sara.ziegler (Sara Ziegler, sports editor): It‘s been quite an opening week in the NFL — and that’s just on the field. We started with an old-fashioned defensive slugfest on Thursday and ended Sunday night with the Patriots still looking like the Patriots. And we still have two games left tonight! Throw in a tie for good measure, and the season is off and running.There was a lot to unpack in Week 1. What were your biggest surprises of the week?Salfino (Michael Salfino, FiveThirtyEight contributor): I think the Browns are the biggest surprise of Week 1. Not just Baker Mayfield and the offense — because maybe the Titans have a good defense. Who knows at this stage of the season? But the Cleveland defense, which seemed like it was perfectly designed to dominate in the trenches and on the perimeter with the corners, was just shredded. Marcus Mariota had 10.3 yards per attempt, admittedly inflated by a screen pass to Derrick Henry. And the Titans ran the ball well. So it was just a total team collapse by the Browns.sara.ziegler: I do feel like Cleveland was classically set up for this disappointment. Our model didn’t think the Browns would be nearly as good as everyone else seemed to think they would be.neil (Neil Paine, senior sportswriter): Yes, we had warned Cleveland fans to kind of pump the brakes before the season. This was a good-looking team by Browns standards, but that’s different from being a good-looking team, period.Salfino: I know this is a little Narrative Street, but the Browns really set themselves up to be the hunted and not the hunters with all the offseason talk. I don’t know if there’s ever been a team coming off a losing season that had every opponent circling their game on the schedule. Maybe now they will just shut up and play because obviously there is a lot of talent there. Maybe the humiliation on Sunday in Cleveland will actually be good for them, since they needed humbling.neil: For me, the biggest surprise was Lamar Jackson. He was one of the worst QBs in the league as a rookie last season, and the Ravens adapted their offense to be incredibly run-heavy (particularly by 2018 standards) because he was such a better runner than passer. So to see him come out and throw for 324 yards on 17-for-20 passing, 5 TDs, 0 picks and a perfect 158.3 passer rating was nothing short of astonishing.You could have told me a QB would do that Week 1, and I would have guessed 25 QBs before Jackson.Salfino: The tricky thing with this game is whether the Dolphins are the 1962 Mets — or did the Ravens make them look that way? Let’s put it this way: If the Dolphins are trying to lose, they couldn’t have done it any better.neil: That’s a great point to keep in mind. The Dolphins have been accused of tanking all offseason, and they played like it Sunday.Incidentally, what’s the opening line on Pats-Dolphins next week? I shudder to think.Salfino: New England minus-14.5 at Miami, up to 17 now. That would put them among the biggest home underdogs since 1970.sara.ziegler: And now Miami players are reportedly asking their agents to get them off the team! Not great.neil: What was your biggest surprise, Sara?sara.ziegler: Arizona! Loved to see the fight from Kyler Murray and Co.neil: Fighting back for a TIE, no less.sara.ziegler: So great.neil: That’s just fighting back for the love of the game, not the glory. Lol.Salfino: Murray was Tebowing on Sunday: horrible for most of the game and then turned it on in the fourth quarter. I guess the slow start was opening day jitters. Maybe it was a mistake to not use the regular offense in the preseason.sara.ziegler: That’s a great point, Mike.So many of these offenses have looked SOOOOO bad. Maybe a few more reps in the preseason could help?neil: Maybe this is the year the “rest the starters all preseason” trend jumps the shark.Salfino: Start with Mitch Trubisky and the Bears.sara.ziegler: And Aaron Rodgers and the Packers!neil: That game was SO ugly.sara.ziegler: It kinda hurt to watch.neil: Although if they were going for symbolism with the NFL of 100 years ago, they kinda got what they were asking for.Salfino: Bears-Packers set back offensive football 100 years, so….sara.ziegler: So true.Salfino: I just am skeptical about changing the offensive system of an inner-circle Hall of Fame player — especially someone as generally grumpy as Rodgers — with that young of a coach who has not proven anything. How does this work? I would have given Rodgers Mike Shanahan — someone he had to respect — if you want to switch to a Mike Shanahan offense.sara.ziegler: Our colleague Josh Hermsmeyer wrote about the Packer play-calling that might have been holding Rodgers back last year … but I’m skeptical, too, about changing that on a dime.Salfino: And it’s kind of like, “Mike Shanahan is standing right here.” But the league is all about young coaches now. Does this work with a 35-year-old QB though? Will the QB, especially this QB, buy in?sara.ziegler: Hahahaneil: But at least there, you can use the coaching change as an excuse. Maybe they’ll find more of a rhythm as the season goes on. There were no such excuses for Trubisky’s poor performance.Salfino: For Trubisky, we kind of know what he is, right? His ability to execute plays that work as designed is definitely below the line. He sort of has to play with his hair on fire, out of structure, so he’s a tough player to design an offense for.Based on one game, I’d set the Browns over/under at nine wins, the Ravens at 10 and the Cardinals at six. (I mean, it was Matt Patricia blowing a game, right?)sara.ziegler: HahaWhat’s the over/under at Patricia still being the coach in January?neil: That’s the REAL over/under to worry about.Salfino: