FCC Criticized For Surrendering Power To Punish Verizon After Firefighters Got Throttled During Wildfire (gizmodo.com) 161
Democratic lawmakers on Wednesday criticized the FCC on its response to Verizon's throttling of firefighters' data speeds as they battled a major wildfire in Northern California. "In a letter Friday, Senator Edward Markey and Congresswoman Anna Eshoo demanded answers from the FCC over what steps it is currently taking to address 'critical threats to public safety,' citing its decision to repeal Obama-era net neutrality protections," reports Gizmodo. From the report: The 2015 Open Internet Order -- overturned by the FCC's Republican majority last winter -- reclassified internet providers like Verizon as common carriers under Title II of the Federal Communications Act, granting the FCC regulatory authority that, in this instance, would have allowed the commission to investigate and potential penalize Verizon for its decision. At Chairman Ajit Pai's direction, the commission abdicated that authority this year. It no longer has the power to establish rules prohibiting Verizon from throttling emergency services, or charging police and fire departments additional fees to maintain their communications at optimal speeds when usage peaks -- say, during a wildfire, or an earthquake, or a mass shooting.
"The FCC has incorrectly suggested that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) could sufficiently fill this void," wrote Markey and Eschoo, whose congressional districting includes portions of Santa Clara. "We strongly disagree with that assertion." In their letter, the Democratic lawmakers urged the FCC to make use of its Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau and investigate the matter, saying that while the FTC may find Verizon's actions exemplify an "unfair and deceptive practice," both agencies should use "all of the tools available" to resolve this public safety matter. "To do nothing is unacceptable," they said.
"The FCC has incorrectly suggested that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) could sufficiently fill this void," wrote Markey and Eschoo, whose congressional districting includes portions of Santa Clara. "We strongly disagree with that assertion." In their letter, the Democratic lawmakers urged the FCC to make use of its Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau and investigate the matter, saying that while the FTC may find Verizon's actions exemplify an "unfair and deceptive practice," both agencies should use "all of the tools available" to resolve this public safety matter. "To do nothing is unacceptable," they said.
Re:Nothing will be done (Score:4, Insightful)
Nothing ever is done to big corporations
...criticized for surrendering the power...
The FCC never had the legal authority/power in the first place. You don't use a hammer on a screw or a screwdriver on a nail. EO's and Presidential Directives are not law. The problem is not in the FCC's purview, but the FTC's until Congress passes a law or Act that says otherwise.
If you give your guy the power(s) to do an end-run around the Constitution, Congress, and due process, you give the opposition's guy the same power(s). That's not a winning strategy for either side and especially not for the people.
Strat
Re: Nothing will be done (Score:4, Interesting)
This debate was held in the 70s and 80s. In Reagan's time, it was well established that data was regulated the same as voice, that ISPs were telecos no different from any other.
This was settled until Bush passed an executive order nullifying this. You cannot change the law with an executive order. Bush classed data as distinct, by order.
If you want to talk Congress, fine, but start with eliminating Bush's order and THEN talk Congress.
Re: Nothing will be done (Score:4, Informative)
No, peer-to-peer agreements for tier 1 prevent that.
Well, they did. They don't, now.
Re: (Score:3)
Hmm, Federal *Communications* Commission. It logically should have some authority over a major communications company. The FTC is clearly without doubt the wrong place, because the FTC has no power over anything. Whereas until recently it was widely agreed that the FCC as the appropriate place for this.
However the Trump administration has taken it upon itself to dismantle the government, reduce and eliminate all its power, and let corporations do whatever they want. They're not the GOP anymore or they wo
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm, Federal *Communications* Commission. It logically should have some authority over a major communications company.
The FCC deals with technical issues and standards like RF spectrum frequency-band divisions and mode & bandwidth restrictions.
The FTC deals with how businesses operate.
This about how they operate and not a technical issue, so it's an FTC issue.
Don't like it? Get Congress to pass a law or Act to change it. Doing an end-run around the Rule of Law never works out in the end for anyone but tyrants and authoritarians.
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
FCC deals quite a lot with how to share a limited resource, who gets to use it, who doesn't get to use it, and how it gets used.
