Federal judges order California to free 9,600 inmates

SACRAMENTO — A trio of federal judges ordered Gov. Jerry Brown to immediately begin freeing state inmates and waived state laws to allow early releases, threatening the governor with contempt if he does not comply.

Citing California's "defiance," "intransigence" and "deliberate failure" to provide inmates with adequate care in its overcrowded lockups, the judges on Thursday said Brown must shed 9,600 inmates —about 8% of the prison population — by the end of the year.

Unless he finds another way to ease crowding, the governor must expand the credits that inmates can earn for good behavior or participation in rehabilitation programs, the judges said.

"We are willing to defer to their choice for how to comply with our order, not whether to comply with it," the judges wrote. "Defendants have consistently sought to frustrate every attempt by this court to achieve a resolution to the overcrowding problem."

If Sacramento does not meet the inmate cap on time, the judges said, it will have to release prisoners from a list of "low risk" offenders the court has told the administration to prepare.

Brown had already taken steps to appeal the court-imposed cap to the U.S. Supreme Court, and he vowed to fight the latest ruling as well.

"The state will seek an immediate stay of this unprecedented order to release almost 10,000 inmates by the end of this year," he said in a statement.

He had immediate backing from the California Police Chiefs Assn. The court order shows "a complete disregard for the safety of communities across California," said the group's president, Covina Police Chief Kim Raney.

"Pressing for 9,000 more inmates on the streets," Raney said, shows "an activist court more concerned with prisoners than the safety of the communities."

But a spokesman for the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department said it did not expect to have to contend with a flood of ex-convicts to watch over.

"It is never a positive step when prisoners have to be released," said spokesman Steve Whitmore, "but the Sheriff's Department is prepared for this eventuality."

Brown has until July 13 to file his full appeal with the high court, the same body that two years ago upheld findings that California prison conditions violated the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

Lawyers for inmates, meanwhile, said Brown has few options but to let some prisoners go.

"At this point, the governor is an inch away from contempt," said Don Specter, lead attorney for the Prison Law Office, which in 2001 filed one of two lawsuits on which the judges based their order. "He must make every effort to comply immediately."

In May, Brown told the court under protest that he could further trim the prison population by continuing to use firefighting camps and privately owned facilities to house state inmates, and by leasing space in Los Angeles and Alameda county jails. In that plan, increasing the time off that inmates may earn for good behavior would have had little impact.

Thursday's order requires, absent other solutions, that the state give minimum-custody inmates two days off for every one served without trouble and to apply those credits retroactively. Such a step could spur the release of as many as 5,385 prisoners by the end of December.

A separate lawsuit, dating to 1990, alleges unconstitutionally cruel treatment of mentally ill inmates. That the courts are still trying, after two decades, to fix prison conditions was not lost on the three-judge panel that oversees prison crowding, U.S. District Judges Lawrence Karlton and Thelton Henderson and U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Stephen Reinhardt.

Their order accuses the state of "a series of contumacious actions" and challenges Brown's sincerity about obeying their orders. They noted that the governor lifted an emergency proclamation that allowed inmates to be transferred to prisons in other states, for example.

Requests from prison lawyers that the administration be held in contempt "have considerable merit," the judges wrote.

The governor's reluctance to set prisoners free early has the backing of legislative leaders, including Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento). He joked openly on Wednesday about intending to kill any population-reduction plans the courts might order the governor to submit to the Legislature.

Republicans in the Legislature have pushed a plan to resume prison expansion in California.

In April, they urged Brown to restore borrowing authority that would have allowed 13,000 beds to be added. They also asked that he continue to pay to house some prisoners in private facilities in the interim. Brown did not include such provisions in the budget that is now on his desk.

The judges said there could be no delays in compliance with their order for appeals or for amendments to the plan Brown submitted in May.

They rejected state officials' assertion that "with more time, they could resolve the problem."