I think Patricia has to be a favorite to be fired in-season. The Dolphins aren’t going to fire a coach. It has to be a team that thinks they’re good with a “franchise” QB, I assume.neil: The funny thing is, Matt Stafford actually played well overall, with a 110.0 passer rating. But the defense badly collapsed down the stretch.sara.ziegler: Who else stood out? Philadelphia? Kansas City?Salfino: I wrote about the impact a downfield weapon has on the entire offense, regarding DeSean Jackson. That certainly was a factor in Sunday’s Eagles win, though Jackson did most of the damage himself. But now the best of these players for Kansas City, Tyreek Hill, is probably out a significant amount of time with a shoulder injury, and I wonder if this will slow down the Chiefs offense. Sammy Watkins was unreal on Sunday, but he did a lot of that damage with Hill in the game. Does the Chiefs offense seem more mortal now?neil: Not to mention that Pat Mahomes was hobbling around on a bum ankle.Salfino: And he no-looked away a TD to a wide-open Travis Kelce like he was Meadowlark Lemon.neil: If Mahomes shakes off any effects of that ankle — and it’s not supposed to be serious — they still have a lot of weapons even without Hill. But they were a team everyone was already wondering about perhaps regressing offensively, just because the highest-scoring offenses usually tend to fall off some in the following season.sara.ziegler: LeSean McCoy looked decent as one of those weapons.Salfino: They do seem to have an endless supply of super-athletic players, but Hill really dictates coverage and makes defenses more easy to dissect. The McCoy thing is interesting — Damien Williams still had 65 percent of snaps, compared to just 30 percent for McCoy. But how does Andy Reid tell a guy like McCoy — with over 14,000 scrimmage yards who just outplayed Williams — that he’s sitting behind Williams? I have to think McCoy is the primary back near term for the Chiefs — and he may be washed up, I know.Speaking of running backs, not a good day for Melvin Gordon.sara.ziegler: 🤣Salfino: You want to say that RBs are fungible, but Austin Ekeler is not just an ordinary backup. He’s electric. I think him leading a committee is perfect, and the Chargers are now 5-0 since 2018 without Gordon in the regular season.sara.ziegler: Not gonna lie: I forgot for a second about the Gordon holdout. The Antonio Brown drama just eclipsed everything.neil: Austin Ekeler:Melvin Gordon::James Conner:Le’Veon Bell ?(I think I got my SAT analogy format right there?)sara.ziegler: Very nice, LOLSalfino: Well, the Steelers looked like they missed Bell and Brown on Sunday night.neil: Steelers looked like they missed a lot of things Sunday night.Salfino: I think the story with the Steelers is that Juju Smith-Schuster is not a downfield wide receiver, and they have no one who can threaten defenses deep like Brown could (even though he was used all over the field). So the Steelers offense looked suffocated on Sunday. There was just no room to breathe.Ironically, the team on the field that really needs Brown was the Steelers.sara.ziegler: It was hard to watch that game and not think, “Oh, the Patriots are unstoppable again.”Salfino: But why even add Brown? I guess it makes sense if you are worried about Josh Gordon’s status, given that he has not completed an NFL season since 2013. But if you know you have Gordon — which of course you can never know — Brown is another mouth to feed and obviously a volatile personality on a team that does not remotely need his talent. Put it this way, if the Patriots had not signed Brown, the story off that game would be, “Of course they shouldn’t have signed Brown because they are a finely tuned machine right now, so why mess with that?”neil: That’s true. It sort of adds diminishing returns on the field and the potential for chaos off the field. But maybe they wanted extra insurance for Tom Brady at receiver with Gronk retired.Salfino: Brady is 42. He threw the ball very well, especially deep. But the expectation with an older player is that he will fade as the season progresses. It’s really the Patriots and Brady vs. Father Time. That’s the Battle of the Ages, not New England vs. the NFL.sara.ziegler: I just assume it’s part of the overall Evil Plan that Patriots always execute to perfection.neil: I will say this. I have compared Brady’s downfall (whenever it happens) to Peyton Manning’s in 2015, in the sense that when it does happen, it will probably happen very quickly. But for whatever one game is worth, Manning already showed signs of what was to come with a terrible opener that year against Baltimore. Brady, on the other hand, was perfectly fine. So if you’re mentally tracking the odds of a Brady collapse in 2019, those odds had to go down quite a bit just after a game.Salfino: But what about Peyton in 2014? Isn’t that the example that the Patriots (and Saints) have to fear? That did come all at once. And we ignored it heading into 2015, mostly, attributing it to nagging injuries, which probably was the point. Peyton started 2014 with 22 TDs and three picks in seven games.neil: True, while Brady was not great in the Super Bowl and had a mediocre game or two down the stretch, he wasn’t consistently struggling late in 2018 as much as Peyton did in 2014. So maybe that does mean the writing was more on the wall for him than Brady, anyway.Whatever happens, I love Week 1 because we’re all so eager to overreact to every little thing that happens once real football starts. So I wonder which things that seem clear right now will end up looking foolish in a couple months.sara.ziegler: Can’t wait to find out!Check out our latest NFL predictions.
