Latest news with #TelecommunicationsActof1996
Scoop
13-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Scoop
How Some Independent Radio Stations Avoid Sounding Like Corporate Drones
Before 1996, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) restricted U.S. corporations from owning more than 40 radio stations. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 eliminated these curbs, enabling single corporate entities to own unlimited stations. At that point, listeners 'said goodbye to regionality and creativity and hello to bland, homogenized programming,' filmmaker Brendan Toller noted in his 2008 documentary I Need That Record! Corporate networks continue to dominate the airwaves. BIA Advisory Services reports that iHeartMedia owned 870 stations in 2023, making it the nation's top radio owner, followed by Audacy, Cumulus Media, Hubbard Radio, and Beasley Media Group. 'It's monopoly after monopoly,' notes Toller, now the director of operations and new initiatives at the volunteer-run WPKN, one of about 100 independent radio stations in the U.S., according to Wikipedia. 'I think the call to independence and a free-form format is important as things become more homogenized, influenced by AI, and automated.' Founded in 1963, WPKN is a 10,000-watt station in Bridgeport, Connecticut. Its terrestrial signal reaches a potential 1.5 million listeners in most of Connecticut and parts of Long Island, New York State, and southwestern Massachusetts. Millions of listeners worldwide have access to its broadcasts at Toller says WPKN hosts about 170 programs. The content of these broadcasts includes music, news, public affairs, arts and culture, environment and science, and lifestyle. Besides talented local DJs, the station looks for 'organizers and activists who want to highlight people making their communities better in the public affairs realm,' Toller states. WPKN's DJs, programmers, and hosts have full autonomy. 'Our schedule is the 'you never know what you're going to get' chocolate box of radio,' Toller says. 'We don't have the playlist requirements that an obnoxious corporate station has. We are where freedom and human-driven, anti-algorithm expression lives. That, to me, is more exciting than a curated playlist because you get the personality [of the DJ] drifting and guiding you toward all this music or information if it's a public affairs program or podcast.' He adds that independent stations like WPKN enable local musicians, artists, nonprofits, and organizers 'to reach a wider audience [and] to get contextualized properly within their region, the times, and history.' In April 2025, NPR stated that the Trump administration's proposed cuts to federal funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting 'would have a devastating impact on American communities across the nation that rely on public radio for trusted local and national news, culture, lifesaving emergency alerts, and public safety information.' While Toller notes that such cuts will be 'major and grave,' they do not pose a threat to WPKN, which does not receive any federal funding. 'The station has remained largely listener-supported [since 1989], with a hint of underwriting from local nonprofits, organizations, and businesses,' Toller explains. Unlike WPKN, which is unaffiliated, some local stations disburse their content through independent networks like the Pacifica Foundation, which owns and operates non-commercial stations KPFA, KPFK, KPFT, WBAI, and WPFW. It also oversees the Pacifica Network, which provides content to more than 200 stations, according to the network's website. Britannica states that Pacifica 'funds and promotes news and public affairs programs, most notably 'Democracy Now!' and 'Free Speech Radio News.'' Meanwhile, the nonprofit, volunteer-run indie radio network A-Infos Radio Project presents 'an alternative to the corporate and government media, which do not serve struggles for liberty, justice and peace, nor enable the free expression of creativity,' according to its website. The freedom of expression that terrestrial radio offers may help explain this medium's enduring popularity despite competition from online outlets. 'Sparked by the advent of social media in the early 2000s, the landscape of communication underwent a monumental transformation,' the International News Media Association observed in 2024. 'This was further accelerated by the global lockdowns of 2020, where the demand for instant, online news reached unprecedented heights, highlighting the growing preference for short-form content among audiences.' Sound of Life, a platform designed 'to foster a community of curious connoisseurs and share stories through the lens of sound,' states that indie radio stations have grown in popularity despite challenges like overhead costs and rising rents. 'During the pandemic, the… [number] of radio and podcast listeners boomed, and habits stick. In the U.S., 92 percent of the population listen to [the] radio every week,' stated a 2024 article on its website. This boom may have helped several independent radio stations in the U.S. survive challenges that wiped out many British stations, including soaring living expenses and energy bills. Indie stations like WBHF, Aggie Radio, WFMU, KUCR, KEXP, the SoCal Sound, and Rinse FM have adapted to industry shifts by offering multiple streaming options. WPKN has also embraced the digital format. Besides posting content to its website, it maintains a podcast channel on all major platforms, an archiving system, and a video sessions format. Toller says he has witnessed a surprising amount of interest in traditional radio among young people. 'What's amazing to me is that the youth are being raised with these digital devices that are so attention-commanding all the time, and I see people coming in here from other stations who are much younger than me and are interested in this as a tried-and-true platform that has existed far longer than social media. If youth is still interested, that tells me this is going to be around for another 60 years.'