California voters may be more willing than Brown to release inmates to reduce crowding. In a recent USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times poll, they were wary of sacrificing public safety, but at the same time supported steps to reduce crowding.

Sixty-three percent said they favored releasing low-level, nonviolent offenders from prison early.

paige.stjohn@latimes.com

Times staff writers Chris Megerian and Richard Winton contributed to this report.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-ff-brown-prisons-20130621,0,6492733.story

California Budget Puts Some Health Care Issues on Hold

by George Lauer, California Healthline Features Editor

California's budget agreement announced and approved last week puts a couple hotly contested health care issues on hold, making some stakeholders nervous and angry, but for the most part, this year's balancing act is kinder to health and social services than any spending plan over the past half decade, according to legislators and veteran Sacramento watchers.

"I would take this budget over the last five eight days a week," said Darrell Steinberg, Senate President Pro Tempore and one of the budget's main architects.

Steinberg, a Sacramento Democrat long considered a champion of health care in several  camps, acknowledged the budget didn't include all the health care spending advocates hoped it would -- particularly for Medi-Cal provider reimbursement and a certain type of autism therapy. Medi-Cal is California's Medicaid program.

"But overall I'm very pleased with this budget. You have to have some perspective. In 2009 we faced a $42 billion deficit in a $100 billion budget. It was almost half the budget," Steinberg said.

"Crafting a budget among 120 elected lawmakers and the governor is an art of compromise," Steinberg said in an email response to California Healthline questions. "Our goal is to get as much done as we can, and then work toward the next steps to deliver the help Californians need."

Early and in the Black

A week early, in the black and salting some cash away for a rainy day, California's $96.3 billion budget for 2013-2014  -- and consequently the mood in Sacramento -- is markedly different than recent years. For the past several Junes, offices organized betting pools to predict how late the budget would be and how deeply in debt the state would fall.

Thanks to a new tax approved by voters last fall and a recovering economy, the outlook is much brighter this June. The biggest winners in the post Proposition 30 budget are the K-12 school system and low-income working Californians without health insurance. Schools get more money and, perhaps more importantly, a new funding formula. Uninsured Californians who earn too much to qualify for Medi-Cal but not enough to buy health insurance will benefit from the expansion of the state's Medicaid program. Democratic legislators and Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown agreed to grow the Medi-Cal program as much as possible under the Affordable Care Act.

But money in this year's budget to pay for Medi-Cal expansion is ironically tempered by a 10% cut in pay for doctors, hospitals and other providers who treat Medi-Cal beneficiaries. Legislators and the governor decided to leave in place a deep cut made in one of the particularly bleak budget years -- 2011.

"The Medi-Cal rate issue is a very serious access issue," Steinberg said during a budget discussion on KQED radio last week. "You can provide all the insurance you want but if there aren't enough providers to be able to care for people, they're not going to get the health care that they need."

Health care advocates and organizations, including the California Medical Association, the California Hospital Association and the California Pharmacists Association, urged legislators to use higher revenue predictions in the budgeting process as a way to give the state leeway to repeal the 10% cuts made two years ago. Providers and consumer advocates predict that California -- already one of the lowest-paying states in the country for Medicaid services -- will have a hard time recruiting enough providers for the current 7.6 million Medi-Cal beneficiaries, let alone some 1.5 million more under expansion.

Steinberg said this year's balanced budget will give the state a better chance to increase Medi-Cal payments down the road.

"Being able to find the room to compensate doctors and pharmacists and hospitals more adequately is something that we ought to look to do in the future. We have a better chance to do that with the way we handled this year's budget than if we had taken the higher budget revenue estimate and spent more," Steinberg said.

Mental Health, Dental Spending Increased

The budget increases spending for mental health programs and adult dental coverage in Medi-Cal. The plan calls for $206 million to improve mental health care services, including $142 million in one-time general fund money in the coming fiscal year.

It also calls for $16.9 million this year and $77 million the following fiscal year to help partially restore Denti-Cal benefits for adults. Denti-Cal is California's Medicaid dental program.