Updated: 12:31 PM 00:00 00:00 spaceplay / pause qunload | stop ffullscreenshift + ←→slower / faster ↑↓volume mmute ←→seek . seek to previous 12… 6 seek to 10%, 20% … 60% XColor SettingsAaAaAaAaTextBackgroundOpacity SettingsTextOpaqueSemi-TransparentBackgroundSemi-TransparentOpaqueTransparentFont SettingsSize||TypeSerif MonospaceSerifSans Serif MonospaceSans SerifCasualCursiveSmallCapsResetSave SettingsSAN DIEGO (KUSI) — Thursday morning, President Trump tweeted specifically about the San Diego Board of Supervisors vote. San Diego County Board of Supervisors votes in support of lawsuit challenging California’s Sanctuary Policy Ashlie Rodriguez, KUSI Newsroom, Ashlie Rodriguez, KUSI Newsroom Regular SD County Board of Supervisors meeting now in session. 400+ people here to give public input on what position the county should take regarding the federal lawsuit against CA’s sanctuary state law.@KUSINews @KUSI_GMSD pic.twitter.com/2xBA3aXSxa— ELIZABETH ALVAREZ (@EAlvarezKUSI) April 17, 2018 Posted: April 19, 2018 Thank you San Diego County for defending the rule of law and supporting our lawsuit against California’s illegal and unconstitutional ‘Sanctuary’ policies. California’s dangerous policies release violent criminals back into our communities, putting all Americans at risk.— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 19, 2018Nathan Fletcher quickly released a statement in response to President Trump’s tweet praising San Diego County Supervisors for supporting his administration’s lawsuit to overturn what he calls, “California’s pro-immigrant policies.”Fletcher’s statement states:“When Donald Trump is tweeting praise for our County Supervisors, you know change is desperately needed. It’s clear we need new leaders on the Board of Supervisors who will stand up against Trump’s hateful agenda, not these same Trump Republicans who target immigrants and support his mass deportations.”https://twitter.com/nathanfletcher/status/987021573977604096Last Tuesday (4/17/18), the County Board of Supervisors voted to file a court brief siding with the federal government in its lawsuit against California’s so-called sanctuary state law.With the vote, San Diego County became California’s most populous county to rebuke state policies aimed at protecting select immigrants from deportation. The sanctuary state law, SB 54, limits cooperation between local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities.San Diego County’s approach differs from that of the Orange County supervisors, who voted last month to join the suit. Instead, the San Diego County attorney will draft an amicus brief in support of the case, which will allow officials to offer their opinion without actually becoming involved in the courtroom fight.However, the deadline to file such a brief has passed, meaning the earliest opportunity San Diego County will have to weigh in on the case will be if and when a decision, in this case, is appealed by the losing party to a higher court.“Public safety is our number one priority,” Supervisor Kristin Gaspar said. “Here in San Diego, it’s important to note how our law enforcement’s hands are being tied by SB 54.”Jacob said she has seen a lot of changes along the 50-mile span of the U.S.-Mexico border in her district since she took office in the 1990s.“We used to have people coming across our border who just wanted to work,” she said. “That has changed over the years. It’s changed to the extent where we have people on the terrorist watch list coming across the border.”She later clarified “she was told” of at least one person on a terrorist watch list crossing into the U.S. illegally but was unable to provide details of the case and did not specify who provided her with that information.Under SB 54, state and local law enforcement are allowed to share with immigration authorities information about a person who has been charged with one of 800 crimes, including violent felonies, arson, domestic abuse and other felonies.Supervisor Greg Cox was the lone dissenter in the 3-1 vote. Supervisor Ron Roberts was absent but said his colleagues should “stay out of it.”As evidence of the support among San Diegans for joining the lawsuit, Gaspar showed reporters the correspondence the supervisors received on the matter. Letters in favor of the county siding with the federal government towered over those written by those who supported sanctuary policies, she said.But during Tuesday’s public meeting, sanctuary state advocates outnumbered supporters of the lawsuit: 17 registered their support of President Donald Trump’s administration and 62 were against it, according to Gaspar. Gaspar appeared on Fox & Friends early Tuesday morning prior to the vote.Video Playerhttp://www.kusi.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/gaspar-fox-news.mp4Media error: Format(s) not supported or source(s) not foundmejs.download-file: http://www.kusi.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/gaspar-fox-news.mp4?_=100:0000:0000:00Use Up/Down Arrow keys to increase or decrease volume.