Yahoo
13-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
VoIP-Pal Affirms Court Acceptance of Second Amended Complaint and Service upon Defendants in Federal Antitrust and RICO Lawsuit
WACO, Texas, May 13, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Inc. (OTCQB: VPLM) announced that the United States District Court for the District of Columbia has granted its motion for leave to enter its Second Amended Complaint as the operative pleading in its ongoing federal antitrust and RICO action against AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile. Additionally, VoIP-Pal confirms they have served all Defendants through their legal counsel by the previously extended court deadline of April 23, 2025. Following the effecting timely service and satisfactorily responding to the Court's procedural inquiry, the Honorable Judge Randolph D. Moss issued an order on May 7, 2025, vacating the prior show-cause deadline and discharging the associated order. Defendants now have until June 22, 2025, to respond to VoIP-Pal's operative complaint, which alleges violations of the RICO statutes, the Sherman and Clayton Antitrust Acts, and Section 251 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, based on alleged coordinated conduct among Defendants aimed at excluding VoIP-Pal and other potential competitors from the mobile voice-routing market. If RICO violations are proven, liability could extend to all named Defendants involved in the alleged enterprise. VoIP-Pal will continue to provide updates as the case proceeds through the next phase of litigation. About Inc. ('VoIP-Pal') is a publicly traded corporation (OTCQB: VPLM) headquartered in Waco, TX. The company owns a portfolio of patents related to Voice-over-Internet Protocol ('VoIP') technology that it is actively seeking to monetize. Forward-Looking StatementsThis press release contains forward-looking statements as defined under securities laws. These statements reflect management's current expectations and are inherently uncertain. Litigation outcomes and settlement discussions are unpredictable, and there is no assurance of favorable resolution. For Further InformationCorporate Website: Inquiries: IR@ Contact: Rich Inza, (954) 495-4600
Yahoo
04-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Social Media Platforms Shouldn't Own Your Identity
Utah State Capitol Building overlooks Salt Lake City skyline. Credit - Joe Sohm—Visions of America/UniversalAccess to online services is as fundamental to modern life as electricity or water. And just as we expect our electricity to be reliable and our water to be clean, we should have high expectations for the internet. Today, our data represents our personhood; it encompasses our relationships, our thoughts, our interests, and the memories we create each day. That information should be controlled by us—not by Big Tech. Utah's groundbreaking new Digital Choice Act will help make that goal possible by finally giving people agency over their data on social media platforms. When the law takes effect on July 1, 2026, it will mark a bold step toward giving people—not social media platforms—control of their personal information. Under the Digital Choice Act, individuals will be able to use open-source protocols to seamlessly move their content and relationships to new apps if they are unhappy with the experience on a social media site. This portability and interoperability will give people the freedom to manage their digital lives without losing years of personal history. The law also gives people the power to delete all of their data when they decide to leave a platform. For years, it has been common wisdom that social media is not the product—we are. Indeed, users do not pay for access to social media platforms, social media platforms sell our attention to advertisers. The Digital Choice Act flips that relationship around to put users back in control. Today's social media giants use addictive algorithms to hook users, harvest data, and manipulate behavior for profit. Research has exposed how these practices harm society, especially young people. Americans are demanding action. Laws like the Digital Choice Act put people first. They lower barriers to competition and open the door for new social media platforms. History shows that interoperability works: the Telecommunications Act of 1996 spurred innovation in mobile services and broadband, driving over $2 trillion in private investment into the telecom sector. The UK's open banking reforms of 2018 unlocked a wave of fintech startups. As it stands today, people's livelihoods and digital personhood are continually at risk because companies control their data. We see this lesson playing out far too often. On January 19, when TikTok temporarily shut down, millions of Americans lost access to the relationships and content they had created over many years. The Digital Choice Act would have allowed users to take their data, content, and communities from TikTok and move these valuable assets to the alternative platform of their choice. Many others fall victim to arbitrary decisions by platforms that have no meaningful oversight and provide little recourse, appeal, or ability to leave. Laws like the Digital Choice Act allow creators and everyday people on social media to migrate their content and communities to other platforms that are better positioned to meet their needs. The law also enables people to share posts across other platforms in real time in order to reach their friends and communities wherever they are. The underlying problem of platforms effectively holding our data captive—and using it against us—is emerging as a defining challenge of our time. It