September, 26 2023, 12:57pm EDT

FCC Chair to Start Process of Restoring the FCC’s Authority to Protect the Open Internet and Safeguard Internet Users
On Tuesday, Federal Communications Commission Chair Jessica Rosenworcel is expected to announce plans to begin an agency proceeding to restore the FCC’s authority under Title II of the Communications Act to oversee broadband providers and enforce the open-internet protections that were stripped away during the Trump administration.
In a speech at the National Press Club, Rosenworcel will reportedly state her intention to introduce a “Notice of Proposed Rulemaking” during the agency’s October 19 Open Meeting. The agency has a full complement of commissioners following the swearing in of Anna Gomez on Monday, and the 3-2 Democratic majority it needs to begin the proceeding.
Since the Trump-era FCC repealed the agency’s Open Internet Order in 2017, people from across the country and the political spectrum have called on the agency to reinstate its authority over broadband access. In 2019, a federal court said the Trump-FCC repeal was “unhinged from the realities of modern broadband service” and violated the commission’s duty to protect public safety. Roseworcel’s Tuesday announcement will fulfill earlier commitments she had made to protect Net Neutrality and assert the agency’s authority to prevent broadband providers from engaging in practices that harm online users
Millions of people wrote the FCC in 2017 urging Trump’s FCC Chair Ajit Pai to abandon his plan to gut the Net Neutrality rules established during the Obama administration. But Pai ignored the public consensus and stripped away these basic safeguards. Public polling in 2022 shows majorities of Democratic, Republican and Independent voters reject the Trump administration repeal and support reinstating the FCC’s authority. In recent years, the phone and cable companies that provide broadband access for most have routinely ranked at the bottom of customer-service satisfaction indices.
Free Press Co-CEO Jessica J. González said:
“We applaud FCC Chairwoman Rosenworcel for getting right to work on protecting broadband consumers now that we have a full FCC. Reinstating the agency’s Title II authority is a top priority because it will allow the FCC to ensure that all Americans — no matter their location or their demographics — have affordable, reliable and safe internet connections free from discrimination, blocking or other ISP manipulation.
“When the Trump FCC ditched its Title II authority, it walked out on its job of overseeing the most important communications infrastructure of our era. Without Title II the agency lacks a clear ability to protect the public against abuses by large, monopoly-minded broadband access providers like AT&T, Comcast and Verizon. Without Title II, broadband users are left vulnerable to discrimination, content throttling, dwindling competition, extortionate and monopolistic prices, billing fraud and other shady behavior. Internet users are taking notice that their access providers are acting without any public accountability — and, as popular polling shows, are eager to return the watchdog to safeguard the public interest.
“One thing we learned from the COVID-19 pandemic is that broadband is essential infrastructure — it enables us to access education, employment, healthcare and more. And yet, the U.S. regulatory agency charged with oversight of this utility lacks the authority it needs to be on the lookout for internet users and ensure that the network is fully deployed and resilient to climate change and other disasters.
“As this proceeding gets under way, we will hear all manner of lies from the lobbyists and lawyers representing big phone and cable companies. They'll say that Title II’s common-carriage standard is a heavy-handed regulation that will undermine investment in new broadband deployment; in reality, capital expenditures by these companies increased under Net Neutrality rules, and declined after the Dec. 2017 Trump FCC repeal. They'll say open-internet protections are a solution in search of a problem; in reality, there's an extensive history of the sorts of industry abuses that Title II oversight would keep in check.
“They'll say anything and everything to avoid being held accountable. But broadband providers and their spin doctors are deeply out of touch with people across the political spectrum, who are fed up with high prices and unreliable services. These people demand a referee on the field to call fouls and issue penalties when broadband companies are being unfair.
“We look forward to helping the FCC fix Trump-era mistakes and return these basic protections to the people who use the internet every day. With Title II back in place internet users will be able to log on knowing that their broadband provider won't violate their online rights without being held to account.”
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
Conservative Texas District Court Won't Implement Anti-Judge Shopping Policy
The chief judge of the Northern District of Texas indicated the court will not follow new guidance, while a lower court judge called out a pro-business group's use of "judge shopping."