The FCC is overseen by congress and is an independent agency, it is not a part of the executive branch. No new law is needed here, congress already created statues to grant it the authority to regulate interstate communication via wire or RF.
Re: (Score:2)
'Shows what you know [flickr.com].
--
Where there is will, there is a way
Re: (Score:2)
Eat shit and die
Ignorant and angry is no way to go through life, son.
Strat
Re: Nothing will be done (Score:2)
'works as intended' (Score:1)
ashitpile says, as he pats his fat wallet, "it's what my 'customers' wanted."
Misleading advertising (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Misleading advertising (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Misleading advertising (Score:1)
Because Verizon insisted they could provide the useful services at a lower price, so there was no need or value in having a solution from a dedicated provider.
Turns out they were just fibbing.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, of course. When a corporation fucks you over, the question isn't "why and is what they did illegal". It's "why rely on the corporation"? I mean, governments aren't in any sort of position to demand, investigate, or punish in such circumstances. This would be radically different if there was an understandable equipment failure because of said emergency. Instead, it's purely a technological o
Re: Misleading advertising (Score:5, Interesting)
Having worked on systems fire crew in Australia use, it's not as simple as that. In a well run fire fighting system there's tonnes, gigabytes and potentially terrabytes of data flying about , GIS fuel (ie how deep leaf matter is in places etc etc etc) maps, data on how the wind is behaving as superheated smoke starts fucking with local pressure systems, fire behavioural models, as well as complicated logistics to get fire fighters in and civilians out of the fight.whilst monitoring safety and trying to anticipate medical and infrastructure requirements in real time.
I agree this isn't something that should be entrusted to cheap and nasty consumer broadband , but it's absolutely not something that can be replaced with Walky-talky radios.
Re: (Score:3)
I agree this isn't something that should be entrusted to cheap and nasty consumer broadband , but it's absolutely not something that can be replaced with Walky-talky radios.
There's no other system that can carry the traffic. Satellite phones won't handle that much throughput, satellite internet ala HughesNet or Exede has to be aimed, and the only other system in place to cover remote areas is cellular.
Re: Misleading advertising (Score:5, Informative)
Which calls into question why government officials and first responders are relying on it during emergencies.
It's not telephone services. It's a modern real time logistics and resource managements system.
From the DECLARATION OF FIRE CHIEF ANTHONY BOWDEN to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit [arstechnica.net]
6. Only a few weeks ago, County Fire deployed OES Incident Support Unit 5262 ("OES 5262"), to the Mendocino Complex Fire, now the largest fire in state history. OES 5262 ADD2 USCA Case #18-1051 Document #1746555 Filed: 08/20/2018 Page 4 of 58 is deployed to large incidents as a command and control resource. Its primary function is to track, organize, and prioritize routing of resowces from around the state and country to the sites where they are most needed. OES 5262 relies heavily on the use of specialized software and Google Sheets to do near-real-time resource tracking through the use of cloud computing over the Internet.
7. Resources tracked across such a large event include personnel and equipment supplied from local governments across California; the State of California; federal agencies including the Department of Defense, the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Forest Service; and other countries. As of Monday, August 13, 2018, the response effort for the wildfires burning across California included 13,000 firefighters, multiple aircraft, dozens or hundreds of hulldozers, and hundreds of fire engines. The wildfires have resulted in over 726,000 acres burned and roughly 2,000 structures destroyed. With several months left in what is a "normal" fire season, we fully expect these numbers to rise.
8. OES 5262 also coordinates all local government resources deployed to the Mendocino Complex Fire. That is, the unit facilitates resource check-in and routing for local government resources. In doing so, the unit typically exchanges 5-10 gigabytes of data per day via the Internet using a mobile router and wireless connection. Near-real-time information exchange is vital to proper function. In large and complex fires, resource allocation requires immediate information. Dated or stale information regarding the availability or need for resources can slow response times and render them far less effective. Resources could be deployed to the wrong fire, the wrong part of a fire, or fail to be deployed at all. Even small delays in response translate into devastating effects, including loss of property, and, in some cases, loss of life.
Also they have frequency set aside for first responders and forest fire crews. Did they suddenly become uneducated on how a radio, a compass and a map works.
