text:
Tag Archives: Chairman Ajit Pai
Is the FCC Really Solving the Digital Divide?
The FCC recently released the 2019 Broadband Deployment Report, with the subtitle: Digital Divide Narrowing Substantially. Chairman Pai is highlighting several facts that he says demonstrate that more households now have access to fast broadband. The report highlights rural fiber projects and other efforts that are closing the digital divide. The FCC concludes that broadband is being deployed on a reasonable and timely basis – a determination they are required to make every year by Congressional mandate. If the FCC ever concludes that broadband is not being deployed fast enough, they are required by law to rectify the situation.
To give the FCC some credit, there is a substantial amount of rural fiber being constructed – mostly from the ACAM funds being provided to small telephone companies with some other fiber being deployed via rural broadband grants. Just to provide an example, two years ago Otter Tail County Minnesota had no fiber-to-the-premise. Since then the northern half of the county is seeing fiber deployed from several telephone companies. This kind of fiber expansion is great news to rural counties, but counties like Otter Tail are now wondering how to upgrade the rest of their county.
Unfortunately, this FCC has zero credibility on the issue. The 2018 Broadband Deployment Report reached the same conclusion, but it turns out that there was a huge reporting error in the data supporting that report where the ISP, Barrier Free, had erroneously reported that they had deployed fiber to 62 million residents in New York. Even after the FCC recently corrected for that huge error they still kept the original conclusion. This raises a question about what defines 'reasonable and timely deployment of broadband' if having fiber to 52 million fewer people doesn't change the answer.
Anybody who works with rural broadband knows that the FCC databases are full of holes. The FCC statistics come from the data that ISPs report to the FCC each year about their broadband deployment. In many cases, ISPs exaggerate broadband speeds and report marketing speeds instead of actual speeds. The reporting system also contains a huge logical flaw in that if a census block has only one customer with fast broadband, the whole census block is assumed to have that speed.
I work with numerous rural counties where broadband is still largely non-existent outside of the county seat, and yet the FCC maps routinely show swaths of broadband availability in many rural counties where it doesn't exist.
Researchers at Penn State recently looked at broadband coverage across rural Pennsylvania and found that the FCC maps grossly overstate the availability of broadband for huge parts of the state. Anybody who has followed the history of broadband in Pennsylvania already understands this. Years ago, Verizon reneged on a deal to introduce DSL everywhere – a promise made in exchange for becoming deregulated. Verizon ended up ignoring most of the rural parts of the state.
Microsoft has blown an even bigger hole in the FCC claims. Microsoft is in an interesting position in that customers in every corner of the country ask for online upgrades for Windows and Microsoft Office. Microsoft is able to measure the actual speed of customer download for tens of millions of upgrades every quarter. Microsoft reports that almost half of all downloads of their software is done at speeds that are slower than the FCC's definition of broadband of 25/3 Mbps. Measuring a big download is the ultimate test of broadband speeds since ISPs often boost download speeds for the first minute or two to give the impression they have fast broadband (and to fool speed tests). Longer downloads show the real speeds. Admittedly some of Microsoft's findings are due to households that subscribe to slower broadband to save money, but the Microsoft data still shows that a huge number of ISP connections underperform. The Microsoft figures are also understated since they don't include the many millions of households that can't download software since they have no access to home broadband.
The FCC is voting this week to undertake a new mapping program to better define real broadband speeds. I'm guessing that effort will take at least a few years, giving the FCC more time to hide behind bad data. Even with a new mapping process, the data is still going to have many problems if it's self-reported by the ISPs. I'm sure any new mapping effort will be an improvement, but I don't hold out any hopes that the FCC will interpret better data to mean that broadband deployment is lagging.
Posted in Regulation - What is it Good For?, The Industry
Tagged Chairman Ajit Pai, FCC, Microsoft, Penn State Broadband Study
Designing the Ideal Federal Broadband Grant Program
In April, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai announced a new rural broadband initiative that will provide $20.4 billion of new funding. We don't know many details yet, but here are a few things that will likely be involved in awarding the funding:
The FCC is leaning towards a reverse auction.
The program will likely require technologies that can deliver at least 25/3 Mbps broadband speeds.
The program will be funded within the existing Universal Service Fund, mostly by repositioning the original CAF II plan.
The grants might all be awarded at once, similar to A-CAM and CAF II awards, meaning that there might be only one chance to apply, with the awards to be paid out over a longer time period.
I'm writing a series of blogs that will examine the ideal way to design and administer a grant program of this size. We've seen both good and also disastously bad federal broadband programs before, and i'm hoping the FCC will take some time to make this grant program one of the effective ones. I'm sure the details of this new program are not yet set in stone, and folks in rural America need to make their voices heard now if they want some of this money to benefit their communities.
I'm going to look at the following topics, and perhaps more as I write this. At the end of this process I'll post a whitepaper on my website that consolidates all of these discussions into one document.
A well-designed broadband grant program of this magnitude should consider the following:
What is the End Goal?
It's important up-front for the FCC to determine how the grant moneys are to be used. The best grant programs have a specific goal, and then the application and award process is designed to best meet the goals. The goal can't be something as simple as 'promote rural broadband', because a goal that simplistic is bound to create a hodgepodge of grant awards.
What Broadband Speeds Should be Supported?
This is an area where the FCC failed miserably in the past. They awarded over $11 billion in the CAF II program that was used to upgrade broadband speeds to speeds of only 10/1 Mbps. When the FCC set the 10/1 Mbps speed that didn't even meet their own definition of broadband. How should the FCC determine eligible speeds this time to avoid a repeat of the CAF II debacle?
Who Should be Eligible?
FCC programs in the past have usually made the monies available to a wide range of recipients. However, the specific details of the grant programs have often made it hard for whole classes of entities like cities or counties to accept the awards. As an example, there are many entities electing to not participate in the current Re-Connect grant program because they can't accept any part of the awards that include RUS loans.
Is a Reverse Auction the Right Mechanism?
The FCC and numerous politicians currently favor reverse auctions. Like any mechanism, there are situation where reverse grants are a great tool and others where they will distort the award process. Are reverse auctions a good tool for this grant program?
There are two drastically different ways to hand out these grants. One is to follow the CAF II mechanism and award all of the $20 billion in one huge auction and then pay it out over 6 or 8 years. The other would be to divide the award money into even tranches and have a new grant award for each of those years.
In the recent Re-Connect grants the FCC decided to blend grants and loans. I know the loan component stopped most of my clients from pursuing these grants. Should there be a loan component of the grants?
There are also technical issues to consider. I had clients who were outbid in the recent CAF II reverse auction by wireless companies that gained bidding preference by promising that their fixed wireless networks could achieve across-the-board 100 Mbps broadband. I still don't know of a wireless technology that can do that over a large footprint. How should the FCC make sure that technologies deliver what's promised?
What's the Role of States in this Process?
What should states be doing to maximize the chance for federal grant money to be awarded to their state?
This blog is part of a series:
Setting the Right Goals for Grants
Speed Goals for FCC Grants
Who Should be Eligible for Grants?
Are Reverse Auctions the Right Mechanism?
What Technology Should be Covered?
State's Role in Broadband Grants
Posted in Regulation - What is it Good For?
Tagged A-CAM, CAF II, Chairman Ajit Pai, FCC, Universal Service Fund
AT&T Withdraws from Lifeline Program
In March the Public Utility Commission of Ohio allowed AT&T to withdraw from the federal Lifeline program. This is a program that let's qualified low-income homes get a monthly discount of $9.25 from either their landline telephone or their broadband connection – only one discount per home. AT&T successfully withdrew from Lifeline in Illinois in 2018 and in twelve other states in 2017.
AT&T apparently hasn't been advertising or pushing the potential discount since they only had 7,300 homes in the state on the Lifeline program. The Communications Workers of America say there are almost 1.6 million households in Ohio that qualify for the discount – although not all of them are served by AT&T.
You might think that AT&T supports Lifeline by looking at their web site. However, clicking through to Ohio notifies customers that the discount will end in June and provides customers a list of other companies that might offer them the discount.
The Lifeline program started in 1985, and at the time the amount of discount was a significant savings for customers. Because of inflation the $9.25 discount represents a far smaller portion of a today's monthly telecommunications bill.
Participation in the Lifeline program has dropped significantly in the past few years, as has the way the fund is being used. The following revenue numbers come from the 2018 annual report from USAC – the entity that operates the Lifeline Fund. I extraopolated out the number of participants at $9.25 per month.
Telephone $1,477,548,000 $312,300,000
Bundle $25,554,000 $293,707,000
Broadband $18,610,000 $536,424,000
Total $1,521,712,000 $1,142,431,000
Participants 13,700,000 10,250,000
Since 2016 there are 2.5 million fewer participants in the plan – many certainly due to carriers like AT&T withdrawing from the plan. The USAC numbers show a big shift since 2016 of participants applying the discount to their broadband bill rather than to landline telephone or cellphone bill.
The Lifeline Program was in the news recently when the FCC Inspector General issued a fraud advisory that says there are a lot of duplicate names requesting Lifeline and a number of deceased people still getting the discount. Chairman Ajit Pai immediately issued a statement saying that the program needs to be cleaned up.
Fraud has always been a concern in the program. However, it's a little odd for the FCC to be complaining about fraud today since they are in the process of taking over validation of Lifeline subscribers. Eligibility to participate in Lifeline was previously the responsibility of the states, but in June, 2018 USAC launched the National Verifier, a database that lists everybody eligible to receive a Lifeline credit. As of the end of last year, the federal verifier was active in 18 states, with the remaining states and territories joining the program this year. It seems odd to be yelling about problems of the older state programs when the FCC has already implemented a solution that they believe will solve most of the fraud issues.
I published a blog several days ago saying how regulators are letting the public down. It's mystifying to me why the Ohio PUC and so many other states are letting AT&T out of the Lifeline program. The Lifeline Fund reimburses AT&T for every discount given to customers, so there is zero net cost to AT&T to participate in the plan. With the new National Verifier, AT&T takes no role in enrolling customers, who must enter through the national Verifier portal. I don't know why regulators don't insist that AT&T and every other company that sells residential telephone and broadband be required to participate in the program.
Tagged AT&T, Chairman Ajit Pai, Lifeline, National Verifier, USAC
Why is the FCC Still Spinning Net Neutrality?
Chairman Ajit Pai and several other FCC Commissioners are still sticking with the story that regulation and net neutrality were quashing capital spending and innovation in the industry. This was the primary argument that justified killing net neutrality and gutting Title II regulation. Pai claimed that net neutrality was disrupting the big ISPs so much that they were reining in capital spending. Chairman Pai further claimed that killing regulation would free the big ISPs to expand their networks and to improve broadband coverage – he's also repeatedly argued that without regulation that 'the market' would solve the rural broadband divide. Chairman Pai launched this story on his first day as Chairman and hasn't let up – even now, over a year after the FCC successfully killed net neutrality and Title II regulation.
I find this to be unusual. Normally, when somebody in the industry wins a regulatory battle they quietly move on to the next issue, but at almost every public speaking opportunity the Chairman is still repeating these same talking points. I've been thinking about why Chairman Pai would keep harping on this argument long after he successfully killed net neutrality. I can think of a few reasons.
The Lawsuits. The FCC is probably concerned about the lawsuits challenging net neutrality. That order used some legal gymnastics in the FCC argument to kill Title II regulation. So perhaps Chairman Pai is continuing to make these same arguments as a way to let the courts know that keeping Title II regulation dead is still the number one priority of this FCC. I'm sure that if the courts challenge the FCC order that the agency will appeal, and so perhaps he continues to make the same arguments in anticipation of that coming court battle.
5G Deployment. In a very odd back-door way, the FCC has been using the net neutrality argument to grease the skids for an unregulated roll-out of 5G. The FCC's message couldn't be simpler: "all regulation bad / 5G and innovation good".