“The California Values Act (SB 54) does indeed exemplify the values of California,” the Rev. Beth Johnson of Palomar Unitarian Universalist Fellowship told the supervisors. “It makes our communities safer by allowing law enforcement to do their jobs by making community members feel safe to report crimes.”Other supporters of the sanctuary law said it offers protections for immigrant families and helps keep the economy strong by recognizing the contributions of non-citizens, including their payment of taxes and their labor.The threat of deportation causes negative mental health effects on immigrants and their families, said Janet Farrell of the San Diego Psychological Association.“Deportation causes the breakup of families,” she said. “The California sanctuary laws give some protection to the breakup of our immigrant families without compromising the safety of the general population.”Local governments in recent weeks have taken varying approaches to weighing in on the sanctuary state issue, from adopting resolutions to voting to file lawsuits themselves.The city council in San Juan Capistrano, for instance, recently passed a resolution against SB 54. Resolutions are largely symbolic statements of a government’s stance.Aliso Viejo, Escondido and Mission Viejo are among the cities whose leaders have voted to file amicus briefs in support of the Trump administration’s position. Such briefs are often submitted by those who have an interest in a court case but are not parties in the lawsuit.The Orange County Board of Supervisors voted last month to join the lawsuit, while the Huntington Beach City Council voted recently to file its own suit. The Los Alamitos City Council voted on Monday night to “exempt” the city from the sanctuary law.National attention turned to San Diego County as its leaders considered weighing in on the lawsuit. The decision is likely to be a defining moment in the political career of Gaspar, who is running in a closely watched congressional race in a district that Democrat Hillary Clinton carried in the 2016 presidential election with just over 50 percent of the vote.The Republican incumbent in the 49th District, Rep. Darrell Issa of Vista, is not seeking reelection. In 2016, he narrowly defeated Democrat Doug Applegate, who is among the candidates facing off against Gaspar in the June primary.Related Stories: Click here for KUSI’s detailed analysis of the voteCongressman Duncan Hunter (CA-50) supports the county’s action on sanctuary policy and released the following statement regarding the vote:Congressman Duncan Hunter (CA-50) today praised members of the San Diego County Board of Supervisors who voted to join the federal lawsuit against the sanctuary state laws passed by the State of California.“Today’s action was the very definition of leadership,” said Congressman Hunter. “In standing up against the irresponsible actions by the State of California, our County Supervisors who supported this action clearly demonstrated that their priorities are protecting those of us in San Diego County and not about politics. The fact of the matter is, when state and local law enforcement agencies outright refuse to share information to federal officials regarding criminal activity, our communities are unsafe and the rule of law is undermined. It’s not complicated.”The San Diego County Board of Supervisors met in closed session to discuss its options with regard to joining the federal lawsuit filed by the Department of Justice against the State of California earlier this year in March. The primary issue focuses on SB54, a state law signed by Governor Jerry Brown last year and in effect since January 1, prohibiting state and local police agencies from informing federal authorities in cases when illegal immigrants facing deportation are released from local detention. With this action, the County of San Diego joins municipalities throughout the state, including the City of Escondido, in rejecting California’s sanctuary policies pushed by Governor Brown and the state’s Democratic-controlled legislature.“I have always been, and will continue to be, an advocate for state’s rights, but that’s not the issue,” said Congressman Hunter. “The U.S. Constitution clearly places border policy and our immigration laws within the purview of the federal government. State or local governments cannot just choose to ignore federal statutes because of a political agenda, especially when doing so places its citizens at risk by leaving criminals eligible for deportation in our communities. Our San Diego County Supervisors who took action today deserve our thanks and we need to hold every elected official accountable who does not demonstrate the same the type of leadership.”https://twitter.com/Rep_Hunter/status/986359374632321024Plus, Nathan Fletcher, the candidate for County Board of Supervisors District 4, also released the following statement in response to the County’s decision to join Trump’s lawsuit against the State of California.Nathan Fletcher said: “It’s outrageous that San Diego County Supervisors are standing with Trump instead of standing up for San Diego’s immigrant families.