FRANKFORT, Ky. – This is the last day that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is taking public comments on its controversial plan that could change how the Internet works.

The idea of letting some deep-pocketed broadband providers divide bandwidth into fast lanes and slow lanes – and charge more for the faster speeds – has faced a public backlash.

"An organization called the Sunlight Foundation looked at public comments to the FCC,” says Timothy Karr, senior director of the media advocacy group Free Press. “And there've been more than a million already – and they found that 99 percent of those comments were in support of net neutrality.

“So, this is an issue where the public is strongly unified."

Two years ago, in opposition to legislation involving copyrights, many websites took part in a partial blackout of the Internet, with some – such as Wikipedia – shutting down completely for a day.

Last Wednesday, there was a symbolic slowdown in protest of the threat to a free and open Internet.

A national coalition of rural broadband advocates, the Rural Broadband Policy Group, wants the FCC to treat Internet access like phone service – as a common carrier, what's known as a Title II service, says Whitney Kimball Coe, coordinator of the National Rural Assembly for the Center for Rural Strategies.

"It would uphold net neutrality, first of all, and then secondly, it would close the digital divide,” she says.

By digital divide, Coe explains, the FCC currently considers Internet access a Title I service, which means there are fewer regulations for Internet providers.

Coe points out that means providers don't have to build out in rural places, leaving some people with bad or no service.

Coe says of the 19 million Americans who don't have Internet access, more than 14 million are rural Americans.

"Rural America already feels like it's out of sync with that sort of American idea of equal opportunity,” she stresses. “And I think, in the political sector, rural America feels like it's not being heard."

Coe says that leaves a simple message to the FCC from rural broadband advocates – "Don't break the Internet before rural America gets it."





get more stories like this via email

Concerns about potential voter intimidation have spurred several states to consider banning firearms at polling sites but so far, New Hampshire is not among them.

Only a dozen states and Washington, D.C., prohibit both open and concealed-carry weapons at voting locations.

Emma Brown, executive director of the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said most of the bans were enacted after the 2020 election, when unfounded claims of widespread voter fraud took hold.

"The risk of gun violence at the polls is heightened," Brown contended. "Which means that legislation at the state level is even more critical than it ever has been."

Brown argued America's elections are free and fair, and prohibiting guns at polling sites and government locations is constitutional. Opponents countered the bans unfairly disarm law-abiding gun owners.

Recent surveys reveal election workers have faced increased threats and harassment since the 2020 election with one in three reporting some form of abuse. And nearly half of election workers said they are concerned for their colleagues' safety.

Brown pointed out armed intimidation tactics disproportionately target people of color and add to the growing exodus of election workers.

"This is a threat that we can't ignore," Brown stressed. "These attacks have also served as a deterrent to Black and brown election workers, who've historically been a really key part of ensuring that our democracy endures on Election Day."

As state legislatures consider banning guns at voting sites, legislation in Congress known as the "Vote Without Fear Act" would place a nationwide ban on weapons within 100 feet of a federal election facility, with exceptions for on-duty law enforcement and security personnel. It has been languishing in a House committee for a year.

Support for this reporting was provided by The Carnegie Corporation of New York.

Nassau County's executive wants to deputize residents who hold gun permits.

County Executive Bruce Blakemen's plan involves training 100 residents for "the protection of human life and property during an emergency." Little else has been made public about the plan but it has been met with widespread opposition and concern.

Delia DeRiggi-Whitton, minority leader of the Nassau County Legislature, said there are many ways it can go wrong.

"Emergencies are very chaotic situations by nature and all of a sudden, someone shows up that a police officer might not recognize or isn't identified correctly," DeRiggi-Whitton pointed out. "We're just waiting for a disaster to happen."

She added some Nassau County police officers are against the plan and, like many others, feel it's unnecessary. Blakeman said he is relying on New York State County Law 655, which grants sheriffs authority to deputize added personnel for emergencies.

DeRiggi-Whitton noted legal options are being pursued to stop the plan from being enacted.

The lack of information has made residents anxious about what the plan would do. Some have said the effort, along with Blakeman's ban on female trans athletes in county athletic facilities, are solutions without problems.

Susan Gotthrer, director of the Nassau Regional Chapter of the New York Civil Liberties Union, said more pressing issues need to be addressed.

"We have real problems in Nassau County," Gotthrer argued. "We have housing shortages, we have lack of opportunities, we have education issues, high taxes. We would really like to see Mr. Blakeman putting his energies towards real governing issues and not imaginary ones like this."

Blakeman is not alone in pushing to deputize gun owners. Support for militias is growing among conservative politicians. Some residents are worried the armed people will be used to intimidate voters at or after the 2024 election. Nassau County is considered one of the safest counties, not just in the state but in the nation.


get more stories like this via email

April is National Volunteer Month, and Nebraskans rank high nationwide for their willingness to volunteer.

In the most recent Census Bureau/AmeriCorps report, Nebraska ranked seventh in the nation for formal volunteering and second for informal volunteering.

However, many nonprofits still need more help.

Central Nebraska Community Action Partnership in Loup City serves 21 counties with programs in housing, early childhood, family outreach and community health. It serves 72 counties with its veterans programs.

Executive Director Cheryl Holcomb said it would struggle to offer these services without volunteers.

"Throughout our agency, it is vital - vital that we have volunteers that provide services as well," she said. "We always have a need for more."

Holcomb explained that for their Head Start programs, volunteers do more than help the teachers and children. Their hours also contribute to the 25% match the program's grant funding requires. Volunteer time is valued at nearly $32 an hour, and most grants count volunteer hours as an "in-kind" match. Nationally, women volunteer at a slightly higher rate than men, and Gen-Xers have the highest percentage by age group.

Like other nonprofits providing food assistance, Holcomb said they've seen an increase in need without an accompanying increase in volunteers. She added that the funding for its Commodity Supplemental Food Program, which serves people 60 and older, isn't sufficient to support the program.

"So, relying on volunteers to help offset that program is crucial," she said. "They rely on volunteers to come in and package the food; they rely on volunteers to make deliveries in the specific community."

Central Nebraska Community Action Partnership also relies on volunteers at its two food pantries, a quarterly mobile food pantry and four food warehouses.

There are nine Community Action agencies across the state. Although their programs vary, Holcomb said, all rely on volunteers.