I doubt that the average American understands the magnitude of what this FCC did when they killed Title II regulation. The agency basically killed its own authority to regulate what is probably the most important product it has ever regulated. Broadband is vital to both the economy and to people's everyday lives. Yet this FCC thinks that their best regulatory role is to not regulate the industry in any manner. That means not regulating the many issues covered by net neutrality. It means not caring about consumer privacy on the web. It means not being concerned with runaway price increases and data caps. Killing Title II regulation means that future FCCs might have a hard time trying to reintroduce any regulation of broadband. The FCC handed the keys of the broadband industry to the monopoly ISPs and told them to run the industry as they see fit.
At the strong urging of the big wireless companies, this FCC wants to also make sure there are no restraints on 5G. It seems the only parties the FCC wants to regulate are those that might create roadblocks for 5G, such as cities that control rights-of-way.
Congress. Congress has the ability to permanently resolve the Title II and net neutrality battle. Congress could codify the current deregulated state-of-affairs or they could put Title II and net neutrality permanently back on the books. In fact, it's the lack of Congressional action that led the FCC to kill net neutrality – they would much have preferred that Congress did it. But the Congress hasn't undertaken any policy initiatives in the telecom industry since the Telecommunications Act of 1996, when most of us still were using dial-up.
There has been a lot of recent discussion in Congress on telecom issues and perhaps one of the reasons that Chairman Pai continues to lobby against net neutrality is to keep that position in front of Congress. However, it seems unlikely that any significant regulation is going to come out of a split Congress.
No Better Argument? Finally, and what is my favorite theory, perhaps the FCC doesn't have any better argument about why they should be killing regulation. They've had years to come up with a story that the American people will buy, and the best they've come up with is that killing regulation will unleash innovation.
I think the FCC is afraid to touch the policy issues that the public really cares about. People in rural areas are adamant that the FCC finds a way to get them real broadband. The vast majority of broadband users are worried about being hacked and are worried about how the big ISPs are spying on them and selling their data. Everybody is concerned about the talk on Wall Street that encourages the big ISPs to significantly jack up rates. A large majority of the country cares about net neutrality and an open Internet. I can see why the FCC would rather stick with their story about how killing regulation unleashes innovation – because they are afraid of opening Pandora's box to let all of these other issues into the open.
Tagged 5G, Chairman Ajit Pai, Net neutrality, Title II Regulation
$20.4 Billion in Broadband Funding?
Chairman Ajit Pai and the White House announced a new rural broadband initiative that will provide $20.4 billion over ten years to expand and upgrade rural broadband. There were only a few details in the announcement, and even some of them sound tentative. A few things are probably solid:
The money would be used to provide broadband in the price-cap service areas – these are the areas served by the giant telcos.
Will support projects that deliver at least 25/3 Mbps broadband.
Will be funded from the Universal Service Fund and will 'repurpose' existing funds.
The announcement alludes to awarding the money later this year, which would be incredibly aggressive.
This was announced in conjunction with the auction of millimeter wave spectrum – however this is not funded from the proceeds of that auction.
What might it mean to repurpose this from the Universal Service Fund? The fund dispersed $8.7 billion in 2018. We know of two major upcoming changes to the USF disbursements. First. the new Mobility II fund to bring rural 4G service adds $453 million per year to the USF. Second. the original CAF II program that pays $1.544 billion annually to the big telcos ends after 2020.
The FCC recently increased the cap on the USF to $11.4 billion. Everybody was scratching their head over that cap since it is so much higher than current spending. But now the number makes sense. If the FCC was to award $2.04 billion in 2020 for the new broadband spending, the fund would expand almost to that new cap. Then, in 2021 the fund would come back down to $9.6 billion after the end of CAF II. We also know that the Lifeline support subsidies have been shrinking every year and the FCC has been eyeing further cuts in that program. We might well end up with a fund by 2021 that isn't much larger than the fund in 2018.
There are some obviously big things we don't know. The biggest is the timing of the awards. Will this be a one-time auction for the whole $20.4 billion or a new $2 billion auction for each of the next ten years? This is a vital question. If there is an auction every year then every rural county will have a decent shot at the funding. That will give counties time to develop business plans and create any needed public private partnership to pursue the funding.
However, if the funding is awarded later this year in one big auction and then disbursed over ten years, then I predict that most of the money will go again to the big telcos – this would be a repeat of the original CAF II. That is my big fear. There was great excitement in rural America for the original CAF II program, but in the end that money was all given to the big telcos. The big telcos could easily promise to improve rural DSL to 25/3 Mbps given this kind of funding. They'd then have ten years to fulfill that promise. I find it worrisome that the announcement said that the funding could benefit around 4 million households – that's exactly the number of households covered by the big telcos in CAF II.
What will be the study areas? The CAF II program awarded funding by county. Big study areas benefit the big telcos since anybody else chasing the money would have to agree to serve the same large areas. Big study areas means big projects which will make it hard for many ISPs to raise any needed matching finds for the grants – large study areas would make it impossible for many ISPs to bid.
My last concern is how the funds will be administered. For example, the current ReConnect funding is being administered by the RUS which is part of the Department of Agriculture. That funding is being awarded as part grants and part loans. As I've written many times, there are numerous entities that are unable to accept RUS loans. There are features of those loans that are difficult for government entities to accept. It's also hard for a commercial ISP to accept RUS funding if they already carry debt from some other source. The $20.4 billion is going to be a lot less impressive if a big chunk of it is loans. It's going to be disastrous if loans follow the RUS lending rules.
We obviously need to hear a lot more. This could be a huge shot in the arm to rural broadband if done properly – exactly the kind of boost that we need. It could instead be another huge giveaway to the big telcos – or it could be something in between. I know I tend to be cynical, but I can't ignore that some of the largest federal broadband funding programs have been a bust. Let's all hope my worries are unfounded.
Tagged $20.4 billion, CAF II, Chairman Ajit Pai, FCC, Universal Service Fund
Capping the Universal Service Fund
FCC Chairman Ajit Pai recently suggested capping the size of the total Universal Service Fund at $11.4 annually, adjusted going forward for inflation. The chairman has taken a lot of flack on this proposal from advocates of rural broadband. Readers of this blog know that I have been a big critic of this FCC on a whole host of issues. However, this idea doesn't ive me much heartburn.
Critics of the idea are claiming that this proves that the FCC isn't serious about fixing the rural broadband problem. I totally agree with that sentiment and this current FCC hasn't done very little to fix rural broadband. In fact, they've gone out of their way to try to hide the magnitude of the rural problem by fiddling with broadband statistics and by hiding behind the faulty data from carriers that come out of the FCC's broadband mapping effort. My personal guess is that there are millions of more homes that don't have broadband than are being counted by the FCC.
With that said, the Universal Service Fund shouldn't be the sole funding source for fixing rural broadband. The fund was never intended for that. The fund was created originally to promote the expansion of rural telephone service. Over time it became the mechanism to help rural telcos survive as other sources of subsidies like access charges were reduced over time. Only in recent years was it repositioned to fund rural broadband.
Although I'm a big proponent for better rural broadband, I am not bothered by capping the Universal Service Fund. First, the biggest components of that fund have been capped for years. The monies available for the rural high cost program, the schools and library fund and for rural healthcare have already been capped. Second, the proposed cap is a little larger than what's being spent today, and what has been spent historically. This doesn't look to be a move by the FCC to take away funding from any existing program.
Consumers today fund the Universal Service Fund through fees levied against landline telephone and cellphones. Opponents of capping the fund apparently would like to see the FCC hike those fees to help close the rural broadband gap. As a taxpayer I'm personally not nuts about the idea of letting federal agencies like the FCC print money by raising taxes that we all pay. For the FCC to make any meaningful dent in the rural broadband issue they'd probably have to triple or quadruple the USF fees.
I don't think there is a chance in hell that Congress would ever let the FCC do that – and not just this Congress, but any Congress. Opponents of Pai's plan might not recall that past FCCs have had this same deliberation and decided that they didn't have the authority to unilaterally increase the size of the USF fund.
If we want to federal government to help fix the rural broadband problem, unfortunately the only realistic solution is for Congress to appropriate real money to the effort. This particular Congress is clearly in the pocket of the big telcos, evidenced by the $600 million awarded for rural broadband in last year's budget reconciliation process. The use of those funds was crippled by language inserted by the big telcos to make it hard to use the money to compete against the telcos.
And that's the real issue with federal funding. We all decry that we have a huge rural broadband crisis, but what we really have is a big telco crisis. Every rural area that has crappy broadband is served by one of the big telcos. The big telcos stopped making investments to modernize rural networks decades ago. And yet they still have to political clout to block federal money from being used to compete against their outdated and dying networks.
The FCC does have an upcoming opportunity for funding a new broadband program from the Universal Service Fund. After 2020 nearly $2 billion annually will be freed up in the fund at the end of the original CAF II program. If this FCC is at serious about rural broadband the FCC should start talking this year about what to do with those funds. This is a chance for Chairman Pai to put his (USF) money where his mouth is.
Tagged CAF II, Chairman Ajit Pai, FCC, Universal Service Fund
There's No 5G Race
FCC Chairman Ajit Pai was recently quoted in the Wall Street Journal as saying, "In my view, we're in the lead with respect to 5G". Over the last few months I've heard this same sentiment expressed in terms of how the US needs to win the 5G race.
This talk is just more hype and propaganda from the wireless industry that is trying to create a false crisis concerning 5G in order to convince politicians that we need to break our regulatory traditions and give the wireless carriers everything they want. After all, what politician wants to be blamed for the US losing the 5G race? This kind of propaganda works. I was just at an industry trade association show and heard three or four people say that the US needs to win the 5G race.
There is no 5G race; there is no 5G war; there is no 5G crisis. Anybody that repeats these phrases is wittingly or unwittingly pushing the lobbying agenda of the big wireless companies. Some clever marketer at one of the cellular carriers invented the imaginary 5G race as a great way to emphasize the importance of 5G.
Stop and think about it for a second. 5G is a telecom technology, not some kind of military secret that some countries are going to have, while others will be denied. 5G technology is being developed by a host of multinational vendors that are going to sell it to anybody who wants it. It's not a race when everybody is allowed to win. If China, or Germany, or Finland makes a 5G breakthrough and implements some aspect of 5G first, within a year that same technology will be in the gear available to everybody.
What I really don't get about this kind of hype and rhetoric is that 5G is basically a new platform for delivering bandwidth. If we are so fired up to not lose the 5G race, then why have we been so complacent about losing the fiber race? The US is far down on the list of countries in terms of our broadband infrastructure. We've not deployed fiber optics nearly as quickly as many other countries, and worse we still have millions of households with no broadband and many tens of millions of others with inadequate broadband. That's the race we need to win because we are keeping whole communities out of the new economy, whch hurts us all.
I hope that my readers don't think I'm against 5G because I'm for any technology that improves access to bandwidth. What I'm against is the industry hype that paints 5G as the technology that will save our country – because it will not. Today, more than 95% of the bandwidth we use is carried over wires, and 5G isn't going to move that needle much. There are clearly some bandwidth needs that only wireless will solve, but households and businesses are going to continue to rely on wires to move big bandwidth.
When I ask wireless engineers about the future they almost all have painted the same picture. Over time we will migrate to a mixture of WiFi and millimeter wave spectrum indoors to move around big data. When virtual and augmented reality was first mentioned a few years ago, one of the big promises we heard was for telepresence, where we'll be able to meet and talk with remote people as if they are sitting with us. That technology hasn't moved forward because it requires huge broadband beyond what today's WiFi routers can deliver. Indoor 5G using millimeter wave spectrum will finally unleash gigabit applications within the home.
The current hype for 5G has only one purpose. It's a slick way for the wireless carriers to push the government to take the actions they want. 5G was raised as one of the reasons to kill net neutrality. It's being touted as a reason to gut most of the rest of existing telecom legislation. 5G is being used as the reason to give away huge blocks of mid-range spectrum exclusively to the big wireless companies. It's pretty amazing that the government would give so much away for a technology that will roll out slowly over the next decade.
