Month: November 2020

Vornado Pulls $5 Billion Office Sale Plans On Buildings It Co-Owns With The Trump Organization

Vornado Pulls $5 Billion Office Sale Plans On Buildings It Co-Owns With The Trump Organization

Tyler Durden

Thu, 11/26/2020 – 17:55

The Trump Organization’s real estate partner, Vornado Realty Trust, reportedly had to shelve its plans to try and sell off office buildings that would have helped the Trumps pay off $400 million in upcoming debt. 

Vornado co-owns an office tower in San Francisco and another in Manhattan and “couldn’t attract a buyer” at the price it was seeking, according to an exclusive by The Wall Street Journal. It had hoped to raise $5 billion from the deleveraging in total, of which $1.5 billion would have made its way to The Trump Organization. 

Vornado Chief Executive Steven Roth had said this month there was “active interest from investors” for the deals. It looks as though the “active interest” may not have been at the right price, however. 

The news comes as no surprise since both San Francisco and New York have been disproportionately clobbered due to the pandemic. At the beginning of the year, they were the most expensive markets in the U.S. 

Building co-owned by TTO and Vornado (Source: WSJ)

Trump’s organization was hoping to use the windfall to pay off more than $400 million in debt it owes over the next few years. The refinancing picture for the organization seems hazy, especially due to the commercial real estate climate. Some banks have been reluctant to do business with Trump given his political activities, as well, the Journal notes. 

The Trump Organization attests that its business is financially sound, stating: “The Trump Organization is an incredible company with tremendous cash flow. We have never been stronger.”

Since Trump’s Organization holds a minority stake in the buildings, it has “no control over the sales decision making”. 

Vornado says it is now focused on refinancing the assets. Doug Harmon, an investment adviser at Cushman & Wakefield, said: “We are now focusing more on refinancing both assets. When international investors can travel with less restrictions, and the path back to normal is under way.”

With the pandemic looking more likely than ever to “end” now with a President Biden in office and vaccines on the way, perhaps Trump will find his first foray back to the private sector met with a stroke of luck. 

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3mh7VYU Tyler Durden

A Thanksgiving Worthy Of America

A Thanksgiving Worthy Of America

Tyler Durden

Thu, 11/26/2020 – 17:30

Authored by Michael Warren via RealClearPublicAffairs.com,

Turkey and stuffing. Detroit Lions Football. Turkey trots. Parades and the arrival of Santa followed by frenzied shopping on Black Friday and Cyber Monday. Maybe a bit of charity on Giving Tuesday. Thanksgiving is the ultimate American holiday. What more could you need?

How about this: gratitude, blessings, and humility. Unfortunately, the annual celebration has been overshadowed by consumerism and entertainment culture.

Let’s explore the origins of Thanksgiving in colonial America, which centered around the virtues that are crucial to sustaining our way of life.

The Pilgrims were English religious dissenters who settled in Plymouth in 1620. They made history by seeking asylum and signing the Mayflower Compact – quite possibly the first written agreement among men that founded a new government. They were quickly struck with a great sickness and began to starve; in the first year, nearly half died.

In 1621, with the help of Wampanoag tribe – especially Samoset and Squanto – the Pilgrims survived and even flourished. They held a huge three day feast. But that multicourse meal is not the precursor to the Thanksgiving that we will celebrate later this week. That would come two years later when the Pilgrims faced a brutal drought.

Then, Governor William Bradford led the people in fervent prayer to the Almighty for relief, and in a few hours, the heavens opened with torrents of rain. To commemorate that event, Bradford declared a day of Thanksgiving, which included a large feast and regular homage to God for His blessings.

Afterwards, colonial governors periodically proclaimed days of Thanksgiving in response to favorable events and conditions. The first continent-wide celebration was in 1777 when the Continental Congress declared a Thanksgiving in light of the colonists’ victory at the Battle of Saratoga.

When George Washington became President, Congress asked him to declare a Thanksgiving to honor the first Congress’s many accomplishments, which included the Bill of Rights and setting up a functioning federal government.

