Net Neutrality - US/EU hand internet to megacorporations

[Moon-in-Taurus]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T-SBdtWEjI

A plenary vote on Internet Neutrality will be held in the European Parliament on May 6th after debate this Tuesday, May 5th.

To take immediate action
-send original emails to Members of the European Parliament, not spam!
Or better, they say, telephone them.

[TonyGosling]

Innovation And Our Better Future Depend On Preserving Net Neutrality
from the giving-innovators-a-chance dept
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140204/16463826089/innovation-our-b etter-future-depend-preserving-net-neutrality.shtml

Troma Entertainment would never have reached its 40th year as arguably the world's longest running independent movie studio if Net Neutrality or the Open Internet did not exist. I know, I know, some might say, "That would be a good thing." Haha! But without Net Neutrality, we probably would not have visionary innovations like Crowdfunding, Macklemore, Huffington Post, Youtube, Justin Bieber and maybe even Anonymous. Net Neutrality is essential to free speech and allows for a free and diverse Internet of equal opportunity. The Internet, our last democratic medium, is severely threatened as I write this. The American courts and the US government have effectively decided to nullify net neutrality and the major media/broadband conglomerates are down in Washington, D.C. 24/7 spending kabillions of dollars to lobby against our beloved Open Internet.

The mega cartel that controls world media has their ass in a tub of butter. They control or own the cinemas, newspapers, T.V. stations, radio and even Broadway “legitimate” theaters. The only competition they face is on the Internet.

On the Internet, the playing field is level. Troma can compete with Disney if Troma has art or “content” that is interesting or compelling. The mediocre “suits” who control media do not want to get up in the morning and have to think. It’s much easier to have an oligopoly club where they control the marketplace 100%. It’s a club of smugness that promotes cheap-to-make walking feces like the Kardashians or brainless blockbuster movies with non-stop explosions. The “news” we get in The New York Times or on TV is pre-digested baby food. Because of this mainstream disgrace, so many of us go right to the internet for our news, art and commerce.

Net Neutrality is defined as the principle that Internet Service Providers (ISPs) should enable access to all content and applications regardless of the source, and without favoring or blocking particular products or websites, but it’s more than that – it’s our freedom of speech! Free speech--not just giving it, but also free speech in the form of our right to receive diverse news, art, commerce or simply some fat, sweaty teenager blogging about Robin’s nipples in “Batman & Robin.”

The giant devil worshiping international media conglomerates want to create a super highway with expensive prohibitive tolls with faster and better internet for themselves. This will make it impossible for independent artists or innovators because they simply can’t compete. The result will be similar to US television, where the biggest companies own the networks and cable systems etc. and air constant iterations and reruns of their own content. It will become harder to get anything independent into the consciousness of the public. The Internet will become an NBC-ABC-CBS kind of world unless we the people take action.

In 2010, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) created the Open Internet Order which set anti-blocking and anti-discrimination Network Neutrality rules. While the FCC claimed the rules would protect Open Internet, many of us Net Neutrality advocates felt the proposed rules had many loopholes and were made with the purpose of winning support from the telco lobbyists. Of course, we were right. The FCC stated that the rules would make it illegal for ISPs such as Verizon to block services or charge content providers like Netflix for faster Internet highways to their customers. Now, just a few weeks ago-the rules were invalidated by the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia because the FCC chose years ago to classify broadband providers in a manner that exempts them from treatment as common carriers and therefore has no right to regulate them.

If the court ruling stands, then ISPs can hike prices and charge content providers to deliver Internet traffic faster while also eliminating content providers that cannot pay the fees. As consumers, we need to be aware of our standing and that ISPs will now have more control over regulating the content sites we may want to see. If certain sites are faster while others are slow because they can’t pay the tolls, we will get pushed into using only the sites that are quick to load. Those of us who can’t pay the tolls on the super highway will be relegated to the bumpy, slow buffering dirt road. Troma and 1000’s of potential innovators will disappear. I predict Netflix and the like will make sweet-heart deals with the ISP/conglomerate club in order to close the door on competitive future innovators.

