What is an E-Visa?
The E category includes treaty traders and investors who come to the United States under a treaty of commerce and navigation between the United States and the immigrant’s country of citizenship.
- Treaty traders carry on substantial trade in goods, including but not limited to services and technology, principally between the United States and the foreign country of which they are citizens or nationals.
- Treaty investors direct the operations of an enterprise in which they have invested, or are actively investing, a substantial amount of money.
See http://www.uscis.gov/uscis-tags/unassigned/e-visas
What is the Investor Visa?
An E-2 Visa (“Investor Visa”) allows an individual to enter and work inside the United States based on an investment s/he will be controlling, while inside the United States.
What type of investment is required?
The investment must be “substantial.” In other words, the investment must be large enough to start and operate the business. The amount of investment varies on the type of business and the investment will not be considered substantial if it is not large enough to capitalize the venture. The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) uses an “Inverted Sliding Scale” to determine whether the investment is substantial in proportion to the overall cost of the venture.
Who qualifies?
Investor visas are available only to citizens of treaty countries.
See http://travel.state.gov/content/visas/english/fees/treaty.html for the full list of countries for the full list of countries.
For how long is it good?
Qualified treaty investors and employees will be allowed a maximum initial stay of 2 years. Requests for extension of stay may be granted in increments of up to two years each. There is no maximum limit to the number of extensions an E-2 nonimmigrant may be granted. All E-2 nonimmigrants must maintain an intention to depart the United States when their status expires or is terminated
Can I bring my family with me under an E-2 visa?
Spouses and unmarried children under 21 years of age may receive derivative E-2 visas in order to accompany the principal alien. However, the duration of visa for a family member who is of a different nationality to the principal is determined by any reciprocal agreements between their country of nationality and the US. Only if there is no such reciprocal agreement will the duration be the same as the principal applicant.
Can my family members work in the US if I have an E-2 visa?
Dependents may seek employment in the US by applying for employment authorization. Children under 21 cannot apply for work; only the spouse of the E-2 holder can.
How much does the E-2 visa cost?
Each visa applicant must pay a nonrefundable $205 visa application fee. Certain countries also require a visa issuance reciprocity fee. These fees are subject to change intermittently, please seehttp://travel.state.gov/content/visas/english/fees/fees-visa-services.html for up to date information.
What is required?
- Online Nonimmigrant Visa Electronic Application, Form DS-160.
- Nonimmigrant Treaty Trader/Treaty Investor Application DS-156E.
- A passport valid for travel to the United States and with a validity date at least 6 months beyond the applicant’s intended period of stay in the United States.
- One 2 by 2 inch photograph.
-
All male nonimmigrant visa applicants between the ages of 16 and 45 must complete and submit a form DS-157 in addition to the Nonimmigrant Visa Application (DS-156E).
- An interview at the embassy consular section is required for almost all visa applicants
What is the EB-5 Visa?
The Immigrant Investor Program, also known as “EB-5,” was created by Congress in 1990 to stimulate the U.S. economy through job creation and capital investment by foreign investors. Since the program began, certain EB-5 visas are also set aside for investors in Regional Centers designated by USCIS based on proposals for promoting economic growth.
All EB-5 investors must invest in a new commercial enterprise, which is a commercial enterprise:
- Established after Nov. 29, 2009 or
- Established on or before Nov. 29, 1990, that is:
-
Purchased and the existing business is restructured or reorganized in such a way that a new commercial enterprise results, or
-
Expanded through the investment so that a 40-percent increase in the net worth or number of employees occurs
Commercial enterprise means any for-profit activity formed for the ongoing conduct of lawful business including, but not limited to:
-
A sole proprietorship
-
Partnership (whether limited or general)
-
Holding company
-
Joint venture Corporation
-
Business trust or other entity, which may be publicly or privately owned
This definition includes a commercial enterprise consisting of a holding company and its wholly owned subsidiaries, provided that each such subsidiary is engaged in a for-profit activity formed for the ongoing conduct of a lawful business.
Note: This definition does not include noncommercial activity such as owning and operating a personal residence.
Job Creation Requirements
-
Create or preserve at least 10 full-time jobs for qualifying U.S. workers within two years (or under certain circumstances, within a reasonable time after the two-year period) of the immigrant investor’s admission to the United States as a Conditional Permanent Resident.
- Create or preserve either direct or indirect jobs:
- Direct jobs are actual identifiable jobs for qualified employees located within the commercial enterprise into which the EB-5 investor has directly invested his or her capital.
