BALTIMORE – A federal appeals court heard arguments this week 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 create an uneven playing field in the eyes of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which says established, deep-pockets companies such as Facebook and Google would have an edge over small start-ups.

That could prevent the next Google or Facebook from succeeding.

Jen Yeh, policy counsel with the advocacy group Free Press, was in the courtroom and says 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,” she explains. “It prevents a tiered system of superhighways for the rich and slow speedways for the poor."

Several observers noted 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 of the Center for Media Justice, says 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 antiwar views within the current debate between the president and Congress on Syria," she explains.

Yeh adds 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 says. “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 year.








get more stories like this via email

An Arizona consumer group is applauding the U.S. Department of Energy's new residential water heater standards that they say will save American households about $7.6 billion per year on energy and water bills.

That's over $200 per month on the average residential utility bill.

Diane Brown is the executive director of the Arizona PIRG Education Fund and said the finalized standards will shift most new electric tank models to heat pump water heaters, something she calls a more efficient technology.

"Appliances that are more efficient enable Arizonans to continue to utilize the appliances they are familiar with," said Brown, "but using less energy at a lower cost."

The DOE last updated residential water heater efficiency standards in 2010.

Compliance of the new standards will start in 2029 and will result in over 50% of new electric storage water heaters to utilize heat pump technology, compared to today's 3%.

Brown added that the move will also help cut energy waste and harmful carbon pollution.

Brown encouraged Arizonans who are wanting to save money and energy to go to energy.gov/save - to learn more about tax credits and rebates when upgrading the way you heat, cool and power your home, as well as have access to other energy saving tips.

"Federal legislation, including the Inflation Reduction Act," said Brown, "have helped households in Arizona and across the country save money on everyday purchases, from electric vehicles to heat pump water heaters."

The amended standard represents what the DOE is calling a "moderate increase in efficiency for gas-fired, oil fired and larger electric storage water heaters."

The DOE is still considering amended standards for gas-fired instantaneous water heaters.

More than three in five Utahns believe the state is on the wrong track and their quality of life is worse today than it was five years ago.

A new report by the Utah Foundation paints a bleak picture about how Utah residents feel about their home state. Data in the report found the cost of living and government dysfunction were the most important issues for Utah voters in 2024.

Rep. Robert Spendlove, R-Sandy, an economist for Zions Bank, said there is growing political and economic disenfranchisement among Utahns.

"People just don't feel like they have the opportunities that they've had in the past," Spendlove explained. "The rate of inflation has come down in the last year, but the overall price increase remains. So overall prices are up about 20% in the last five years and so people are really struggling to adjust."

Spendlove observed Utahns are struggling to adjust to having to pay approximately 20% more on things such as housing, food, gas and even car insurance. He suspects prices are unlikely to come down and contended Utahns' income needs to go up but added it will take time.

The report's authors said the data is useful for state leaders to understand the needs of Utahns and get the state on the right track and improve quality of life.

Ahead of this year's election in November, the report found other issues relating to political dysfunction included voters feeling ignored by politicians, government overreach and partisan politics were at the top of the list.

Spendlove noted it is why he supports Utah Gov. Spencer Cox's call to "Disagree Better." He pointed out while the initiative aims to improve attitudes and behaviors across the political spectrum by incentivizing consensus building, he is unsure whether policy solutions at the state level are being discussed.

"One of the questions is, 'Do we revisit how people get to the ballot?' 'Do we lower the threshold on signature gathering?' 'Do we have different models of primaries?'" Spendlove outlined. "It is kind of early in that discussion, but I think it is a really important discussion that we need to be having."

The report found voters who participated in the survey expressed frustration in not feeling heard and contend elected officials pay too little attention to voters in favor of corporations, religious organizations or special-interest groups.


get more stories like this via email

Consumer groups are accusing major grocery retailers - like Amazon, Kroger and Walmart - of price gouging, both during and after the pandemic.

The allegation of corporate greed comes after a new report from the Federal Trade Commission found profits for grocery chains jumped sharply, at rates that could not be justified by supply chain disruptions.

Angela Huffman is president of the nonprofit Farm Action.

"It's one thing to raise your prices to cover higher expenses, but what these companies did is use the pandemic as an excuse to exploit the American people who needed to put food on their tables," said Huffman. "And the FTC report shows that they're still doing it, here in 2024."

The report found that retailer profits rose to 6% over total costs in 2021, and 7% in the first three quarters of 2023 - compared to 5.6% in 2015.

According to a report from Help Advisor, California households pay the highest grocery costs in the country, averaging almost $300 a week - about $27 more than the national average.

The Food Industry Association blames today's high prices on high labor costs and credit card payment fees.

Huffman said she thinks the feds should take anti-trust action to increase competition - and consider forcing the grocery behemoths to break up.

"That would be the ideal outcome is to take away their excessive power," said Huffman. "But other than that, these companies can be fined for this kind of price gouging. And that's another action we would support. There needs to be some kind of consequences."

The FTC staff report recommends "further inquiry by the commission and policymakers," but doesn't propose specific remedies.




get more stories like this via email