TALLAHASSEE, Fla. - A federal appeals court heard arguments recently from Verizon, which would benefit if it and other Internet service providers could start charging fees to content providers to reach some customers through faster speeds. This idea of an Internet "fast lane" would in the eyes of the FCC create an uneven playing field. That agency holds that established, deep-pockets companies such as Facebook and Google would have an edge over small start-ups, and that could prevent the next Google or Facebook from succeeding.
According to Jennifer Yeh, policy counsel for the advocacy group Free Press, who was in the courtroom, the three-judge panel could do away with what's called the Open Internet Order.
"It prevents content providers from paying for priority access to get to users," Yeh said. "It prevents a tiered system of superhighways for the rich and slow-speed ways for the poor."
Most observers felt that by their questioning, two of the three judges leaned toward freeing Verizon from some of the control the FCC has over it.
If this case results in the FCC losing some of its regulatory authority over the Internet, amalia deloney, policy director at the Center for Media Justice said, it could lead to voices of dissent and the disenfranchised being blocked from the Web.
"We need to be able to have groups like Iraq Veterans Against the War be able to express their anti-war views within the current debate between the President and Congress on Syria."
Jennifer Yeh said it isn't hard to imagine what would happen if Internet service providers were freed from the FCC's current oversight.
"There will be no government oversight of our communications network, and corporations will retain control over what content we see, how much we pay for that content," she declared. "In other words, our Internet will start to look a lot more like our cable system."
Critics also say added costs would be passed on to consumers.
The case could be decided late this year or early next.
get more stories like this via email
Michigan legislators are tackling predatory lending practices, aiming to set standards for payday loans and maximum interest rates.
In Kent County alone, with a payday loan volume of $60 million, the House Insurance and Financial Services Committee discussed Senate Bill 632, sponsored by Sen. Sarah Anthony, D-Lansing, which seeks to cap annual interest rates at 36% compared to current rates reaching nearly 400%.
The bill has passed the Senate and is part of a legislative effort including House Bill 5290, sponsored by Rep. Abraham Aiyash, D-Hamtramck.
Dallas Lenear, founder and executive director of Project GREEN, a grassroots economic empowerment network, highlighted concerns about the exploitative nature of these loans.
"Payday loans inevitably are designed in a fashion that is unaffordable for the majority of people who use those loans," Lenear contended.
Lenear pointed out many other states have already capped their interest rate or totally outlawed payday loans because of the financial damage they can cause their citizens and argued it is time for Michigan to do better.
Lenear noted while the payday loan industry believes it offers hope to borrowers in times of need, a study by project GREEN found 78% of respondents said payday loans either prolonged or worsened their financial situation.
"If they've had any experience with it, they'll start to shake their head and they'll say those things are terrible and I was caught in the trap and I would never use those things again. I'd use it out of desperation," Lenear reported.
Advocacy groups such as the Michigan League for Public Policy and the Michigan Catholic Conference testified in support of the bills, to end the predatory practices.
get more stories like this via email
A case before the U.S. Supreme Court could have implications for the country's growing labor movement. Justices will hear oral arguments in Starbucks versus McKinney today to determine if the bar should be raised for the National Labor Relations Board when it seeks to impose court-ordered injunctions on companies.
David Groves, communications director with the Washington State Labor Council, said the Supreme Court could further undermine the power of the NLRB, the independent federal agency that protects employees' rights.
"We already have weak labor laws in this country that have such minor penalties for breaking union organizing laws that companies routinely do it, and this is another opportunity for them to weaken labor laws even further," he argued.
The case involves Starbucks' firing of seven employees in Memphis during their union campaign in 2021. The coffee company says it rehired the workers and denies wrongdoing. If the justices rule in favor of Starbucks, it could make it harder for the NLRB to seek court orders.
Groves said the law states that workers have a right to organize unions in their workplace without coercion or retaliation from their employers.
"That's all fine and good but if the penalty's not significant enough, then they'll just go ahead and break that law and consider it the cost of doing business if they have to pay a fine two years down the road," he explained.
Groves said his and other labor organizations support the passage of the Protecting the Right to Organize or PRO Act in Congress, which would strengthen labor laws, including providing greater authority to the NLRB.
get more stories like this via email
The U.S. House has approved a measure to expand the Child Tax Credit. It would help 16 million children from low-income families in Indiana and nationwide. Despite bipartisan support, the bill is stalled in the Senate. Advocates praise the credit's pivotal role in combating child poverty, pointing to its effectiveness in the past, and especially during the pandemic, when it was broadly expanded.
Candace Baker, an Indianapolis mother of 4, said the previous tax-credit expansion worked for her family, and she wants it reinstated.
"Having a child, and I had to get on some government-assistance programs. My grandmother never did because she just didn't want that stigma over her, but I utilized those services when I had a child. I didn't want to either, but I'm like, I need this support," she explained.
Congress approved expanding the Child Tax Credit in 2021. However, the expansion has expired, leaving families without vital assistance. As the Senate deliberates, pressure mounts on lawmakers to prioritize the needs of struggling families and secure passage. Opponents believe taxpayers who don't work should not be eligible. Some Republicans also contend the provision may incentivize parents to leave the workforce.
Families reeling from the pandemic received between $300 and $360 per month per child from the expanded tax credit. It lifted 3.7 million children from poverty. Baker currently works for a food bank in Indianapolis where she says she is able to help neighbors in need and give back to the community.
"Being able to be a voice for those who have no voice - that is my motto. Even though where you start, you don't have to stay there. So, that is my biggest motto that I stand on: You may start here, you may be on government assistance, you may be in poverty, but that does not have to be your end game," she said.
Families who benefited from the increased aid were more than twice as likely to pay their overdue rent during the initial stages of the pandemic. The Child Tax Credit did not pass in time for this year's tax deadline, and its prospects for the future are uncertain.
get more stories like this via email