SEATTLE - On Tuesday, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) approved new rules meant to protect an 'open Internet,' so as to prevent telecom and network companies from being able to block, slow or prioritize different kinds of online traffic. But the very groups that have pushed for such rules say these don't go nearly far enough to do the job, because they protect only the wired Internet, not fast-growing wireless or mobile networks.
Jonathan Lawson, co-founder of the Seattle-based group Reclaim the Media, predicts the result will be a two-tiered Internet, where only those who can afford the best access will get it.
"The FCC, unfortunately, has not listened to the people in this case. But it's not over yet. Congress ultimately has oversight over what the FCC does. We certainly are not going to stop pushing the FCC to make these rules more fair, to rural people and to minorities."
Lawson says the new rules do not reflect what FCC commissioners heard in public hearings around the country, including one in Seattle in April. At Tuesday's meeting, Commissioner Mignon Clyburn voiced concerns that the new rules won't provide equal and open access for all Internet users, particularly in rural areas, although she voted for them.
Telecom companies say the rules should not apply to mobile networks, because bandwidth is more limited and they need to be able to manage traffic to provide the best service. But Amalia Deloney, grassroots media policy director for the Center for Media Justice, believes the companies have a motive other than customer service – that they are reserving the right to charge for different levels of network performance.
"They want to have the ability to be able to charge for as many things as they possibly can, as mobile continues to grow. And that is about making more profit: it is not at all about the bandwidth or the capabilities that exist."
Deloney says hers and other media watchdog groups are disappointed in the significant role that big corporations - including AT&T, Google and Verizon - played in crafting the new rules.
The battle could end up in Congress or in the courts, with challenges planned by corporations and consumer groups.
More on the new rules, including statements from each FCC commissioner, are online at
www.fcc.gov.
get more stories like this via email
More than three in five Utahns believe the state is on the wrong track and their quality of life is worse today than it was five years ago.
A new report by the Utah Foundation paints a bleak picture about how Utah residents feel about their home state. Data in the report found the cost of living and government dysfunction were the most important issues for Utah voters in 2024.
Rep. Robert Spendlove, R-Sandy, an economist for Zions Bank, said there is growing political and economic disenfranchisement among Utahns.
"People just don't feel like they have the opportunities that they've had in the past," Spendlove explained. "The rate of inflation has come down in the last year, but the overall price increase remains. So overall prices are up about 20% in the last five years and so people are really struggling to adjust."
Spendlove observed Utahns are struggling to adjust to having to pay approximately 20% more on things such as housing, food, gas and even car insurance. He suspects prices are unlikely to come down and contended Utahns' income needs to go up but added it will take time.
The report's authors said the data is useful for state leaders to understand the needs of Utahns and get the state on the right track and improve quality of life.
Ahead of this year's election in November, the report found other issues relating to political dysfunction included voters feeling ignored by politicians, government overreach and partisan politics were at the top of the list.
Spendlove noted it is why he supports Utah Gov. Spencer Cox's call to "Disagree Better." He pointed out while the initiative aims to improve attitudes and behaviors across the political spectrum by incentivizing consensus building, he is unsure whether policy solutions at the state level are being discussed.
"One of the questions is, 'Do we revisit how people get to the ballot?' 'Do we lower the threshold on signature gathering?' 'Do we have different models of primaries?'" Spendlove outlined. "It is kind of early in that discussion, but I think it is a really important discussion that we need to be having."
The report found voters who participated in the survey expressed frustration in not feeling heard and contend elected officials pay too little attention to voters in favor of corporations, religious organizations or special-interest groups.
get more stories like this via email
Consumer groups are accusing major grocery retailers - like Amazon, Kroger and Walmart - of price gouging, both during and after the pandemic.
The allegation of corporate greed comes after a new report from the Federal Trade Commission found profits for grocery chains jumped sharply, at rates that could not be justified by supply chain disruptions.
Angela Huffman is president of the nonprofit Farm Action.
"It's one thing to raise your prices to cover higher expenses, but what these companies did is use the pandemic as an excuse to exploit the American people who needed to put food on their tables," said Huffman. "And the FTC report shows that they're still doing it, here in 2024."
The report found that retailer profits rose to 6% over total costs in 2021, and 7% in the first three quarters of 2023 - compared to 5.6% in 2015.
According to a report from Help Advisor, California households pay the highest grocery costs in the country, averaging almost $300 a week - about $27 more than the national average.
The Food Industry Association blames today's high prices on high labor costs and credit card payment fees.
Huffman said she thinks the feds should take anti-trust action to increase competition - and consider forcing the grocery behemoths to break up.
"That would be the ideal outcome is to take away their excessive power," said Huffman. "But other than that, these companies can be fined for this kind of price gouging. And that's another action we would support. There needs to be some kind of consequences."
The FTC staff report recommends "further inquiry by the commission and policymakers," but doesn't propose specific remedies.
get more stories like this via email
Air travelers could face fewer obstacles in securing a refund if their flight is canceled or changed under new federal rules announced Wednesday.
The moves are being praised by watchdog groups. The Department of Transportation said airlines are now required to promptly provide passengers with automatic cash refunds when they are owed one.
Teresa Murray, consumer watchdog director for the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, said some carriers have not adhered to standards, leaving passengers in a bind.
"They would drag their feet, and they would say, 'Well, you bought your ticket from a ticket agent, so we don't know where your money is. Or, here, have a voucher,'" Murray explained.
Amid higher complaint volumes, companies will be forced to act quickly. The new rules, which are being phased in, provide clearer definitions for travel disruptions, including delays of at least three hours on a domestic flight and six hours on international flights. A key industry group responded to the announcement by touting transparency efforts among carriers.
Murray acknowledged most people are not frequent flyers, and it is hard for them to keep up on all the least practices and policies among airlines.
"The average person only flies once every 18 months," Murray pointed out. "This will just bring transparency to that process and it kind of evens the playing field."
Murray added it could come in handy for Midwestern customers when a winter storm wreaks havoc on air travel. The new rules also require refunds for baggage fees when a piece of luggage is delayed by 12 hours or more for domestic flights. And there must be upfront disclosure on fees for first and second checked bags and carry-on bags.
get more stories like this via email
Contact