Both are considered victories for Steinberg, who has been a leader for years in efforts to increase mental health and dental coverage.

"Three million people without dental insurance -- low-income people, mostly working -- are now not going to have to show up at an emergency room to deal with a root canal or abscessed tooth," Steinberg said.

"And mental health, which is always at the bottom of the funding priority list is now at the top with $142 million to build 2,000 crisis stabilization and residential beds so that people don't have to linger in emergency rooms or in jails or on the streets when they're living with a serious mental health issue," Steinberg said.

Steinberg in 'Sophie's Choice Position'

Earlier this month, Steinberg was named an "Autism Hero" by the Autism Health Insurance Project for his efforts in getting insurers to cover a particular kind of autism treatment -- applied behavior analysis -- known as ABA therapy. He has had some success in legislating that private insurers should pay for ABA therapy but his efforts to get the state to do the same fell short last week in budget negotiations.

Advocates in the autism community lobbied legislators to include money in the budget to pay for the treatment no longer covered under subsidized care since the state began dismantling the Healthy Families program, California's Children's Health Insurance Program.

"I feel like the governor put Steinberg in a Sophie's Choice position and that was just not fair," said Kristin Jacobson, president and co-founder of Autism Deserves Equal Coverage. She said not covering ABA therapy "is absolutely penny wise and pound foolish." 

She said new research shows about one in 50 school-age children in California has some form of autism -- about 2%. The state's decision not to support treatment for "something as serious and as big a public heath crisis as autism shows fundamental lack of understanding,"

Autism advocates said they appreciate Steinberg's efforts "but he's trying to carry the load almost by himself. 

The rest of the Legislature and the governor's office -- particularly the governor's office -- need to understand the importance of this crisis." Jacobson said.

Steinberg said he'll keep trying.

"Unfortunately this year, there simply wasn't enough room in the budget to fund ABA therapy in Medi-Cal for kids with autism spectrum disorder. I will not give up the fight, however. ABA therapy is the coin of the realm to help these children lead productive lives, and it's at the top of my list to get done next year," Steinberg said

Read more: http://www.californiahealthline.org/features/2013/california-budget-puts-some-health-care-issues-on-hold.aspx#ixzz2WaPCN4Gy