“The Supervisors’ pro-Trump vote today is a slap in the face of hardworking, law-abiding immigrants and is a waste of our taxpayer dollars that should be going instead to expanding protections for immigrants, extending a welcoming hand to refugees and building stronger bonds between communities and police.”We can’t allow Trump’s agenda of targeting immigrants and building walls to succeed in San Diego and it’s never been more clear that we need new leaders on the County Board who will stand up for all our communities and take on Trump’s hate.”https://twitter.com/nathanfletcher/status/986358794560061440Lastly, the following is a statement from County Supervisor Greg Cox on today’s vote on the sanctuary lawsuit:I voted against the County joining the federal administration’s lawsuit against the State’s California Values Act. As I’ve said before, I believe the problem lies in Washington, D.C. We need leaders in both parties to finally come up with comprehensive immigration reform.This is a very divisive issue in the county, and across the state and nation. The County joining the lawsuit between the federal and state governments is unnecessary because this is an issue that is properly going to be addressed by the federal courts. The Board’s vote is a largely symbolic move that will create fear and divisiveness in our region, waste taxpayer funds and create distrust of law enforcement and local government within many communities.I am proud to represent all the residents of my richly diverse supervisorial district and will continue to stand up for them. April 19, 2018 Categories: Local San Diego News, National & International News FacebookTwitter
Now playing: Watch this: See it $899 4:00 $899 Samsung’s S10 reportedly features 5G, huge screen How To • How to take badass car photos with your Galaxy S10 Plus CNET may get a commission from retail offers. See It See It The images show the device boasting six cameras total. There are four rear cameras and two cameras on the front. The front cameras are especially interesting because they are placed off-center and show through a cutout in the display. We’ve seen this display before advertised as Samsung’s Infinity-O design, which is rumored to replace the Infinity Display that first appeared on the Galaxy S8.Other rumored specs for the Galaxy S10 Plus include:6.4-inch curved edge AMOLED displayQHD screen resolutionIn-display fingerprint sensorA new version of Samsung’s face unlock3.5mm audio jack and USB-C portQualcomm Snapdragon 8150 or Exynos 9820 chip (depending on market)3,700mAh batteryThe images also show the phone in Samsung’s new Ice Blue color, which recently debuted on the Galaxy S9, Galaxy S9 Plus and Note 9.Samsung declined to comment. Mentioned Above Samsung Galaxy S10 (128GB, prism black) $899 Best Buy Abt Electronics Tags With the Samsung Galaxy S10 expected in the beginning of 2019, rumors and unofficial renders of the phone are starting to trickle in.The latest renders of the larger Galaxy S10 Plus come courtesy of 91Mobiles in conjunction with tipster OnLeaks. OnLeaks has published several renders of rumored phones before their release, but this report should still be taken with a grain of salt until we see the real thing. See It $899 Samsung Galaxy S10 Review • Galaxy S10 review: As good as the S10 Plus, in a smaller package Phones null Share your voice 0 News • Samsung Galaxy S10: The 7 best deals right now So… Let me start all over again… Now THIS IS (still) your very first and early look at the #Samsung #GalaxyS10 Plus! (updated official looking 5K renders + 360° video) on behalf of @91mobiles -> https://t.co/oED66jddR2 Cheers! 😙 pic.twitter.com/WSybUEuElf— Steve H.McFly (@OnLeaks) December 4, 2018 Sprint Rumors Samsung
Marguerite Reardon/CNET US lawmakers on both sides of the aisle believe in a free and open internet, but it’s clear after today’s hearing in the House on net neutrality that they’re miles apart on how to get there.Democrats last year unsuccessfully fought to reinstate Obama-era net neutrality rules that were repealed by a Republican-led FCC in 2107. Meanwhile, Republicans have been pushing legislation they say will protect net neutrality, but that critics say will strip the Federal Communications Commission of authority and provide endless loopholes for broadband providers. Now, some Democrats say they may be open to legislation too, but agreeing on the details could be a challenge. Still, Republicans, who are rumored to be readying at least three bills on net neutrality, say the time is now to hash out a compromise. Thursday’s hearing was held by the House Energy and Commerce Committee. “We could have messaging fights or we could pass laws,” said Rep. John Shimkus, a Republican from Illinois. He argued that if lawmakers really want to pass a law protecting net neutrality, they’ll have to find some sort of middle ground. The debate in Congress comes at a time when the net neutrality issue is back in the courts. Proponents for the 2015 rules sued the government, charging that the FCC, led by Chairman Ajit Pai, overstepped its bounds when it voted in December 2017 to roll back the Obama-era net neutrality protections. Those rules banned broadband providers from slowing or blocking access to the internet or charging companies higher fees for faster access. Oral arguments in the