U.S. communications regulators (FCC commissioners) voted unanimously to support an open internet rule ("net neutrality") that would prevent telecom network operators from blocking content based on the revenue it generates. The proposed rule now goes to public comment until January 14 and then the FCC will review the feedback. A final rule is not expected until spring of next year. "The rule would prevent operators from discriminating against any legal content a third party want to deliver to consumers on their networks, though it allows for 'reasonable' network management to unclog congestion, clear viruses and spam, and block unlawful content." (Full Story)
In other words, internet service providers wouldn't be able to block or slow traffic without warning based on the content (and simply because the content is in competition with the ISPs). Like Comcast limiting bandwidth for certain sites that would broadcast TV shows or blocking/slowing internet connections for people downloading peer-to-peer files, because they want people to use their pay-television services. Or ISPs blocking or limiting Skype or other Voice Over Internet protocol (VoIP) systems because it's competition for Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon. Your ISP shouldn't control or inhibit the content you can access on the internet. And since so many Americans get their internet from these few large companies, this is a big deal.
To conclude, here are some interesting tidbits from the article: "AT&T President of Operations John Stankey said he is anticipating the rule with as much dread as if he were going to the funeral of a dear friend." Wow, dramatic much?
And "Senator John McCain, an Arizona Republican, said he introduced legislation on Thursday aimed at prohibiting the FCC from enacting rules to regulate the internet." Hold the phone, John McCain knows what the internet is?
A group of wealthy Germans have launched a petition saying the government should make wealthy people pay higher taxes. Yes, you read that right. The group says they make more than they need and the extra revenue could be used to fund economic and social programs -- which is especially needed during the economic recovery. They said that simply donating money is not enough, they want a change in the whole approach. They say, "The path out of the crisis must be paved with massive investment in ecology, education, and social justice." They held a demonstration demanding higher taxes (in direct contrast to the Tea Party protests here in the United States) and they threw fake money into the air. (Full Story)
Wow. A whole group of wealthy people with a sense of justice and duty to society? Well I never!
Republican senators David Vitter (Louisiana) and Bob Bennett (Utah) proposed that next year's Census needs to include a question about the status of a person's citizenship -- and if the citizenship question is not added, the Census Bureau's funds would be frozen. Critics say this is a ploy to discourage immigrants from participating. Representative Nydia Velazquez (D-NY), who chairs the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, said, "Every census since 1790 has included citizens and noncitizens alike, and presidential administrations of both parties have repeatedly upheld counting all persons residing in the United States." The Census Bureau also criticized this proposal saying that adding a last-minute change and printing new forms will be very costly, both financially and time-wise. It would set the census collection schedule back. (Full Story)
Maybe we should just count immigrants as three-fifths of a person. That's gone over so well before. Regardless of whether they are citizens here or not, they are in fact here. They increase the population of an area, they still drive on roads, their children still go to schools, etc. And the Census helps to allocate funding. Communities benefit from this state and federal funding given for programs and services. Why should an area be given funding for a population of 150,000 when it really has 200,000? Areas will be hurt by having an inaccurate count. In addition, there are many mixed households in which some occupants of the house are legal citizens while others are not (e.g., multiple-family dwellings, extended family members living together, children are native-born while the parents are not citizens). If this proposal is passed, families in these situations probably won't participate (i.e., won't be counted) out of fear because at least one occupant of the house is not a citizen. So it's not just non-citizens that will be left out. And, finally, as a social science researcher, having the most accurate count of the people that reside in this country and their demographics is really important information.
As for the very sensitive, contentious political issue with the Census -- reappropriation -- if all people were counted (both citizens and non-citizens) it seems there will be a pretty equal balance between red and blue states getting and losing congressional seats. So it's not like Republicans should be upset because they think blue states will gain a lot of seats at the loss of red states. It's suspected that California will probably gain some seats, but so will Texas, Arizona, and Florida (a purple state). And New York, Illinois, and Ohio will probably lose a seat or two. If anything, red states seem to be getting a better deal.
Sweden has also created new dietary guidelines taking into account both health and climate. Some of the new guidelines include recommending Swedes to choose carrots more over cucumbers or tomatoes because the latter two have to be grown in heated greenhouses in Sweden, which uses a lot of energy; eating fish less because Europe's stocks are depleting; and eating more chicken and rice instead of red meat due to the emissions associated with raising cattle. If the food guidelines are religiously followed, some experts say that Sweden could cuts its emissions by 20-50%.
Furthermore, next year Sweden's main organic certification program will start requiring farmers to convert to low-emissions techniques in order receive the certified organic seal on their products. For example, stopping the plowing of peat soil because plowing it releases a large amount of CO2, requiring hothouses to use biofuels for heating, and requiring dairy farmers to mostly feed their herds with locally grown food (at least 70% has to be locally grown). (Full Story)
Congress passed a measure that expands the definition of a federal hate crime. It is now expanded to include crimes based on gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability. Previously it centered on race, color, religion, and national origin. It is expected that Barack Obama will sign it into law. This expansion has been on the congressional agenda for a decade (and was a priority for Sen. Ted Kennedy). In order to ensure its passage, Democrats attached the measure to a critical $680 billion defense policy bill. The measure was named in honor of Matthew Shepard, the Wyoming college student who was beaten to death 1998 because he was gay. (Full Story)
I remember hearing about the Matthew Shepard case, and I was really affected by the story. I can't believe it's been eleven years. And I can't believe that it's taken all this time for this measure to pass; but thankfully it did pass.
No comments:
Post a Comment