March 2016

Lifeline Reform: Add a Hard Budget

Why is it so easy for some people in Washington (DC) to spend other people’s money? It is one thing to be careless with your own finances, but it is another for stewards of Americans’ tax dollars or other monies to seem oblivious to the impact of their actions on hard working consumers. The desire to spend seems to exceed any interest in doing so in a rational and responsible way. This is exactly the situation facing the Federal Communications Commission’s reform effort for the universal service fund (USF) Lifeline Program.

Failing a major change in direction, the FCC is preparing to massively expand the size and scope of the Lifeline Program without the necessary inclusion of a hard budget or financial constraints. Such irresponsible action will balloon a program plagued by waste, fraud, and abuse and result in higher phone bills for every American – including those already struggling in the current economy. In sum, it’s a recipe for disaster, and I can’t and won’t be part of it.

The Internet Is For All of Us

[Commentary] Education disrupts poverty, and technology can help enable, enhance, and support the great education our students need. If we are ignoring those students and families who need Internet access the most, we are failing in our education and community policies. But even among people who, technically, have Internet access, digital inequities exist. They’re hidden and hard to find—until now. A recent report from the Joan Ganz Cooney Center reveals while nine out of ten families living in poverty are connected to the Internet in some way, many of those families are “underconnected.” Access to technology and the Internet are no longer a “nice to have” feature in our lives. These elements are essential. Besides the typical day-to-day activities you can accomplish with access, such as looking for a job, comparing and shopping for the best prices on the things you need, and communicating and staying connected with families and friends, access to information equals having access to education.

What we need to do is this:
First, we need to give them real—wireless—access: Many of the “special” programs available to low-income households only provide a wired, Ethernet connection. This limits the effectiveness of access if there are several family members who have to use the Internet.
Second, solutions must not have strings attached: Low-cost solutions often come with some limiting restrictions. For example, some require that the household not have had Internet access for six months. That’s an entire school year, putting many students further behind.
Third, we need more programs and more funding: While we have made some progress, much more can be done. For example, the Federal Communications Commission can continue to bring its Internet access programs up-to-date to reflect that Internet access is a basic necessity in today’s age.

[Jaime Casap Chief Education Evangelist at Google]

Video Relay Service Partial Compensation Rate Freeze Order

In this Report and Order the Federal Communications Commission provides limited compensation rate relief for video relay service (VRS) providers with 500,000 or fewer monthly minutes (smallest VRS providers). Specifically, it grants the smallest VRS providers limited relief, on a retrospective and going-forward basis, from certain Tier I compensation rate adjustments adopted in the VRS Reform Order. For the 16-month period beginning July 1, 2015, and ending October 31, 2016, the FCC directs the administrator of the Interstate Telecommunications Relay Services Fund (TRS Fund) to pay compensation to such providers at a rate of $5.29 per minute. For the period from November 1, 2016, to April 30, 2017, the FCC directs the administrator of the TRS Fund to pay compensation to such providers at a rate of $5.06 per minute. For the period from May 1 to June 30, 2017, we direct the administrator of the ITRS Fund to pay compensation to such providers at a rate of $4.82 per minute.

New York lawmaker wants to pay TV shows to get more diverse

The entertainment industry’s difficulties with diversity in front of and behind the camera were headline news throughout this recently concluded Oscar season. For New York State Assemblyman Keith Wright (D-NY-70)), who represents Harlem, the groundswell of attention to diversity is an opportunity to renew a push for a bill that he has been trying to pass for years, one that would offer financial incentives to television shows that hire people of color and women to write and direct episodes.

Production tax credits have long been part of the film and television ecosystem: In an effort to lure productions away from the soundstages of Los Angeles (CA), many states pay back to productions a percentage of their expenditures in the state that qualify for the credit. Traditionally, writers’ and directors’ salaries have not counted as “qualified spending” that is covered by tax credits. (Producers and the compensation for lead actors aren’t usually included either.) State Rep Wright’s bill would change this, making television writers’ and directors’ fees up to $50,000 per episode “eligible costs,” if those writers and directors are members of minority groups or women.