Washington declared a Thanksgiving for the fourth Thursday in November. His proclamation recommended that the people devote the day “to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all that good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may all unite in rendering Him our sincere and humble thanks for his Kind care and protection . . . for the signal and manifold mercies and favorable interpositions of His providence” during the American Revolution, in creating the Constitution, and protecting the “civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed.”

Presidents Adams and Madison followed suit – but presidential encouragements of Thanksgiving soon stopped. 

Thanksgiving’s resurrection occurred when Sarah Josepha Hale convinced President Lincoln to declare Thanksgiving during the Civil War. Despite the carnage, Lincoln’s Thanksgiving Proclamation explained several reasons why the nation should be thankful, remarking, “No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy.”

Lincoln recommended that while offering up the ascriptions justly due to Him for such singular deliverances and blessings, they do also, with humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience . . . fervently implore the interposition of the Almighty Hand to heal the wounds of the nation and to restore it as soon as may be consistent with the Divine purposes to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquillity and Union.

Since Lincoln, Thanksgiving has become an annual tradition. But like so much of our civic calendar, it has been gutted of its original meaning. Perhaps now, in the wake of the most contentious election in modern times and in the grips of the worst pandemic in a century, we can return to the foundations of this magnificent holiday.

This Thanksgiving, take stock of our great blessings, including our Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and prosperity. Give thanks, express humility, and pray for your family and us all. That would be a Thanksgiving worthy of America.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3o0FHBQ Tyler Durden

Why exactly was New York’s COVID-19 regime not “neutral”?

I have now had some time to digest Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo. Upon some reflection, the weakest part of the opinion is perhaps the most significant: why was New York’s COVID-19 regime not “neutral”? This analysis very, very thin. And the majority does not really explain what it is doing. Much is left to implication. I am happy to draw these implications. But I suspect lower courts will decline to draw these implications, and stick with South Bay. And all they have to do is cite the critical sentence: “Because of the need to issue an order promptly, we provide only a brief summary of the reasons why immediate relief is essential.”

First, the Court states “the regulations cannot be viewed as neutral because they single out houses of worship for especially harsh treatment.” And how do we know that the regulations “single out houses of worship for especially harsh treatment”?

Second, the Court compares Houses of Worship to other so-called “essential” businesses. For example, “acupuncture facilities, camp grounds, garages, as well as many whose services” do not have any occupancy caps. Moreover, the Court states that “factories and schools” are “treated less harshly” than houses of worship.

Third, this method of comparison is different from the comparator method from Chief’s South Bay concurrence. In South Bay, Roberts compared the house of worship to “comparable secular gatherings, including lectures, concerts, movie showings, spectator sports, and theatrical performances, where large groups of people gather in close proximity for extended periods of time.” They key word is “comparable.” The per curiam opinion does not require that the house of worship be “comparable” to other secular businesses. Are houses of worship comparable to “factories and schools”? Not really. If any secular businesses are treated more favorably, the government has the burden to demonstrate why house of worship are treated less favorably.

Fourth, the majority–to be frank–adopted Justice Kavanaugh’s “most favored” right approach. Kavanaugh describes this approach in his concurrence:

The State argues that it has not impermissibly discriminated against religion because some secular businesses such as movie theaters must remain closed and are thus treated less favorably than houses of worship. But under this Court’s precedents, it does not suffice for a State to point out that, as compared to houses of worship, some secular businesses are subject to similarly severe or even more severe restrictions. See Lukumi, 508 U. S., at 537–538; Smith, 494 U. S., at 884; see also Calvary, 591 U. S., at ___ (KAVANAUGH, J., dissenting from denial of application for injunctive relief ) (slip op., at 7). Rather, once a State creates a favored class of businesses, as New York has done in this case, the State must justify why houses of worship are excluded from that favored class. Here, therefore, the State must justify imposing a 10-person or 25-person limit on houses of worship but not on favored secular businesses. See Lukumi, 508 U. S., at 537–538; Smith, 494 U. S., at 884. The State has not done so.

I see very little daylight between actual operation of the per curiam opinion and the Kavanaugh concurrence. At least Kavanaugh had the temerity to say what he was doing. And Justice Sotomayor reamed him or it. She wrote, that Smith and Lukumi do not “justify treating even noncomparable secular institutions more favorably than houses of worship.” Sotomayor was correct. But I don’t think the current interpretation fo Smith will stand for long.