We will see the same thing happen with the Internet as we have with the car, telephone, food industry, and with television. People will be kept in the dark and given an illusion of variety, the sharing of information will be controlled by a few big conglomerates and change-the-world innovation like Kickstarter, Anonymous, Bitcoin, Troma and yes, 2 girls 1 cup will all be practically inaccessible. The biggest problem is how these 1st Amendment issues are intentionally being kept from the public. Beware of elected officials and TV talking heads who decry Net Neutrality as “purveyor of piracy and pornography.” This same bogus argument has been used by The Big (White) Boys and the MPAA since the time of VHS. The elite always throw a monkey wrench into new technology to delay it so they can and then take it over. They did it with VHS and they are now trying to do it with the World Wide Web.

We defeated SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) which had nothing to do with stopping piracy. It had to do with stopping competition on the Internet. Congress was surprised at the magnitude of the number of voters who protested against SOPA and who want to preserve an open internet. Many in Congress changed their position on SOPA as a result. We must all make our voices heard and let our elected representatives know that if Net Neutrality and Open Internet go away, they too will go away.

[outsider]

I got this today from Free Press:

'Has your Netflix been slow lately?

You’re not alone.

A mobile-security company in Texas recently experienced major slowdowns while trying to connect to both its own website and Netflix. Why? It appears that Verizon was testing out its newly acquired powers to discriminate against certain types of online traffic.

This is just the beginning of the kinds of abuses we’re likely to see in the wake of a federal court ruling that overturned the Net Neutrality rules. Companies like AT&T and Verizon have been chomping at the bit to maximize their already-bloated profit margins. And in the absence of any rules, there’s nothing standing in their way.

Well, nothing except you. And us.

Together We Can Put a Stop to This. Donate to Save the Internet.

We’re expecting Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler to present the agency’s plan forward any day now. And it’s up to us to make sure Wheeler does the right thing.

Changing policy at this level requires a lot. We’re up against one of the best-funded industries in Washington: AT&T, Comcast and Verizon have spent more than half-a-billion dollars on lobbyists and an additional $185 million on campaign contributions. And they’ll use that money to convince policymakers that we don’t need Net Neutrality.

We refuse to buy into D.C. insiders' "can't-do" attitude. We can fix this mess: Already more than a million people have pushed the FCC to reclassify broadband and pass strong Net Neutrality rules. And in the coming months, Free Press will take the lead on bringing millions more into this movement.

We’ll ensure that policymakers hear from their constituents and not just corporate lobbyists. We’ll educate and engage tech companies, artists, activists, students and other communities to demand that the FCC reclassify broadband.

We won't settle for loopholes or workarounds. We stand for fundamental change.

Please Contribute to Our Fight to Save the Internet We Love.

Keep Up the Fight,

Candace, Jen, Josh and the rest of the Free Press Action Fund team
freepress.net

P.S. The Free Press Action Fund fights every day to save the Internet. We don’t take money from business, government or political parties and rely on the generosity of people like you to fuel our work. Please donate $15 (or more!) today. Thank you!

The Free Press Action Fund is a nonpartisan organization building a nationwide movement for media that serve the public interest. The Free Press Action Fund does not support or oppose any candidate for public office. Learn more at www.freepress.net.

Join us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.

[outsider]

Needed: Your Comments on the Future of the Internet
The FCC’s proposed Internet rules are out — and they’re terrible:
http://act.freepress.net/sign/internet_fcc_nprm/?source=share

'As we feared, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler is pushing a plan that would allow rampant discrimination online. If approved, these rules would mean the end of Net Neutrality.

Wheeler’s plan would let Internet service providers like AT&T, Comcast and Verizon create a two-tiered Internet, with fast lanes for those who can afford the extra fees and a slow dirt road for the rest of us. These companies would have the power to pick winners and losers online and discriminate against online content and applications. And no one would be able to do anything about it.

But we have a way to fight back: The FCC has opened up a comment period for us to weigh in on its proposal.

Add your comment: Tell the FCC to throw out its rules and instead reclassify ISPs as common carriers.

This is the ONLY way to protect real Net Neutrality.

We'll make sure your comments are filed in FCC Docket 14-28.

