bettyyu's blog

In Kentucky, Rural Access to Basic Phone Service Threatened by Telecom-Backed Bill

Submitted by bettyyu on Sat, 2012-03-03 00:17
in

By Cheryl Leanza, Consultant for Progressive States Network 

Should the phone company be required to offer basic phone service to a state’s rural residents? That’s the question currently being considered by a committee in Kentucky’s State Senate.

The National Rural Assembly released a letter this week expressing concerns about the bill, SB 135, arguing that it “threatens access to what most consider a basic lifeline, including 911-emergency service, for Kentucky’s most vulnerable citizens.”

Washington Legislation to Spur Rural Broadband Killed in Committee

Submitted by bettyyu on Wed, 2012-02-29 16:05
in

By Christopher Mitchell, Institute for Local Self-Reliance

Lobbyists for major cable and DSL companies (Comcast, Frontier, and others) already earned their pay in Washington state this year by killing a bill that would have allowed some public utility districts to offer retail services on broadband networks in rural areas that were unserved.

THE PPP Connects People and Media

Submitted by bettyyu on Mon, 2012-02-27 21:56
in

By Melissa Marek-Donahue, Contributing Writer of High Plains Reader

There is no mistaking the need for a free and independent media. Even before the media encapsulated all the mediums of today, it was understood that a democracy relied on the people’s ability to share and discover truth, with freedom of the press a core part of the Bill of Rights. 

Local Origination with National Support

Submitted by bettyyu on Tue, 2012-02-21 18:51
in

By Hakim Bellamy of Media Literacy Project / Reposted from medialiteracyproject.org

It seems that the wave of support from media justice advocates across the country has helped to progress the situation of Albuquerque-based, public access television non-profit Quote-UnQuote Inc. Combined with a staff that has worked relentlessly to keep the channels from going dark and overwhelming community support, Quote-UnQuote has led an inspired resistance to a recommendation from a City ad –hoc committee to award the public access contract to a for-profit entity. The direct communication campaign by national partners and the local movement’s (including the Occupy movement) vigilant protection of access to free speech in Albuquerque has put the City Administration on notice.

Prison Phones: Making Millions by Draining Families

Submitted by bettyyu on Tue, 2012-02-07 20:53
in

By Clarissa Ramon of Public Knowledge| February 06, 2012

It is cheaper to call Singapore at 12 cents a minute from your Verizon cell phone than it would be to speak to someone in prison in this country. The burden of having a family member or loved one in prison is already heavy, making matters worse is the reality that families are continuously rung dry by expensive calls which include profitable “kickbacks” to the prisons themselves.

According to Prison Legal News, the cost of making a long distance phone call from a prison in Oregon includes a $3.95 connection fee plus .69 cents a minute, costing $14.30 for a 15-minute call. Compare this with making a public call outside of prison which costs anywhere from 05 to 10 cents per minute for long distance calls on landlines, costing a maximum of $1.50 for a 15-minute call.

For many families with loved ones behind bars, the choice between accepting a collect call and putting food on the table is a real and painful decision.  It may come as a surprise to many that the increased cost of these calls has nothing to do with the actual service that is being delivered. What is actually happening is that prisons have designed a business system that allows them to offset their operation costs onto the shoulders of innocent families and to reap a profit. 

The state prison kickback rate varies, with Texas accepting a 40% commission rate for phone calls and charging up to $6.45 for a 15-minute call. That same phone call provided by the same company in Maryland yields a 60% commission rate and costs a family member $17.30.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the government agency that regulates phone companies has rules that prevent monopolies in order to favor competition.  These rules, however, do not extend to the prison phone system resulting in monopoly rates for inmates.  This lack of oversight allows prisons to establish contracts with phone companies that include fees in the forms of kickbacks to the prison.  These kickbacks function as contractual bribes in exchange for a company’s monopoly over a prisons communication system with the outside world.  This has created a situation in which prisons select the contract with the highest costs, to add a greater profit to their coffers.

The cycle becomes more abhorrent as the U.S. government has increasingly turned to private industries to run its prisons. The prison phone system within the United States is a lucrative business estimated to gross $362 million per year. 42% of that cost or 152 million are kickbacks. Many states are quick to accept monies that fill gaps within their own budgets. To put it plainly, the public service of the rehabilitation of inmates has been turned into a multi-million dollar industry, at the cost of innocent families of inmates. 