Loans Drive Poor People Poorer

Precinct Reporter by: Diane Anderson Nobody pays more for money than the poor. Ever since the economy tanked, banks that had started to reach low income communities with financial products have long since bailed, opening the door for tens of thousands of quick cash places to cut huge profits on the backs of the low income communities. Payday loan customers typically pay over 300% in interest on fast turnaround loans.  At last count, a recently released 2011 federal government study shows that 17 million Americans have no bank account, and 51 million are under-banked. The study shows that 29% of Americans did not have any savings accounts. Of all groups, African Americans make up the most unbanked or under-banked. Of the under-banked, Blacks made up 33.9% of households, compared to 28.6% of Latinos, and 28.8% of foreign born non-citizens.  Marlene Merrill, spokesperson for the Community Action Partnership of San Bernardino County, said that their organization frequently provides free workshops and financial literacy resources to help avoid costly scams. Usually, she networks with other local agencies, attending events and handing out information, but often the most disenfranchised community is hard to reach in a timely way. When the word gets out, the extreme local need is obvious. “We went over to a city Family Resource Fair a couple of months ago. I was stunned at how many people came. Some of the resource fairs at schools, they’re coming in droves,” she said.  This month, Merrill Lynch is putting on CAP workshops around credit. The Inland Empire Women’s Business Center is also holding workshops at their office on housing discrimination and predatory lending. Of all their programs, probably the best loved, but least known, is the CAP Individual Development Accounts program. The organization is trying to increase funding to bring on more people by year’s end. That program gives away $4,000 to qualifying low income participants to buy a house, continue their education or start a small business. CAP is also putting up flyers in theaters, at malls, and in the libraries to get the word out about free financial resources. “They’re there in the libraries using the computers. Interesting, when they’re in the libraries, they’re on Facebook, so we’ve really ramped up our social media,” she said. Sasha Werblin, Economic Equity Director at the Greenlining Institute, said fair financial products are a big policy concern that impacts over 34 million people, mostly low income people of color, who rely on check cashing or other alternative financial products.  Last week, the organization commended recent moves by Union Bank to help low- and moderate-income customers with low cost banking choices, and an “Access Account,” low cost checking and no minimum balance basic banking services. The new account with ATM access, direct deposit, and no overdraft fees is a step in the right direction that will hopefully spawn more banks that provide responsible financial products, she said. “I think folks in the advocacy world fighting for economic equity can celebrate this and what it stands for,” she said. “We all worked hard to ensure that CFPB [Consumer Financial Protection Bureau] is a safe place and will continue to grow and sustain itself.” CFPB is a watchdog agency that has been meeting with several industries and advocacy groups, such as Greenlining. For years, Greenlining has tugged at the ears of big bankers about the importance of extending socially responsible services to the working poor and low income families. The organization sees some recent products as a start to help the low income community; many dive into deeper poverty because of extreme fees from check cashing stores.  A recent Pew Center study, “Who Borrows, Where They Borrow, and Why,” shows that on average, a borrower takes out eight loans of $375 each year and spends $520 on interest. About 69% are using their loans to cover basic expenses, such as rent, mortgage, food or utilities, and the usage was 105 percent higher for African Americans than other races. The report showed that 12 million Americans used payday advances in 2010, the most recent data available, with borrowers spending about $7.4 billion each year at 20,000 quick cash storefronts. Since its inception, Greenlining has supported CFPB and several of its policy regulations that are addressing problems that communities of color and low income consumers are facing.   Another strong regulation move this year was Section 342 of the Dodd-Frank Act (DFA), and the creation of the Office of Women and Minority inclusion for all government agencies that oversee workforce development and supplier diversity. She said that Section 342 has given Greenlining and other advocates leverage and conversations with industry, and expand diversity concerns with regulators. “There is a huge barrier with improvements with supplier diversity, and lack of transparency in how they’re collecting reporting and spearheading these programs,” she said, adding that Greenlining is working with the new OWMI to make sure government agencies are hiring staff from the Equal Employment Opportunity department.  There is also a renewed push toward streamlining the process and better reporting. Barriers to communities of color in real estate is another recent concern for Greenlining, including “collusion,” meaning that some realtors are not getting proper access to property listings. They seem to be going out to friends, and/or offline conversations that alert clients to get ready for upcoming properties. It’s a lockout. She said that there is a need to engage ethnic realtors that have been redlined from the Real Estate Owned acquisition and disposition business, and bring them back into the fold. “Yes, we have heard that,” she said. “They are kind of those side deals that negatively affect other players who want to be part of that space.” Call Community Action Partnership Workshops at www.facebook.com/CAPSBC. The post Loans Drive Poor People Poorer appeared first on The Greenlining Institute.

Care 4 a Healthy IE

Friday June 21

3:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m.

Saturday, June 22

6:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m.

• FREE Community resources - 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
• FREE Kids' zone with fun games and prizes
• FREE Zumba classes
• FREE haircuts

Mexican Consulate Services Available

Sunday June 23

6:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m.

National Orange Show Events Center

689 South "E" Street

San Bernardino, CA 92408

For questions call 1-855-665-4621

White Privilege in the Age of the New Majority

From the outside, it may seem as though people of color are going through a renaissance. We are currently in the second term of our first-ever black president, and with the most recent appointment of an African-American female, Susan Rice, as National Security Advisor, it may appear as though black and brown faces are taking over the entire governmental apparatus.  While most would agree that the face of government continues to be white and male, the face of the average American is rapidly changing to reflect communities of color.  Data from the 2010 US Census revealed that for the first time ever, the majority of new births are to minority women, with non-Hispanic whites experiencing a 10 percent birth decline from July 2010 to July 2011.

