains at large; a warrant remains outstanding for his arrest. All five defendants are citizens of Venezuela. De Leon is also a U.S. citizen.

De Leon, Villalobos, Reiter and Isturiz are each charged with one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering; Cesar Rincon is charged with two counts of conspiracy to commit money laundering. De Leon, Cesar Rincon and Reiter are charged with four counts of money laundering; Villalobos and Isturiz are charged with one and five counts of money laundering, respectively. De Leon and Villalobos are each also charged with one count of conspiracy to violate the FCPA.

“This case is an example of what can be accomplished when international law enforcement agencies work together to thwart complex cross-border crimes,” said Mark Dawson, special agent in charge of HSI Houston. “HSI is committed to upholding the rule of law and investigating those that would participate in illegal practices.”

The indictment alleges the five defendants, all of whom were officials of PDVSA and its subsidiaries or former officials of other Venezuelan government agencies or instrumentalities, were known as the “management team” and wielded significant influence within PDVSA.

According to the indictment, the management team conspired with each other and others to solicit several PDVSA vendors, including vendors who were U.S. residents and who owned and controlled businesses incorporated and based in the United States, for bribes and kickbacks in exchange for providing assistance to those vendors in connection with their PDVSA business.

The indictment further alleges the co-conspirators then laundered the proceeds of the bribery scheme through a series of complex international financial transactions including to, from or through U.S. bank accounts. In some instances, they allegedly laundered the bribe proceeds in the form of real estate transactions and other investments in the United States.

The indictment also reads that the following two PDVSA vendors sent more than $27 million in bribe payments to an account in Switzerland for which De Leon was a beneficial owner, and De Leon and Villalobos were authorized signers:  Roberto Enrique Rincon Fernandez (Roberto Rincon), 57, of The Woodlands, Texas, and Abraham Jose Shiera Bastidas (Shiera), 54, of Coral Gables, Florida. The indictment alleges those funds were later transferred to other accounts in Switzerland. Both Roberto Rincon and Shiera previously pleaded guilty to FCPA charges in connection with a scheme to bribe PDVSA officials. According to admissions made in connection with their pleas, Roberto Rincon and Shiera paid bribes and provided other things of value to PDVSA officials to ensure that their companies were placed on PDVSA bidding panels and ensure that they were given payment priority so that they would get paid ahead of other PDVSA vendors with outstanding invoices. Roberto Rincon and Shiera are awaiting sentencing.

On Feb. 12, the indictment was unsealed. Fifteen individuals were charged, and 10 have pleaded guilty as part of a larger and ongoing investigation by the U.S. government into bribery at PDVSA.

HSI Houston is conducting the ongoing investigation with assistance from HSI Boston, HSI Madrid and the IRS Criminal Investigation.

The Criminal Division’s Office of International Affairs, the Swiss Federal Office of Justice and the Spanish Guardia Civil also provided assistance.

List of Companies, Amicus Brief Against Trump’s Sanctuary City Policy

The Senate defeated a GOP proposal based on President Donald Trump’s immigration framework.
The plan would have offered a path to citizenship for “Dreamers” and increased border security while also cutting legal immigration.
The vote was 39-60, with 60 votes needed for approval.

I say GOOD. It was fraught with loopholes and the actual number of illegals in question remained unknown.

Meanwhile, there is more going on with the whole sanctuary city thing. Hold on, you wont like this.

In 2017, State Atty. Gen. Xavier Becerra on Wednesday filed a brief in support of a Santa Clara County lawsuit challenging President Trump’s executive order targeting “sanctuary” cities that refuse to help federal authorities enforce immigration laws.

The amicus brief cites Trump’s threat to withhold federal funds from sanctuary cities and counties as well as the state’s interest in protecting state laws and policies that promote public safety and protect the constitutional rights of residents, Becerra said.

*** It gets worse… to read how the brief is cherry-picked on facts, go here.

So, there is a pile of companies that have filed an amicus brief against the Trump administration position on sanctuary cities.

The full list of tech companies (and a few others) that signed the amicus brief opposing President Trump’s executive order on immigration.

The full brief is available online.

1. AdRoll, Inc.

2. Aeris Communications, Inc.

3. Airbnb, Inc.

4. AltSchool, PBC

5. Ancestry.com, LLC

6. Appboy, Inc.

7. Apple Inc.

8. AppNexus Inc.

9. Asana, Inc.

10. Atlassian Corp Plc

11. Autodesk, Inc.

12. Automattic Inc.

13. Box, Inc.

14. Brightcove Inc.

15. Brit + Co

16. CareZone Inc.

17. Castlight Health

18. Checkr, Inc.

19. Chobani, LLC

20. Citrix Systems, Inc.

21. Cloudera, Inc.

22. Cloudflare, Inc.

23. Copia Institute

24. DocuSign, Inc.

25. DoorDash, Inc.

26. Dropbox, Inc.

27. Dynatrace LLC

28. eBay Inc.

