July, 29 2011, 12:42pm EDT
Free Press: Industry USF Plan Self-Serving, Will Raise Consumer Bills
On Friday, several major telecom companies sent a proposal to revamp the Universal Service Fund (USF) to the Federal Communications Commission. The proposal, authored by Verizon, AT&T, CenturyLink, Frontier, Windstream and Fairpoint, lays out industry's plan to redirect funding to support broadband access rather than legacy telephone networks.
WASHINGTON
On Friday, several major telecom companies sent a proposal to revamp the Universal Service Fund (USF) to the Federal Communications Commission. The proposal, authored by Verizon, AT&T, CenturyLink, Frontier, Windstream and Fairpoint, lays out industry's plan to redirect funding to support broadband access rather than legacy telephone networks.
Free Press supports the goal of modernizing the USF, but is concerned with several aspects of the plan, including the proposed increase to the monthly subscriber line charge (SLC). Past FCC research reveals this fee is already far in excess of what these monopoly local phone companies need to recover costs, and increases in the rates amount to nothing more than a gift to the companies who authored this proposal.
Free Press Research Director S. Derek Turner made the following statement:
"While this industry-authored proposal is certainly more sound than most of the prior self-interested plans we've seen, it still falls short of adequately confronting the real problems with the Universal Service Fund. Worse, it ensures that the inflated profits of telecom companies are protected by shifting the burden of reform to ordinary consumers.
"We are pleased to see that the proposal recognizes the need to bring the USF system into the 21st century, both in terms of which services are supported and how that support is determined and awarded. And while we are also glad that the so-called access revenue replacement mechanism is proposed only as a temporary fund, when it comes to USF at the FCC, anything created as a temporary subsidy always becomes permanent.
"Our biggest concern is the proposal's deeply self-interested suggestion that the monthly subscriber line charge be increased. AT&T and Verizon each stand to save billions of dollars if the FCC lowers the intercarrier compensation charges, the fees that long-distance companies pay to rural phone companies to terminate calls on those networks. But this proposal would also let the large carriers raise rates on their own urban customers by increasing the monthly subscriber line charge. Raising this fee for everyone in the name of increasing the self-sufficiency of a small number of already highly profitable rural phone companies is unnecessary and nothing more than a major gift to the biggest telecom carriers like Verizon and AT&T.
"The FCC's own proposal, while it still perpetuates many of the flaws with the current USF and is far from ideal, is much more balanced and rational than this industry-authored plan. The FCC has already had two rounds of public comment on its own proposal, which came out of the National Broadband Plan. There was no need for the FCC to ask industry once again for their own plan, and we hope the Commission recognizes its flaws and proceeds forward with a real plan to offer the American people rational USF reform that sets politics and industry concerns aside in favor of good public policy."
Free Press was created to give people a voice in the crucial decisions that shape our media. We believe that positive social change, racial justice and meaningful engagement in public life require equitable access to technology, diverse and independent ownership of media platforms, and journalism that holds leaders accountable and tells people what's actually happening in their communities.
(202) 265-1490LATEST NEWS
After 'One Phone Call' With Biden, Israel Opens Erez Crossing to Increase Gaza Aid
"Imagine how many lives could have been saved if this leverage had been used earlier, as so many urged."
Apr 05, 2024
The news late Thursday that Israeli officials had approved the reopening of the Erez crossing between Israel and northern Gaza to allow more humanitarian aid to reach starving Palestinians was greeted with cautious optimism by rights groups, as critics of U.S. President Joe Biden's Israel policy noted that the approval was granted shortly after Biden issued a warning to the Israeli government.
Biden reportedly threatened to condition future military support for Israel in a call with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Thursday, marking the first time the president has used his leverage as the top international funder of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) to influence Israel's actions in Gaza.
"Very good news coming just hours after Biden finally signaled a willingness to withhold aid," said Matt Duss, executive vice president at the Center for International Policy. "Imagine how many lives could have been saved if this leverage had been used earlier, as so many urged."
The Erez crossing was expected to receive humanitarian aid shipments starting Sunday, Israeli officials told CNN, with more aid entering Gaza through the Ashdod port the same day.
Jan Egeland, secretary general of the Norwegian Refugee Council, said the news offers a "glimmer of hope" but said Israel must demonstrate that the change in policy will have a meaningful impact on the lives of Gaza's 2.3 million residents, including 300,000 Palestinians who are believed to be trapped in Gaza and subsisting on just 245 calories per day due to Israel's monthslong blockade on nearly all humanitarian aid.