- Indirect jobs are those jobs shown to have been created collaterally or as a result of capital invested in a commercial enterprise affiliated with a regional center by an EB-5 investor. A foreign investor may only use the indirect job calculation if affiliated with a regional center
Note: Investors may only be credited with preserving jobs in a troubled business.
A troubled business is an enterprise that has been in existence for at least two years and has incurred a net loss during the 12- or 24-month period prior to the priority date on the immigrant investor’s Form I-526. The loss for this period must be at least 20 percent of the troubled business’ net worth prior to the loss.
Capital Investment Requirements
Please Note: Investment capital cannot be borrowed.
Required minimum investments are:
- General: The minimum qualifying investment in the United States is $1 million
- Targeted Employment Area: The minimum qualifying investment is $500,000
A targeted employment area is an area that, at the time of investment, is a rural area or an area experiencing unemployment of at least 150 percent of the national average rate.
A rural area is any area outside a metropolitan statistical area (as designated by the Office of Management and Budget) or outside the boundary of any city or town having a population of 20,000 or more according to the decennial census.
What is required?
- Online filing of Form I-526, Petition by Alien Entrepreneur.
- Upon approval of Form I-526 petition, either:
-
Filing of Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, with USCIS to adjust status to a conditional permanent resident within the United States, or
- Filing of DS-230 or DS-260, Application for Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration, with the U.S. Department of State to obtain an EB-5 visa for admission to the United States.
Upon the approval of the I-485 application or upon entry into the United States with an EB-5 visa, the investor and derivative family members will be granted conditional permanent residence for a two-year period.
What are the filing fees involved?
- Each visa applicant must pay $1,500 for the filing of Form I-526, Petition by Alien Entrepreneur.
- In order to file Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, the applicant pays $985 plus $85 biometric form fee.
- To adjust status each visa applicant must pay $3,750 to file Form I-829 petition, plus $85 biometric filing fee
EB-5 Dependents
Your spouse and unmarried children under the age of 21 may be admitted to the U.S. with you on a two-year conditional period. If your I-829 petition to remove conditions is approved, the conditions will be removed from your spouse and children’s Green Card status. As lawful permanent residents (Green Card holders) your spouse and children will be authorized to work or attend school in the U.S.
If you are interested in obtaining an E-visa, please contact us so that we may guide you through the process. We have experienced lawyers, and other business advisors, who will be able to provide business and legal advisory services so that your application for the right E visa is approved.
Thousands of unaccompanied children from Central America have illegally crossed the Mexican border into the United States since October creating an immigration crisis that has been prominently displayed on the news over the past several months.
Voters are split over how to view the border crisis: some consider it a national security issue, and others see it mostly as an immigration issue. Democrats lean more toward seeing it as an immigration issue, while Republicans are more likely to take the opposite view. No matter how you view it, what can be done about it?
According to a Fox News poll, voters prefer an immigration reform plan involving a pathway to citizenship over no action at all. Congress has thus far failed to pass any meaningful reform, and if the only action they pass is a pathway for certain illegal immigrants to remain in the country, 65 percent of those polled said they would support such action. Only 20 percent said they would prefer Congress “do nothing at all.”
There is bipartisan support for immigration reform (76 percent of Democrats and 56 percent of Republicans favor reform) but there is a great deal of difference between what the parties want to achieve. Republicans are generally against a pathway to citizenship, but the Fox News poll suggests that they’d be willing to support it if the only alternative was doing nothing at all. Further, voters under age 35 (73 percent) are more likely than those ages 65 and over (60 percent) to favor a pathway to citizenship.
Before leaving for the summer recess, House republicans passed two immigration bills. The bills would provide emergency funding to deal with the crisis, speed the deportations of most border-crossers and rescind President Obama’s authority to decide whether to deport certain illegal immigrants. However, these measures are unlikely to become law, as the White House, most Democrats and immigration advocates strongly oppose the proposals.
Now that Congress is out of session we will not see any reforms until they return, but it will be interesting to see how this story develops.
See the full results of the poll here: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2014/08/14/fox-news-polls-immigration-ebola-obamacare-2014-midterm-elections/
A man who forced four children to do household chores by beating them did not violate the federal law banning forced labor according to a striking opinion by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, based in Cincinnati. The Court held that even though the behavior of Jean Claude Kodjo Toviave was reprehensible and deplorable, it did not violate the federal forced labor law.