is at the root of a business model that is harming our children, polarizing our neighborhoods, and undermining our national security. The Digital Choice Act starts by addressing these issues with social media where the harms are arguably most acute. However, the recent bankruptcy of 23andme, which put the DNA of the company's 15 million customers at risk, is a reminder that these questions have far broader implications. The consequences will only become more extreme as artificial intelligence drives larger portions of the economy and the internet. It is urgent that we fix this before it's too late. Utah has long been a leader in digital privacy. In 2024, Utah passed two laws (S.B. 194 and H.B. 464) to safeguard minors, enhance parental controls, and hold social media companies accountable for mental health harms. As policymakers and parents, we have a duty to go further. We urge other states, other countries, and the federal government to follow Utah's lead. Data rights are human rights. They should be protected by law. If people have the power to move their information across platforms, it will permanently change a broken system that is hurting our kids, communities, and country. Data interoperability is possible: social media platforms already have access to open-source protocols that make our information portable. Millions of people are set to benefit as better laws and better tech facilitate data portability and app interoperability. We can no longer accept a status quo where corporations hold the keys to our online lives. It's time to build a future where individuals own and control their digital identities. Shouldn't you own you? Spencer Cox is the Governor of Utah and outgoing chair of the National Governors Association. Frank H. McCourt Jr. is the executive chairman of McCourt Global, founder of Project Liberty, and author of "Our Biggest Fight.' Contact us at letters@
Yahoo
07-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
The FCC and Its Private Taxman Go to Court
There are seismic tremors rocking the U.S. regulatory state. Chevron deference is dead, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) is attempting to make large cuts in federal spending and hiring, and President Donald Trump has brought "independent" agencies to heel with increased presidential oversight. Also notable—though it has received little fanfare—is that late last year, the Supreme Court agreed to hear FCC v. Consumers' Research, a case that could shake the foundations of the modern administrative state. Congress routinely passes vague, open-ended statutes, leaving major elements of policymaking to unelected bureaucrats. Unfortunately, courts have been reluctant to rule that Congress has delegated too much power to an agency since the New Deal. Cass Sunstein, the Robert Walmsley University Professor at Harvard, once quipped that the so-called nondelegation doctrine "has had one good year"—1935, when the Supreme Court struck down two vague laws—and over 200 "bad ones." However, a few years ago, several justices signaled a willingness to revive the nondelegation doctrine, and FCC v. Consumers' Research involves one of the most egregious examples of congressional abdication to an agency in modern memory. After breaking up AT&T for holding a monopoly on local and long-distance phone service, Congress passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Section 254 of that law instructs the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to create a financial "support" system to subsidize telecommunications services for favored constituencies, including rural households, schools, and libraries. Congress left it to the FCC to determine how to fund this subsidy program. Notably, the law does not cap the amount of money the FCC can raise. Eventually, the FCC settled on collecting a fixed percentage of phone companies' long-distance service revenues and cutting checks to tech and telecom companies. But the FCC doesn't actually exercise those powers. Instead, it delegates its rate-setting and disbursement functions to a private nonprofit called the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC)—an entity Congress never authorized in the statute. Comprised largely of industry insiders and subsidy recipients, the USAC has exploded the size of the universal service fund, from $753 million in 1996 to $8.4 billion in 2023. The USAC's regular exactions from phone companies and customers operate on autopilot. Indeed, it appears the FCC's passive approvals of USAC tax rates would continue even if the FCC lacked a quorum to conduct normal agency operations. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit rightly struck down this accountability-shrouding subsidy program. The problem is simple: The Constitution grants the people's elected representatives in Congress "all legislative Powers," including the power "to lay and collect taxes." Representatives' obligation to stand for election constrains them from recklessly raising taxes, but the USAC—a private, unaccountable, and self-perpetuating nonprofit—faces no such restraint. The stakes are high, and it is promising that the Supreme Court wants to weigh in. Its decision is expected this spring or summer. The Constitution does not permit Congress to delegate its legislative powers, nor does it allow the government to empower a group of private citizens to exercise the sovereign power of taxation. Suppose Congress can offload its constitutional taxing and spending duties onto the FCC and USAC. What stops it from empowering grocers to set the food stamp budget, hospital executives to set the Medicare budget, or defense contractors to set the defense budget? Under the Constitution, Congress must make such difficult decisions itself—and face the people's judgment. The Cato Institute authored an amicus brief in FCC v. Consumers' Research, supporting Consumers' Research. The post The FCC and Its Private Taxman Go to Court appeared first on