While rates within the Inmate Telephone System used by the Federal Bureau of Prisons remain fairly low at $.06 per minute for local calls, and $.23 for long distance debit calls, long distance collect calls remain steep with $2.45 initial cost and $.40 per additional minute. Long distance calls are the most lucrative because many prisoners are transferred to out of state to facilities that have more room or run at a lower cost. The majority of prisoners don’t readily have access to funds from which they can cover the costs of the call deferring them to the collect call system, leaving it up to the recipient pay for the charges. Charges which include various “fees” such as the ones charged by private companies like Securus, which include a $2.99 “bill statement fee” and $6.95 “processing fee” for payments made online or, ironically, by phone.

In light of these disturbing trends, some states have made reforms and refused to participate in these abuses. Many states such as New York, New Mexico and Alaska have discontinued the practice of accepting kickbacks to some degree. In California for example, before SB. 81 was passed, long distance calls were as high as $3.95 plus 89 cents per minute. After the passage of reform, calls are now significantly less at $1.52 plus 34 cents per minute. Lawmakers such as U.S. Rep Bobby Rush has proposed federal legislation in the form of H.R. 555, The Family Connection Protection Act of 2007 during the past two sessions that would provide relief for the families of inmates. The courts have also driven reform in states such as Florida, Washington and Louisiana, where companies were forced to repay millions to families of inmates’ for overcharges.

Despite these state-by-state reforms, it is time for the FCC to provide relief for families and reform the system by addressing a petition advocates have been pushing for since 2003.  The first step in this process is to become informed, Public Knowledge hopes that people will join our upcoming efforts to pressure the U.S. government to intervene and stop prisons from profiting off the hardships of the families of prisoners.  

By Clarissa Ramon | February 06, 2012

It is cheaper to call Singapore at 12 cents a minute from your Verizon cell phone than it would be to speak to someone in prison in this country. The burden of having a family member or loved one in prison is already heavy, making matters worse is the reality that families are continuously rung dry by expensive calls which include profitable “kickbacks” to the prisons themselves.

According to Prison Legal News, the cost of making a long distance phone call from a prison in Oregon includes a $3.95 connection fee plus .69 cents a minute, costing $14.30 for a 15-minute call. Compare this with making a public call outside of prison which costs anywhere from 05 to 10 cents per minute for long distance calls on landlines, costing a maximum of $1.50 for a 15-minute call.

For many families with loved ones behind bars, the choice between accepting a collect call and putting food on the table is a real and painful decision.  It may come as a surprise to many that the increased cost of these calls has nothing to do with the actual service that is being delivered. What is actually happening is that prisons have designed a business system that allows them to offset their operation costs onto the shoulders of innocent families and to reap a profit. 

The state prison kickback rate varies, with Texas accepting a 40% commission rate for phone calls and charging up to $6.45 for a 15-minute call. That same phone call provided by the same company in Maryland yields a 60% commission rate and costs a family member $17.30.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the government agency that regulates phone companies has rules that prevent monopolies in order to favor competition.  These rules, however, do not extend to the prison phone system resulting in monopoly rates for inmates.  This lack of oversight allows prisons to establish contracts with phone companies that include fees in the forms of kickbacks to the prison.  These kickbacks function as contractual bribes in exchange for a company’s monopoly over a prisons communication system with the outside world.  This has created a situation in which prisons select the contract with the highest costs, to add a greater profit to their coffers.

The cycle becomes more abhorrent as the U.S. government has increasingly turned to private industries to run its prisons. The prison phone system within the United States is a lucrative business estimated to gross $362 million per year. 42% of that cost or 152 million are kickbacks. Many states are quick to accept monies that fill gaps within their own budgets. To put it plainly, the public service of the rehabilitation of inmates has been turned into a multi-million dollar industry, at the cost of innocent families of inmates. 

While rates within the Inmate Telephone System used by the Federal Bureau of Prisons remain fairly low at $.06 per minute for local calls, and $.23 for long distance debit calls, long distance collect calls remain steep with $2.45 initial cost and $.40 per additional minute. Long distance calls are the most lucrative because many prisoners are transferred to out of state to facilities that have more room or run at a lower cost. The majority of prisoners don’t readily have access to funds from which they can cover the costs of the call deferring them to the collect call system, leaving it up to the recipient pay for the charges. Charges which include various “fees” such as the ones charged by private companies like Securus, which include a $2.99 “bill statement fee” and $6.95 “processing fee” for payments made online or, ironically, by phone.

In light of these disturbing trends, some states have made reforms and refused to participate in these abuses. Many states such as New York, New Mexico and Alaska have discontinued the practice of accepting kickbacks to some degree. In California for example, before SB. 81 was passed, long distance calls were as high as $3.95 plus 89 cents per minute. After the passage of reform, calls are now significantly less at $1.52 plus 34 cents per minute. Lawmakers such as U.S. Rep Bobby Rush has proposed federal legislation in the form of H.R. 555, The Family Connection Protection Act of 2007 during the past two sessions that would provide relief for the families of inmates. The courts have also driven reform in states such as Florida, Washington and Louisiana, where companies were forced to repay millions to families of inmates’ for overcharges.