Dropping back to radios, compasses and maps is obviously sub-optimal, but if you're expecting the command and control center to be able to perform command and control, you might not have that option ready.
The problem is that they were throttled at a critical time, and the outcome was poorer coordination of the response until Verison was paid off to lift the throttle.
Re: Misleading advertising (Score:1)
I think that you did not read the article. Verizon did not uphold their part of the bargain that all parties negotiated. When told to fix it, a company representative offered a deal that was different than what was agreed upon, and insisted that it will not be followed. Unfortunately for Verizon, the services in qustions were employed as life-saving measures. Verizon, therefore, broke a life-saving measure that was mutually agreed, and demanded more money. Given the circumstance, it was criminal.
Re:Misleading advertising (Score:5, Interesting)
I do not know how public acquisition works in the US, but in my country, the government puts out the specifications for whatever they want to buy, get offers and has to choose the cheapest offer that meets the specs.
So, if two companies offered unlimited data service, but one offer was $2 cheaper, then that would be chosen (or the office may be sued by the company who offered the cheaper service).
Re: Misleading advertising (Score:3)
That's the rule in the U.S., except they never check if the company has any intention of delivering. Hence the massive overruns, failed projects, etc. Ditto for the UK.
Re: Misleading advertising (Score:3)
So, if two companies offered unlimited data service, but one offer was $2 cheaper, then that would be chosen (or the office may be sued by the company who offered the cheaper service).
That would be true if the service was actually the same, but they never are. You can put all of your requirements in the bid request. Typically you would define the speeds you expect, the service availability, the total amount of data needed per month, etc. Just because two different companies both market their plans as "un
Re: (Score:2)
If they simply had called it a 25gig then throttle plan this wouldn't be confused with net neutrality.
This has nothing whatsoever to do with network neutrality. That is a completely separate issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's why I said it was confused with net neutrality. I'm not sure you read the quote.
I'm pretty sure the people who are claiming this is a NN issue are not confused, they are attempting to confuse others.
This AGAIN? (Score:3, Insightful)
OMG! Give it a rest!!! If they didn't want a capped with throttled data plan, then they should should have:
1) Negotiated some other deal
2) Signed up for a metered plan
3) Found some other vendor
or
4) Built their own mobile system
I mean, it is NOT A SECRET that [perhaps all] so-called "unlimited" data plans throttle after a cap. READ YOUR CONTRACT. It has nothing to do with "net neutrality", it has to do with the industries' definition of "unlimited". It is not Verizon's "duty" to read your minds and adjust their plans to whatever use the government agency wants to use it for, to, oh.... "save the children" or whatnot. They are not shaping of traffic based on where the data was coming from or going to, it is just a cap and then throttled after that. Old "unlimited at full speed" plans ended many years ago and consumers HATED overage charges and unpredictable bills that came before, so this cap-then-throttle concept is what replaced it. Again, you might not like it, but that is WHAT YOU SIGNED UP FOR!!
If the mobile industry (and pretty much all ISP's now) definition of "unlimited" is what needs attacking, perhaps choosing a new name for it would help, then that is the domain of the FTC, not the FCC.
Re: This AGAIN? (Score:1)
It is not Verizon's "duty" to read your minds and adjust their plans to whatever use the government agency wants to use it for,
Actually, it is. You should read the relevant contracts, including the license Verizon got on order to have a share of the electromagnetic spectrum.
If Verizon didn't want to live up to the expectations of their choosing to do business with a public safety agency, they can go ahead and surrender their interests.
Re: (Score:2)
Verizon is happy to satisfy their obligations: like any non-consumer entity that depends critically on service, the fire department should sign up for a metered business plan and pay for it.
It was the public safety agency's choice to sign up for consumer level plans, and a quite irresponsible choice one might add.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it is. You should read the relevant contracts
Got a link?
You can't build your own mobile system (Score:3)
As for another vendor, see above.
As for negotiating, They can't negotiate since the kind of spectrum that reaches out to where the fires are wa
Oh one more thing (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
>"You can't build your own mobile system"
You can if you are the government. They already have plenty of spectrum allocated to themselves. And they are certainly way, way large enough to do so.
