LANSING, Mich. – After winning the battle for open Internet rules two years ago, net neutrality advocates are hoping a wave of public comments can help them keep the rules in place.
Net Neutrality Day of Action is an online protest Wednesday of the Federal Communications Commission's recent decision to roll back its 2015 rule guaranteeing consumers equal access to the Internet.
FCC Chairman Ajit Pai says the regulations shackle the cable and telecom industries.
But media expert and industry consultant Amanda Lotz of the University of Michigan disagrees.
"This isn't a problem that needs to be solved,” she insists. “Internet service providers in many cases are monopoly providers in communities and they're making a lot of money. It's not that they're lacking money for innovation and development. They're in very good positions."
ISP giants, such as Comcast and Verizon, would be allowed to charge content providers more for higher speeds. They maintain they will not block content.
The FCC is currently in its public comment period before finalizing its decision on loosening the rules. Nearly 4 million public comments helped usher in the current net neutrality rule.
Marty Newell, coordinator of the Rural Broadband Policy Group, says the nation's history in treating telephone service as a utility illustrates the importance of regulating common carriers, especially in under-served rural areas where it can help small businesses compete.
"Content being generated in rural America is not going to be the big guys who can afford to buy their way into a faster Internet," he states.
Lotz adds that it's the consumers, not the stockholders of Internet companies that will pay the price as well as non-profit, educational and governmental entities.
"Whether it's the library, whether it's an educational institution, they're potentially in a position where they're going to be disadvantaged because they just don't have the money to pay to exist at these faster speeds," he states.
Amazon, Vimeo and Netflix are among the tech companies that support net neutrality.
get more stories like this via email
By Nina B. Elkadi for Sentient.
Broadcast version by Nadia Ramlagan for West Virginia News Service reporting for the Sentient-Public News Service Collaboration
Egg prices have never been this high. To address this, newly appointed United States Department of Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins recently outlined a five-pronged plan to address high egg prices for American consumers: including potentially importing eggs. Importing eggs is not the norm in the United States, especially considering this country is the second-largest egg exporter in the world. We produce over 100 billion eggs per year, millions of which go to Canada and Mexico.
The U.S. plans to import 420 million eggs from Turkey - barely a drop in the 100 billion-eggs-annually bucket. Even if the U.S. imported one billion eggs, that would only lower prices by a small percentage, Associate Dean of the School of Public Policy at UC Riverside Bruce Babcock tells Sentient. If the U.S. wanted to lower prices by, say, 10 percent, it would need to import close to 2 billion eggs, he says. And by the time that happens, more chickens will likely have been culled - meaning the "lower" price may still be much higher for consumers than pre-avian flu levels.
In order to keep up with avian flu, which is still spreading, the U.S. would need to import billions, not millions of eggs. Other countries also might not want their own domestic egg supplies to diminish, which could in turn raise their prices.
"Whether or not we can actually import that many eggs to have that kind of price effect is probably not possible, because other countries don't have that many surplus eggs, and if they did try to export that many eggs to the United States, their egg prices would rise dramatically," Babbock says. "It's not clear that it's feasible, but is it theoretically possible? Yes."
Importing Eggs: a Fragile Plan
Eggs are incredibly fragile and need to be refrigerated, making them an expensive commodity to trade, explains James Mitchell, Assistant Professor and Extension Livestock Economist at the University of Arkansas. "Think about how careful you have to be transporting eggs from the grocery store to your house," Mitchell tells Sentient.
As avian influenza continues to spread, each day resulting in the death of thousands of chickens (killed by culling), the U.S. government is scrambling to get a hold of how to keep costs low for consumers. Thus far, they have not been successful, and importing eggs seems like one of the least economically viable options considering the scale of the problem.
Factory Farms Have Boosted Cheap Egg Supply, But at a Cost to Public Health
Over 99 percent of farmed animals are raised in concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), where they often do not have room to move around or see daylight. According to a new report by Food & Water Watch, the system is incredibly consolidated: 75 percent of egg-laying hens in the U.S. are raised on fewer than 350 factory farms, and the vast majority - 99 percent - of commercial laying hens impacted by bird flu lived on factory farms.
The efficiency of factory farms and increasing consolidation in agriculture has historically enabled eggs to be an extremely cheap commodity at the grocery store. Feed costs are low, and factory farms are highly efficient, churning out millions of eggs per month. But the true cost of these operations can be seen in their externalities: a lack of animal welfare, pollution and compromised worker safety.
"With regards to animal welfare, we're probably the worst country in the world with our battery cages," Babcock says. "Any country that crams those laying hens into little battery cages...It's just inhumane, in my opinion, but that's my opinion, because I care about animal welfare."
CAFOs are notorious breeding grounds for highly pathogenic diseases. Animals often defecate on top of one another and ventilation is scarce.