Perhaps the majority was unwilling to adopt this new conception of “neutrality” here. I earlier speculated that this shift may augur the outcome in Fulton. Perhaps that case will formally adopt the Kavanaugh model of neutrality. If so, it would make sense to avoid reaching such a broad conclusion in an unargued shadow docket case.

What will the lower courts do to determine neutrality? Compare house of worship to “comparable secular gatherings”? Or consider all secular gatherings, regardless of whether they were comparable. I think Diocese has rejected the requirement of comparableness. Now, the comparators are any exempted gatherings. Of course, that holding is not clear. And the Supreme Court will have to clean up the mess in a few months.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/36c5gtT
via IFTTT

‘Kraken’ Lawsuit Accuses Iran Of ‘Monitoring And Manipulating’ 2020 Election, Stoking Deep Dive By Journalist

‘Kraken’ Lawsuit Accuses Iran Of ‘Monitoring And Manipulating’ 2020 Election, Stoking Deep Dive By Journalist

Tyler Durden

Thu, 11/26/2020 – 17:05

An interesting thread has popped up on Twitter in the wake of attorney Sidney Powell’s recently filed lawsuits alleging widespread election fraud in Michigan and Georgia (‘the Kraken’) – which claims in part that China and Iran monitored and manipulated elections, “including the most recent US general election in 2020.”

Journalist and Iran expert Heshmat Alavi, who describes himself as a “political activist and supporter for regime change in Iran,” has compiled a lengthy exposé in response to this claim, and brings readers down the rabbit hole regarding Iran’s penetration into US politics.

The thread is heavy on media, so it will be embedded in its entirety:

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3ma1mHv Tyler Durden

Why exactly was New York’s COVID-19 regime not “neutral”?

I have now had some time to digest Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo. Upon some reflection, the weakest part of the opinion is perhaps the most significant: why was New York’s COVID-19 regime not “neutral”? This analysis very, very thin. And the majority does not really explain what it is doing. Much is left to implication. I am happy to draw these implications. But I suspect lower courts will decline to draw these implications, and stick with South Bay. And all they have to do is cite the critical sentence: “Because of the need to issue an order promptly, we provide only a brief summary of the reasons why immediate relief is essential.”

First, the Court states “the regulations cannot be viewed as neutral because they single out houses of worship for especially harsh treatment.” And how do we know that the regulations “single out houses of worship for especially harsh treatment”?

Second, the Court compares Houses of Worship to other so-called “essential” businesses. For example, “acupuncture facilities, camp grounds, garages, as well as many whose services” do not have any occupancy caps. Moreover, the Court states that “factories and schools” are “treated less harshly” than houses of worship.

Third, this method of comparison is different from the comparator method from Chief’s South Bay concurrence. In South Bay, Roberts compared the house of worship to “comparable secular gatherings, including lectures, concerts, movie showings, spectator sports, and theatrical performances, where large groups of people gather in close proximity for extended periods of time.” They key word is “comparable.” The per curiam opinion does not require that the house of worship be “comparable” to other secular businesses. Are houses of worship comparable to “factories and schools”? Not really. If any secular businesses are treated more favorably, the government has the burden to demonstrate why house of worship are treated less favorably.

Fourth, the majority–to be frank–adopted Justice Kavanaugh’s “most favored” right approach. Kavanaugh describes this approach in his concurrence:

The State argues that it has not impermissibly discriminated against religion because some secular businesses such as movie theaters must remain closed and are thus treated less favorably than houses of worship. But under this Court’s precedents, it does not suffice for a State to point out that, as compared to houses of worship, some secular businesses are subject to similarly severe or even more severe restrictions. See Lukumi, 508 U. S., at 537–538; Smith, 494 U. S., at 884; see also Calvary, 591 U. S., at ___ (KAVANAUGH, J., dissenting from denial of application for injunctive relief ) (slip op., at 7). Rather, once a State creates a favored class of businesses, as New York has done in this case, the State must justify why houses of worship are excluded from that favored class. Here, therefore, the State must justify imposing a 10-person or 25-person limit on houses of worship but not on favored secular businesses. See Lukumi, 508 U. S., at 537–538; Smith, 494 U. S., at 884. The State has not done so.