>"we've granted the cell phone companies a spectrum monopoly"
There is limited spectrum, so there has to be some rules. Also, it isn't technically a monopoly, there are currently 4 large available to everyone that covers everywhere in addition to numerous small players..
>"As for negotiating, They can't negot
Re: (Score:2)
>"See the problem yet? Or are you still in denial?"
Show me the contract they signed. If it fails to say anything about data caps with throttling, then you can call me in denial. I have a feeling the contract plainly states the terms that Verizon used.
Re: (Score:2)
>"You are wrong, the contract is in Ars Technica along with the complaint."
I am unable to locate the contract on the article:
https://arstechnica.com/tech-p... [arstechnica.com]
Re: This AGAIN? (Score:3)
They did negotiate another plan.
It's common knowledge the plan they had specifically included a clause for no throttling in emergencies. The discussion is over whether Verizon can lawfully break contractual clauses because they feel like it, and if so which ones.
Currently, the FCC and Federal government are inclined to the view that contractual clauses are irrelevant. The courts are undecided. If the courts do decide contracts have no legal standing, that could have some I interesting consequences.
Re: This AGAIN? (Score:2)
It's common knowledge the plan they had specifically included a clause for no throttling in emergencies.
No, it's not. It seems to be a common assumption, but an assumption is not knowledge. Insofar as any of the articles have discussed this, none of them have stated that this was part of any contract. From what I can gather Verizon just has an internal policy that directs employees to lift throttling restrictions if/when emergency personnel call in and tell them that they need data for emergency use. It's not a contractual requirement, it's a "we're trying to be decent human beings" policy.
Now, since you
Re: (Score:3)
I'm able to state that the senior officials and firemen involved have all stated this to be part of the contract. If you wanted to know, you'd be asking them. Asking me suggests you'd rather not know. I'm curious as to why. Because then you'd be faced with an incontrovertible fact that you'd been lied to?
That happens. It's better to find out the truth even if it means corporations do bad things to good people and that libertarian philosophy doesn't work in a monoculture.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: This AGAIN? (Score:1)
This wasn't an account setting problem on the firefighting side. It was on Verizon's end of things where they implemented for no valid reason, artificial scarcity and then tried to coerce a customer in an emergency situation.
As somebody who may not understand why and how Verizon is known to misbehave, you probably can't grasp the situation but concoct a narrative that fits your established preconceptions.
Re: This AGAIN? (Score:2)
I'm able to state that the senior officials and firemen involved have all stated this to be part of the contract.
You're able to state all kinds of things, but until you support them with actual evidence it's all meaningless.
Re: (Score:3)
It has nothing to do with "net neutrality", it has to do with the industries' definition of "unlimited".
It has something to do with "net neutrality". The repealed net neutrality laws did ban throttling. (Although they had an exception for "reasonable network management" ... which this throttling wasn't, it throttled at all times after 25GB, no matter what the load on the network was)
Re: Ajit Pai. (Score:1)
Your very own Emmanuel Goldstein.
Rage at his image! For five minutes!
seriously? (Score:4, Insightful)
Was the data limited? No, just the throughput.
Throttling happens on consumer plans. If you want business or professional level service, you need to pay for it. Trying to run a fire department on consumer data plans is negligent and Bowden should be held responsible.
Re: (Score:3)
Throttling happens on consumer plans. If you want business or professional level service, you need to pay for it.
They were on a professional-level service. In fact, they were on a plan for emergency services.
Re: seriously? (Score:1)
A plan for emergency services would by necessity have to involve planning for contengencies during emergencies. So who in the Fire Department drew up the FMEA documents, and have they been fired yet?
Re: seriously? (Score:5, Informative)
A plan for emergency services would by necessity have to involve planning for contengencies during emergencies.
It was Verizon's policy to remove caps when contacted during emergency situations [arstechnica.com], and they did not follow that policy. Verizon has admitted that it was their mistake [snopes.com].
Re: (Score:2)
So again this has nothing to do with net neutrality just general incompetence.
Re: (Score:2)
So again this has nothing to do with net neutrality just general incompetence.
The net neutrality bill included an anti-throttling provision, so saying that it has nothing to do with net neutrality is deeply and fundamentally ignorant.