"When disease hits a production facility, and they have to destroy all the chickens that are laying hens, there's so many in one location that it disrupts the supply of eggs nationally to a much greater extent than if you had smaller production units spread out across the countryside," Babcock says. "Consolidation increases the risk to our food security. It doesn't decrease the risk."
When one chicken tests positive for avian influenza, the entire flock needs to be killed, though new secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is interested in trying out "therapeutic drugs" on flocks to avoid culling.
Uncertainty About the Trump Administration's Avian Flu Plan
Advocates from across the aisle are calling for the federal government to intervene. Rollins responded with her plan to put $1 billion toward avian flu research. But with sweeping federal government cuts from the Department of Agriculture to the Food and Drug Administration, including within the avian flu research team, it is unclear how much will actually get done.
"The actions of the Trump administration to unilaterally disable key roles of government runs completely counter to the proper role of government in providing food security and food safety," Babcock says. "It's almost as if the Trump administration...[is] trying to actually disable the government functions in those areas, and one of them is in food safety."
Additionally, relying on imported eggs also relies on the notion that avian flu will not spread to, or highly affect, the countries the U.S. imports from. So far, avian flu has been detected in 108 countries.
"We don't have a crystal ball, so we don't know how this could look like for those other countries in a month, two months, two months, six months, a year from now," Mitchell says.
Both Mitchell and Babcock agree that the solution rests in collective action to restructure the industry. Mitchell says more research on vaccines and biosecurity are needed, and that the problem extends far beyond factory farms to migratory flocks, too, ushering a need for more cross-departmental collaboration.
"The public good is the ability for producers to produce in a disease-free environment," Babcock says. "Private industry does not provide public goods at the right level."
Nina B. Elkadi wrote this article for Sentient.
get more stories like this via email
New legislation would bring the insurance industry under Oregon's Unlawful Trade Practices Act.
Supporters said the change would protect consumers from deceptive practices.
Tyler Staggs, an attorney in Portland, represented insurers for nearly 20 years. He said his law firm now advocates for consumers because of the insurance industry's growing unfairness. He cited such cases as a client left homeless when an insurer denied living expenses after a house fire. In another case, he added, a client was denied a claim after a brain injury from a car accident.
"Rather than paying the benefits that the insured paid for, the insurance company lowballs them and delays, to see if they can force them to take a settlement," Staggs explained.
Oregon's insurance industry is the only major industry in the state not subject to the state's Unlawful Trade Practices Act. The bill is scheduled for a work session in the Senate Tuesday.
Staggs pointed out insurance companies argued the change will lead to more lawsuits and higher rates for consumers. He countered if companies are treating people fairly, rates will not have to increase.
"To say, well, 'We shouldn't have this enforcement mechanism because it's going to raise your rates,' really seems like disingenuous and it seems like blackmail," Staggs contended.
Staggs explained under the law, if the court finds a lawsuit to be unjustified, the insured would be responsible for covering the insurance company's legal fees, which protects insurers against baseless claims.
Mike Leib, vice president of Precision Body and Paint, an auto-body repair shop based in Beaverton, said insurers exploit consumers' lack of time and money to fight claims. He noted negotiating with insurers has become combative, as they routinely delay and deny legally required repair reimbursements.
"They are declining required repair procedures by manufacturers," Leib observed. "That can result in an unsafe repair, which can result in a death."
Both Leib and Staggs said insurance companies' quality of service has been worse since the pandemic, when they closed local offices and started depending more on artificial intelligence. They added the legislation would make insurance companies accountable to fairly evaluate claims.
get more stories like this via email
As Los Angeles starts to recover from the firestorm, people are looking for ways to harden their homes against future mega-blazes.
Experts said the massive destruction from the Palisades and Eaton fires has some people discouraged, thinking there is nothing they can do to defend their homes.
Michele Steinberg, wildfire division director for the nonprofit National Fire Protection Association, said in fact, homeowners can significantly reduce their risk.
"Home survival is down to making sure that the exterior of the home cannot carry ignition," Steinberg explained. "By that we mean non-combustible roofing, siding, good windows that aren't going to crack under heat."
The home ignition zone is the five-foot area around your structure, so anything within the perimeter, including decks, porches, and fences, needs to be made of non-combustible material. Screens on vents work to prevent embers from being sucked up into the home.
California's statewide building code is considered one of the strongest in the country. It specifies how buildings should be designed and maintained and how they should be sited with appropriate defensible space. Steinberg added the state helps people find fire-safe materials.
"They actually list products that meet those standards," Steinberg pointed out. "You can actually find manufacturers and people that have provided those products on the California State Fire Marshal's website."
Experts also cautioned against putting dry wood mulch or climbing vegetation up against the house.
get more stories like this via email
Contact