[TonyGosling]

US regulator scraps net neutrality rules that protect open internet
Decision a major victory for FCC chair and Trump appointee Ajit Pai
Critics warn plan will hand control of the web to big cable companies
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/dec/14/net-neutrality-fcc- rules-open-internet

FCC commissioner slams net neutrality vote: ‘We’re handing over the keys to the internet’ – video
Dominic Rushe in New York and Lauren Gambino in Washington
Friday 15 December 2017 01.36 GMT First published on Thursday 14 December 2017 16.33 GMT

The US’s top media regulator voted to end rules protecting an open internet on Thursday, a move critics warn will hand control of the future of the web to cable and telecoms companies.

At a packed meeting of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in Washington, the watchdog’s commissioners voted three to two to dismantle the “net neutrality” rules that prevent internet service providers (ISPs) from charging websites more for delivering certain services or blocking others should they, for example, compete with services the cable company also offers.

Outside, protesters angrily called on Congress to block the FCC’s efforts. Bouquets of flowers and white candles were placed on the grass outside the building, an apparent reference to the “death” of open internet. Posters of the angry-face emoji covered the walkway.

And activists carried hand-made signs that read: “Don’t make the internet a private toll road”; “Ajit Pai doesn’t want you to meet your fiancé online”; and “Don’t undermine our democracy – that’s Russia’s job”.

The meeting was briefly interrupted by a security threat.

Hey hey @AjitPaiFCC: we are out here at the biggest rally this building has ever seen and ready to fight for #NetNeutrality
3:14 PM - Dec 14, 2017
24 24 Replies 835 835 Retweets 1,592 1,592 likes
Twitter Ads info and privacy
FCC commissioner Mignon Clyburn, a Democrat, denounced the move. “I dissent because I am among the millions outraged, outraged because the FCC pulls its own teeth, abdicating responsibility to protect the nation’s broadband consumers,” she said.

Fellow Democratic commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel said the FCC had shown “contempt” for public opinion during the review. She called the process “corrupt”. “As a result of today’s misguided actions, our broadband providers will get extraordinary new powers,” she said.

But FCC chair Ajit Pai and his two fellow Republicans voted for the repeal. Pai said the current rules had impeded innovation and addressed non-existent concerns. “We are restoring the light-touch framework that has governed the internet for much of its existence.” He called claims that the move would kill the internet “outlandish”.

Net neutrality’s advocates argue that an open internet has been essential to the creation of today’s web, and has allowed companies like Skype to compete with telecoms providers and Netflix to change the media landscape. They say the removal of the rules will affect consumers worldwide.

Cable companies have attempted to block or slow competing services in the past, and the rules were meant to prevent such cases arising in future. Removing the rules, critics argue, will stifle the online innovations that have been enjoyed by people worldwide and set a dangerous precedent for other countries looking to take firmer control of the internet or to hand oversight to corporations.

Evan Greer, campaign director for internet activists Fight for the Future, said: “Killing net neutrality in the US will impact internet users all over the world. So many of the best ideas will be lost, squashed by the largest corporations at the expense of the global internet-using public.”

Michael Cheah of Vimeo said: “ISPs probably won’t immediately begin blocking content outright, given the uproar that this would provoke. What’s more likely is a transition to a pay-for-play business model that will ultimately stifle startups and innovation, and lead to higher prices and less choice for consumers.”

The FCC must not give internet providers the keys to your online freedom
Mignon Clyburn
Read more
Passing the plan is a major victory for Pai, a Donald Trump appointee and former Verizon lawyer who has been a long-term critic of the net neutrality rules brought in under Barack Obama in 2015.

The FCC will require internet providers to disclose how they treat traffic, but regulation of the internet will essentially move to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), removing barriers to potential abuses and leaving the FTC to assess violations after the fact.

Cable companies have dismissed critics’ concerns and said they remain committed to an open internet.

“This is not the end of net neutrality,” Comcast’s senior executive vice-president wrote in a blogpost. “Despite repeated distortions and biased information, our internet service is not going to change. Comcast customers will continue to enjoy all of the benefits of an open internet today, tomorrow, and in the future. Period.”

But critics charge that as cable companies become ever bigger investors in media (Comcast owns NBC Universal, and AT&T is trying to buy Time Warner) the incentives to hamper competition are increasing.