As a Los Angeles native, I saw this trend play out across the city way before it was splashed across national headlines. While I feel a sense of excitement to live during a time of rapid demographic change, it’s plain to see that the old status quo is alive and well in cities and towns across America.

The tendency of schools to adhere to a zero tolerance policy has given birth to the school-to-prison pipeline that disproportionally affects children of color.  According to the ACLU, there is no evidence to suggest that minority children act out at higher rates than their white counterparts, but figures show that minority children are often punished more severely for less severe infractions.  Once in the system, kids find it extremely difficult to re-enter the traditional school system, and having an arrest record could have a number of ramifications as children transition into adulthood.

In direct correlation with the school-to-prison pipeline is the overwhelming number of men of color who currently reside in the most populous prison system in the world.  Black men are four times more likely to be arrested for marijuana than white men, even though the two groups have very similar rates of usage.

Incarceration is not only a strain on an individual, the effects reverberate to families of those incarcerated who no longer have a viable member of the family to provide financial a.nd emotional support. A majority of U.S states still disenfranchise ex-felons after their release from prison, disproportionally excluding men of color from the democratic process.

So what is the point of all of these facts?  I would like to make a case that even in the age of the New Majority, white privilege still reigns supreme, even though the leader of the free world is black.  It may be difficult for some in the mainstream to accept, but there are still two different Americas: one for people of color and one for whites. So when I heard of the White Student Union at Towsen University in Baltimore, Maryland my ears perked up.  This is not the first time that someone has established a white student union, but their founder and current leader Matthew Heimbach was recently profiled on Vice in a 21-minute documentary profiling the unofficial student group.

The video is eye-opening and in my opinion, exposes an attitude and belief system that will only grow stronger as the long-standing majority is reduced to a minority status. In 2011, researchers from  Tufts University’s School of Arts and Sciences and Harvard Business School found that a higher number of whites are perceiving, what they believe to be an anti-white bias as we move toward a higher levels of equality.  I believe in the White Student Union’s right to exist and espouse any set of beliefs its members wish. However, it is troubling to see that people as young as Heimbach and his club members still operate within a system that seeks to maintain the status quo even in the face of blaring inequality.

The future is hurtling us toward a new majority status whether we like or not.  Let’s work towards creating a society where no one is relegated to the back of the bus.  This way, it will be a smoother ride for us all.
The post White Privilege in the Age of the New Majority appeared first on The Greenlining Institute

CALIF. OKS EXPANDED MEDI-CAL TO 1.4 MILLION UNINSURE

Sacramento — The Legislature passed a major piece of the federal Affordable Care Act on Saturday, opting to expand Medicaid to 1.4 million low-income Californians, as it rushed to meet its deadline to complete a state budget.
The action came a day after lawmakers passed the main budget bill outlining a $96.3 billion spending plan for the fiscal year that starts in July.

Saturday’s votes were on a handful of targeted bills. They included ones that would provide college scholarships for middle class families, increase grants for those in the welfare-to-work program, restore dental care for low-income adults, distribute money for school energy projects, and strengthen oversight of the California Public Utilities Commission.

The centerpiece legislation was the expansion of Medicaid, which is called Medi-Cal in California. Broadening the entitlement program to reduce the number of uninsured people in the country is one of the cornerstones of President Barack Obama’s national health care reforms.

Several Democratic lawmakers called Saturday’s vote historic. “We don’t know for certain that this will contain the costs; that’s certainly the goal. But … we also make sure health care is not considered a privilege of the fortunate few but as a basic human right,” said Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco. “That’s what we’re implementing today. This is a big deal.”

Republicans raised concerns about whether California can afford the expansion over the long run, especially once the federal government drops its commitment from 100 percent to 90 percent.
Democrats included a provision in the bill that allows for future lawmakers to reconsider the expansion if the federal government’s share drops below 70 percent.

