Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Verizon Communications Government Network The Internet United States

FCC Criticized For Surrendering Power To Punish Verizon After Firefighters Got Throttled During Wildfire (gizmodo.com) 161

Posted by BeauHD from the not-good-enough dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FCC Criticized For Surrendering Power To Punish Verizon After Firefighters Got Throttled During Wildfire More

FCC Criticized For Surrendering Power To Punish Verizon After Firefighters Got Throttled During Wildfire

Comments Filter:

  • 'works as intended' (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    ashitpile says, as he pats his fat wallet, "it's what my 'customers' wanted."

  • Misleading advertising (Score:5, Insightful)

    by burtosis ( 1124179 ) on Friday August 31, 2018 @08:44PM (#57235114)
    If they simply had called it a 25gig then throttle plan this wouldn't be confused with net neutrality. Instead it's advertised as the best unlimited everything, the data usage in real time is difficult to track for average users, and no one reads fine print leading to the confusion. In that case I'd agree it's deceptive and in this case led to an unsafe condition. Too bad deceptive advertising likely won't get fixed for the common people.

    • 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.

      • That's why I said it was confused with net neutrality. I'm not sure you read the quote.

        • 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)

    by markdavis ( 642305 ) on Friday August 31, 2018 @08:55PM (#57235140)

    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)

      by Anonymous Coward

      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.

      • 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.

        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.

      • Actually, it is. You should read the relevant contracts

        Got a link?

    • we've granted the cell phone companies a spectrum monopoly. This is actually necessary given the nature of radio waves, but rather than treat it like a lease on the public commons we 'sold' an unlimited monopoly to certain spectrum to each carrier. You don't get to compete with Verizon because that's not how radio works, and cell phones are just fancy radios.

      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
      • [oldmanrant] is it just me or did the quality of discourse really go to heck recently here on /.? I mean, I'm not expeting everybody here to be a ham radio enthusiast but I'd like to think this being a geek and tech forum we'd all know enough about how cell phones work, how spectrum is dolled out and why, if you're out in the boondocks fighting fires you'd need to stick with a particular carrier to understand why the fire department doesn't have a lot of options for a mobile carrier. I mean, I needed to kno

      • >"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

    • 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.

      • 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)

          by jd ( 1658 )

          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.

          • Did Verizon lift the cap once they were officially notified this is an emergency? If so - what's the problem?

          • 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.

    • 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)

  • seriously? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ooloorie ( 4394035 ) on Friday August 31, 2018 @09:47PM (#57235274)

    Bowden said that Verizon, whom the country fire department had paid for “unlimited data,”

    Was the data limited? No, just the throughput.

    hobbled the first responders’ ability to communicate “despite being informed that throttling was actively impeding County Fire’s ability to provide crisis-response and essential emergency services.”

    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.

    • 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.

      • 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)

          by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <drink@hyperlogos.org> on Friday August 31, 2018 @10:11PM (#57235356) Homepage Journal

          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].

          • So again this has nothing to do with net neutrality just general incompetence.

            • 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.

          • 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".

          • You'll never convince an anti-government cheerleader to admit that any company can do wrong, it is against the whole free-market religion.

            • 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...

      • 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?

      • They were on a professional-level service. In fact, they were on a plan for emergency services.

        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

    • 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?

      • 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.

        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)

          by jd ( 1658 )

          Verizon is a telecommunications provider. The laws governing what a teleco can do to a pipe IS FCC business.

          • You obviously don't understand the proper function of a regulatory agency vs a court of law.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by jd ( 1658 )

              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

              • 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.

                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?

                In other words, that four digit UID isn't bought. Show respect for your elders, we might have learned things over the years.

                I don't like arguments from authority, which is

              • Show respect for your elders, we might have learned things over the years.

                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)

      by Kirth ( 183 )

      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.

      • Is that some kind of traditional wisdom handed down from your forefathers in the USA?

        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.

        Because that's not what's expected in the rest of the world.

        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

  • ...with Ajit Pai fellating Verizon and tickling its balls?

  • Net neutrality??? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by fafalone ( 633739 ) on Friday August 31, 2018 @10:51PM (#57235482)
    It appears that 'net neutrality' is being used by people to cover every bad ISP behavior. This incident had nothing to do with net neutrality. Their entire service was throttled, it wasn't a particular 3rd party website that was throttled or put in the slow lane because the 3rd party hadn't paid Verizon, nor a specific protocol that was throttled-- those are what net neutrality addresses, and that's it. And that myth seems to go hand in hand with people thinking net neutrality prohibits basic QoS. Nope.
    All this misusing the term is ultimately going to be counterproductive in getting good rules in place.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by PPH ( 736903 )

      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.

    • 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. :)

  • Expensive but Should spectrum be dedicated to fire safety and use separate systems like Tetra?
  • The U.S. could dedicate beachfront spectrum to a public safety first responder network, allocate money to its startup, and maybe even get in partnership with a major carrier to operate it. Maybe call it "FirstNet" or something catchy like that. Then government, in all of its wisdom, could avoid problems like this. But wait! They did! Twenty megahertz of prime 700 MHz spectrum, $7B in startup money, a lucrative 25-year contract to AT&T, AND six years since Congress passed the legislation. Someday i

  • 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?

Slashdot Top Deals

On a clear disk you can seek forever. -- P. Denning

Close