Toviave brought the children to the country illegally and forced them to cook, clean, do the laundry, study and occasionally babysit. All the children were relatives. “Toviave apparently demanded absolute obedience from the children,” the opinion said, “Toviave hit the children with his hands, and with plunger sticks, ice scrapers, and broomsticks, often for minor oversights or violations of seemingly arbitrary rules.”
Teachers suspected abuse, and the four were removed from Toviave’s home. A search of the home turned up false immigration documents, which lead Toviave to plead guilty to mail and visa fraud; however, he decided to go to trial on the forced labor charge and was subsequently convicted.
In its opinion, the appellate Court focused on three points in concluding that Toviave’s conduct was not forced labor. First, the court said, “forcing children to do household chores cannot be forced labor without reading the statute as making most responsible American parents and guardians into federal criminals.” Second, “requiring a child to perform those same chores by means of child abuse does not change the nature of the work.” And third, “if it did, the forced labor statute would federalize the traditionally state-regulated area of child abuse.”
The 6th Circuit relied on the Supreme Court's decision this past June in Bond v. United States. Bond held that a federal law enacted to implement a chemical-weapons treaty did not cover the acts of a woman who used chemicals in an attempt to injure a romantic rival. The Supreme Court in Bond vacated the conviction, in part on the grounds that the statute was not intended to cover the actions in question and the conduct was properly covered by state law. Similarly, the 6th Circuit here stated that “we should be cautious in inferring congressional intent to criminalize activity traditionally regulated by the states.” The court reversed Toviave’s conviction for forced labor.
Read the opinion here: http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/14a0170p-06.pdf
|
Students in multiple states experienced delays and failures when trying to upload their bar exams this past Tuesday, July 28th, 2014. The two day bar examination comprises of a six hour all essay state portion and a multi-state (MBE) multiple choice portion given the following day.
|
|
ExamSoft, the company which provides software for bar exam takers who wish to use their computers for the essay portion, experienced massive issues in the administration of Tuesday’s exam. All computer test-takers are required to use this software, and must pay a fee, typically ranging from $100-$150 depending on the state, for the right to use it.
State Bars provide deadlines for when the exams must be uploaded, typically by Tuesday night, and the ExamSoft failure caused many applicants to miss those deadlines. ExamSoft purportedly made arrangement with the states to extend those deadlines, but applicants were forced to stay up all hours of the night ensuring their exams were submitted, causing unnecessary stress and loss of sleep before Wednesday’s MBE.
According to ExamSoft, the delays were caused by a “processing issue” and it was “not at all a system-wide failure.” Vice President of marketing Kenneth Knotts told AP. “At no point in time was the integrity of their exam files ever affected.” ExamSoft does not seem understand the gravity of the situation. The following e-mail was sent to applicants late Tuesday night:
|
Dear Applicant,
It is understood that you may have experienced delays in attempting to upload youranswers from earlier today. We are currently working to resolve the situation. In the meantime, we wanted to decrease your concern by reminding you that you have until tomorrow evening to submit your answers. We recommend that you focus your attention on trying to ensure you are rested and prepared for tomorrow’s exam and forgo continuing to attempt to submit your answers tonight. Please re-attempt to submit your answers by the upload deadline tomorrow. We appreciate your forbearance with the situation.
ExamSoft Support
|
Further, ExamSoft has made no efforts to issue refunds to any affected test-takers. They are maintaining that all applicants agreed when paying and registering for the software, that there would be no refunds.
Read more on the story here:http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/barmageddon_bar_exam_takers_in_multiple_states_cant_upload_tests_deadlines_/?utm_source=maestro&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=weekly_email
|
Beginning August 15, 2014, employers with 10 or more employees working in Baltimore City must remove questions asking candidates about their criminal backgrounds from their employment applications. The purpose of the law is to prevent unfair elimination of employees and applicants with criminal histories from employment consideration. Employers will further be prohibited from questioning prospective employment candidates about their criminal background during the initial interview stages. Employers will only be allowed to ask about this information once a conditional offer of employment has been made.
There are two types of criminal history the law addresses: arrest records and conviction records. Regarding arrest records, employers will be prohibited from asking or requiring applicants to disclose any arrest or criminal accusation that is neither pending and nor resulted in a conviction.