case were heard Friday. A decision in the case is expected this summer. But even then the issue isn’t likely to be settled, as former FCC Chairman Michael Powell testified during the hearing Thursday. He said the case will probably drag on another year or more as the decision will likely be appealed. Or if there’s a mixed decision, the FCC will open another regulatory proceeding to take a crack at the repeal again. “There comes a point when it becomes clear that the problem the FCC is struggling with is a lack of clear direction from the people’s elected representatives,” he said. Not so simpleIt’s true that nearly everyone agrees on the basic concept of net neutrality. No blocking. No throttling. No jumping the line because you pay the broadband provider more for access. But the crux of the debate over net neutrality is not about the rules per se. It’s about the authority the FCC should have in policing and enforcing these rules.As part of its 2015 regulation, the Democrat-led FCC reclassified broadband networks to make them subject to the same strict regulations that govern telephone networks. They reclassified broadband as a so-called Title II telecommunications service, instead of the more lightly regulated Title I information service. They did so because the federal appeals court had twice thrown out the FCC’s previous attempts to write rules or enforce net neutrality concepts. The reason for these rejections in the courts was simple: The agency lacked authority under the provision of the law they said gave them that authority.So the agency changed the classification to give themselves that authority. And the federal appeals court agreed. When the 2015 rules were challenged, the court upheld them. But broadband companies and many Republicans said the agency went too far. They argued that reclassifying broadband as a Title II service gives the FCC too much power to regulate broadband service in other ways. “Title II sounds innocuous,” said Rep. Greg Walden, a Republican from Oregon. “But it gives big government unlimited authority to micromanage every single aspect of a provider’s business, that includes setting rates. There is nothing neutral about this kind of authority.”Other Republicans, like Rep. Billy Long of Missouri, argued that Title II is nearly 100 years old and outdated.But Rep. Anna Eshoo, a Democrat from California and strong net neutrality supporter, shot back.”You know what the oldest law is? The constitution,” she said. “It has a lot of dust on that. Maybe we should throw that out, too.”Legislation is the answerRepublicans and the broadband industry say the only way to settle the issue is for Congress to write a law codifying the principles of net neutrality, such as no blocking, no throttling and no discriminatory conduct, like paid prioritization. And there’s talk of at least three different bills being drafted by Republicans to do just that. Some Democrats on the committee — such as Reps. Darren Soto of Florida, Tom O’Halleran of Arizona and George Kenneth Butterfield of North Carolina — seem interested. But net neutrality proponents say that any legislation must preserve the FCC’s authority and must go beyond the three so-called “bright line” rules to ensure any bad conduct from broadband providers isn’t allowed.Former FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, whose FCC drafted the 2015 order, was asked to testify at the hearing. He said the policies set forth in 2015 are “backbone concepts for the oversight of networks.” “Any further policy considerations should use the 2015 concepts as the starting point to securing the public’s critical interest in a free and open internet,” he said.But net neutrality advocates argue that Republicans’ previous attempts at drafting legislation stripped the FCC of its authority and left loopholes for broadband providers to get around the rules. “I don’t know what is in the bills that they’re planning to introduce,” Mozilla COO Denelle Dixon, who testified at the hearing, said in an interview. “But we want a requirement that includes strong enforcement from the FCC and flexibility to address other issues, like interconnection, mobile and zero-rating.” Now that Democrats are in charge of the House there are likely to be more hearings on net neutrality. But legislation that both sides can agree on and that can get a signature from President Donald Trump still seems like a long way off. Taking It to Extremes: Mix insane situations — erupting volcanoes, nuclear meltdowns, 30-foot waves — with everyday tech. Here’s what happens.Blockchain Decoded: CNET looks at the tech powering bitcoin — and soon, too, a myriad of services that will change your life. Net Fix Net neutrality FCC • Aug 26 • Activists challenge 2020 candidates to sign net neutrality pledge Net Fix See All Share your voice 1 Apr 9 • Mitch McConnell: Democrats’ net neutrality bill is ‘dead on arrival’ in Senate Comment Jun 11 • Net neutrality has been dead for a year: What you need to know Internet Apr 10 • Democrats’ net neutrality bill passes House Tags reading • Net neutrality hearing shows Congress is still divided on a solution