I see very little daylight between actual operation of the per curiam opinion and the Kavanaugh concurrence. At least Kavanaugh had the temerity to say what he was doing. And Justice Sotomayor reamed him or it. She wrote, that Smith and Lukumi do not “justify treating even noncomparable secular institutions more favorably than houses of worship.” Sotomayor was correct. But I don’t think the current interpretation fo Smith will stand for long.

Perhaps the majority was unwilling to adopt this new conception of “neutrality” here. I earlier speculated that this shift may augur the outcome in Fulton. Perhaps that case will formally adopt the Kavanaugh model of neutrality. If so, it would make sense to avoid reaching such a broad conclusion in an unargued shadow docket case.

What will the lower courts do to determine neutrality? Compare house of worship to “comparable secular gatherings”? Or consider all secular gatherings, regardless of whether they were comparable. I think Diocese has rejected the requirement of comparableness. Now, the comparators are any exempted gatherings. Of course, that holding is not clear. And the Supreme Court will have to clean up the mess in a few months.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/36c5gtT
via IFTTT

Doctor Who Demanded Mandatory Mask Law Pictured Partying Maskless On Boat Surrounded By Bikini-Clad Women

Doctor Who Demanded Mandatory Mask Law Pictured Partying Maskless On Boat Surrounded By Bikini-Clad Women

Tyler Durden

Thu, 11/26/2020 – 16:40

Authored by Paul Joseph Watson via Summit News,

The world’s so-called “hottest doctor,” who has repeatedly called for mandatory mask laws and social distancing, was pictured maskless partying on a boat in Miami while surrounded by bikini-clad women.

Mikhail Varshavski, known as ‘Dr. Mike’ online, completely contradicted his own advice by throwing a ‘super-spreader’ 31st birthday party for himself on November 12.

“A picture of Varshavski on a boat in Sunset Harbor surrounded by 14 other people — most of them bikini-clad women — has since done the rounds with his fans calling him out for hypocrisy,” reports the Daily Mail.

Another video shows the doctor massaging a woman’s neck on the deck of the boat while wearing a face scarf that isn’t even covering his nose.

Varshavski behavior is completely hypocritical given that he has repeatedly lectured others for ignoring social distancing and demanded mandatory mask laws to save lives.

“If by not wearing a mask you put other’s lives at risk it might make sense to make it mandatory. Wouldn’t you agree?” Varshavski tweeted back in June.

A month later, the doctor appeared on Fox Business and asserted, “Wearing a mask decreases the spread of this virus and that is of utmost importance for people’s health and the health of our economy.”

“So please, if you’re going outside in public and are going to be around other people, wear a mask,” he added.

During a YouTube interview with Dr. Anthony Fauci, Varshavski also said, “Social distancing is incredibly important. That’s how we control the spread of this virus.”

Varshavski has also appeared on CNN numerous times telling Americans to abide by coronavirus rules to which he is apparently not subject.

Varshavski’s fans savaged him after the embarrassing photos were leaked.

“You are supposed to be the example. I admired and respected you. Now that is all lost,” said one.

“I never cared about my health, I never trusted doctors before him, now I don’t know what to believe or do anymore,” added another. “I was able to bring my family back to reality only with the information and arguments he has provided in his videos.”

Apparently for Varshavski (and numerous other prominent figures as highlighted in the video below), it’s very much ‘do as we say, not as we do’.

*  *  *

New limited edition merch now available! Click here. In the age of mass Silicon Valley censorship It is crucial that we stay in touch. I need you to sign up for my free newsletter here. Support my sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown. Also, I urgently need your financial support here.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3leSM8N Tyler Durden

Politico Exposes Secretive Consulting Firm Set To Dominate Biden Cabinet

Politico Exposes Secretive Consulting Firm Set To Dominate Biden Cabinet

Tyler Durden

Thu, 11/26/2020 – 16:15

A shadowy consulting firm which openly brags about its ability to connect clients to the White House is set to prominently feature in the Biden administration, according to Politico.