FCC chairman Ajit Pai on 14 December. Critical senators have said the ruling ‘will undermine long-standing protections that that have ensured the open internet’.
Facebook Twitter Pinterest
FCC chairman Ajit Pai on 14 December. Critical senators have said the ruling ‘will undermine long-standing protections that that have ensured the open internet’. Photograph: UPI / Barcroft Images
Pai’s proposal still faces heavy opposition. A record 22 million comments were submitted to the FCC by the general public before the vote – the majority in favor of keeping the rules.

Millions of comments submitted in support of Pai’s decision were found to be fake and are now being investigated by New York attorney general Eric Schneiderman.


Net neutrality: 'father of internet' joins tech leaders in condemning repeal plan
Read more
On Wednesday morning, two US senators, Susan Collins and Angus King, both of Maine, called on the FCC to cancel the vote. “Repealing the FCC’s net neutrality rules will undermine long-standing protections that that have ensured the open internet as a powerful and transformative platform of innovation and economic opportunity,” they wrote.

Eighteen attorneys general, dozens of Democratic congressmen and two Republicans had pushed for a delay to the ruling. Critics and activists will now push for Congress to step in and pass a resolution of disapproval using the Congressional Review Act to overturn the FCC’s order.

The FCC is also likely to face a legal challenge to the order, which has been attacked by internet companies including Etsy, Bittorrent, Netflix, Pinterest, Pornhub, Spotify and Wikipedia.

Passing the vote is just the latest in a series of controversial moves made by Pai in his 11-month tenure. The FCC has also relaxed local media ownership rules, potentially ushering in a wave of consolidation, cut a high-speed internet internet scheme for low-income families and allowed broadband providers to raise rates for businesses.

[TonyGosling]

Donald Trump appointee ditches 'net neutrality' giving service providers more control over the internet
Ajit Pai, the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, cast the deciding vote in a landmark decision

ByDavid Shepardson
05:30, 15 DEC 2017
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/donald-trump-appointee-ditches -net-11698748

The US has voted to repeal rules aimed at ensuring a free and open internet.

Ajit Pai, who was appointed to the Federal Communicaiton Commission by Donald Trump, cast the decisive vote in favour of the move last night.

It marked a huge victory for internet service providers such as AT&T Inc, Comcast Corp and Verizon Communications Inc and hands them power over what content consumers can access.

Democrats, Hollywood and companies such as Google parent Alphabet Inc and Facebook Inc had urged Pai to keep the Obama-era rules barring service providers from blocking, slowing access to or charging more for certain content.

The new rules give internet service providers sweeping powers to change how consumers access the internet but must have new transparency requirements that will require them to disclose any changes to consumers.


Donald Trump appointed Mr Pai to the FCC board in January (Image: Getty Images North America)
The meeting, held amid protests online and in front of the FCC headquarters in Washington, was evacuated before the vote for about 10 minutes due to an unspecified security threat, and resumed after law enforcement with sniffer dogs checked the room.

White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders told reporters the administration “supports the FCC’s efforts."

"At the same time, the White House certainly has and always will support a free and fair internet," she added.

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, a Democrat, said in a statement he will lead a multi-state lawsuit to challenge the reversal.

Shares of Alphabet, Apple Inc and Microsoft Corp moved lower after the vote.

The FCC said the rules would take effect in a few months after the White House Office of Management and Budget formally approves them.


Google was among companies who opposed the changes in law (Image: AFP)
Pai has argued that the 2015 rules were heavy handed and stifled competition and innovation among service providers.

“The internet wasn’t broken in 2015. We weren’t living in a digital dystopia,” he said on Thursday.

NEXT STEPS

Consumers are unlikely to see immediate changes but smaller startups worry the lack of restrictions could drive up costs or lead to their content being blocked.

Internet service providers say they will not block or throttle legal content but may engage in paid prioritisation.

They argue that the largely unregulated internet functioned well in the two decades before the 2015 order.

Republican FCC Commissioner Mike O‘Rielly noted that self-driving vehicles and remotely monitored medical procedures may require internet service and that their needs could be given priority “over cat videos.”

O‘Rielly said it is unlikely any internet provider would voluntarily submit to a “PR nightmare” by “attempting to engage in blocking, throttling or improper discrimination. It is simply not worth the reputation cost.”