29. Engine Advocacy

30. Etsy Inc.

31. Facebook, Inc.

32. Fastly, Inc.

33. Flipboard, Inc.

34. Foursquare Labs, Inc.

35. Fuze, Inc.

36. General Assembly

37. GitHub

38. Glassdoor, Inc.

39. Google Inc.

40. GoPro, Inc.

41. Harmonic Inc.

42. Hipmunk, Inc.

43. Indiegogo, Inc.

44. Intel Corporation

45. JAND, Inc. d/b/a Warby Parker

46. Kargo Global, Inc.

47. Kickstarter, PBC

48. KIND, LLC

49. Knotel

50. Levi Strauss & Co.

51. LinkedIn Corporation

52. Lithium Technologies, Inc.

53. Lyft, Inc.

54. Mapbox, Inc.

55. Maplebear Inc. d/b/a Instacart

56. Marin Software Incorporated

57. Medallia, Inc.

58. A Medium Corporation

59. Meetup, Inc.

60. Microsoft Corporation

61. Motivate International Inc.

62. Mozilla Corporation

63. Netflix, Inc.

64. NETGEAR, Inc.

65. NewsCred, Inc.

66. Patreon, Inc.

67. PayPal Holdings, Inc.

68. Pinterest, Inc.

69. Quora, Inc.

70. Reddit, Inc.

71. Rocket Fuel Inc.

72. SaaStr Inc.

73. Salesforce.com, Inc.

74. Scopely, Inc.

75. Shutterstock, Inc.

76. Snap Inc.

77. Spokeo, Inc.

78. Spotify USA Inc.

79. Square, Inc.

80. Squarespace, Inc.

81. Strava, Inc.

82. Stripe, Inc.

83. SurveyMonkey Inc.

84. TaskRabbit, Inc

85. Tech:NYC

86. Thumbtack, Inc.

87. Turn Inc.

88. Twilio Inc.

89. Twitter Inc.

90. Uber Technologies, Inc.

91. Via

92. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.

93. Workday

94. Y Combinator Management, LLC

95. Yelp Inc.

96. Zynga Inc.

ADDED Feb. 6, 2017

97. Adobe Systems Inc.

98. Affirm, Inc.

99. Ampush LLC

100. Brocade Communications Systems Inc.

101. Bungie, Inc.

102. Casper Sleep, Inc.

103. Cavium, Inc.

104. Chegg, Inc.

105. ClassPass Inc.

106. Coursera

107. EquityZen Inc.

108. Evernote

109. Gusto

110. Handy Technologies, Inc.

111. HP Inc.

112. IAC/InterActive Corp.

113. Linden Lab

114. Managed by Q Inc.

115. MobileIron

116. New Relic, Inc.

117. Pandora Media, Inc.

118. Planet Labs Inc.

119. RPX Corporation

120. Shift Technologies, Inc.

121. Slack Technologies, Inc.

122. SpaceX

123. Tesla, Inc.

124. TripAdvisor, Inc.

125. Udacity, Inc.

126. Zendesk, Inc.

127. Zenefits

IS the U.S. Taking Over the 5G Network?

 

 

A 5G network owned by the United States government? It’s not going to happen.

The U.S. government considering its own 5G network is nothing new, frightening, or likely to happen.

Could the Trump White House be pondering a nationalized 5G network? Yes, it’s distinctly possible. But it’s also highly unlikely to happen and the story is being blown dramatically out of proportion.

The latest Twitterverse kerfuffle was kicked up by an Axios report alleging consideration of “an unprecedented federal takeover of a portion of the nation’s mobile network to guard against China”. That’s an alarming claim, no matter what side of the political aisle you’re on. Axios is a relatively new publication, but they’ve made a name for themselves since their 2016 launch with a number high profile exclusives and well-sourced and researched pieces. This 5G report is well-sourced, but also takes a number of alarmist steps that ignore how the U.S. federal government actually functions.

Image result for 5g photo

Here’s what Axios is reporting:

We’ve got our hands on a PowerPoint deck and a memo — both produced by a senior National Security Council official — which were presented recently to senior officials at other agencies in the Trump administration. … The documents say America needs a centralized nationwide 5G network within three years.