Re: (Score:2)
The 2015 Open Internet Order restricted impairment or degradation of lawful Internet traffic on the basis of content, applications, services, or device, but allowed reasonable network management.
And yet, no reasonable network management was being performed. It was both against the public interest, and Verizon's own policy.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, this was a "customer support mistake" in the same way that Wells Fargo got caught out time and time again for things such as opening accounts for people who never asked for them.
This issue was escalated within Verizon. It beggars belief to think that somewhere along the line someone didn't think to apply the existing "policy".
Verizon's mistake was that they let it get to the point that they were called out on it. It was a PR mistake by Verizon, not a mistake in applying the "policy".
Re: (Score:2)
You'll never convince an anti-government cheerleader to admit that any company can do wrong, it is against the whole free-market religion.
Re: (Score:2)
You'll never convince an anti-government cheerleader to admit that any company can do wrong, it is against the whole free-market religion.
I'm a big fan of the free market myself, but you can't have one without regulation...
Re: (Score:2)
They were on a professional-level service. In fact, they were on a plan for emergency services.
That's news to me. Every article I've read such as this one indicates it was a commercial data capped plan [arstechnica.com]. The articles seem consistent in that after the incident started they asked them to lift the throttling. Then again the news isn't what it used to be. Do you have a source?
Re: (Score:2)
Bowden doesn't talk about that in his complaint letter to the FCC; he's just saying "how dare these people throttle our data when we're trying to fight a fire".
Furthermore, throttling has nothing to do with net neutrality and it isn't a regulatory issue. If Verizon failed to live up to their contractual commitment, that's an issue for a civil court. For the SCFD to pursue this issue through the FCC is absurd poli
Re: seriously? (Score:2)
They were on a corporate plan with a specific emergency clause that stated that in a declared emergency, Verizon promised not to throttle.
Verizon broke contract.
This should be end of story, but apparently there's a lot of support for the idea that contracts have no standing. If this reaches SCOTUS and is confirmed, contract law will be nullified.
You sure that's a good idea?
Re: (Score:2)
Their complaint does not mention that, and business plans are generally not "unlimited (with throttling)". They switched to a full, no-throttle business plan only after this problem occurred.
And if Verizon did break the contract, how is this an FCC matter? Contractual violations are not regulatory issues, they are properly resolved in civil court (
Re: (Score:2)
Verizon is a telecommunications provider. The laws governing what a teleco can do to a pipe IS FCC business.
Re: (Score:2)
You obviously don't understand the proper function of a regulatory agency vs a court of law.
Re: (Score:2)
I understand the role of the FCC. I understand its regulations and I understand how its role with the Internet has changed. I've read its rules and regulations. Have you?
Ummm, you might be interested to learn I've been using, not playing, with the Internet since the mid 1980s, have built one international hub and been employed by another, and have actively worked with the IETF.
In other words, that four digit UID isn't bought. Show respect for your elders, we might have learned things over the years.
If you d
Re: (Score:2)
How is that experience, such as it is, relevant to the question of whether it is the job of the FCC to enforce a contract dispute?
I don't like arguments from authority, which is
Re: (Score:2)
You mean proof like "that four digit UID isn't bought"?
JD, that is an excellent summary of your position.
Re: (Score:2)
I just read your bio. You were gifted as a kid, but then seem to have just dropped the ball in your teens. You still have a couple of decades to fulfill your potential; don't waste the time.
Re: (Score:2)
Throttling happens on consumer plans.
Oh yeah? Is that some kind of traditional wisdom handed down from your forefathers in the USA?
Because that's not what's expected in the rest of the world.
Re: (Score:2)
No, just a statement of fact: consumer plans generally allow for throttling, if you want to avoid that, you need to buy a different kind of plan.
In my experience, Europe had unlimited plans with throttling years before the US. Switzerland certainly still does [swisscom.ch]: "inOne mobile data XL -- Up to 30 GB per month, with subsequent speed reduction but no additional costs."
A
What does anyone expect... (Score:3)
Net neutrality??? (Score:4, Insightful)
All this misusing the term is ultimately going to be counterproductive in getting good rules in place.