With regard to conviction records, employers will be prohibited from asking or requiring the following during the initial hiring process: (1) asking an applicant about their criminal record, (2) requiring an applicant to disclose his or her criminal record or (3) conducting a criminal record check on an applicant. A criminal record is defined as conviction arising from a verdict or plea of guilty or nolo contendere. Once a conditional offer of employment is extended, an employer may at that time enquire about conviction records.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), which enforces Title VII, the federal law prohibiting discrimination in employment matters, states that applicant convictions should only be considered by employers when the convictions are “job related.” In other words, employers should do targeted screening according to the nature of the specific job, and take into consideration the nature of the crime.
It should be noted that the law does not apply to employers who are authorized by law to consider an applicant’s criminal history. For example, a transportation company has the right to inquire into an applicant’s driving convictions, and child/elder care facilities can continue to screen their employees as required by Maryland law.
For violations, applicants or employees can file a complaint with the Baltimore Community Relations Commission. Violations of the law can result in criminal penalties for the employer of up to a $500 fine and 90 days’ imprisonment for each offense. The Commission may also award any or all of the following remedies: back pay for lost wages caused by the violation, reinstatement to employment, compensatory damages and/or attorneys’ fees.
Employers who will be affected by the new law should immediately review their hiring procedures, including their employment applications to ensure compliance. Any application questions pertaining to an applicant’s criminal history should be removed.
If you are an employer with employees in Baltimore City, contact us today. The attorneys at C. Dixon Global Law can review your application materials to ensure that they are compliant before the August 15, 2014 deadline.
See Baltimore City ordinance here: http://www.nelp.org/page/-/SCLP/2014/Baltmore_Ordinance_2014.pdf
A grand total of 21,802 people took the LSAT this past June. This is the lowest level in 14 years. After seeing a 1% rise in the number of test-takers in February from the previous year, law schools were hopeful that the law school crisis had turned a corner, and that maybe the numbers would continue to rise from their previous state of decline. Much to the chagrin of law schools, this turned out not to be the case.
The LSAT (Law School Admission Test) is a half-day exam given four times a year in annual cycles starting in June. A total of 105,532 people took the test during the 2013-2014 cycle falling 6.2% from the year before.
What is to blame for the record low number of people seeking to enroll in law school? Poor job prospects could be a factor. Once, attending law school meant you had a reasonable probability of finding long-term legal employment after graduation. That is no longer the case. Last year, 11.2 percent of law school graduates were still unemployed nine months after graduation, and only 61.6 percent had a job that required bar passage. Contrast that to the national unemployment rate for recent college graduates of only 10.9 percent, showing that law graduates were worse off than other recent students. The debt load could be another factor. The average debt for three years of law school is $122,158 for private school graduates and $84,600 for public school graduates. With poor job prospects, that is a lot of debt for someone to take on.
With less competition for jobs, next year’s incoming class of law students should have an easier time finding a job once they graduate. But the situation will still not be great. Has the amount of LSAT test-takers leveled off? Will it continue to decline? Or will it bounce back to its previous level? Unless prospective students see a change in the job market, they are not likely to seek out a legal education in the same numbers that they once did.
Read Wall Street Journal article here: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2014/07/11/number-of-lsat-test-takers-in-june-falls-to-14-year-low/
|
In the wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., No. 13–354, the Court has issued another order affecting the obligations of employers to provide coverage for contraception for their employees.
Under the Affordable Care Act (“ACA”), religious nonprofits who do not want to offer contraception may submit a short form, known as Form 700, to the Secretary of Health and Human Services which affirms their religious objection to providing contraception. Form 700 enables the company’s insurers or third-party administrators to provide for coverage of birth control instead of the employer.
|
|
|
In the case of Wheaton College v. Burwell, No. 13A1284, Wheaton College, an evangelical Protestant liberal arts college in Illinois, has objected to the requirements to file Form 700 on the grounds that doing so violates their religious beliefs. According to Wheaton, and other religious nonprofits, the mere signing of a form noting their religious objection to contraception coverage triggered third parties to provide the contraception, which triggered women to have access to morning-after pills and IUDs, which in their view were akin to abortions, and thus violated their religious consciences.
In a 6-3 decision, the Court agreed, issuing a temporary injunction against the enforcement of this provision of the ACA against Wheaton. What is interesting about this case is that the very work around that the majority in Hobby Lobby said was available as a less restrictive alternative, has now itself been deemed too restrictive. The Court in Hobby Lobby stressed that its decision was narrow, applying only to closely-held, family owned, for-profits businesses and because there was a less restrictive alternative, the contraception mandate violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). However, the very alternative mentioned in that case has now also been deemed too restrictive under RFRA.
The Court makes clear in its Wheaton College order that it is not a final decision on the merits, merely a ruling on an emergency injunction. However, the Court has instructed lower courts to revisit their decisions in light of the Hobby Lobby decision, and many of those cases address issues similar to those raised by Wheaton College. Is the Court’s ruling in Hobby Lobby truly as narrow as it claims and what will come of the ACA down the road? This will be an interesting case to follow as the Court will likely reach a decision on the merits next term.
Read the Order here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13a1284_ap6c.pdf
|
Today, the Supreme Court issued its hotly anticipated decision on Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., No. 13–354. The decision represents a victory for those who believe corporations may exercise certain religious freedoms.
The case involves legal challenges to regulations issued by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA). The ACA requires nonexempt employers with 50 or more full-time employees to offer group health plans that provide “preventive care and screenings” to women without “any cost sharing requirements.” Failure on the part of an employer to supply required health coverage may result in a significant penalty ranging from as low as $100 per day for each affected individual to a maximum of $2,000 per year for each full-time employee.
Congress did not specify which types of preventive care must be covered under ACA; rather, the matter was left to the discretion of HHS. Under the Women’s Preventive Services Guidelines issued by HHS, nonexempt employers are required to provide coverage for “[a]ll Food and Drug Administration [(FDA)] approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling.” HHS also exempted religious employers, such as churches, and religious nonprofit organizations from the contraceptive mandate. Instead, the HHS regulations require the group-health-insurance issuer to exclude contraceptive coverage from the employer’s plan and provide plan participants with separate payment plans for contraceptive services without imposing any cost sharing requirements on the employer.
Of the 20 contraceptive methods approved FDA, four may have the effect of preventing an already fertilized egg from developing any further by inhibiting its attachment to the uterus. Three closely held for-profit corporations sought preliminary injunctions against HHS and other Federal officials and agencies. The corporations included, Hobby Lobby Stores, Mardel, and Conestoga Wood Specialties. The owners of the corporations refused to offer employees cost-free access to the four dubious contraceptive methods under their health plans. The owners believed that facilitating access to such contraceptive drugs or devices that induce abortions violate their sincerely held religious and Christian beliefs.
In a narrow 5-4 ruling, Justice Alito held that the HHS regulations imposing the contraceptive mandate on the closely held corporations violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA). The RFRA prohibits the “Government [from] substantially burden[ing] a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability” unless the Government “demonstrates that application of the burden to the person is (1) in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.” The term “person” was broadly defined under the statute to include corporations.
In deciding the case in favor of the corporations, the Court assumed that the interest in guaranteeing cost-free access to the four challenged contraceptive methods is compelling. But, the Court found that the Government had failed to show that the contraceptive mandate is the least restrictive means of furthering that interest. In particular, HHS did not show that it lacks other means of achieving its desired goal without imposing a substantial burden on the exercise of religion by the corporations in the case. Despite this ruling, the case is to be narrowly construed: as it applies only to family-owned, closely held corporations with clearly established religious views; and concerns only the contraceptive mandate. The Court stated:
"Our decision should not be understood to hold that an insurance coverage mandate must necessarily fall if it conflicts with an employer’s religious beliefs. Other coverage requirements, such as immunizations, may be supported by different interests (for example, the need to combat the spread of infectious diseases) and may involve different arguments about the least restrictive means of providing them.
Our decision today provides no . . . shield [to employers who might cloak discrimination as religious practice to escape sanction.”
Both Texan Senators hailed the Supreme Court decision, with Senator Ted Cruz calling the decision a “landmark victory for religious liberty.”
Shortly following the ruling, the White House responded by stating that the Supreme Court’s ruling jeopardizes the health of women, and that it would be seeking alternative ways to guarantee protection for women employed by these corporations.
Read the decision here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pd
Do you feel that you are in over your head? That your debts are consuming you? Many people have turned to bankruptcy as a solution to their financial distress. Maybe to stop a foreclosure or a repossession of a car. Whatever the reason, bankruptcy can provide a fresh start; allowing you to rebuild your credit and get back on a healthy financial footing.
DO I NEED A LAWYER?