Still, Democrats have pointed to polls showing a repeal is deeply unpopular and say they will prevail in protecting the rules, either in the courts or in U.S. Congress.

Immediately after the vote, Senator Edward Markey, a Democrat, said he and 15 other senators planned to introduce a resolution to undo the FCC action and restore the net neutrality rules.

FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel, a Democrat, said in a written dissent released on Thursday that the decision grants internet providers “extraordinary new power” from the FCC.

“They have the technical ability and business incentive to discriminate and manipulate your internet traffic,” she said.

“And now this agency gives them the legal green light to go ahead.”

Several state attorneys general said before the vote they would oppose the ruling, citing issues with the public comment period. Other critics have said they will consider challenging what they see as weaker enforcement.

[TonyGosling]

The Biggest Whoppers From the FCC’s Net Neutrality Meeting
Roy Schmidt
Dec 14, 2017

https://www.wired.com/story/the-biggest-whoppers-from-the-fccs-net-neu trality-meeting/

https://www.globaladvisors.biz/inc-feed/20171215/the-biggest-whoppers- from-the-fccs-net-neutrality-meeting/

THE BIGGEST WHOPPERS FROM THE FCC'S NET NEUTRALITY MEETING
"How does a company decide to restrict someone’s accounts or block their tweets because it thinks their views are inflammatory or wrong? You don’t have any insight into any of these decisions, and neither do I, but these are very real actual threats to an open internet."—FCC Chair Ajit Pai

It took less than two hours of debate for the Federal Communications Commission to repeal net neutrality protections, a decision that could send ripple effects across the internet for years. Over the objections of the commission's two Democrats, the three Republican members, including Chair Ajit Pai, voted to overturn protections put in place in 2015---but not before fudging a few facts.

In their remarks, Chairman Pai, Commissioner Brendan Carr, and Commissioner Mike O’Rielly framed their votes as an attempt to restore the internet to a time not so long ago when it was free of heavy-handed government regulation. But that characterization of Thursday’s decision rests on a selective and misleading reading of recent history and how the internet has been regulated.


Here are some of the most spurious claims we heard from the commissioners:

1: "Prior to the FCC’s 2015 decision, consumers and innovators alike benefitted from a free and open internet. This is not because the government imposed utility style regulation. It didn’t. This is not because the FCC had a rule regulating internet conduct. It had none. Instead through Republican and Democratic administrations alike, including the first six years of the Obama administration, the FCC abided by a 20-year bipartisan consensus that the government should not control or heavily regulate internet access.”---Commissioner Carr

One of the most commonly cited reasons for overturning the 2015 regulations is that internet service providers abided by neutrality principles before the rules were adopted. As we’ve written before, that’s not entirely accurate. When Americans first began dialing up in the 1990s, it was via phone lines that were regulated under Title II of the Communications Act, meaning they could not discriminate based on the content. When the phone companies began switching to DSL broadband for internet access, that too was regulated under Title II. That’s why the FCC intervened in an oft-cited case in which Madison River Communications, a small DSL provider, blocked access to Vonage, an internet phone service. DSL was regulated under Title II at the time, allowing the FCC to step in and compel Madison River to restore access to Vonage. Rules regulating internet conduct weren’t new in 2015, either. The FCC first outlined protections for internet users in a 2005 policy statement, and then created a more robust set of rules in 2010. Rolling back Title II protections for broadband doesn’t restore the internet to some glorious past in which broadband providers operated unfettered. It ushers the internet into a brave new world in which the FCC is hopeless to stop future attempts to prioritize or suppress certain kinds of traffic.


2: "I sincerely doubt that legitimate businesses are willing to subject themselves to a PR nightmare for attempting to engage in blocking, throttling, or improper discrimination. It is simply not worth the reputational cost and potential loss of business."---Commissioner O’Rielly

Perhaps O’Rielly has never paid a surge price to hail an Uber in New York City at rush hour or stood in a hellish airport security line, while TSA Pre fliers, who paid extra for the luxury, speed blissfully through the metal detectors. We’re here to tell him: Businesses try to maximize profits whenever they sniff demand. It’s true that sometimes it ends in embarrassment, as when Uber instituted surge pricing following an explosion in New York City in 2016. 1 But often, the “PR nightmare” is temporary, and consumers either adjust to the new pricing arrangement or defer the service altogether. That creates a two-tiered system with some commuters speeding down Broadway in an overly expensive Uber and others stuck taking the bus. O’Rielly doubts internet service providers would take advantage of those same market forces. Ah, innocence.