Despite these state-by-state reforms, it is time for the FCC to provide relief for families and reform the system by addressing a petition advocates have been pushing for since 2003.  The first step in this process is to become informed, Public Knowledge hopes that people will join our upcoming efforts to pressure the U.S. government to intervene and stop prisons from profiting off the hardships of the families of prisoners. 

 

Twitter Announces It Can Now Block Content By Country

Submitted by bettyyu on Tue, 2012-01-31 03:45
in

by Eyder Peralta / Reposted from NPR.org 

Twitter announced, last night, that it now has the ability to block content by country.

This means, for example, that if a Tweet breaks a German law, Twitter can now block it in Germany but leave it up in the rest of the world.

Score! for Two Rural Broadband Teams

Submitted by bettyyu on Thu, 2012-01-26 19:34
in

By Craig Settles / Reposted from the Daily Yonder

Can the strategy that raised enough money for a new Packers' stadium finance a rural broadband network? Communities in Vermont and rural Lancashire, England, have kicked off efforts.

Morry Gash for AP Fans like Steve Gash of DeForest, WI, invested in the Packers to build a new stadium. The same kind of ardor and hustle can create a rural broadband network.

In Green Bay, WI, football fans bought shares in the team to build a new stadium. Local ardor and hustle can raise money for a broadband network, too. Though bumped out of Super Bowl contention, the Green Bay Packers leave broadband advocates with a win: a potent strategy for community ownership of this critical asset. 



In five weeks the community-owned Packers raised $70 million for refurbishing its football field by selling stock in the team. More incredible than raising so much money so quickly is that the $250 stock share price buys the investor very little. The stocks are untradeable, pay no dividends, and do not have securities-law protection. Investors don’t even get a game ticket. (There’s a really fun annual shareholders party at the team’s Lambeau Field, though.)



Examining the path Green Bay took to execute this fundraising feat uncovers the seeds for successfully financing a community broadband network. The three main ingredients are belief in the cause, sound planning and a solid needs assessment.



Clearly, belief in their biggest community asset – the Packers team – is phenomenally strong. A share of Packer stock probably isn’t worth much more than a case or two of beer if an investor sells it back to the team. However, to mimic that credit card ad, the pride of ownership apparently is priceless.



This investor strategy can work if constituents believe in the power of broadband to transform their community. But will constituents put their money where their faith is? Two communities are saying, “yes, we do.”  



Good strategy raised in a B4RN



Eight parishes in rural Lancashire in northwest England combined to form Broadband for the Rural North, Ltd (B4RN), a community co-op. B4RN is selling shares. However, these can earn immediate tax breaks and potentially will pay back investors and the communities. So far, B4RN is over halfway to reaching its financial goal that enables the buildout to start.

B4RN shares sell for 1 pound each. Investors have to buy 100 shares minimum. Those buying 500 or more get a tax credit of 30% of the purchase price. Buying 1500 shares also earns a year’s worth of broadband service, or 15 months if investors buy before the February 29 Early Bird Special deadline.  Investors buying 3000 shares can donate 1500 of those plus the broadband service to a neighbor. And B4RN created a charitable organization to donate eventual profits to community economic development and other projects.

Closer to home, 23 town governments in Vermont recently formed a joint to venture to create – but not fund – ECFiber, an LLC nonprofit corporation that is building a fiber network to serve their communities. ECFiber is selling tax-exempt 15-year $2,500 promissory notes that earn 7% interest over the life of the loan.

fiber network in VT ECFiber A new non-profit in rural Vermont is financing and building its own fiber network.

The 50,000 residents the network will potentially serve raised nearly $1 million in 2011 and launched the buildout with 26 miles of fiber that covers parts of three towns. In a second fundraising drive, one of towns (Barnard) with just 386 households raised $350,000 to ensure the network touches another 1/3 of its homes. Constituents still have to pay to subscribe to the network when it’s finished. The foundation for these kinds of efforts already exists in hundreds of U.S. communities. Local leaders and citizens just need to understand how to execute the investor strategy. 



The devilish details



First, belief in the need for broadband is percolating pretty intensely in un-served and underserved communities. Individuals and local businesses are tired of waiting for better broadband and they’re looking for any credible means to get it. Tap into this sentiment. Heavily.