Re: (Score:2)
The FCC doesn't have the power to control the internet. All they can do is make sure the transmitters are operating within specifications. They don't have a say with things like packet latency or priority. The FCC can't make any new laws or regulations all they can do is make suggestions to congress. What they can do is issue fines and revoke broadcast licenses. A new agency is needed but I'm not exactly a fan of the government having a hand in everything.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Net neutrality??? (Score:2)
But the FTC can't do much more than force Verizon to clarify "Unlimited".
Which is all that's required. This whole thing seems to have been caused bt the fire departments chief IT guy presentung this plan as "totally unlimited" to the actual firefighters. If, instead, he had said "I got you this plan which is super fast for 25 gigabytes and then slow as balls afterwards", it's unlikely that anyone else would have signed off on it ... and if they did, they would only have themselves to blame.
Remove the ambiguity about what "unlimited" means and people can make properly informed
Re: (Score:2)
Why is anyone appealing to the FCC, or the FTC? California can't mandate that emergency services receive their Internet service without degradation, at all times, and then of course pay for it? Or subsidize it, hey, it's California.
Or the local governments do so.
Seriously, don't send these decisions too far away. You've given control away. Take it back. Now.
Re: Net neutrality??? (Score:2)
You said "disagree", and then went on to agree with me. Fascinating.
Re: (Score:2)
Net neutrality was just a part of the Title II classification of broadband providers as common carriers, which was recently overturned. It is the buzzword that most people are familiar with and so it gets put in the headlines. There are numerous other issues besides NN that call for a reinstatement of common carrier status. But since this isn't about to happen, we'll just let 50 states patch together a mishmash of laws [slashdot.org] in an attempt to achieve the same result.
Re: (Score:2)
All this misusing the term is ultimately going to be counterproductive in getting good rules in place.
I feel fairly certain that the misuse is intentional for the reason you set forth. :)
Dedicated fire safety spectrum (Score:1)
FirstNet? (Score:1)
Hang on (Score:1)
It's easy to jump on the "evil corporation" bandwagon (although not quite everyone is). Why did the fire department not contract for service level required? Who has looked to see how much data was lots of mission critical GIS information and how much was firefighters streaming Netflix on breaks? Who has looked at the mission apps to see if they followed reasonable practices instead of just arbitrarily shuffling data around because it was the easy solution?
Re:California's fault for poor water management! (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, if California didn't insist on having, you know, trees then they wouldn't have to fight wildfires.
In fact, we are now learning that President Trump is secretly working with Robert Mueller to prosecute the State of California for having trees as soon as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are sent to Guantanamo and executed.
Subscribe to my YouTube channel.
#GreatAwakening #thestorm #americafirst #cabal #truth #thedonald #freedom #kag #TrustThePlan #GeorgeSoros #RebelHeart #ClassicalLiberals #BuildThatWall #RedHenRestaurant #thecalmbeforethestorm #MakeAmericaGreatAgain #PresidentTrump #KanyeWest #QAnon #GoldenAge #LawOfAttraction #AbrahamHicks #TheEliteAreCRAPPINGthemselves
Re: California's fault for poor water management! (Score:2)
Re: California's fault for poor water management! (Score:2)
CA's water and forestry management is a clusterfuck of corporate and environmental protections that led directly to the wildfires. The wildfires are absolutely the fault of CA politicians and CA NIMBYs.
Re: California's fault for poor water management (Score:2)
Natural wildfires perform vegetation clearing and so limit themselves. Manking comes in, clear cuts fire resistant forest, builds flammable housing next to the forest, then ensures decades of dead growth piles up on the forest floor, turning the whole thing into a tinderbox.
Wild fires are natural. But natural wild fires do not consume the type of acreage CA wild fires do.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, if California didn't insist on having, you know, trees then they wouldn't have to fight wildfires.
He is referring to California's "conservation" policy going back decades to stop every forest fire allowing the forests to become overgrown producing much more destructive fires.
Re: (Score:2)
Then he's referring to something that simply isn't true.
Re:California's fault for poor water management! (Score:5, Funny)
My
Attorney
Got
Arrested.
MAGA!
Re: (Score:3)
If you support this idiot, then you too share the affliction.
Please seek help.