Vice President Joe Biden and former Deputy National Security Advisor Tony Blinken

Founded in 2017 by Tony Blinken – Joe Biden’s pick for Secretary of State – WestExec Advisers advertises itself as “quite literally, the road to the Situation Room,” adding “and it is the road everyone associated with WestExec Advisors has crossed many times en route to meetings of the highest national security consequences.”

Another WestExec executive, Michèle Flournoy, is a top contender for Secretary of Defense, while former WestExec principal, Avril Haines, is Biden’s pick for director of national intelligence.

Meanwhile, WestExec’s client list is just as secretive.

Because its staffers aren’t lobbyists, they are not required to disclose who they work for. They also aren’t bound by the Biden transition’s restrictions on hiring people who have lobbied in the past year.

Such high-powered Washington consulting firms are “the unintended consequence” of greater disclosure requirements for registered lobbyists, said Mandy Smithberger, director of the Center for Defense Information at the Project on Government Oversight.

By not directly advocating for federal dollars on behalf of their clients, they don’t have to publicly divulge who is paying them and for what activities, such as the connections they make with government agencies, she said. But it is also impossible to assess the influence they have on federal expenditures. –Politico

“They avoid becoming registered lobbyists or foreign agents and are instead becoming strategic consultants,” said Smithberger.

What’s more, WestExec employs a ton of former Democratic national security and foreign policy officials who have been involved in fundraising for Biden’s campaign, have joined his transition team, or have acted as unofficial advisers. In fact, 21 of the 38 WestExec employees listed on the firm’s website donated to the Biden campaign – with Flournoy raising over $100,000 alone.

Five WestExec staffers — all veterans of the Obama administration — are on leave from the firm to help staff Biden’s review teams for the Pentagon, the Treasury Department, the Council of Economic Advisers and other agencies, which are charged with coordinating the transfer of power between outgoing Trump officials and Biden’s appointees.

Two other WestExec principals were among those who briefed Biden last week on national security: Bob Work, who served as deputy secretary of defense in the Obama administration and was asked to remain on for the first few months of the Trump administration, and David Cohen, a former deputy director of both the CIA and the Treasury Department who is also in the running for a top post.

Former Obama White House communications director Jen Psaki – also a WestExec employee – is also advising Biden’s transition team, while two former WestExec’ers – Lisa Monaco and Julianne Smith – are under consideration for potential Biden administration hires.

The firm was so well positioned to take over in a Democratic administration that they negotiated a clause in their office lease that they can break it if members are called back to public service, according to American Prospect.

WestExec isn’t the first DC consulting firm staffed by former administration officials who “serve as the government in waiting for the party that’s out of power” according to Meredith McGehee – executive director of Issue One, a Washington good government group (per Politico), adding that while there’s nothing wrong with it – Blinken and other potential Biden Cabinet picks who have worked for firms such as WestExec should go further than the law requires and publicly disclose any clients for whom they’ve done significant work.

Read the rest of the report here.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3lbcYbC Tyler Durden

“Stand Down Officers!”: Angry Crowd Heckles Cops After Toronto BBQ-Owner Arrested For Ignoring Lockdown

“Stand Down Officers!”: Angry Crowd Heckles Cops After Toronto BBQ-Owner Arrested For Ignoring Lockdown

Tyler Durden

Thu, 11/26/2020 – 15:50

Authored by Lauren O’Neil via blogto.com

The sauce has hit the fan at Toronto’s Adamson Barbecue restaurant, where, after opening for a third day in defiance of multiple lockdown orders, owner Adam Skelly was just taken away in handcuffs by police.

“A 33-year-old man was arrested for Attempting to Obstruct Police,” reads an update issued by TPS Operatins shortly after 1 p.m. on Thursday.

“He has been taken into custody. More details will follow. Officers remain in the area. We continue to ask for calm.”

It is unclear if any other new charges have been laid against Kelly today (in addition to nine announced yesterday against he and his incorporated restaurant chain), but the anti-maskers who’ve been supporting him are straight up freaking out right now.

Livestreamed video posts from the scene of Skelly’s restaurant at Queen Elizabeth and Royal York Roads show police, some of them on horseback, surrounding the building in a united front.