Please think twice before you buy into the 5G hype. It takes about five minutes of thinking to poke a hole in every bit of 5G hype. There is no race for 5G deployment and the US, by definition, can't be ahead or behind in the so-called race towards 5G. This is just another new broadband technology and the wireless carriers and other entrepreneurs will deploy 5G in the US when it makes economic sense. Instead of giving the wireless companies everything on their wish list, a better strategy by the FCC would be to make sure the country has enough fiber to make 5G work.
Tagged 5G, 5G hype, Chairman Ajit Pai, race for 5G
5G For Rural America?
FCC Chairman Ajit Pai recently addressed the NTCA-The Rural Broadband Association membership and said that he saw a bright future for 5G in rural America. He sees 5G as a fixed-wireless deployment that fits in well with the fiber deployment already made by NTCA members.
The members of NTCA are rural telcos and many of these companies have upgraded their networks to fiber-to-the-home. Some of these telcos tackled building fiber a decade or more ago and many more are building fiber today using money from the ACAM program – part of the Universal Service Fund.
Chairman Pai was talking to companies that largely have been able to deploy fiber, and since Pai is basically the national spokesman for 5G it makes sense that he would try to make a connection between 5G and rural fiber. However, I've thought through every business model for marrying 5G and rural fiber and none of them make sense to me.
Consider the use of millimeter wave spectrum in rural America. I can't picture a viable business case for deploying millimeter wave spectrum where a telco has already deployed fiber drops to every home. No telco would spend money to create wireless drops where they have already paid for fiber drops. One of the biggest benefits from building fiber is that it simplifies operations for a telco – mixing two technologies across the same geographic footprint would add unneeded operational complications that nobody would tackle on purpose.
The other business plan I've heard suggested is to sell wholesale 5G connections to other carriers as a new source of income. I also can't imagine that happening. Rural telcos are going to fight hard to keep out any competitor that wants to use 5G to compete with their existing broadband customers. I can't imagine a rural telco agreeing to provide fiber connections to 5G transmitters that would sit outside homes and compete with their existing broadband customers, and a telco that lets in a 5G competitor would be committing economic suicide. Rural business plans are precarious, by definition, and most rural markets don't generate enough profits to justify two competitors.
What about using 5G in a competitive venture where a rural telco is building fiber outside of their territory? There may come a day when wireless loops have a lower lifecycle cost than fiber loops. But for now, it's hard to think that a wireless 5G connection with electronics that need to be replaced at least once a decade can really compete over the long-haul with a fiber drop that might last 50 or 75 years. If that math flips we'll all be building wireless drops – but that's not going to happen soon. It's probably going to take tens of millions of installations of millimeter wave drops until telcos trust 5G as a substitute for fiber.
Chairman Pai also mentioned mid-range spectrum in his speech, specifically the upcoming auction for 3.5 GHz spectrum. How might mid-range spectrum create a rural 5G play that works with existing fiber? It might be a moot question since few rural telcos are going to have access to licensed spectrum.
But assuming that telcos could find mid-range licensed spectrum, how would that benefit from their fiber? As with millimeter wave spectrum, a telco is not going to deploy this technology to cover the same areas where they already have fiber connections to homes. The future use of mid-range spectrum will be the same as it is today – to provide wireless broadband to customers that don't live close to fiber. The radios will be placed on towers, the taller the better. These towers will then make connections to homes using dishes that can communicate with the tower.
Many of the telcos in the NTCA are already deploying this fixed wireless technology today outside of their fiber footprint. This technology benefits from having towers fed by fiber, but this rarely the same fiber that a telco is using to serve customers. In most cases this business plan requires extending fiber outside of the existing service footprint – and Chairman Pai said specifically that he saw advantage for 5G from existing fiber.
Further, it's a stretch to label mid-range spectrum point-to-multipoint radio systems as 5G. From what numerous engineers have told me, 5G is not going to make big improvements over the way that fixed wireless operates today. 5G will add flexibility for the operator to fine-tune the wireless connection to any given customer, but the 5G technology won't inherently increase the speed of the wireless broadband connection.
I just can't find any business plan that is going to deliver 5G in rural America that takes advantage of the fiber that the small telcos have already built. I would love to hear from readers who might see a possibility that I have missed. I've thought about this a lot and I struggle to find the benefits for 5G in rural markets that Chairman Pai has in mind. 5G clearly needs a fiber-rich environment – but companies who have already built rural fiber-to-the-home are not going to embrace a second overlay technology or openly allow competitors onto their networks.
Tagged 5G, Chairman Ajit Pai, NTCA, Rural broadband
Looking Back at the Net Neutrality Order
Chairman Ajit Pai used three arguments to justify ending net neutrality. First, he claimed that the net neutrality rules in effect were a disincentive for big ISPs to make investments and that ending net neutrality would lead to a boom in broadband investment. He also argued that ending net neutrality would free the big ISPs to make broadband investments in rural parts of the US that were underserved. Finally, he argued that the end of net neutrality would spark the growth of telecom jobs. It's been two years since he used those arguments to justify the repeal net neutrality and it's easy to see that none of those things have come to pass.
The investment claim is easy to check. The big ISPs are starting to release their 2018 financial results and it looks like capital spending in 2018 – the first year after the end of net neutrality – are lower than in 2017. We've already heard from Comcast and Charter and that capital spending was down in 2018 over 2017. The industry analyst MoffettNathanson has already predicted that capital spending for the four biggest cable companies – Comcast, Charter, Altice, and CableONE is expected to drop by 5.8% more in 2019. Anybody who watches the cable companies understands that they all just made big investments in upgrading to DOCSIS 3.1 and that capital spending ought to drop significantly for the next several years.
MoffettNathanson also predicts that wireline capital spending for Verizon and AT&T will drop from $20.3 billion in 2018 to $19.6 billion in 2019. The press is also full of articles lamenting that investments in 5G by these companies is far smaller than hoped for by industry vendors. It seems that net neutrality had no impact on telecom spending (as anybody who has spent time at an ISP could have told you). It's virtually unheard of for regulation to drive capital spending.
The jobs claim was a ludicrous one because the big companies have been downsizing for years and have continued to do so after net neutrality was repealed. The biggest layoff came from Verizon in October 2018 when the company announced that it was eliminating 44,000 jobs and transferring another 2,500 to India. This layoff is an astronomical 30% of its workforce. AT&T just announced on January 25 that it would eliminate 4,600 jobs, the first part of a 3-year plan to eliminate 10,000 positions. While the numbers are smaller for Comcast, they laid off 500 employees on January 4 and also announced the close of a facility with 405 employees in Atlanta.
Pai's claim that net neutrality was stopping the big ISPs from investing in underserved areas might be the most blatantly false claim the Chairman has made since he took the Chairman position. The big ISPs haven't made investments in rural America in the last decade. They have been spending money in rural America in the last few years – but only funds handed to them by the FCC through the CAF II program to expand rural broadband and the FCC's Mobility Fund to expand rural cellular coverage. I've been hearing rumors all over the industry that most of the big ISPs aren't even spending a lot of the money from those two programs – something I think will soon surface as a scandal. There is no regulatory policy that is going to get the big ISPs to invest in rural America and it was incredibly unfair to rural America for the Chairman to imply they ever would.
Chairman Pai's arguments for repealing net neutrality were all false and industry insiders knew it at the time. I probably wrote a dozen blog posts about the obvious falsehoods being peddled. The Chairman took over the FCC with the goal of eliminating net neutrality at the top of his wish list and he adopted these three talking points because they were the same ones being suggested by big ISP lobbyists.
What bothers me is this is not how regulation is supposed to work. Federal and state regulatory agencies are supposed to gather the facts on both sides of a regulatory issue, and once they choose a direction they are expected to explain why. The orders published by the FCC and other regulatory bodies act similar to court orders in that the language in these orders are then part of the ongoing record that is used later to understand the 'why' behind an order. In later years courts rely on the discussion in regulatory orders to evaluate disputes based upon the new rules. The order that repeals net neutrality sadly repeats these same falsehoods that were used to justify the repeal.
There are always two sides for every regulatory issue and there are arguments that could be made against net neutrality. However, the Chairman and the big ISPs didn't want to publicly make the logical arguments against net neutrality because they knew these arguments would be unpopular. For example, there is a legitimate argument to made for allowing ISPs to discriminate against certain kinds of web traffic – any network engineer will tell you that it's nearly mandatory to give priority to some bits over others. But the ISPs know that making that argument makes it sound like they want the right to shuttle customers into the 'slow lane', and that's a PR battle they didn't want to fight. Instead, telecom lobbyists cooked up the false narrative peddled by Chairman Pai. The hoped the public would swallow these false arguments rather than argue for the end of net neutrality on its merits.
Tagged CAF II, Chairman Ajit Pai, FCC, MoffettNathanson, Net neutrality, Verizon layoffs
Killing FTC Regulation?
NCTA, the lobbying group for the big cable companies filed a pleading with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) asking the agency to not get involved with regulating the broadband industry. When the FCC killed net neutrality, Chairman Ajit Pai promised that it was okay for the FCC to step away from broadband regulation since the FTC was going to take over much of the regulatory role. Now, a month after net neutrality went into effect we have the big cable ISPs arguing that the FTC should have a limited role in regulation broadband. The NTCA comments were filed in a docket that asks how the FTC should handle the regulatory role handed to them by the FCC.
Pai's claim was weak from the outset because of the nature of the way that the FTC regulates. They basically pursue corporations of all kinds that violate federal trade rules or who abuse the general public. For example, the FTC went after AT&T for throttling customers who had purchased unlimited data plans. However, FTC rulings don't carry the same weight as FCC orders. Rulings are specific to the company under investigation. Rulings might lead other companies to modify their behavior, but an FTC order doesn't create a legal precedent that automatically applies to all carriers. In contrast, FCC rulings can be made to apply to the whole industry and rulings can change the regulations for every ISP.
The NCTA petition asks the FTC to not pursue complaints about regulatory complaints against ISPs. For example, they argue that the agency shouldn't be singling out ISPs for unique regulatory burdens, but should instead pursue the large Internet providers like Facebook and Google. The NCTA claims that market forces will prevent bad behavior by ISP and will punish a carrier that abuses its customers. They claim there is sufficient competition for cable broadband, such as from DSL, that customers will leave an ISP that is behaving poorly. In a world where they have demolished DSL and where cable is a virtual monopoly in most markets they really made that argument! We have a long history in the industry that says otherwise, and even when regulated by the FCC there are long laundry lists of ways that carriers have mistreated their customers.
One of the more interesting requests is that the ISPs want the FTC to preempt state and local rules that try to regulate them. I am sure this is due to vigorous activity at the state level currently to create rules for net neutrality and privacy regulations. They want the FTC to issue guidelines to state Attorney Generals and state consumer protection agencies to remind them that broadband is regulated only at the federal level. It's an interesting argument to make after the FCC has punted on regulating broadband and when this filing is asking the FTC to do the same. The ISPs want the FTC to leave them alone while asking the agency to act as the watchdog to stop others from trying to regulate the industry.
I think this pleading was inevitable since the big ISPs are trying to take full advantage of the FCC walking away from broadband regulation. The ISPs view this as an opportunity to kill regulation everywhere. At best the FTC would be a weak regulator of broadband, but the ISPs don't want any scrutiny of the way they treat their customers.
The history of telecom regulation has always been in what I call waves. Over time the amount of regulations build up to a point where companies can make a valid claim of being over-regulated. Over-regulation can then be relieved either by Congress or by a business-friendly FCC who loosens regulatory constraints. But when regulations get too lax the big carriers inevitably break enough rules that attracts an increase of new regulation.
We are certainly hitting the bottom of a trough of a regulatory wave as regulations are being eliminated or ignored. Over time the large monopolies in the industry will do what monopolies always do. They will take advantage of this period of light regulation and will abuse customers in various ways and invite new regulations. My bet is that customer privacy will be the issue that will start the climb back to the top of the regulatory wave. The ISPs argument that market forces will force good behavior on their part is pretty laughable to anybody who has watched the big carriers over the years.
Tagged Chairman Ajit Pai, FCC, FTC, NCTA
How Many Internets Are There?