Mar 31, 2024
Right-wing groups will still be able to pick and choose the judges who hear their cases in one of the most conservative federal court districts in the United States, following a decision by the Northern District of Texas on Friday that goes against new anti-"judge shopping" guidance.
Chief U.S. District Judge David Godbey of the Northern District wrote in a letter to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer that the court would not abide by new guidance from the Judicial Conference, which said earlier this month that the court system should randomly assign lawsuits to any judge throughout the district where they're filed.
"The consensus was not to make any change to our case assignment process at this time," wrote Godbey, an appointee of former President George W. Bush.
The policy, announced on March 12, would require lawsuits that challenge federal or state laws to be assigned to a judge randomly throughout a federal district rather than staying in the specific smaller division where they were initially filed, a practice known as "judge shopping" or "venue shopping."
The practice has garnered scrutiny in recent months as right-wing groups have filed numerous lawsuits in the court of Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, who presides over a federal court in Amarillo, Texas—also in the state's Northern District.
Kacsmaryk, an appointee of former President Donald Trump, ruled last year that the Food and Drug Administration's approval of mifepristone, a drug used for medication abortion, should be suspended. The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in an appeal last week, and the justices signaled that they were unlikely to impose new restrictions on the medication.
After Republican lawmakers wrote to federal judges telling them to disregard the Judicial Conference's guidance—which the body noted is discretionary—Schumer called on the courts to apply the new reforms to stop "extremists" from handpicking judges.
Godbey's letter signaled that the court will continue allowing conservative plaintiffs to select the venue where their cases are heard.
Judiciary observers noted that another judge in the Northern District—Mark Pittman in the Fort Worth division—suggested that chief judges may not have the final word on whether judge shopping continues to be tolerated.
Pittman, who was also appointed by Trump, ruled that a case filed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other banking industry groups against the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) should be transferred to a federal court in Washington, D.C.
The judge agreed with the CFPB, which had argued the banking lobby had filed its lawsuit over the bureau's slashing of credit card late fees in the Northern District of Texas in order to secure a favorable ruling.
"Venue is not a continental breakfast; you cannot pick and choose on a plaintiff's whim where and how a lawsuit is filed," said Pittman. "Federal courts have consistently cautioned against such behavior."
"Even the judges you least expect," said David Dayen of The American Prospect, "are pissed at being pawns in a conservative game."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Right-Wing Court's PFAS Ruling Will Impede Regulation of Harmful Chemicals, Advocates Say
Public health groups are "fully committed to taking all steps available to assure that the Inhance fluorination no longer produces dangerous PFAS which put workers, consumers, and communities at risk."
Mar 31, 2024
As public health experts raise alarm over the prevalence of highly toxic "forever chemicals," as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances or PFAS are commonly known, one nonprofit investigative journalism outlet warned Saturday that a recent ruling could further tie up the regulatory process for the chemicals and other harmful substances.
"This ruling is likely to impede already excruciatingly slow efforts to regulate the presence of health harming chemicals in products people use in every part of their lives," said Watershed Investigations of a decision handed down earlier this month by the right-wing Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans.
The case is one of several involving Inhance Technologies, a Houston-based company that manufactures an estimated 200 million plastic containers each year using the fluorination process, which creates perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), a toxic PFAS compound.
In 2020, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) began requiring companies to submit notices regarding "significant new uses" of PFAS under Section 5 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), as officials identified the chemicals as an "urgent public health and environmental issue" due to their links to cancer, liver and kidney disease, reproductive harms, and other serious health problems.
The agency found that PFAS were leaching into pesticides held in containers produced by Inhance.
In December, the agency prohibited Inhance from using the fluorination process because it had identified PFAS as an "unavoidable aspect" of its operations. Inhance sued the EPA soon after.
Inhance said that ending its fluorination practices would ultimately force the company to shut down and fought the EPA's order, arguing that it had created its plastic containers in the same way for decades, and therefore was not subject to the TSCA provision regarding "significant new use."
The EPA argued it only became aware of Inhance's process in 2020, but the conservative court disagreed that it could regulate the company under the "new use" rule—even as the judges acknowledged the company's products are harmful.
"The court did not dispute EPA's underlying decision that this is a danger to human health, what they did was say it's not a new use, which I think is wrong... but this case isn't over by any stretch," Kyla Bennett, a former EPA official who is now director of science policy for Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), told The Guardian Saturday.
The judges said the EPA would have to regulate Inhance's containers under Section 6 of the TSCA, which it said requires the EPA to take into account the economic impact any regulations would have on Inhance.
PEER noted that Section 6 also states that health risks should be considered.
"The court erroneously limits EPA's authority to issue significant new use rules (SNURs) under the TSCA, seriously weakening this important tool for managing chemical risks to health and the environment which has been a mainstay of the TSCA program since the law's enactment in 1976," the group said.
Another case is playing out in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, where the EPA sued Inhance in 2022 for violating the TSCA. The Center for Environmental Health and PEER also took legal action against Inhance for the same reason, and against the EPA last month for withholding test data regarding PFAS in plastic containers.
"There are several paths forward," said PEER, "and our groups are fully committed to taking all steps available to assure that the Inhance fluorination no longer produces dangerous PFAS which put workers, consumers, and communities at risk."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Every Year It Is More Relevant': Palestinians Mark Land Day Amid Genocide
"We honor those who rose up in 1976 and all who have risen up to fight for justice in Palestine," said one advocacy group.
Mar 30, 2024
This is a developing story... Please check back for possible updates...
Palestinians on Saturday were joined by people across the globe in marking Land Day, the 48th anniversary of Israel's killing of six unarmed protesters who rose up against the Israeli government's confiscation and occupation of Palestinian land.
Thousands of Palestinian people marched through Deir Hanna, one of the Israeli towns where authorities violently cracked down on nonviolent protesters on March 30, 1976, as they honored Raja Abu Raya, Khader Khalayleh, Khadija Shawahneh, Kheir Yassin, Mohsin Taha, and Raafat Zuhairi.
More than 100 people were also injured by Israeli authorities during the protest in 1976, which was organized in opposition to Israel's confiscation of nearly 5,000 acres of land that belonged to Palestinian citizens of Israel in the northern Galilee region.
The Good Shepherd Collective, an anti-Zionist human rights group based in the West Bank, said that with Israel bombarding Gaza and conducting raids almost daily in the West Bank as officials seize more land, Land Day becomes "more relevant" every year.
"No Palestinian needs to be reminded of the centrality of the land in the struggle for justice and liberation. Land Day is more a remembrance of one massacre among hundreds over more than one hundred years of Zionist violence," said Good Shepherd Collective. "In the midst of a genocide, we must continue to speak out and speak of the context of settler-colonialism's baked-in logic of elimination."
Last week, Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrichannounced Israel was seizing nearly 2,000 acres of land in the occupied West Bank, which would allow the country to build more illegal settlements. The country's settlement-planning authority said earlier this month it had approved the construction of 3,500 new housing units in the territory.
As the Middle East Eyereported, Israeli forces conducted overnight raids across the West Bank ahead of Land Day, killing a 13-year-old boy named Nabil Abu Abed near Jenin.
The U.S.-based Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) marked Land Day as organizers with the group held solidarity marches and rallies in cities including Boston; Portland, Maine; and Providence, Rhode Island. Other groups organized a march scheduled for Saturday evening in New York City.
The group noted that Land Day also marks the beginning of the Great March of Return protests, which were held weekly for 21 months starting on March 30, 2018 as demonstrators demanded an end to Israel's blockade of Gaza and the right to return to the homes their families were expelled from in 1948 when Zionist forces cleared the way to establish Israel. More than 200 Palestinians were killed by Israeli forces for participating in the marches, including 46 children.
"We mourn the thousands whom the Israeli military murdered or permanently injured over the years. We honor those who rose up in 1976 and all who have risen up to fight for justice in Palestine," said JVP.
Marches also took place in Cardiff, Wales; London; Madrid; and Helsingborg, Sweden, with protesters reiterating the demand for an immediate, permanent cease-fire in Gaza.
"I'll keep [marching] as long as the bombing and the apartheid and the injustice is going on," Stephen Kapos, an 86-year-old survivor of the Holocaust, told Al Jazeera.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