Financial expert Edmund Shing explains why now is the perfect time to invest in UK financial institution Lloyds Banking Group.1) FTSE 100 companyLloyds is a FTSE 100 company (UK code: LLOY) in the banking sector.2) Profit growthProfit growth has been relatively robust for Lloyds Banking Group and should continue to be strong. This is driven by their retail banking business, in particular the demand for residential mortgages as people buy houses and flats.3) Its cheapAccording to Stockopedia the forward P/E Ratio for Lloyds is 0.09, which is much cheaper than the average company in the FTSE 100 Index.4) Attractive level of incomeLloyds also poses an attractive level of income for investors, with a divided yield of 6.4%, far higher than the average UK stock.5) Higher price targetFinally, the average analyst price target for Lloyds is some 20% above the current share price of 70p.Edmund Shing is Global Head of Equity Derivative Strategy at BNP Paribas in London. He holds a PhD in Artificial Intelligence.
Election commission logo. File PhotoBNP on Friday turned down the Election Commission’s (EC) decision to use electronic voting machines (EVMs) in the national elections, saying such machines can easily be manipulated, reports UNB.“The Election Commission in which we’ve no confidence will control the EVMs. We reject their decision of introducing EVMs in the national elections,” said BNP senior leader Moudud Ahmed.Speaking at a discussion, he also said BNP, which what he claims ‘represents most people of the country’, will not accept the use of EVMs in the polls.Youth Forum, a pro-BNP platform, organised the programme at the Jatiya Press Club demanding BNP chairperson Khaleda Zia’s release from jail.Earlier on Thursday, the Election Commission at a meeting decided to send a proposal to the government for amending the electoral laws to pave the way for the use of EVMs in the general elections.Moudud, a BNP standing committee member, alleged that the government is behind the decision. “I think there’s a big conspiracy behind the move to use the machines for taking votes just three months ahead of the parliamentary polls. The government is directly involved with the plot.”He said the EC’s hurried decision to use the voting machine has raised various questions in public mind.Referring to Bangladesh Bank’s reserve heist, the BNP leader said how people can keep confidence in the electronic voting system in a country where central bank’s reserve was plundered by hackers.“We would like to say voting machine manipulation is not a tough job in a country where central bank’s money can be looted by hacking,” he observed.Moudud said many countries, including Germany, Italy and Ireland, discarded the use of EVMs in the polls. “Even, 73 per cent people in India gave opinions against the use of EVM … there’s no country where election was fair and unquestionable using the EVMs.”He said the move to procure EVMs was taken to indulge in corruption and plunder public money. “Public money will only be wasted by buying the voting machines as those won’t be used in the polls.”The BNP leader said the government is now trying to keep confidence in machines instead of people as people’s minds cannot be manipulated like machines.About the efforts of Bikalpa Dhara Bangladesh president AQM Badruddoza Chowdhury and Gono Forum president Kamal Hossain to forge a national unity, Moudud said it will turn out to be a successful one as people want all to get united against the current government.Earlier, at a press conference at BNP’s Nayapaltan central office, party senior joint secretary general Ruhul Kabir Rizvi also opposed the EC’s decision describing EVMs as the magic boxes of vote rigging.“We think the unilateral decision of using EVMs was taken as part of a master plan to rig votes in the next parliamentary polls,” he observed.The BNP leader also warned that people with their united efforts will foil all ‘evil plans’ of the government to manipulate the next election.Read More: Commissioner Mahbub leaves EC meeting opposing EVMs
European Parliament concerned at state of human rights in BangladeshThe coming election in Bangladesh poses as the country’s last chance to determine the course of its democracy and rule of law. However, abuse of power and the crackdown on the media, human rights activists, critics of the government, lawyers and the civil society, as well as extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances and abductions are a cause of concern.These views were expressed at the debate on Bangladesh’s human rights situation held at the European Parliament on Thursday in Strasbourg, France. A draft resolution was adopted at the end of the debate by the parliament members, calling upon all political parties in Bangladesh to take part in the election. They also called for an amendment of the digital security act.During the discussion, Austrian politician Josef Weidenholzer said that the election to be held at the end of the year in Bangladesh was important for the country. If the situation deteriorated, this would have an impact on Europe too. He highlighted the escalating oppression and repression of civil society, political activists and human