Our goal at Kimble Companies is to provide the best possible service to our customers. We get a lot of questions throughout the day so we've created this quick and easy reference for you to find answers to your frequently asked questions. If you are looking to start service, have questions about existing service or billing, please contact us or call 800-201-0005 to speak with a customer support representative.


Washington, D.C., March 12, 2009 –EADS North America today delivered the initial three UH-72A Lakota Light Utility Helicopters to the District of Columbia National Guard, providing new-generation aircraft for a range of aviation support missions in the nation's capital area.
Following today's UH-72A delivery ceremony, EADS North America Chairman and CEO Ralph D. Crosby, Jr. (center, right) discusses the Lakota's mission capabilities with Gen. Craig R. McKinley, Chief of the National Guard Bureau (center left); Maj. Gen. Errol R. Schwartz, Commanding General, District of Columbia National Guard (at right); and Chief Warrant Officer 3 Chris Rindal, who is an instructor pilot for the new Light Utility Helicopter.
> See the Feature story on the UH-72A's arrival in Washington, D.C. for the D.C. National Guard's delivery ceremony.


What medicines should I avoid?
It is important to avoid taking aspirin or similar blood-thinning products before undergoing most plastic surgery procedures. This should be for 2-weeks either side of the operation. Aspirin has an adverse effect on bruising. The same is true for non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (such as Ibuprofen, Nurofen and Diclofenac). However for mole removal and other "minor" procedures, taking aspirin (or similar) would not preclude surgery from going ahead.
What else should I avoid?
Vitamin E, dietary supplements and herbal medicines should also be avoided. These may also increase your bleeding tendency. Vitamin C is safe. Alcohol should be avoided for 2-days prior to surgery due to the effects on increasing blood flow.
Smoking may have serious effects on wound healing and infection rates, so ideally should be stopped a minimum of 8-weeks before surgery. It also can cause problems due to coughing which can cause bleeding to start after your operation; a problem that is of particular concern in facial operations. There are certain operations that Mr Pacifico will not undertake if you are smoking, including breast reductions, tummy tucks and facelifts.
Some patients find homeopathic remedies such as arnica helpful to reduce bruising. If you wish to use arnica you should begin 2-3 days before the operation and continue for a week afterwards.
What about colds, flus and other infections?
If you develop any sort of illness prior to the operation please contact Mr Pacifico's office as you may need treatment prior to surgery, or alternatively your surgery may need to be put back.
When should I stop eating?
For local anaesthetic operations (with you awake) you may eat and drink normally. For general anaesthetic operations (with you asleep) you should not eat anything for at least 6-hours prior to surgery. You may drink water up until 2-hours before surgery. If in doubt, please ask.
The hospital will contact you to make the arrangements for your operation. Usually you will come in to hospital on the morning of your surgery, but occasionally you may be asked to come in the night before.
What should I bring to hospital?
Ensure you have your normal toiletries and any regular medication you take. If having a procedure on your face or eyes, it is advisable to bring a pair of sunglasses and a head scarf to wear home. Please see the information on individual procedures for specific information that may be relevant to you, such as appropriate bras or post-operative garments.


*   The local timezone to be used to create this date.
*   Unlike earlier versions of this popup, most formats will work.
*   Increment minutes and seconds by this amount, default is 1.
*   default is -3:+3 (3 back and 3 forward).
*   to set for this element. Use the jQuery datepicker option names as keys.


text:
Q: How to remove an object from the Storyboard? The UICollectionViewFlowLayout object always come with a UICollectionView
When placing a UICollectionViewController or a UICollectionView inside my Storyboard I can see that a UICollectionViewFlowLayout object always comes with them.

I have no use for it. How do I delete it?
However, I have no use for it because I'm dealing with the UICollectionViewLayout, which is slightly different and customizable. I can't seem to find a way to delete it. It is also causing issues in my app.
Is there any way to delete the UICollectionViewFlowLayout object?

A: You can't delete a UICollectionViewFlowLayout because every collection view needs one.  It's just a matter of if it's a custom layout or a default one, but either way, it's still using a layout.
From the UICollectionView reference:

A very important object associated with a collection view is the layout object, which is a subclass of the UICollectionViewLayout class. The layout object is responsible for defining the organization and location of all cells and supplementary views inside the collection view.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


This contribution adds XMLUI compatibility for the sherpa/romeo lookup feature that was included in DSpace 4.0 JSPUI.
It has been developed and tested against the Mirage 1, Classic and Reference themes.
We also still want to tackle Mirage 2 compatibility but require Mirage 2 to be added to the core prior to this work.


You might be wondering if a PMP Online training 35 contact hours course makes you eligible for the certification exam.
I have written this post to describe what is a PMP online training, what are 35 contact hours, and how an online course satisfies PMI's project management education requirement. In this post, I have also discussed the benefits of an online program over other forms of training courses and reasoned why an online PMP training is the best way to get 35 contact hours.
As per PMI, you need 35 contact hours of formal project management education to apply for the PMP credential exam.
So what are 35 contact hours?
The following quote has been taken from PMI's PMP handbook.
PMI is clearly talking about "classroom instruction". So, how does an online course satisfies 35 hours requirement?
Let us look at another quote from the handbook.
You can satisfy the education requirements by demonstrating the successful completion of courses, workshops and training sessions offered by Distance-learning companies, including an end-of-course assessment.
The above statement clearly says "Distance-learning companies". It is apparent that a PMP online training with an end of course assessment can be used to fulfill PMI's 35 hours education requirement.
Can you take any online PMP course with end of course assessment offered by a Distance-learning company? Would it satisfy PMI's requirement?
You should only go for a pre-approved PMI REP (Registered Education Provider) course. This way there will be no confusion if a course is can give you requisite contact hours or not.
Note: Self-directed learning (e.g. reading books, watching instructional videos or educational sessions with coaches or mentors) does not satisfy the educational requirement.
Why An Online PMP Training Program Is The Best Way To Get 35 Contact Hours?
is least expensive and pocket friendly.
is available at a time and place of your choice. It gives you a lot of flexibility.
does not give you information overload in a short span of time. You can study in short spurts and digest the new knowledge before jumping to a new topic.
saves you commute time. You don't need to travel anywhere to attend the training.
gives you a choice to learn at your own pace. Whereas in other forms of training, you have to learn at the pace of the instructor.
gives you flexibility to follow your own style of learning. You can watch all the videos, read ebooks and then do exercises. Or, you can do exercises immediately after learning a new topic.
allows you to use your idle time for the exam prep. You can listen to the audios and watch videos while you are doing mundane jobs like jogging, commuting, waiting at Doctor's, transiting through airport etc. You can potentially save 25% of your preparation time.
Which Online PMP Program Is Right For You?
Try to Google "PMP Online Training 35 contact hours".
What do you see? You will be astounded (rather confounded) by the number of search results. You will find hundreds of companies vying for your attention to buy their course(s). So, which program is right for you? Which of these courses will give you 35 contact hours?
Rather than solving your queries, Google search results leave you confused and stumped. It becomes difficult to choose the right course.
from a PMI's REP. It is not mandatory to attend an REP program but their programs are pre-approved by PMI for awarding 35 contact hours.
that has a good mix of videos and other instructional material like ebooks and practice questions.
that covers all the learning objectives of project management (scope, schedule, cost, quality, resource, communications, risk, procurement, stakeholders, and integration management).
that has an end-of-course assessment to meet PMI's definition of 35 contact hours.
that issues a 35 contact hours certificate at the end of the course.
whose content quality is excellent. Poor content quality can hurt your chances of passing the exam.
that is taught by a native English language trainer as the exam is administered in English language only.
To help you choose the right course, I have used the above parameters to do a comparative review of top self-learning courses.
Self learning online courses are cheapest form of training. They are friendly on your pocket and give your lot of flexibility. But you will need self-control and discipline to finish these courses. Before deciding on a self learning course, you should prepare a study schedule and follow it religiously.
Which form of training were you contemplating before reading this article? Do you agree that PMP online training is the best way to get 35 contact hours?
When Do Contact Hours Expire?
I am PMP Certified,have the aspiration to train PMP aspirants ,How could I get connect to REPs/Training Institutes?