You are not legally required to have an attorney file for bankruptcy; however, an experienced bankruptcy attorney will help you fully understand your options and avoid potential pitfalls. Problems that could result include losing your home or other property you are trying to protect, that you otherwise may have been able to protect had you sought out legal advice.
WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF BANKRUPTCY?
An individual filing for bankruptcy generally must decide whether to file for protection under Chapter 7 or 13, depending upon the circumstances. All debts must be listed, regardless of whether or not you wish to continue paying them.
Chapter 7 is the liquidation chapter. A chapter 7 case typically remains open for six (6) months (from filing to final decree), with a discharge being entered within ninety (90) days of the filing of the petition. You are entitled to exempt the value of certain assets from the estate in order to keep them, such as clothes, furniture, jewelry, cash, etc. There are additional exemptions that may be available and we can provide further advice to maximize your exemptions and minimize your risk. Chapter 7 is known as the liquidation chapter because all non-exempt property is liquidated (“sold”) to pay the creditors and the remaining debt is discharged. The vast majority of cases are what are known as “no asset cases.” Meaning, after your exemptions are claimed, there is no property left to be sold.
Chapter 13 is commonly referred to as a “wage earners” plan. This chapter is primarily filed by someone whose house is in foreclosure, has substantial non-exempt assets, or income is above the median average. Under Chapter 13, a repayment plan is proposed to the creditors for payments from three (3) to five (5) years in length. A portion of your wages are garnished through your employer and paid to a Chapter 13 Trustee who administers the plan and pays your creditors.
IF I FILE FOR BANKRUPTCY, WILL I LOSE EVERYTHING I OWN?
No. Individual debtors may exempt certain property and keep it throughout the bankruptcy. Additional exemptions, such as certain retirement and pension accounts, tools of the trade and personal injury awards are also available. We can explain how to list your assets properly and maximize your exemptions.
WHAT HAPPENS AFTER I FILE FOR BANKRUPTCY?
Once you file, an “automatic stay” goes into effect, preventing creditors from pursuing any further efforts to collect the debt. This includes staying a foreclosure sale, wage garnishment, and even a civil court proceeding or trial.
In some cases, you may be able to recover money taken from you within the ninety (90) days prior to filing of your bankruptcy. It is important to note that if you are contemplating filing for bankruptcy, certain actions that you have taken to sell or transfer property within the last three (3) years may come into play in your case. We can explain this further to you.
IF I AM BEHIND ON PAYMENTS ON MY HOME OR CAR, WILL FILING FOR BANKRUPTCY PREVENT FORECLOSURE OR REPOSSESSION?
If you are behind on these payments, you can file under Chapter 13 and propose a plan to repay the arrearages. If payments are not made to these creditors, they can take the property. Note however, that you must also continue to make the current monthly payments to keep the property.
Net neutrality has been a hot topic in the news recently. The FCC has proposed sweeping changes to the way the internet is regulated, and this could have broad implications for consumers.
What is Net Neutrality?
Net neutrality is the notion that Internet service providers must treat all traffic across their network in the same manner. Under the old FCC rules, providers such as Comcast and Verizon could not block or discriminate against their competitors’ websites or services. Traffic from website like Netflix and Amazon would be treated the same as any other website. However, this could all change if the FCC’s new rules are implemented.
What is the FCC’s New Plan?
Under the proposed rule, ISPs would be prohibited from blocking content, but could now require content providers to pay larger fees for faster delivery of their content. ISPs are generally unhappy with net neutrality; some websites like Netflix require more bandwidth, and their argument is that these companies should have to pay more because their content is more expensive to deliver.
What Does This Mean For Consumers?
Consumer advocates are concerned that the new rules would lead to the creation of “fast lanes” for those companies willing to pay the higher fees sought by ISPs while the rest will be limited to slow lanes. This would potentially leave startups and others behind, which would likely harm competition. On the other hand, ISPs argue that this is beneficial to consumers because it will allow them to provide the content consumers most desire at faster speeds than was previously allowed. But the risk is that all traffic could be slowed, and only those companies that pay for faster speed would see their content so provided. The FCC is soliciting public comments until September 10th, 2014 on its proposed rule change.
This will be an interesting story to watch as it develops. What do you think, is the end of net neutrality a good thing for consumers or not? Feel free to share your comments on our Facebook page, or visit the FCC and comment therehttp://www.fcc.gov/comments.
For more information on this story, see this article in the Chicago Tribune http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/sns-rt-us-usa-internet-neutrality-factbox-20140615,0,6438695.story