The federal government will pay the full cost of expanding the low-income health program for the first three years. It’ll reduce payments to 90 percent starting in 2020, putting the rest of the cost on the states that adopt the expansion.

Legislative Analyst Mac Taylor has estimated that by taking on new enrollees, the state could be responsible for between $300 million and $1.3 billion a year starting in 2020. “I worry about expectations that we set out for individuals with ACA in California and having the rug pulled out from underneath us without a funding mechanism,” said Sen. Ted Gaines, R-Rocklin.

Democrats said the expansion would help save lives, keep workers healthy and attract billions of dollars from the federal government into the state. Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, noted taxpayers and those who have health insurance are paying for the medical care of those who go without insurance. The Medicaid expansion will cover many of those who now receive uncompensated care, he said.

By LAURA OLSON Associated Press 12:01 A.M.JUNE 16, 2013Updated8:04 P.M.JUNE 15, 2013

AT&T’s Deregulation Campaign

by: Leticia Miranda

As the company moves to Internet-based telephone service, it’s looking to shed regulatory obligations that benefit low-income Americans.

Since 2010, AT&T has been waging a deregulation campaign in several states across the country while aiming to move its traditional, wired telephone services to Internet Protocol (IP)-based services, which transmit voice communications digitally. With the help of corporate “bill mill” the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), and support from companies like AT&T, state legislators have introduced a series of “model” bills aimed at preventing regulation of IP-based services in more than thirty states across the country, from Idaho to Georgia, Texas to New Hampshire. As the country moves to an IP-based telephone network, AT&T wants to completely retire its wired services and shed critical regulatory obligations that currently apply to legacy services. Now AT&T has taken that mission to the federal level.

Last November, AT&T filed a petition with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requesting regulatory relief in order to move its traditional wireline telephone services to IP-based services. The petition reflects many of the same principles as the state-level model bills, which strip states of any enforcement power over service quality and prices, and has been endorsed by ALEC. It would set a dangerous policy precedent at the FCC, as IP-based telephone services do not fall under any clear regulatory framework, and could have a dramatic impact on the future of basic telephone services. Public interest advocates say these changes would affect low-income people, people of color and rural communities most.

Although people are increasingly moving to wireless-only telephone services, roughly 17.5 million Americans depend on only landline service, according to the most recent statistics from the FCC released in 2010. Both the FCC and state Public Utilities Commissions regulate landlines: the FCC oversees interstate service and state commissions oversee intrastate service. This regulatory authority dates back to the early twentieth century and government efforts to foster competition in a telephone market that AT&T dominated. Since then, the federal and state regulation of wired telephone service requires companies like AT&T to offer basic services, such as emergency calling and directory assistance, and to ensure that customers have access to affordable, quality phone service. This set of “legacy” regulations has expanded telephone service to 96 percent of Americans at relatively affordable rates, but none of these landline regulations currently apply to IP-based service.

AT&T’s petition to move its traditional telephone services to IP-based services seems benign enough, but a closer look reveals troubling ramifications. In its petition, AT&T is asking the FCC to run tests of IP-based networks in certain, currently undetermined areas where it will phase out its landline services. In exchange for testing these networks and expanding its IP-based service, AT&T is asking the FCC for regulatory relief, claiming that the “burden” of these regulations is so costly as to prevent it from investing in next generation of networks.

“The trials we propose are intended to ensure that this transition takes place as smoothly as possible,” wrote Michael Balmoris, an AT&T spokesperson, in an e-mail to The Nation “They will allow consumers, service providers, and policy makers to identify issues that are raised by this transition, determine the best course to proceed going forward, and ensure that no consumer gets left behind in this transition.”