text:
Uber Car Created the global Ride Sharing $100 billion taxi market, achieving a Company valuation of nearly $70 billion, with an app that makes getting a cab with a touch of a button. But Uber Car still struggles to recruit and retain the more than 1.5 million drivers worldwide who make Ubers business possible.
The auto dealers Uber car partners with target people with poor credit or no credit who otherwise might not be able to buy a car or get a loan. It has attracted them with hefty signup bonuses and the promise of good pay, then cut rates and increased its own commission. It has advertised "being your own boss" but glossed over the fact that independent contractors don't get benefits or a guaranteed minimum wage. Uber has been sued repeatedly by drivers who allege they were misclassified as contractors rather than employees. It settled with the US Federal Trade Commission earlier this year for misleading drivers about their potential earnings. It paid back tens of millions of dollars to drivers in New York City in May after admitting it for years shortchanged them on wages.
In recent months, Uber's treatment of drivers has been almost completely forgotten amid a series of internal scandals. The company has lost nearly a dozen top executives so far this year, including founder and CEO Travis Kalanick, following multiple allegations of sexual harassment and workplace misconduct. It fired more than 20 employees as the result of a harassment probe in early June. Kalanick stepped down on June 20 after five major shareholders demanded his immediate resignation. He has retained a seat on Uber's board of directors and still has his hands on the day to day operations of Uber Car.
Uber Car has turned to its drivers, and launched a campaign to improve the driver experience, titled "180 Days of Change." But some of its past practices towards those drivers might be difficult to untangle.
In July 2015, Uber car launched its Xchange Leasing subsidiary to finance Uber leases and Uber rentals for drivers in the US with poor or no credit. The program has been criticized for its sky-high terms and potential for taking advantage of workers, though Uber Car said it was designed to streamline and improve financing options for drivers. Just two years later, Xchange has yet to become available in New York, one of Uber's oldest, largest, and most profitable markets. Instead, the company has maintained partnerships with a small network of third parties Uber Car leasing Companies that predate its Uber leasing subsidiary, and which operate in the underbelly of New York's auto-financing market, without much scrutiny.These Uber Lease Companies must also provide Uber Car Rentals to offer Uber car drivers only on work visa's a chance to make money for Uber Car.
Now, after being questioned by Quartz, Uber says it will pause referrals to its partners as it investigates the program.
"Last week, we made a commitment to drivers: to fundamentally change their experience with Uber for the better," Uber said in a statement. "We take that commitment seriously, which is why we are halting referrals to third-party vehicle leases as we conduct a comprehensive audit of the third-party leasing program in New York City. We will not hesitate to make any changes necessary to fully honor our commitment to drivers."
Uber operates in 76 countries and more than 450 cities, but it is uniquely strict in New York City about what types of cars are allowed. To get drivers in the city on the road with an Uber-approved vehicle, the company has encouraged people like Rosario to sign auto-financing contracts that create a relationship somewhat akin to indentured labor. The Uber rentals and Uber leases that Uber recommends carry weekly payments as high as $500. They also require the driver to sign a "payment deduction authorization" that lets the dealer or lessor take fees directly out of their Uber earnings, effectively garnishing their wages. Leasing a car with the intention of buying it—"lease-to-own"—typically takes three years, over which time a driver might pay for his vehicle two to three times over. TLC Financing Offers Lease to own over 2 years of payments at much more affordable rates.
Drivers receive this flyer at Uber's Greenlight Hub service centers in New York City. (Uber)
On the "vehicle solutions" section of its New York website, Uber recommends four dealers—Tower, American Lease, Buggy TLC Rentals, and Fast Track Lease—as the "quickest way to get a car." It describes the Uber weekly rentals as "flexible" and says that with Uber lease-to-own, "you pay less per week." Drivers who visit one of Uber's Greenlight Hub service centers receive a glossy black folder with a printout that advertises renting a new car "free" from a participating dealer, or visiting the Uber website to learn more about Uber lease-to-own, a "long term option with vehicle ownership at the end."
Ninety-plus percent of professional drivers in New York City are immigrants and driving can be one of the few opportunities they have to earn money. The auto dealers Uber partners with target people with poor credit who otherwise might not be able to buy a car or get a loan. Uber, through its ads and signup process, has given drivers every reason to believe that these Uber lease and Uber rental contracts are a good choice. The reality can prove otherwise.
"Uber tells you, you can do this job when you feel like," said Marion Wolfe, a former Uber driver and lessee in New York. "That's not true. When you're locked in with these leasing companies, you've got to go out there and make that money. You have to be out there and hustle to make that rent money for the car."
I first met Rosario in late January at a meeting of the Independent Drivers Guild, a non-union group that represents Uber and other ride-hailing drivers in New York City. I arrived late to the meeting, around 9pm, and explained to a small audience that I was researching a story on people who lease cars to drive for Uber. Rosario quickly agreed to talk to me about his experience with Tower. "It was definitely double what it was worth," he said of his lease that night. He sent me a copy of the paperwork provided by Tower, "summary of lease to own agreement," a few weeks later.
At the time Rosario signed his lease with Tower, a 2015 Lincoln MKS was selling new for $45,292, according to data from auto research firm Edmunds. Rosario agreed to pay nearly twice that for a car that came with 14,000 miles (22,500 km) already on it. The weekly payments of $495, which included the cost of insurance but not repairs or maintenance, totaled $78,705 over three years. An additional $3,000 for a "non-refundable service fee" brought the total to $81,705. At the end of the term, Rosario had the option to purchase the car for $1.
Tower makes these sales "regardless of credit" so long as the applicant has professional driving experience. The lease explained that the $495 a week was a special rate, discounted from $525 for Uber drivers, and available "for as long as Lessee drives using the UBER Technologies, Inc. ('UBER') service." It didn't specify how often the driver needed to work for Uber to meet those standards, just that the car must be affiliated with an Uber base—a locally licensed dispatch center—at all times during the lease. Uber told Quartz those terms are decided by the dealer.
Uber approached Tower and several other dealers about setting up partnerships between 2013 and 2014 to help its thousands of newly licensed drivers get cars, a source familiar with the matter told Quartz. At the time many drivers were paying $450 to $600 a week to rent a car licensed as a for-hire vehicle with the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission, the local taxi regulator, the source said. By offering dealers a steady stream of business and the security of payments facilitated by Uber, the company hoped it could also convince them to lower their rates.
Uber advertises Uber rentals and Uber lease-to-own options from its partner dealers on its New York website.
Uber car launched in New York in May 2011. The company told Quartz it began partnering with third-party dealers in July 2014 and does not take a commission or fee from the lease payments. It declined to specify how many drivers currently rent or lease their cars in New York through its four partner dealers, but said a "very small percentage" of drivers are in lease agreements. "New York City drivers who want to lease a car so they can earn with Uber are referred to dealers that offer competitively priced leases," the company said in a statement. "We plan to review any complaints drivers have about these dealers."
Uber's leasing practices were referred to the New York state attorney general about two years ago, and the office has privately expressed interest in probing the matter, a source familiar with the matter told Quartz. The AG's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Tower is a servicer that manages auto loans day-to-day for leasing companies, which provide the actual financing. It produced Rosario's contract on behalf of CB Livery Leasing, a company based in the Bronx and established in February 2015, according to papers filed with the New York Department of State. These days, Tower executes about 200 car contracts a month, most of them to Uber drivers, said Sazid Rahman, a sales consultant. Uber is the only ride-hailing company Tower is officially partnered with. Rahman said Tower makes these sales "regardless of credit" so long as the applicant has professional driving experience.
Rosario had no credit when he went to Tower to see about getting a car. The dealer told him it offered a non-credit plan that was less affordable and required weekly instead of monthly payments. After that, he said they didn't ask about his assets or income, "just that I had a bank account and worked for Uber." He paid $2,000 of the $3,000 service fee upfront, and the rest at a rate of $100 per week over 10 weeks.
Rosario's lack of credit history put him in a category of borrowers known as "deep subprime." Subprime auto lending is a growing problem in the US, reminiscent of the housing bubble before the 2007 crash. Over the last six years, it's become much easier to borrow money to buy a car. The result is that the volume of auto loans made to "subprime" consumers with credit scores below 620 has soared.
In the third quarter of 2016, there were $280 billion worth of subprime auto loans in the US, according to data from the New York Fed and Equifax, compared to $188 billion in the third quarter of 2010. Of those loans, the share made to "deep subprime" consumers—those with credit scores below 550—has meanwhile climbed to 32.5% from 5.1% since 2010, according to research published in March by Morgan Stanley. Steve Eisman, the investor who famously shorted subprime home mortgages and earned a starring role in Michael Lewis's The Big Short, is now eying subprime auto lenders.
Subprime lending can fill an important gap in the market by providing financing to people who might otherwise be unable to secure a loan. But the leases supplied to Uber drivers in New York are ripe for abuse, said Chris Kukla, executive vice president at the Center for Responsible Lending, after examining Rosario's lease summary as well as a contract between Marion Wolfe and Buggy LLC. He pointed to a clause in Wolfe's lease that allowed Buggy to repossess the car and report it to the police as "lost or stolen" if he missed a payment and failed to respond to communications for five days.
"That's pretty coercive," Kukla said. "It's very concerning to see a contract where the lender is threatening to use law enforcement as a collection tactic."
Predatory auto lending is as much a fixture of New York City as the iconic yellow cab industry. Long before Uber, cabbies were effectively indentured to medallion owners, who rented out the right to operate a taxi. Dealers did brisk business leasing black cars to a largely immigrant population. When Uber first came to New York it talked about freeing drivers from such practices. Instead the company has pushed more drivers into burdensome leases and rentals, and lent legitimacy to the way these dealers do business.
"It's a very grayish situation," Sohail Rana, an Uber driver and member of the Independent Drivers Guild, told me. "It's good for if someone is desperate to rent a car."
Earlier this year, Rana took a friend to Tower to see about renting a car. The friend, Muhannad Issa, had been out of work for about six months at the time and also had a baby on the way. Issa couldn't afford to buy a car and his credit was bad. Tower had denied Issa a rental before because of an old speeding ticket, but Rana knew the owner and called in a favor. The dealer agreed to let Issa rent a car to drive for Uber for $425 per week, plus a $450 deposit. It took the money out of his Uber earnings every Monday morning. "I was telling him, this is not your best option, this is your best option of all the bad options," Rana said.
Uber car helps drivers schedule appointments with its partner dealers through a sign-up page on the Uber New York website. (Screenshot from Uber)
Most Uber drivers are part-time workers. But for people who need to make a weekly payment on their car rental or lease, working part-time often isn't an option. When Issa didn't drive at all the week his baby arrived in March, Tower deducted the $425 straight from his bank account. He got back on the road a few days later but planned to look into other rental or lease options, "because $425 a week, that's too much."
Marion Wolfe got his car from Buggy, another of Uber's partner-dealers, when he started driving for the company in March 2016. Wolfe signed up for Uber to supplement his income from a job with the New York City metro. At first he rented a car for $450 a week, but the dealer told him he could get a newer vehicle if he did lease-to-own.
Buggy, also known as Lux Credit Consultants, was set up in January 2015, according to papers filed with the New York Department of State. The office in Crown Heights, a neighborhood of Brooklyn, is surrounded by a chainlink fence with barbed wire on top. A black Uber poster board leans against the front of the building. Inside, half of the front office is taken up by a table staffed with two Uber representatives who sit against the back wall and help sign up drivers for leases and rentals. When I stopped by one afternoon in late June, one man wore an Uber T-shirt. Another had a laptop labeled "Uber Loaner 229."
The entrance to the Buggy office in Brooklyn's Crown Heights. (Quartz/Alison Griswold)
Amit Bal, general manager of the Crown Heights office, said Buggy signs more than 100 contracts for rentals and leases a month, 90% of them to Uber drivers. He estimates that two-thirds of the deals are rentals, with payments ranging from $369 to $469 a week. "We don't deal with credit at all," he said.
In July 2016, Wolfe signed a 156-week contract for a 2016 Hyundai Sonata, which at the time had an average transaction price of $24,332, according to Edmunds. Buggy priced the car at $158.33 a week—which over 156 weeks totals almost exactly the sale price of the car—but offered optional fees for liability insurance ($110.62), potential repairs ($80.05), and proper licensing with the city's taxi commission ($68). Wolfe chose all of them, bringing his total weekly payment to $417. He paid $695 down plus sales tax on the full price of the car, or $2,253.76, when the contract commenced. Over the life of the lease, the payments totaled a little more than $68,000. The licensing fees alone added up to $10,608, compared to the $550 the taxi commission charges to license a car as a for-hire vehicle for two years. "Without knowing all the details of the contract, it's difficult to respond," said Allan Fromberg, a TLC spokesman, when asked whether those fees were unusual. "But it's equally difficult not to say 'wow.'"
By August, Wolfe was driving more than 30 hours a week just to stay ahead of his payments.
"I couldn't take a day off," said Wolfe, who has a wife and three children. "I was a part-timer and it felt like I was really pulling full-time hours."
As of April, Uber had 600,000 US drivers who had taken at least one trip in the last 30 days. The company's own research has found that just half of those drivers remain after one year; tech news site The Information reported the retention rate is much worse. Driverless cars are on the way but we are years if not decades from the time when they become ubiquitous. Until then, Uber's business of providing on-demand rides hinges on its ability to keep a critical mass of drivers working on the platform.
"There's no question that they're doing it for driver retention." The task is not easy anywhere, but especially in New York City. While Uber's ascent in the city has been stunning, there is no shortage of traditional taxis and for-hire vehicles, as well as ride-hailing competitors. Lyft's New York ridership has doubled over the last year, according to TLC data. Gett, a ride-hailing company most popular in Israel, Russia, and the UK, acquired competitor Juno in late April. Via, a shared rides service, in early June partnered with taxi-hailing app Curb to bring shared rides to New York's yellow cabs.
Uber hires its drivers as independent contractors rather than employees to avoid having to give them benefits or a guaranteed minimum wage. Because of that, the company can't tell drivers where or when to work, both of which risk being deemed "employer-like" by a court. It also can't prevent them from driving for competitors like Lyft or Juno, which many do. What it has done is put more drivers on the road with financing agreements that lock them into working for Uber.
"There's no question that they're doing it for driver retention," said Matthew Daus, a partner at law firm Windels Marx and former chair of the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC), after reviewing one of the leases obtained by Quartz for this story. "You have an arrangement where an independent-contractor driver's hands are being tied to prevent them from going somewhere else."
None of the three lease-to-own contracts that Quartz examined for this story explicitly instructed the leaseholder to work only for Uber. But in all three cases, the driver was required to agree to some form of payment deduction from his Uber earnings as a term of the lease. Rahman, the Tower sales consultant, said the deduction arrangement is "good for the drivers and good for the leasing companies" because it simplifies the payments process. Wolfe's contract with Buggy outlined his payment terms in section six, "THE DRIVER'S OBLIGATIONS." 1
A typical Uber driver in New York earned $23 to $24 an hour before expenses like gas in October 2015, according to the most recent figures available from Uber (the company slashed prices in January 2016). Even at the 2015 rate, Wolfe would have had to work about 18 hours just to earn enough to cover his weekly lease payment. Were his Uber earnings insufficient in any week, the contract also authorized Buggy to collect its fees from Wolfe's bank account or to charge his debit or credit card, "both without further demand to, authorization from, the Driver."
Muhannad Issa's vehicle payments were deducted from his weekly earnings as a "Vehicle Related Fee." Emphasis added.(Muhannad Issa)
Rosario initially saw the deduction agreement in his contract as a plus. "I figured it was easiest," he said. But after he contracted pneumonia, the only thing the agreement made easy was falling into debt. After Tower agreed to reactivate his car in June 2016, Rosario drove 30 to 50 hours a week, despite the lingering cough that still left him short of breath. When Rosario came up short on his payments, he said Tower would collect all his Uber earnings and also hit his bank account for the full amount. Soon his bank balance disappeared and he racked up hundreds of dollars in overdraft fees.
Such arrangements may come back to haunt Uber. In early June, the New York state labor department deemed three former Uber drivers and "others similarly situated" to be employees, as opposed to independent contractors, in a dispute over jobless payments. In her decision, administrative law judge Michelle Burrowes noted that two of the claimants, Jeffrey Shepherd and Jakir Hossain, had leased cars from a third-party dealer recommended by Uber in spite of their poor credit.
"It is notable that the claimants were restricted to use vehicles deemed acceptable by Uber," Burrowes wrote. "Uber not only referred them to their third-party affiliates to lease vehicles without credit; but also, Uber took the additional step of withholding monies from these claimants' fares and making lease payments on their behalf." Uber said it does not believe helping drivers get leases with car dealers to work on its platform represents "employer-like" control.
Geovanie Rosario's lease was harder to terminate than to sign. In early October 2016, less than six months after he secured the contract, Rosario was still about $1,300 behind on the Lincoln and he also owed rent on his apartment. He chose to pay rent and, unable to make his full lease payment, phoned Tower to say he was calling it quits. Rosario said he would drop the car off at the dealer's office in Long Island City, worried it would charge more to have the car repossessed. When he got there, Tower told Rosario he owed $2,500 to return the car. That fee was never mentioned in the leasing paperwork he showed to Quartz.
Muhannad Issa is still renting from Tower. After his wife had the baby, she needed multiple surgeries because of complications from the birth. Issa took off five weeks to care for her, the baby, and their two other children. With no Uber car earnings to debit, Tower took the money from his bank account each week until the balance turned negative. When he called Tower and asked to defer the payments, a woman explained that wasn't possible for rental customers, but if he wanted to lease to own, "they could do something about it." Issa now drives 12 hours a day, seven days a week, to pay off his debts. He sent his wife and children home to their family in Jordan. "They'll be able to help her with the baby," he said, "and I'll stay here and work my butt off."
I ran into Rosario again at a TLC hearing in April. It was a cool, rainy day but every seat was occupied in the 19th-floor hearing room in downtown Manhattan. Then, as now, Uber was consumed by other scandals that had pushed its relationship with drivers from the spotlight. News had broken recently that the CEO and several other top executives had attended an escort-karaoke bar on business in Seoul; one of Uber's self-driving cars had crashed in Arizona; Jeff Jones, a high-profile hire from Target, had resigned.
But to drivers the real issue was and has remained how Uber treats them. That much was clear at the taxi commission hearing, where one Uber driver described working in the industry as "modern-day slavery."
Rosario didn't plan to testify but had come to listen. In the months since he stopped leasing from Tower, Rosario had been driving for Uber by renting a Lincoln MKT for $475 a week and working under an account registered to a fleet owner. He'd never paid Tower the $2,500 return fee or the outstanding $1,300 on his balance and worried that if he signed into Uber's app under his own name, the dealer would take his wages all over again. But the week before the hearing he'd decided to reopen his own Uber account to see what would happen.
That day at the taxi hearing, Rosario finally had some good news. "They didn't charge me," he said, grinning. "I'm good for right now."
#ubercarrental #uberleasetoown #ubercarlease
uber car leases