"Israel and its allies must ensure that aid can now flow freely to avert a famine, and that there will be a protection system for humanitarian workers that guarantees our security," said Egeland. "Most of all we need protection for Palestinian civilians, who have been indiscriminately killed during these last six months."
Biden's call to Netanyahu came days after Israel killed seven aid workers, including one American citizen, who were delivering relief with World Central Kitchen (WCK). The strike on the clearly-marked WCK convoy prompted ships carrying 240 tons of aid to turn back from Gaza.
The attack has prompted some of Biden's closest allies, including Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) to add their voices to calls that have consistently been made by international human rights experts, the United Nations, and progressive lawmakers for the U.S. to apply conditions to military aid for Israel in accordance with U.S. law.
Despite Biden's warning, he has also been pushing Congress this week to approve an $18 billion military aid shipment to Israel.
Stephane Dujarric, spokesperson to U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres, said the news of the Erez crossing reopening was "positive news but, of course, we will have to see how this is implemented."
"We need a humanitarian cease-fire and a massive influx of aid," said Dujarric.
Shortly after Israel made its announcement, the United Nations Human Rights Council voted overwhelmingly in favor of a resolution calling on countries to stop sending weapons to Israel.
Twenty-eight of 47 member countries supported the resolution, which demanded Israel be held accountable for possible war crimes, while six opposed it. Thirteen countries abstained.
The U.S. was among the countries that opposed the resolution, despite Biden's threat to condition aid to Israel.
Francesca Albanese, the U.N. special rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories, commended the countries that "voted to pass a resolution calling to halt arms transfers to Israel at this critical moment."
"Next step for all states is to enforce this as well as recent U.N. resolutions to stop the ongoing genocide in Gaza," said Albanese. "This is in line with states' obligations under international law including ICJ [International Court of Justice] provisional measures."
The ICJ last week ordered Israel to allow humanitarian aid into Gaza, where more than 25 children are among dozens who have died of starvation so far.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Dark Money-Backed 'No Labels' Drops Third-Party Presidential Bid
One observer quipped that No Labels was calling it quits "to spend more time with their lobbyists."
Apr 04, 2024
Less than a month after No Labels announced it would nominate a "unity ticket" for the 2024 presidential election, the group said Thursday that it is abandoning its longshot third-party White House bid.
"No Labels has always said we would only offer our ballot line to a ticket if we could identify candidates with a credible path to winning the White House," the group said in a statement. "No such candidates emerged, so the responsible course of action is for us to stand down."
As Common Dreams reported last month, No Labels—whose own leader has admitted is "not in it to win it" but rather to "give people a choice"—has poured millions of dollars in dark money contributions into a quixotic run that critics like MoveOn executive director Rahna Epting warned could "swing the election to Donald Trump," the twice-impeached former Republican president and presumptive GOP nominee, 91 federal and state criminal charges notwithstanding.
No Labels had floated former Republican Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan and former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, a failed 2024 GOP presidential contender, as possible "unity ticket" candidates. However, the group ultimately found no takers.
Top No Labels donors include billionaire and multimillionaire Trump supporters like Nelson Peltz, private equity executive Stephen Schwarzman of Blackstone, and former 20th Century Fox CEO James Murdoch. Louis Bacon, the billionaire CEO of hedge fund Moore Capital Management, donated $1 million each to No Labels and the Republican Party after giving the maximum allowable contribution to Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, formerly one of the conservative Democrats in Congress and now an Independent.
Even with all that financial backing, No Labels' path to the ballot has been dubious. MoveOn has urged states to investigate the group for allegedly misleading voters through deceptive canvassing methods that result in their disenfranchisement.
The U.S. two-party system has been criticized for monopolizing political power at the expense of democracy and voter choice by actively working to thwart all viable third-party and independent candidates. However, political pragmatists note what they say is the folly of running unwinnable races.
"Third-party candidates are the fools gold of this election," MoveOn said on social media, adding that neither No Labels nor conspiracy theorist Robert F. Kennedy "have ballot access in all 50 states and mathematically cannot win."
"They can only play spoiler," the group added.
However, while Democrats and Republicans often automatically gain ballot access, the two parties are largely behind state laws that create often insurmountable barriers for third-party and independent challengers.
Other progressives also welcomed the news of No Labels' withdrawal—but with a warning. Melanie D'Arrigo, executive director of the Campaign for New York Health, quipped on social media that No Labels was quitting "to spend more time with their lobbyists."
"Billionaires pump millions into No Labels, and in return, their politicians push policies that transfer wealth from the working-class back to billionaires," she added. "Just because they aren't running a presidential candidate doesn't mean they aren't still a serious threat to democracy."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Every DA... Should Follow Suit': Prosecutor Seeks to Commute County Death Sentences
District Attorney Jeff Rosen "is taking an important step to confront racism in the criminal legal system," said Smart Justice California.