Second, capitalize on the fact many communities either have co-ops or are open to starting one, and they are likewise comfortable with the idea of starting a community-owned nonprofit. Wally Bowen is founder and Executive Director of the Mountain Area Information Network (MAIN), a nonprofit that has been quite a success since launching in 1996.



Recently on Gigabit Nation radio talk show, Bowen explained that co-ops and nonprofits are similar, “but the process of creating a co-op’s business operations and legal structure may be a little more difficult for some communities to navigate.”

Co-ops (tax-exempt entities as defined by IRS rules and validated by states' tax departments) are owned and controlled equally by the people who use a co-op's services and/or by the people who work there. All of those individuals have a vote in the business decisions of that organization, and share any surplus money earned by the co-op.

Nonprofits are likewise tax exempt and meet IRS and state criteria. All the members of a nonprofit organization, or those who receive services from one, do not own, have a vote in or are entitled to surplus revenues generated by the organization.

Wally Bowen has advised communities in both categories and strongly cautions everyone to evaluate and compare the two approaches closely. B4RN felt the co-op approach better suited their needs while ECFiber chose the nonprofit route.

shareholder in B4RN Lindsey Annison Barry Forde accepted a check from B4RN's first shareholder. The co-op in Lancashire is halfway to its goal. Third, ensure that local dollars and assets stay in the community rather than slip away to out-of-town corporations. The Green Bay community developed strong rules to keep the team and as much local money as possible. For example, there’s a cap on how many of the 4.8 million shares individuals can buy, thus preventing an outside takeover of the team. Vendors selling food and merchandise in the stadium raise money for community nonprofits. B4RN investors only get one vote no matter how many shares they buy.

Four, look beyond stock sales. B4RN created a charitable organization to donate eventual profits to economic and community service projects. In the U.S., there are currently over 400 community foundations that might serve this purpose (Communities can go to the Council of Foundations' Web site to find out if there's a foundation in their area.). Sharon Stroh is Director of Business Development for iMAN, which is a supporting organization of the Steuben County (Indiana) Community Foundation and the driving force behind that rural community’s broadband project. Also a recent guest on Gigabit Nation, Stroh explained how iMAN, after paying for the buildout, will split all subscriber revenue so 35% covers network operations and 65% funds local economic development grants through the Foundation.

Teacher Stroh Dean Orweiler Sharon Stroh facilitating a community forum on fiber broadband in Angola, Indiana.

Foundations are eligible to receive charitable (i.e. tax deductible) gifts as well as various grants that can fund a network. But to ensure compliance with the complex laws surrounding issuing stock and other investment criteria, communities must exercise extreme due diligence.



Finally, what ultimately makes an investment strategy work is a good needs assessment. This not only determines if faith in broadband can translate into stock sales, it also reveals keys for unlocking the doors to network subscribers, marketing partners, effective marketing messages and resources vital to success. Each community needs to determine the economic drivers that make sense for their particular locality. 



Constituents will invest in what they believe in when it comes to their individual and their community’s economic wellbeing. Compared to raising $70 million for a football field, funding a broadband network should be a piece of cake. Or maybe a piece of cheese.

Craig Settles is an Internet-technology consultant in Oakland, California. He also hosts Gigabit Nation, a radio talk show that deals with broadband and community development.

Phenomenal Explanation Of SOPA. By, Bob Lefsetz

Submitted by bettyyu on Mon, 2012-01-23 04:53
in

By Bob Lefsetz

“Just consume, don’t produce, don’t share.”

The content industries don’t want a distinction between what’s legal and illegal, that bit them in the ass already, with the Home Recording Act of 1992, wherein it was declared legal to make your own mixtapes, even share them. That horrified them. So they changed their game, they decided to go after the sharing itself.

Creating a Shared Visual Language for Mesh Wireless Technology

Submitted by bettyyu on Fri, 2012-01-20 13:49
in

By Joshua Breitbart of the New America Foundation's Open Technology Initiative

A compelling picture is definitely worth the proverbial thousand words for explaining new kinds of wireless networks – especially when that picture appears alongside comprehensible technical information. And yet our choices about visual and written language say a lot about just who we expect to participate in building, using and maintaining networks. Complex diagrams run the risk of confusing audiences of potential community network participants, especially if graphics are abstract or surrounded by technical details and jargon.

Opposing Censorship Isn’t Just for Internet Giants In Internet Strike, Local Groups Help Blackout Go Viral

Submitted by bettyyu on Thu, 2012-01-19 15:36
in

January 19, 2012 – As well-trafficked websites like Wikipedia and Google faded to black in opposition to the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protect IP Act (PIPA), local organizations across the country voiced their opposition to the proposed legislation by joining the strike.

Syndicate content