Hundreds of histrionic protesters have positioned themselves in front of the cops and are screaming things like “FREEDOM!,” “SHAME!” and “STAND DOWN OFFICERS! STAND DOWN!” 

Police first arrived to the Texas-style BBQ joint early Thursday morning to change the establishment’s locks after Skelly vowed that he would once again reopen his restaurant for indoor dining after being ordered to close by Toronto Public Health.

Flanked by crowds of people wearing Trump 2020 hats and carrying anti-lockdown signs, the infuriated restaurant owner eventually managed to gain access to the building and start serving meat.

Police stayed on scene in an attempt to control the crowd of protesters, who have collectively come to be known in recent days as “BBQAnon.”

Skelly was arrested and taken away for police obstruction shortly before 12:30 p.m. this afternoon.

His supporters remain camped out around the Etobicoke location of Adamson Barbecue, however, where they are now starting to tussle with police.

At least one additional male has been arrested so far for assaulting a police officer.

Meanwhile, four days after Toronto and Peel were put into the “grey zone” of Ontario’s COVID-19 restriction framework, a massive anti-lockdown protest has broken out at Queen’s Park.

The hashtag #IStandWithAdam is trending on Twitter in the U.S. and people on both sides of the debate are growing increasingly distressed over how the situation is being handled.

Many are criticizing Skelly for blatantly flouting public health restrictions amid a deadly viral outbreak, while others are calling him  a “patriot” and a “hero.”

Skelly is expected to appear in court on March 19 of 2021 to face multiple charges for hosting illegal gatherings, breaching indoor dining regulations and operating without a business license on both Tuesday and Wednesday. “Top to bottom, this thing stinks — it reeks of corruption,” said Skelly of the lockdown in an Instagram post announcing his plans to reopen earlier this week. “How many businesses — how many people — are going to lose everything? Enough is enough.” “We’re opening for anybody who is a fan of freedom and sovereignty,” said Skelly at the time. “The right to choose what you wear, where to go, who to have over at your house, what businesses you can go to.”

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/33n7PY5 Tyler Durden

Download Edited Version of Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo

I’ve edited Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo for the 2021 Barnett/Blackman supplement. You can download it here. I trimmed the case down from 33 to pages to about 9 pages. I omitted most of the back-and-forths between Gorsuch and Roberts. I doubt students will have much use for those barbs. If the Court ultimately grants certiorari in this case, I will edit that decision accordingly.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2Jhbq2R
via IFTTT

Comcast To Impose 1.2TB Data Cap On Northeast Customers 

Comcast To Impose 1.2TB Data Cap On Northeast Customers 

Tyler Durden

Thu, 11/26/2020 – 15:25

More people than ever have shifted to the digital economy as remote working becomes standard across corporate America. Internet service providers (ISP) have reported record internet traffic this year due to the online shift, with some warning that computer networks have been stressed due to the rapid increase in data usage among households. 

Demand for online video and chat tools, such as Slack, Zoom, and GoToMeeting, have been off the chart this year. Many of these online tools make work-at-home possible for millions of folks. Many of these tools are incredibly data-intensive, which is likely why Comcast has introduced data caps for customers. 

According to The Verge, Comcast will charge Xfinity customers in Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Vermont, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia, as well as parts of North Carolina and Ohio a fee of $10 per 50GB of data if they exceed 1.2TB in a given month. Customers will be eased into the data cap program in early 2021. 

Data Cap Area

The good news for customers fretting about a data cap and additional charges if the 1.2TB is breached is that 95% of the customer base has yet to exceed the level over the last six months. Median monthly data usage for customers this year has been around 300GB. Still, as the second wave of the virus pandemic continues to ravage many parts of the country and remote working continues to become a dominant working situation for many, Comcast expects data usage to surge during the COVID winter. 

“Comcast has quietly updated its online customer support website to reflect the forthcoming introduction of data caps to the last remaining major regions of the country where it has avoided imposing them for years,” wrote Stop The Cap, an advocacy group against the ISP data cap. 

Stop The Cap said Comcast’s data cap in the northeast and mid-Atlantic states could push customers to competitor Verizon FiOS. 

 

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/369tODG Tyler Durden