Consumers can only resist when they have choices. But the FCC itself says that only slightly more than one-third of Americans have access to more than one internet provider offering service that it considers broadband. In rural areas, only 39 percent of people have access to even one broadband provider.

3: "I, for one, see great value in the prioritization of telemedicine and autonomous car technology over cat videos...Consider that each autonomous vehicle is predicted to generate an additional four terabytes of data a day, much of which will be carried by wireless networks. It’s hard to imagine that some prioritization of traffic won’t be necessary, further undermining attempts to ban such practices."---Commissioner O’Rielly"

You know who else believed telemedicine services should be prioritized over cat videos? The 2015 FCC that passed the net neutrality order. In that order, the commission created a category of services called “non-BIAS data services,” which include heart monitors and internet phone services, which are entitled to greater speeds. As Ars Technica recently pointed out, the 2015 rules specifically noted that “telemedicine services might alternatively be structured as ‘non-BIAS data services,’ which are beyond the reach of the open Internet rules.”

4: “After a two year detour, one that has seen investment, decline, broadband deployments put on hold and innovative new offerings shelved, it’s great to see the FCC returning to this proven regulatory approach.”---Commissioner Carr

This is the central justification for the FCC’s decision. But it doesn’t hold up to scrutiny, as we’ve detailed before. Many internet service providers increased their investments after the 2015 rules passed. Some, such as AT&T, cut investment, but those decreases were planned years in advance. In fact, executives at major broadband companies assured shareholders that the net neutrality rules didn’t affect their plans.

Many small internet service providers did object to the rules, saying that the rules made it harder for them to attract investment. But as Ars Technica reports, the advocacy group Free Press found that some of those companies actually increased their footprints in both rural and urban areas after the rules passed, so the effects of net neutrality on small providers are, at best, unclear.

5: “Moreover, we empower the Federal Trade Commission to ensure that consumers and competition are protected.”---Chairman Pai

As Democratic FTC Commissioner Terrell McSweeny has told WIRED, the FTC only has the authority to pursue individual businesses for unfair or anticompetitive actions. It can’t issue industry-wide rules, such as a ban on blocking lawful content. In many cases, she says, the agency might be unable to use antitrust law against broadband providers that give preferential treatment to their own content or to that of partners.

FCC CTO Eric Burger, who was appointed by Pai earlier this year, apparently came to the same conclusion. “If the ISP is transparent about blocking legal content, there is nothing the [Federal Trade Commission] can do about it unless the FTC determines it was done for anti-competitive reasons,” Burger wrote in an email to FCC staff, according to Politico. “Allowing such blocking is not in the public interest.” The FCC reportedly made a change to its order that satisfied Burger, but the agency has not responded to our request for clarification.

6: "How does a company decide to restrict someone’s accounts or block their tweets because it thinks their views are inflammatory or wrong? How does a company decide to demonetize videos from political advocates without any notice?...You don’t have any insight into any of these decisions, and neither do I, but these are very real actual threats to an open internet."---Chairman Pai

This isn't so much a fib as a clever bit of misdirection. Here, Pai is suggesting that companies such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube are really to blame for the internet's decline, because they determine what people see online and have no obligation to tell people why they're seeing it. There's truth in that. Platforms are far from perfect and and far less open than they like to pretend. And yet, there's a key difference between the platforms that run on the internet and access to the internet itself. In a world of true net neutrality, people who think Twitter is skewing what they see online can seek alternatives, where they can expect the same speed and reliability. In a world without net neutrality---where we'll be in late February, after Thursday's rules take effect---internet service providers will decide whether it'll cost you.

1 Correction: 12/14/17 9:31 PM ET This story has been corrected to say Uber instituted surge pricing during the New York City explosion in 2016. An earlier version incorrectly said it instituted surge pricing during airport protests following President Trump's institution of a travel ban on predominantly Muslim countries.*