Axios goes on to describe two options laid out in the report: that the government builds its own 5G network or that the various competing carriers in the US build their own. It’s worth noting that this is a proposal made by a single NSC member. This is how the government is supposed to work. The NSC is just one of many competing interests in the federal government, and its mandate is to advance strategies to maintain and enhance the security of the United States. It would indeed be in the national defense interests of the U.S. military to have a government-controlled high-speed low-latency nation-wide wireless network — rapid and clear communication is vital for successful military operations, and a 5G network would be enormously useful in that.

But… the NSC is still just one of many loud voices in the United States government. The Departments of State and Commerce and Justice would all have competing opinions on the proposal for a federal network, from international trade implications to pushback from the carriers that spend billions on lobbying. Not to mention the cost of such an endeavor.

Image result for 5gphoto

There is historical precedent for large investments that would support both military operations and civilian needs. The Interstate Highway System was funded by the federal government not just to dramatically improve inter-state travel and commerce — the primary impetus for its creation was the need to be able to quickly deploy military force throughout the United States in the event of a foreign invasion. The constellation of GPS satellites we rely on for navigating the world today is a U.S. Air Force project that was originally built for military purposes (and the government still has a switch to downgrade GPS accuracy for non-U.S. military users if deemed necessary).

Talk of a federally owned communications cellular network has been going on for decades, but it was kicked into high gear after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. The strikes on New York City and the Pentagon didn’t just reveal the unpreparedness of the United States for such an unsophisticated attack — it also exposed weaknesses in the civilian-owned and operated cellular networks of the time. On that day the cellular networks in New York and DC were overwhelmed by the sheer number of users trying to access services — and that was well before today’s high-speed wireless internet services.

The biggest pushback would come from cellular network operators. Every U.S. carrier has already invested heavily in 5G, from research to live regional tests to making preparatory upgrades to their transmission infrastructure to handle the eventual roll-out of 5G-capable transceivers and consumer devices. Billions of dollars have already been laid out with the expectation that there will be much more invested in the networks and billions more reaped in profit. You can be certain that Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile, and Sprint have already contacted their lobbying firms to communicate their displeasure.

Specialized equipment has long been a part of the military’s inventory. Just this weekend the story of expensive new refrigerators for Air Force One provoked outrage once the context of what the purchase actually consisted of (five bespoke flight-grade walk-in cooling units to store up to 3,000 meals on what is essentially a flying White House). Equipment like tanks and aircraft carriers and grenades is all exclusively manufactured for the military, to its specification. But the military has long also used off-the-shelf civilian hardware when it meets its needs and costs. Walk into the Pentagon and you’ll find government-issued HP and Dell laptops and officers walking around with issued iPhones running on Verizon and AT&T.

The United States has long had an interplay between the needs of the federal government and the civilian population. Sometimes there are things that only the government could effectively fund, organize, and operate, like the interstate system or GPS satellites. The costs behind those become easier to justify when they’re also available to civilian users. Conversely, there are things the civilian market is far better at — AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, and T-Mobile all have enormous expertise in cellular networks, they’ve already made huge investments in their network infrastructure that they’ll be able to leverage in building their 5G networks, and they’re already responsive to the needs of their customers — both civilian and government.

This proposal was dead in the water before it was ever presented. It’s almost amusing, following the Trump administration’s push against Net Neutrality being framed as unleashing the potential of web services and internet providers, to now see a proposal to create a national 5G network that the government would then lease to the carriers.

It’s worth repeating: this is just a proposal from one part of the government. Axios notes that it was already presented to other agencies, where I have no doubt it was met with significant resistance, if not outright derision. After all, the Trump government is supposed to be one that gets out of corporate business (for better or worse), and “we’re going to build a 5G network and you’ll just rent access from us because we’re the federal government” runs 100% counter to that.

There’s much the government could do to promote and accelerate the development and deployment of 5G networks in the United States, though it’d have to come with oversight than the billions of government subsidies paid to Verizon for a fiber network it never built. Grants to ensure deployment into rural areas, subsidies for low income access, regulation clean-up to ease the way for new installations, funding of university and corporate research projects in artificial intelligence and domestic development of these technologies — all of this is already within the wheelhouse of what the federal government can do, and sometimes already does.

Proposals like this are just how the government works. The military side of the equation is going to propose everything they can think of to ensure the most efficient and most effective military they can imagine, while the diplomats will propose their own missions and initiatives to promote their goals, and the economists are going to come with an entirely different set of proposals about trade and monetary policy and financial regulations. These will all be simultaneously complementary and contradictory. This is the nature of government — a dozen departments with competing goals in different arenas jockeying for limited resources. Their proposals are just part of what feeds into the decision-making process of the President and Congress, which are supposed to strike a balance between the needs of the military, business, international partners, civilians, and (of course) politics.

I would be utterly shocked if a government-owned 5G network ever comes to fruition. It’d be massively expensive and inefficient, not to mention well outside the government’s expertise and capability. It’d also see immediate and costly legal challenges, not to mention stand on legally tricky ground when the carriers have already paid billions to the government for the frequency licenses they need to deploy their own 5G networks.

The government would also have to pay for this somehow, and after a $1.5 trillion-dollar tax cut, there’s not a lot of spare cash laying around for GovCell.

Updated 10:33 a.m. Jan. 29: Here’s a statement from FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai, who also says it ain’t gonna happen:

“I oppose any proposal for the federal government to build and operate a nationwide 5G network. The main lesson to draw from the wireless sector’s development over the past three decades—including American leadership in 4G—is that the market, not government, is best positioned to drive innovation and investment. What government can and should do is to push spectrum into the commercial marketplace and set rules that encourage the private sector to develop and deploy next-generation infrastructure. Any federal effort to construct a nationalized 5G network would be a costly and counterproductive distraction from the policies we need to help the United States win the 5G future.”

NY, Anti-Trump Activists Hold Their Own SOTU Event

It is called ” People’s State of the Union’ and the location is Town Hall in Manhattan. You need to buy tickets as they are $47.00.

Will Hillary be there as she too is leading the #Resist movement?

So, MoveOn.org is leading this event and has mobilized some top liberals that include Michael Moore, Mark Ruffalo, Alyssa Milano, Rosie Perez and of course Whoopi Goldberg.

Additionally, the unions are part of this event, flanked by the Women’s March movement and Planned Parenthood.

The Washington Times includes:

Progressive groups We Stand United, MoveOn.org Political Action and Stand Up America are hosting an alternative to the State of the Union aimed at bringing celebrity activists together. The event, which will take place on Monday (one day prior to Mr. Trump’s speech), has attracted a wide range of industry professionals.

“In essence, it’s a better reflection of our state of the union based on a more populist point of view, based on the people’s point of view,” actor Mark Ruffalo told People magazine on Thursday. “I think it’s important because we have a president who has a difficult time with the truth, who has a radical, divisive agenda, and spends an enormous amount of time focusing on the negative and hopelessness and despair.”

“We want to celebrate this moment that we’re in of what is now probably one of the most influential and powerful and really beautiful movements to come into play in the United States since the civil rights movement,” Mr. Ruffalo added. “[It’s a] celebration of the power and the beauty of this movement, but also of our accomplishments and to focus on what’s to come in the immediate future. […] It’s the mother of all movements.”

Mr. Trump’s first State of the Union address will begin Tuesday, Jan. 30, from 9 to 10:30 p.m. EST.

*** More? Okay, how about –>

Representatives from United We Dream, the American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, and other progressive organizations associated with the resistance movement have made plans to attend.

In 2016, Ruffalo was a staunch Bernie Sanders supporter and has a long been associated with liberal causes and movements. The actor has not shied away from controversy in the past. In June of 2017, Ruffalo shared a petition on social media demanding that MSNBC and NBC stop “the white conservative hiring spree.” Link

No automatic alt text available. So, who is this person Julia Walsh, the campaign director for We Stand United? Hah, well Julia is a community organizer, motivational speaker and political strategist who has worked on progressive issues and campaigns since 2001. She has been an activist against fracking and for same sex marriage. She works with the United Nations on climate change and has been working on college campuses across the country getting students to vote for progressive candidates.

Meanwhile, several in congress are not attending the SOTU, while others are going but will wear black. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg will not be attending.

Just after the State of the Union address, the Huffington Post reports:

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) is slated to provide her own nationally televised response to President Donald Trump’s State of the Union address on Tuesday.

Waters will deliver her remarks on the BET program “Angela Rye’s State of the Union,” according to a report by BuzzFeed News.

Waters’ speech is not part of the Democratic Party’s official response to the president, which is due to be delivered by Rep. Joseph Kennedy III (D-Mass.).

Maxine Waters has been leading the charge to impeach 45…..on what grounds exactly still remains unclear.

This year’s theme is “building a safe, strong, and proud America,” according to a senior administration official who briefed reporters about the speech.

  • It will focus on 5 topics: Jobs/the economy, infrastructure, trade, immigration and national security. The administration official also said Trump will make the case for more bipartisanship in Congress.
  • Trump’s guests will reflect these topics, including people who benefited from tax reform and someone who can put “a face to the opioid crisis,” per the official.