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Carriage Driving & Fun Links.
Dressage in outside arena.. Followed by a 3K Marathon/Road Drive and then into arena for Obs/Cones Course..to be driven twice, after each other or with a break, your choice.
Obs/Cones Course will be built indoor and can be walked untill the end of Dressage.
Contact Edwin Bryson. 07780 986697 for more information.
Two Day Event at Loughguile on the 4th & 5th May.
Section A approx. 5Km – Walk/Transfer 750 M – Section B (Obs) 5 Km.
Billy has made changes from last year, Dressage & Obs.moved to a better area.
Directions..From Ballymena on the A26 head towards Ballymoney at roundabout take the A44 to Ballycastle then take the 4th road on right to Loughgiel got to end of road and turn left when you come to a church of Ireland turn right onto Lough Road (Sign for Millennium Centre) Parking on left beside Millennium Centre.
Glenamaddy World Cup Event, Glenamaddy, Co. Galway.
Depending on sufficient numbers, there will be a World Cup-style event on Sunday 29th September at the Glenamaddy District Ploughing and Agricultural Show, Glenamaddy, Co. Galway. The competition will take place in a dedicated arena in a spectator-friendly location. Whether this event goes ahead depends on expressions of interest; if you would be interested in competing please contact Linda on 0868179175. This is a great opportunity to showcase carriage driving to a new audience and a fun way to finish up the season.
Regretfully, due to a combination of factors, we have taken the very difficult decision to cancel the Cuffesgrange 2019 event.
We thank everyone who has helped over the years to make Cuffesgrange a success and all the competitors who made the event such a memorable occasion over the past 8 years.
Our special thanks goes to the landowners, Liam & Breda Dunne, for their generosity in the use of their lovely farm and to all the neighbours who helped and facilitated the event.
Click Link below for 2019 (Provisional) Calendar..
Cuffesgrange is moving to 15/16th June and Ballymahon 22&23rd June will not be running as a 2DE but will be running as a "Funday" either that weekend or a different weekend TBC. There will be limited entries.
Also Loughguile 2DE, Billy Lamont has confirmed the use of the sports car-park and extra ground for event. Dressage and Obs. will be moved a different area. Food will be arranged in the pub Saturday night.
Dressage Training Session 2nd & 3rd March.
"Dressage Training" Sat.2nd & Sun 3rd March 2019 with Libby Priest, Horse Pair National Champion, represented Team GB at 2 World Championships 2013/2016. Breeds her Ponies herself.
Libby has been driving a long time, she broke her first pony to drive and continued through the ranks.
The training will take place at Mahon Stables Portadown.
The Committee are looking forward to an exciting and busy Carriage Driving Season, beginning with our AGM Mon. 25th February at Banbridge RFC.
Our season starts with a 2XPhase (Dressage and Cones) Event at Mahon Stables Portadown, 13th April . Repeated on 27th April. Organised by David Morrison.
Edwin Bryson will repeat his very successful Indoor Event at Gilford on 20th April.
Billy Lamont has decided to run a 2 day event this year at Loughguile on a different part of McGarry's Farm.
The Club Barndance (Lyons Family) is on the 1st June, this was a great event last time which we hope to repeat this year.
Sat. 29th June Jeffery Lyons is organising a 1 day event at Waringstown.
Shanes Castle will be on 13th &14th July, Organised by Terry Logan & Eddie Ingram.
All Ireland Championship is on Aug. 17th &18th at Tyan Abbey, Co. Armagh.
We will finish at Tandragee on the 14th & 15th September, organised by Alex Bryson.
Please keep an eye on the website, for up-dates to the calendar, date changes, and for details of all events.
Two new Special Events for the Driving Calendar.
Two new Special Events for the Driving Calendar. Sat. 13th April & Sat. 27th April, Mahon Stables, Portadown.
A two phase Challenge with a Full size Dressage in a grass arena & Full timed Cones with a variety of challenges ..
Judge to be named later.
So that the participants get the most from their day, the organisers are limiting numbers to 10.
The first 10 Entries with their Entry Fee Included, will have a place reserved.
Food can be arranged, with the organiser.