But the petition threatens to shed the very regulations that would protect consumers, say public interest advocates. Those “monopoly-era regulatory obligations,” AT&T argues, make “no sense” because they treat incumbents, like AT&T, as dominant providers in an IP-based broadband market that others lead. True, AT&T is not leading the broadband market, but it’s hardly struggling. Just last year AT&T was listed as the top Fortune 500 telecommunications company, with annual revenue of more than $126 billion.

“Nothing is stopping them from investing in the infrastructure,” says Edyael Casaperalta, program and research associate at the Center for Rural Strategies, an advocacy group that has been critical of the petition. “They certainly have the money to.”

In fact, the petition was filed just as the company announced a $14 billion dollar three-year plan to expand “U-Verse,” its brand of IP services, and its wireless and business networks. In a press release, the company said that the project would provide “high-speed IP Internet access via IP wireline and/or 4G LTE” to 99 percent of customer locations by 2014.

Many public interest advocates fear that the petition is a way to avoid regulating IP-based telephone services. “They are trying to start with a blank state,” says Olivia Wein, an attorney with the National Consumer Law Center. “That makes me nervous to flush all the rules.” Wein doubts that the company will accept regulation of these services after relaxing them during the test trials.

Given AT&T’s track record of providing slower broadband speeds to rural areas and tribal lands, many are skeptical that the company will act on its pledge to improve services for the entire country. Across the country, nearly 25 percent of rural Americans lack access to basic broadband, according to the FCC’s Eighth Broadband Progress Report. Fewer than 10 percent of Native Americans have access to broadband, according to a report by Native Public Media and the Open Technology Initiative at the New America Foundation. “We think the onus is on the FCC to ensure the focus is on consumers and competition, and to ensure the next generation of technology provides people access to reliable and affordable telephone service,” says Jessica Gonzalez, vice president of policy and legal affairs with the National Hispanic Media Coalition. “It’s important for poor people and people in rural areas who are often difficult to reach, where the business case to reach them isn’t as strong.” In a conference call last year, Randall L. Stephenson, president and CEO of AT&T, admitted that the company has yet to find an “economically viable” solution to bring broadband into rural America.

Infrastructure access issues aren’t the only aspects of the petition that concern public interest advocates. Another major issue is AT&T’s request to waive its obligation to provide universal service, a fundamental principle in the Communications Act of 1934, which extends communications services to rural and low-income areas. To implement this, the FCC established a set of policies and a Universal Service Fund, which is paid for by contributions from companies like AT&T. That fund supports several programs, two of which provide subsidized telephone installation and service. But in its petition to the FCC, rather than being obligated to provide universal service, the company is asking to move to a “procurement model,” in which companies would volunteer to provide services to rural and low-income areas, and therefore access universal service funds.

Without a universal service obligation, public interest advocates are concerned the company will have no incentive to serve rural and low-income areas. “Although AT&T argues that deregulation is a way to increase investment and build out,” writes the National Hispanic Media Coalition in its filed comments, “it is often the underserved and hardest to reach that are left out when profit maximization is the only consideration driving investment decisions.” The loss of the universal service obligation would affect a significant portion of the roughly 12 million households who reported receiving these universal service fund benefits in 2012, according to the Universal Service Administrative Company’s annual report.

Even households above the poverty threshold could be potentially priced out. Though an increasing number of people are using cellphones as their main telephone line, many low-income people and people of color choose landline phone service because it is “more reliable, affordable, and offers better service quality,” according to comments from the Greenlining Institute, a racial justice policy and advocacy group. About 90 percent of those age 65 and over live in a household with landline service, according to a 2012 report from the Center for Disease Control. Roughly 22 percent of Asians, 18 percent of blacks and 16 percent of Latinos have both wireless and landline telephone service, according to the same report. The price difference is rather stark. The least expensive AT&T family plan for cellphone service costs at least $59.99 a month for two lines with 550 voice minutes and no data, while a standard AT&T landline service with unlimited local calling costs about $30 a month, according to the company’s website.