rights activists in Bangladesh, also mentioning that there were reports of extrajudicial killings, mass arrests and enforced disappearances. The media too was under threat, he said.Weidenholzer said that opposition leader and BNP chairperson Khaleda Zia would not be able to contest in the coming election and that the party supporters maintained that she was imprisoned in politically motivated cases filed against her. He called upon the Bangladesh government to create an environment conducive to the election, where people could express their views freely and cast their votes in free and fair polls.British politician and member of the European Parliament Charles Tannock said that there was development in many sectors in Bangladesh, but the state of human rights was deteriorating, as was evident in the arrest of photographer Shahidul Alam.British politician Sajjad Karim said, there was a lot to be done for the improvement of democracy and human rights in Bangladesh.Another speaker said that if the coming election was not inclusive and peaceful, Bangladesh’s democratic continuity would be hampered.The people and the government of Bangladesh were lauded for their constructive role in accepting Rohingya refugees from neighbouring Myanmar. However, it was also said that the repatriation of the refugees should only take place in conditions for a safe, dignified and voluntary return.EEU commissioner for humanitarian aid and crisis management Christos Stylianides said that EEU had long been expressing concern about Bangladesh human rights situation. Journalists and students in Bangladesh were under attack. The digital security act curbed the freedom of expression and freedom of the press. He called for a transparent, neutral and inclusive election and also called upon the government to ensure a safe environment for the polls.At the end of the debate, the European Parliament drew up a draft resolution regarding Bangladesh, expressing serious concern about human rights in the country, including the crackdown against media, students, human rights activists and the political opposition. It called upon the media to conduct independent investigations into reports of extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances and excessive force, including the disappearance of former ambassador Maroof Zaman and Mir Ahmad Bin Quasem.The draft resolution called for the immediate release of photographer Shahidul Alam, amendment of the digital security act, abolition the death sentence, reforming the labour laws, removing the clause allowing marriage under 18 in ‘special circumstances’, ensuring safe and dignified repatriation of Rohingyas, identifying challenges to human rights and resolving these challenges.
An aedes mosquito. File PhotoThree people, including the wife of deputy secretary of health ministry died after suffering from dengue fever at the Dhaka Medical College Hospital (DMCH) on Monday and Tuesday, reports news agency UNB.DMCH assistant director Nasir Uddin said two of the patients died on Tuesday while another died on Monday.The deceased are identified as Farzana Hossain, 42, wife of Nurul Amin, deputy secretary of health ministry; Liton Hawladar, 25, from Bauphal in Patuakhali and Upendra Chandra Mandal, 65 of Mirzapur in Tangail.Farzana got admitted to the hospital on Monday and died around 1:45am on Tuesday at the ICU.Liton Hawladar was hospitalised on 27 July. He died around 10:15am.Upendra died around 5:00pm on Monday, hours after he was brought to the hospital.“So far, 10 dengue patients have died at the hospital among the 600 people who were brought here since 1 July,” said Nasir Uddin.Meanwhile, 1,335 dengue cases were reported in 24 hours until 8:00am on Tuesday.The number of people suffering from dengue has been rising gradually over the recent weeks as the disease spreads across the country.
Ganga Sagar Mela next year would be declared ‘Green Mela’ where sanitary toilets would be provided for all pilgrims.South 24 Paraganas district magistrate P B Salim said 10,000 sanitary toilets would be set up for the mela, which attracts lakhs of pilgrims from across the country.He said the pilgrims would be made aware of the demerits of open defecation at various stages of their journey right from the city to Sagar Island, where they take the holy dip on the occasion of Makar Sankranti. Also Read – Rain batters Kolkata, cripples normal lifeReferring to the situation in the district vis-a-vis sanitation, he said the model set by Nadia, declared a total sanitation district, would be followed though South 24 Parganas had a much larger population.“Next year on Gandhi Jayanti we plan to declare South 24 Parganas a total sanitation district. For this we are involving people from all sections – students, Anganwadi and Asha workers, SHGs, NGOs besides religious heads,” he said adding at present there are no sanitary toilets in at least seven lakh households in the district.The government will provide Rs 10,000 for each toilet built and the beneficiary would pay Rs 900 or provide labour. In West Bengal 40 per cent of the people have no sanitary toilets at their homes compared to 58 per cent in the country.