A suspected Dutch jihadist, who travelled to Syria, has gone on trial after posing next to a beheaded body in a photo posted on Facebook.
Comedian Kathy Griffin claims the infamous bloody shock photograph of herself clutching the fake, decapitated head of President Donald Trump would have blown over within days had Trump himself not responded to the photo on social media.
The fallout over a photograph in which Kathy Griffin posed with the bloodied, severed "head" of President Donald Trump continued this week as more venues on her cross-country comedy tour pulled the plug on her scheduled performances.
Tyler Shields, the photographer behind the now-infamous image of Kathy Griffin holding the bloodied, decapitated head of President Donald Trump, says he stands by his art and won't censor any of his work in the future.
CNN has terminated its relationship with Kathy Griffin after the comedian posed for a photograph while holding a fake, bloodied decapitated head meant to resemble the head of President Donald Trump.


text:
Home » News » Expanding the Capacity of Solar Cells with Mesoporous Nickel
Expanding the Capacity of Solar Cells with Mesoporous Nickel
By Ayush Verma/ Updated On Thu, Jan 24th, 2019
This new material can be used in many energy-saving applications.
A schematic illustration of the formation of spherical and hexagonally arranged rod-like micelles at different concentrations of CTAB. Credit: FEFU.
Scientists of the Far Eastern Federal University (FEFU), together with Russian and foreign colleagues, have developed samples of nickel mesoporous film structures, which have a useful surface area up to 400 times greater than their solid analogue. This new material can be used in many energy-saving applications, and more importantly in increasing the capacity of Solar cells.
According to Alexander Samardak, an associate professor of the Computer Systems Department at the School of Natural Sciences of FEFU, the creation of magnetic porous systems is an up-and-coming field, which is yet poorly studied. The structure of nanoporous materials is similar to a conventional sponge, which can accommodate significant volumes of substances. Thus, the useful surface area of the sponge is much larger than its size.
"The pores we obtained are very small, four to five nanometers, but thanks to them the total surface area of the material is increased 400 times. These unique properties grant the wide potential application of the material. Using such materials, one can create filters for cleaning and adsorption of ultrafine magnetic particles, media for storing substances, in particular, for hydrogen engines, where fuel storage cells are needed. In the future, they may be applied in the production of solar cells and batteries, in nanoelectronics and the automotive industry," said Samardak.
The unique material is obtained via electrodeposition of nickel particles on an artificial framework of a surfactant (SAS), which gives a structure of nanotube array composed by micelles. After electrodeposition, the framework dissolves in water and leaves behind only mesoporous nickel.
Scientists have determined that when using a certain concentration of surfactants (30 weight percent), the nickel frame structure does not grow randomly, but in the form of hexagonally ordered nanotubes. This unique feature was observed by high-resolution transmission electron microscope operated by Dr. Alexey Ognev from FEFU. This opens up additional possibilities for this material application in the field of magnetic sensors and activators for nanoelectronics.
The research results are published in Applied Surface Science journal.
Tags: Expanding Capacity of Solar Cells, FEFU, International, Mesoporous Nickel, Solar Cells


FAQ: What happened to the Pocket Office Pool downloadable program?
FAQ: What "tie breaker" methods are available?
FAQ: Does Pocket Office Pool have an option to run a confidence pool?
FAQ: How do I register my Pocket Office Pool account?
FAQ: The scores for the games are correct but the correct pick appears to be wrong - what is happening?
FAQ: Can I change the schedule?
Answer: There is no need to "recover" player information since all of the information is stored on our servers in perpetuity. There is no longer a desktop application - all information exists solely on our servers.
Answer: You should see a link at the top of this page - on the red bar - stating "Purchase". That screen will allow you to pay for the software (either an upgrade or new user). Your password will be sent to the email provided.
Answer: We ceased development on the desktop app last season (2015) in order to focus on the ubiquity of an online system. The online system will do essentially everything that the desktop software would do - but with the added benefit of consistency. Once we push out new functionality - everyone receives those changes simultaneously.
Answer: Your players will need to log on to make picks.
Answer: Pocket Office Pool allows for a tie breaker on any game. Pool settings allow for the option of either total points scored or margin of victory. Pool settings also allow for the option of either closest to the total closest or closest without going over.
Answer: This situation has to do with the use of spreads in determining correct and incorrect picks. If, for instance, team 1 is favored over team 2 by 4 points. Team 1 wins by 2 - they did not cover the spread. This makes team 1 an incorrect pick (if spreads are used to determine correct picks). If you do not want to use spreads to determine the correct pick, un-select "Use Spreads" in the Pool Options. Also, when there is a tie as a result of the spread, there are several options on how to handle this situation. Please review your settings if there are any questions.
Answer: Not currently. We maintain the schedules.


Sad to report the recent death of Pete Eva. He was a leading light within the Exiles CC borne out by his great collection of photographs displayed both on his own web page and the Exiles web page on this website. He was taken seriously ill with shingles immediately after attending the Exiles Meet at the George Hotel in Lower Brailes in August 2011. Following many months of treatment for this he then developed a serious problem with his lungs and breathing ability. When Jack Garry last spoke to him in late September of this year, he was on oxygen to assist his breathing. He was a very popular friend to all his mates. The funeral took place on October 17th 2012.
Traditional march of the Christmas Band...............On the right, they pass the Fire Wagon on a call-out.


text:
Naoto Andō (; * 28. August 1991 in Kobe) ist ein japanischer Fußballspieler.

Karriere
Andō erlernte das Fußballspielen in der Universitätsmannschaft der Sangyō-Universität Kyōto. Seinen ersten Vertrag unterschrieb er 2013 bei Gainare Tottori. Der Verein spielte in der zweithöchsten Liga des Landes, der J2 League. Am Ende der Saison 2013 stieg der Verein in die J3 League ab. Für den Verein absolvierte er 66 Ligaspiele. 2016 wechselte er zum Zweitligisten Renofa Yamaguchi FC. Für den Verein absolvierte er 13 Ligaspiele. 2017 wechselte er zum Drittligisten Tochigi SC. Für den Verein absolvierte er fünf Ligaspiele. Im August 2017 wechselte er zum Ligakonkurrenten Giravanz Kitakyushu. Für den Verein absolvierte er 33 Ligaspiele. 2019 wechselte er für zweit Jahre zum Ligakonkurrenten Fujieda MYFC. Nach Vertragsende ging er im Januar 2021 nach Toyama. Hier unterschrieb er einen Vertrag beim Drittligisten Kataller Toyama.

Weblinks

Fußballspieler (Gainare Tottori)
Fußballspieler (Renofa Yamaguchi FC)
Fußballspieler (Tochigi SC)
Fußballspieler (Giravanz Kitakyūshū)
Fußballspieler (Fujieda MYFC)
Fußballspieler (Kataller Toyama)
Japaner
Geboren 1991
Mann

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
Indian court charges Uber driver with rape, kidnapping
A New Delhi court charged an Uber cab driver on Tuesday with rape, kidnapping and criminal intimidation in a case that has renewed a national fury over chronic sexual violence in India. Authorities are still investigating whether Uber should also be charged.
Judge Kaveri Baweja ordered the case to begin Thursday in a special fast-track court set up in 2013 to bypass India's lumbering judicial system.
The 32-year-old suspect, Shiv Kumar Yadav, entered a plea of innocence. He has been in custody since a 25-year-old woman filed a police complaint alleging he assaulted her after she hired him for a ride home on Dec. 5.
Authorities, meanwhile, were still investigating the possibility of criminal charges against the company for allegedly misrepresenting the safety of its service, police official Brijendra Kumar Yadav said.
"That is a separate case, and will take some time," he said, without giving details.
The case has appalled many in India, occurring almost exactly two years after a young woman was fatally gang raped on a bus in the capital. It has sparked new demands for better protections for women.
It also dealt a blow to Uber, which has attracted global praise and controversy with a service that lets passengers summon cars through an app in more than 250 cities around the world.


text:
Ian Mark Rowling (Epping, 10 de febrero de 1967) es un deportista australiano que compitió en piragüismo en la modalidad de aguas tranquilas.

Participó en los Juegos Olímpicos de Barcelona 1992, obteniendo una medalla de bronce en la prueba de K4 1000 m. Ganó una medalla de plata en el Campeonato Mundial de Piragüismo de 1991.

Palmarés internacional

Referencias

Piragüistas de Australia
Medallistas olímpicos de bronce de Australia
Piragüistas en los Juegos Olímpicos de Barcelona 1992


WDP Havering is an integrated service delivered by WDP. We offer a free and confidential support service for individuals and their families affected by drug and alcohol problems. We operate from our base on Romford High Street, as well as across other locations in Havering.


A man who had been hired to help care for his elderly, diabetic neighbor in East New York has been charged with stealing and trying to sell the 85-year-old man's home.
Jordan Horsford, 29, was indicted Wednesday on 12 counts, including grand larceny and identity theft. The elderly man hired Horsford in 2016, according to Brooklyn District Attorney Eric Gonzalez, and Horsford eventually took on more responsibilities.
Then, on June 19, 2017, Horsford allegedly convinced the victim to sign away the deed to his home on Barbey Street, according to Gothamist.
"The defendant allegedly told the victim he risked losing his home if he did not sign a document, and had the document notarized by a notary. The defendant then allegedly realized he needed another document notarized, but the notary refused so the defendant allegedly copied and cut and pasted her original signature. He then recorded the deed, which had been signed over to him," a press release from Gonzalez's office says.
Horsford allegedly tried to sell the property, but the sale fell through when a suspicious title company would not insure the house, according to Gothamist. After the interested buyer contacted the victim's family and the senior's daughter received a letter from the Department of Finance about the filing of documents related to the home, the Brooklyn DA's Office got involved.
This is one of the latest examples of a growing problem of deed theft, especially among minorities, according to Gothamist. In November, Brooklyn Borough President Eric Adams and Councilmember Robert Cornegy held a press conference to address the subject.
The two officials said tactics like "fraud, the lien system and the Department of Housing Preservation and Development's Third Party Transfer program" are being used to steal homes.
Both officials demanded a federal investigation.