Low-income communities wouldn’t be the only ones facing steeper prices, less protection and fewer options without these legacy regulations. Rural people who have historically been redlined out of reliable service from the telecommunications companies would also be impacted. “By requesting to retire [basic phone] services, AT&T is essentially asking the FCC to shut down the most accessible and reliable communications tool in rural America,” the Rural Broadband Policy Group wrote in their comments to the FCC. At least 14.5 million rural residents lack the broadband connection required for IP-based services, which means “millions of rural people risk an absolute loss of communication.”

The regulatory “relief” that AT&T wants to accompany its full IP transition could also impact basic rules and services that most people take for granted, like truth-in-billing, privacy, service reliability, protection from price gouging and protections from unauthorized charges. These regulations are covered only under Title II of the Communications Act, which ensures that telecommunications service providers like AT&T adhere to basic consumer protections. But IP-based services are not yet protected under Title II of the Act, which makes users vulnerable to exploitative corporate practices.

As AT&T fights this battle at the FCC, many of the ALEC-approved model bills with similar aims have been passed into law. One of the most recent victories for AT&T was in California, where last year legislators passed SB 1161, a bill that mirrors the FCC petition. Just as AT&T’s petition to the FCC seeks to do nationally, the passage of SB 1161 approved the deregulation of IP-based phone services in the state, eliminating any state role in regulating Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) and IP-based telephone services. This removed the California Public Utilities Commission’s authority to ensure service quality and require companies like AT&T to provide reliable service to rural areas.

SB 1161 was just another blow to the state’s already bruised communication landscape. In 2006, the California Public Utilities Commission voted unanimously to allow companies like AT&T to raise telephone prices at will. Since then, AT&T’s price for landline phone service has leaped from $10.69 to $23 per month, and the monthly price for measured service, which charges a fixed rate for a limited number of calls, has skyrocketed 222 percent—from $5.70 to $18.35, according to the San Francisco Chronicle.

Advocates say it’s too soon to tell how SB 1161 will shake out and are waiting to see how the bill will affect service reliability and prices. “Enforcement is going to be the biggest issue,” explains Ana Montes, director of organizing at the Utility Reform Network, a statewide utilities consumer protection group based in San Francisco. Montes says she has already received complaints from callers who say they were forced to move to VoIP-based telephone services, which are largely unregulated.

As advocates wait to see the long-term costs of deregulation in states around the country, it seems some of the FCC’s commissioners are already smitten with AT&T’s plan. In a speech at conservative think tank the Hudson Institute in March, FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai praised the idea of an All-IP Pilot Program and criticized twentieth-century regulations that hinder innovation and investment. He continued, explaining that a path that “clings to the past” would lead us to “a less competitive future” where “innovative companies would avoid the voice business because of regulatory barriers.”

In February, during a speech at the Rural Telecom Industry Meeting and Expo, FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel echoed this, saying, “We are all wrestling with applying the laws of the present to the networks of the future, and we must make choices that inspire confidence and private investment in our nation’s infrastructure.”

For public interest advocates, the petition skirts the basic tenets of the 1996 Telecommunications Act’s universal service provision, an update from the 1934 Act, which guarantees nondiscriminatory, reliable and affordable communications access across the country. “Is what they’re asking for going to get us ubiquitous, uniform service? Will people be left behind in this picture?” asks the National Consumer Law Center’s Wein. “If there’s no duty to serve with some affordable connectivity, you will have people who are left out of this great transformation. Once again we will have a communications network that will need help reaching everyone and be ubiquitous. I think that should be the goal for the nation. You need people to be connected.”

On May 10, the FCC responded to the petition with a call for more comments from stakeholders on potential trials of landline to IP-based network transitions, a move that “disappointed” AT&T according to its public policy blog. The FCC will continue to take public comments on the petition until it reaches a decision, but there’s no definitive date by when it needs to decide. You can submit comments on the FCC’s public comment page at fcc.gov/comments.

The post AT&T’s Deregulation Campaign appeared first on The Greenlining Institute