USA Today
07-02-2025
- Business
- USA Today
Rooks: The Trump-Musk axis had parallels in Maine
COLUMNS Douglas Rooks Columnist Hear this story Three weeks into the second Trump administration, the key concept is 'disruption.' The concept originates with the self-made billionaire titans of the Internet, who made disruption their mantra as they shook established business, media – and eventually government – to the ground. They did this thanks to the little-known Telecommunications Act of 1996, signed by Bill Clinton, which ensured that the then-fledging industry would remain unregulated and untaxed – a law that looks worse every day. No one then imagined the empires of Google, Facebook and Amazon, feeding on the private data of unsuspecting consumers, 'monetizing' our daily lives and using it without any restraint or social responsibility. The disruptors have arrived in Washington, in the persons of Donald Trump and Elon Musk, the latter elected to nothing yet wielding power over the digital state, blowing past whatever remains of privacy. Need a break? Play the USA TODAY Daily Crossword Puzzle. Trump issues executive orders faster than anyone can evaluate, mixing in illegal and unconstitutional edicts among legitimate, if highly dubious, directives. Everyone's kept guessing. Trump announces 25% tariffs on American allies Canada and Mexico, levels sure to set off a trade war and, if sustained, a worldwide recession – then suspends them just before they were to take effect. The result, as a Maine editorial writer put it, is a lot of shock, but not much awe. Congress is left out, except to – Trump hopes – rubber-stamp his Cabinet appointees. It seems incredible, yet we have seen these types in Maine. Scaled far back to reflect the difference between a state of 1.4 million and a nation of 346 million people, the parallels are uncanny. Playing the role of Trump is Gov. Paul LePage (2011-19), who called himself 'Trump before Trump.' He looked and acted the part, notably the bullying and brow-beating. Unlike Trump now, he inherited veteran Republican legislative leaders, who found it impossible to enact much of his agenda, such as repealing the income tax, by far the state's biggest revenue source. After two years of squabbling, voters handed legislative control back to Democrats, leaving LePage governing by executive action. He wrecked the system of General Fund borrowing by blocking bond issues even after they'd received two-thirds majorities and voter approval, refusing new ones except for transportation. Nor has long-term investment recovered under Gov. Janet Mills, LePage's Democratic successor. Through six years, she's proposed fewer bond issues than any governor since Republican John Reed in the 1960s; the three mini-bonds last year came from legislators on the Appropriations Committee. Even more consequentially, LePage blocked acceptance of 100% federal Medicaid funding from the Affordable Care Act. He even defied a 2017 voter-approved referendum directing him to do so. It fell to Mills to institute expansion. Maine now has one of the most robust federal-state Medicaid partnerships, bridging coverage gaps and dramatically lowering the number uninsured. LePage implicitly acknowledged his mistake when, during his attempted comeback in 2022, said he'd accept Medicaid expansion. Yet damage was done. During the intervening years, Maine lost most of its independent local hospitals, acquired by Portland and Bangor conglomerates, who make all the decisions, remote from the people affected. Meet Maine's analogue to Elon Musk To find an analogue to Elon Musk, we must go back to Jim Longley, governor from 1975-79. Longley, a life-long Democrat and ace insurance salesman, headed up the Management and Cost Survey ('Longley Commission') for two-term Gov. Ken Curtis, the most progressive Democrat ever to hold statewide office. There was good reason for the study. State government had just been reorganized from 150 separate agencies into Cabinet departments, just as inflation from the OPEC oil embargo was biting. Longley did find things to fix, but became obsessed with costs and claimed he could save millions and millions without affecting services. When he became governor and a second, more intense wave of inflation ensued, he signed budgets with record increases. Longley disclaimed political ambition, yet used the commission as a springboard in the governor's race. In the topsy-turvy post-Watergate election, Longley as an independent beat Democrat George Mitchell – later U.S. Senate majority leader – and then-Attorney General Jim Erwin, the Republican nominee. Longley feuded endlessly with legislative leaders and had more vetoes overridden than any other governor – until LePage. He couldn't block a top income tax rate of 10% (it's now 7.15%). He attempted to strangle the brand-new state university system in its crib. Despite failing to repeal it, he crippled its budget with lasting effect. Let's be clear: Longley would never have attempted a reign of misrule like Musk's. LePage recognized limits to his power in a way Trump utterly rejects. In the Republic's dark days, that's scant comfort, but we've seen their like before. Resistance is not futile. Douglas Rooks has been a Maine editor, columnist and reporter for 40 years. He is the author of four books, most recently a biography of U.S. Chief Justice Melville Fuller, and welcomes comment at drooks@