Apr 04, 2024
In a potential model for other U.S. officials, Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeff Rosen, "once a prosecutor who believed in capital punishment and one who rejects association with the progressive prosecutor movement, has been quietly preparing to ask courts to change the penalties of 14 men from his county who are waiting for that ultimate sentence to be carried out."
That's according toLos Angeles Times columnist Anita Chabria, who exclusively reported on the California prosecutor's efforts, inspired by learning about how the death penalty connects to the country's long history of killing and oppressing people of color.
As Chabria wrote:
In most cases, he wants the court to re-sentence these men (Santa Clara has no women on death row) to serve life without parole. But in a few separate cases, already completed last year, he has requested that they be given the chance of freedom.
Why? An inherent racism in our justice system handed down from slavery to mass incarceration and capital punishment, he cites as a main reason.
"[W]e are not confident that these sentences were attained without racial bias," his office wrote in a motion to courts expected to be filed in coming days in multiple cases. "We cannot defend these sentences, and we believe that implicit bias and structural racism played some role in the death sentence."
"Rosen's unprecedented move (he is the only prosecutor in California to have made such a blanket request, and the only one I could find nationwide) has gone largely unnoticed. But it represents a new battleground in the fight over the death penalty," she asserted. "While many prosecutors around the state and the nation have stopped the use of the death penalty moving forward, Rosen is the first to look back and answer the question—with collective action—If it isn’t fair now, how could it have been fair then? "
The Santa Clara County district attorney previously pursued capital punishment in four cases—including one in which the jury ultimately found the man innocent in June 2020. A month later, Rosen announced he would no longer seek death sentences.
In a 2021 piece for The Appealarguing that Rosen should not be California's next attorney general, retired deputy public defender Michael Ogul wrote that "as someone who witnessed Rosen's attempt to execute an innocent man firsthand, his policy change is nothing more than a brazen attempt to selfishly further his political ambitions."
Rosen has said he changed his position on capital punishment after trips to the
Legacy Sites, a museum, memorial, and sculpture park in Alabama that "invite visitors to reckon with our history of racial injustice in places where that history was lived." They were created by the Equal Justice Initiative, a legal group that represents clients sentenced to death and condemned to die in prison.
"We cannot ignore that the death penalty's roots stretch back to slavery and the lynchings that continued long after the Emancipation Proclamation," Equal Justice USA CEO Jamila Hodge said in a statement Thursday, welcoming Rosen's new resentencing effort. "As lynchings diminished, executions surged. Every time we end the death penalty or stop executions, we chip away at centuries of racial injustice."
The Ella Baker Center also celebrated the development, saying: "The death penalty is rooted in a legacy of racism—from the execution of enslaved people, to the terror and lynching of Black people, to the criminal legal system of executions we have today. We must end it."
Elisabeth Semel, director of the Death Penalty Clinic at the University of California, Berkeley, told the Times columnist that Rosen's "highly significant" move could push other prosecutors to reconsider capital punishment, rather than just reviewing specific cases.
"There is nothing, nothing that these cases have more in common than racial discrimination, whether we are talking about privileging white victims, meaning seeking the death penalty in white crime, or disadvantaging Black clients," Semel said.
In California, over a third of death row inmates are Black and a quarter are Latinx. None of them face imminent executions, thanks to a statewide moratorium imposed in 2019 by Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat reelected in 2022 after a failed recall attempt.
Rosen's initiative notably comes while "California is sliding back toward a tough-on-crime attitude, driven largely by an increase in organized retail [theft] and the fentanyl crisis," as Chabria pointed out Thursday in a separate Times piece about Newsom.
The governor—who "dismantled the death chamber and promised to do away with death row as a segregated (and expensive) cellblock," as Chabria detailed—is barred from running for a third term and considered a potential 2028 presidential candidate.
Democratic President Joe Biden, who is seeking reelection in November, campaigned on ending the death penalty at the federal level, but that lacks the support it would need to pass the divided Congress. He endured intense criticism in January over the U.S. Department of Justice pursuing the death penalty for a mass shooter serving life in prison without the possibility of parole.
The presumptive Republican nominee is former President Donald Trump, whose first term featured a "killing spree" in which the federal government executed 13 death row inmates. During a Tuesday campaign rally, Trump said that if elected, "I will ask Congress to send a bill to my desk ensuring that anyone who murders a police officer will receive immediately the death penalty."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular