BUSINESS New Pittsburgh Courier
J. Pharoah Doss on how gang violence claims innocent lives Forum B6
APRIL 24-30, 2019
www.newpittsburghcourier.com
Classifieds
Find what you need from jobs to cars to housing B4-B5
B
5 reasons why autonomous cars aren’t coming anytime soon by Tom Krisher Associated Press Writer
PITTSBURGH (AP)—In the world of autonomous vehicles, Pittsburgh, Phoenix and Silicon Valley are bustling hubs of development and testing. But ask those involved in self-driving vehicles when we might actually see them carrying passengers in every city, and you’ll get an almost universal answer: Not anytime soon. An optimistic assessment is 10 years. Many others say decades as researchers try to conquer a number of obstacles. The
vehicles themselves will debut in limited, well-mapped areas within cities and spread outward. The fatal crash in Arizona involving an Uber autonomous vehicle in March of 2018 slowed progress, largely because it hurt the public’s perception of the safety of vehicles. Companies slowed research to be more careful. Google’s Waymo, for instance, decided not to launch a fully autonomous ride-hailing service in the Phoenix area and will rely on human backup drivers to ferry passengers, at least for now.
Here are the problems that researchers must overcome to start giving rides without humans behind the wheel: SNOW AND WEATHER When it’s heavy enough to cover the pavement, snow blocks the view of lane lines that vehicle cameras use to find their way. Researchers so far haven’t figured out a way around this. That’s why much of the testing is done in warm-weather climates such as Arizona and California. Heavy snow, rain, fog and sandstorms can obstruct the view of cameras. Light beams sent out by laser sensors can
bounce off snowflakes and think they are obstacles. Radar can see through the weather, but it doesn’t show the shape of an object needed for computers to figure out what it is. “It’s like losing part of your vision,” says Raj Rajkumar, an electrical and computer engineering professor at Carnegie Mellon University. Researchers are working on laser sensors that use a different light beam wavelength to see through snowflakes, said SEE AUTONOMOUS B2
How debt ‘solutions’ could dig you in deeper debt by Liz Weston For New Pittsburgh Courier
PLURIA MARSHALL JR.
Nexstar sued by minority-owned Marshall Broadcasting Group for sabotage efforts HOUSTON—Since sellas a buyer, believing that ing three television stations the FCC would look favorto Marshall Broadcasting “It has become clear that our only value to Nex- ably upon MBG’s status as Group (MBG) in 2014, Nex- star was diversity optics at the FCC. Ever since the a minority-owned business. star Broadcasting Inc. (NexWhile the FCC was led to star) has actively worked to deal was signed, Nexstar has gone to great lengths believe that the sale would undermine MBG and its stathe commission’s to constantly interfere, undercut our authority and further tions, according to the lawobjective of increasing ethsuit in the Supreme Court sabotage our business, with little regard for the nic diversity in ownership of of the State of New York this broadcast stations, as soon as morning. The suit seeks to agreements in place with us or the FCC.” the arrangement was inked make MBG whole from NexPLURIA MARSHALL JR. Nexstar sought to sabotage star’s disingenuous and damand undermine MBG’s operMBG President and CEO ations to decrease its worth. aging actions—bringing to light Nexstar’s effort to sab“It has become clear that (KPEJ-TV, KMSS-TV, KLJB-TV) to MBG. otage MBG’s business and our only value to Nexstar eventually buy back the stations for pen- Nexstar was forced to sell the stations was diversity optics at the FCC,” said due to Federal Communications Commisnies on the dollar. SEE NEXSTAR B2 In 2014 Nexstar sold three stations sion (FCC) regulations and chose MBG
Americans are slipping ever deeper into hock. To cope, many people turn to debt consolidation loans, cash-out mortgage refinancing and retirement plan loans that promise relief but could leave them worse off. Paying off high-rate debt such as credit cards with lower-rate loans may seem like a no-brainer. Unfortunately, many of these loans have hidden costs and drawbacks. And consolidation by itself can’t fix the problems that led to the debt in the first place. In fact, such loans can make matters worse if borrowers feel freed up to spend more. “Consolidating debt seems to create the psychological effect of making you feel like you’ve zeroed it out,” says Moira Somers, financial psychologist and author of “Advice That Sticks.” “Then (borrowers) just start spending up again, until there is no more wiggle room.” DEBT LEVELS ARE HITTING NEW HIGHS Statistics show U.S. households are taking on record levels of debt. Overall household debt, including mortgages, student loans and credit cards, hit a new high of $13.54 trillion at the end of 2018, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Credit card balances have returned to their 2008 peak, and serious delinquencies—accounts at least 90 days overdue— are on the rise. Meanwhile, personal loans, which are often used to consolidate other debt, have become the fastest-growing type of debt, according to credit bureau Experian. One in 10 American adults now has a personal loan, and the total outstanding personal loan debt hit a record $291 billion in 2018. Cash-out mortgage refinancing has also made a comeback. With this type of loan, borrowers pay off their existing mortgage with a larger one and get the difference in cash. Mortgage buyer Freddie Mac reports that cash-out borrowers represented 83 percent of all conventional refinance loans made in the fourth quarter of last year, the highest share since the third quarter of 2007. Forty percent of those who cashed out their equity used the money to pay SEE SOLUTIONS B2
Lawsuit cites appalling lack of diversity in radio and TV ownership by Stacy M. Brown For New Pittsburgh Courier
(NNPA)—Free Press, the Massachusetts-based nonpartisan organization that fights for the right to connect and communicate along with several allies, filed a reply brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on Friday, April 12, challenging the Federal Communications Commission’s repeal and relaxation of several of its broadcast-ownership rules that limit media consolidation. Free Press and its allies argue that under the administration of President Donald Trump, the FCC has, among other things, acted to exclude minorities from equal access to broadcast and media licenses and has used absurdly stringent qualifications requirements to keep minorities out of the licensing process. In filing the lawsuit, Free Press officials said they’re seeking to increase the quantity, quality and responsiveness of local news on TV, radio and in newspapers, particularly for racial minorities and women. In the reply brief, Common Cause, the Communications Workers of America, Free Press,
the Media Mobilizing Project, the Prometheus Radio Project and the United Church of Christ Office of Communication, Inc., reject claims by FCC lawyers and broadcasters that the groups lack legal standing to bring this case against the agency. According to a news release, the groups state that the FCC has failed to meet its statutory obligation to promote race and gender diversity in broadcast-media ownership. This failure is reflected in data showing that women and people
of color are woefully underrepresented among broadcast-license holders—exacerbated by agency policies that carelessly promote further broadcast-ownership consolidation, and by the agency’s failure to consider how consolidation affects ownership opportunities for women and people of color, the organizations stated in the release. At the end of 2018, the FCC began another of its congressionally mandated rulemaking processes to determine whether the remaining broadcast-ownership
regulations are “necessary in the public interest.” In previous reviews of its rules, the agency failed to properly investigate or address the lack of ownership diversity, even though the Third Circuit ordered it to do so in three previous decisions, Free Press and its allies noted in the release. The groups argued that the FCC’s obligation necessitates collecting accurate data about ownership among women and people of color. Without this information, it’s
impossible for the agency to make any claims about the impact its deregulatory agenda will have on ownership diversity, the group’s said. “The FCC tries to have it both ways, claiming it has addressed race [and] gender ownership diversity yet insisting it cannot,” the court filings state. “Neither is true: The FCC must heed its obligation to at minimum do no harm to race [and] gender diversity by apprising itself of knowable facts.” Free Press Policy Manager Dana Floberg said Congress put broadcast-ownership limits in place for a reason: to promote a diversity of choices among local stations. “We sued the FCC for turning its back on this core principle, placing station ownership in too few hands and denying too many of us broadcast media that serve community needs,” Floberg said. “The FCC has repeatedly failed to foster a media system that reflects our nation’s diversity,” she said. On several occasions, the court has told the agency that it can’t bless further media consolidaSEE LAWSUIT B2