Ajit Pai Killed Rules That Could Have Helped Florida Recover From Hurricane (arstechnica.com) 225
sharkbiter shares a report from Ars Technica: The Federal Communications Commission chairman slammed wireless carriers on Tuesday for failing to quickly restore phone service in Florida after Hurricane Michael, calling the delay "completely unacceptable." But FCC Chairman Ajit Pai's statement ignored his agency's deregulatory blitz that left consumers without protections designed to ensure restoration of service after disasters, according to longtime telecom attorney and consumer advocate Harold Feld.
The Obama-era FCC wrote new regulations to protect consumers after Verizon tried to avoid rebuilding wireline phone infrastructure in Fire Island, New York, after Hurricane Sandy hit the area in October 2012. But Pai repealed those rules, claiming that they prevented carriers from upgrading old copper networks to fiber. Pai's repeal order makes zero mentions of Fire Island and makes reference to Verizon's response to Hurricane Sandy only once, in a footnote. Among other things, the November 2017 FCC action eliminated a requirement that telcos turning off copper networks must provide Americans with service at least as good as those old copper networks. This change lets carriers replace wireline service with mobile service only, even if the new mobile option wouldn't pass a "functional test" that Pai's FCC eliminated. Additionally, "in June 2018, Chairman Pai further deregulated telephone providers to make it easier to discontinue service after a natural disaster," Feld wrote. In response to Pai's deregulation, Feld wrote: "The situation in Florida shows what happens when regulators abandon their responsibilities to protect the public based on unenforceable promises from companies eager to cut costs for maintenance and emergency preparedness. This should be a wake-up call for the 37 states that have eliminated traditional oversight of telecommunications services and those states considering similar deregulation: critical communications services cannot be left without some kind of public oversight."
The Obama-era FCC wrote new regulations to protect consumers after Verizon tried to avoid rebuilding wireline phone infrastructure in Fire Island, New York, after Hurricane Sandy hit the area in October 2012. But Pai repealed those rules, claiming that they prevented carriers from upgrading old copper networks to fiber. Pai's repeal order makes zero mentions of Fire Island and makes reference to Verizon's response to Hurricane Sandy only once, in a footnote. Among other things, the November 2017 FCC action eliminated a requirement that telcos turning off copper networks must provide Americans with service at least as good as those old copper networks. This change lets carriers replace wireline service with mobile service only, even if the new mobile option wouldn't pass a "functional test" that Pai's FCC eliminated. Additionally, "in June 2018, Chairman Pai further deregulated telephone providers to make it easier to discontinue service after a natural disaster," Feld wrote. In response to Pai's deregulation, Feld wrote: "The situation in Florida shows what happens when regulators abandon their responsibilities to protect the public based on unenforceable promises from companies eager to cut costs for maintenance and emergency preparedness. This should be a wake-up call for the 37 states that have eliminated traditional oversight of telecommunications services and those states considering similar deregulation: critical communications services cannot be left without some kind of public oversight."
Cell Phones More Important (Score:5, Insightful)
I have to say, restoring cell service is probably more important than copper service. Hardly anyone has landlines. Notice how they hardly mention that it is copper wires they are talking about ...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Lots of people have landlines. Landlines are all over the US, because in the past under the AT&T monopoly, they were forced by regulation to wire up damn near every place in the country that could physically be wired up. In some of those places, they can't get much cell service due to geography, and landlines are really rather necessary.
Current local telephony companies want to get rid of landlines, because maintaining all those copper lines is expensive (and many of the workers with experience doing t
Re:Cell Phones More Important (Score:5, Interesting)
Less than 50% of consumers have landlines.
On the other hand nearly 100% of businesses have landlines, and are likely to in the foreseeable future. I pretty much guarantee those business customers will get their phone service working.
This is a prime example of government doing it wrong. To start with government should not be telling companies what kind of technology they should be using. If what is wanted is universal coverage then say that and let the company decide how to meet that universal coverage requirement. Set standards for bandwidth, cost, etc. and require the companies to meet them, but leave the how to them.
And make it a law, not a regulation so that political appointees can't change them with the political wind.
Re: Cell Phones More Important (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
To start with government should not be telling companies what kind of technology they should be using. If what is wanted is universal coverage then say that and let the company decide how to meet that universal coverage requirement. Set standards for bandwidth, cost, etc. and require the companies to meet them, but leave the how to them.
And make it a law, not a regulation so that political appointees can't change them with the political wind.
You're cute! First get government out of technology, then put them right back in via a law.
As well, setting standards is regulation under a different word.
Re: (Score:2)
he didn't say get government out of technology, he said prescribe goals instead of methods.
Re: (Score:2)
he didn't say get government out of technology, he said prescribe goals instead of methods.
Let's say you have 10 companies wanting to provide cellular coverage. They have 10 different implementations, Codecs and frequencies.
But in a deregulated world, it is evil to tell them that they should have standards. That is socialism and nearly communism.
But hey, laws will fix that. Amirite?
Re: (Score:2)
In Norway, they split up the distribution of service (the network) from the actual phone billing contract, much like other countries have separated electricity generation (wind, solar, nuclear) from the actual distribution.
Re: Cell Phones More Important (Score:2)
Utility CEO's are quite effective at padding their parachutes (see Duke energy), but at least there are some public interest mandates and oversight. As a result, the grid works pretty close to perfect, although rates are probably too high.
Re:Cell Phones More Important (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Problem is that they're allowing telcos to drop ALL fixed-line (copper OR fiber) service in certain locations.
Why is that a problem? You should be free to live in a remote area. You should not expect others to subsidize your lifestyle.
And wireless is only a good alternative if you like random slowdowns, high latency, and generally shit service.
They should spend their resources fixing this problem instead of maintaining lightly used but expensive legacy infrastructure.
Re: Cell Phones More Important (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, you should.
It's more efficient and infinitely cheaper if we support one another than if we live in isolated caves. The Internet wasn't created by a person or a company but through subsidy and cooperation. And thus all projects worth having are born.
Re: Cell Phones More Important (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They should spend their resources fixing this problem instead of maintaining lightly used but expensive legacy infrastructure.
And that fix is?
Re: (Score:2)
You should not expect others to subsidize your lifestyle.
Actually, landline owners (and their providers) are funding/supporting a legacy telecom backbone that works reliably. That allows YOU to subsidize YOUR "no landline", mostly texting and app-using lifestyle without concern for the "what ifs". You get to save some monthly coin to spend on your next new iPhone XI or Galaxy 10 while knowing you've got a backup available when the shit hits the fan and you can't get a signal because "all circuits are busy
Re: Cell Phones More Important (Score:3)
Because of reception areas and cost of maintenance, cell is more expensive. It's also less reliable. It is only when you cherry pick the numbers that cell is cost-effective.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if you limit your coverage to areas with dense populations and no obstructions then cell phones can be cheaper to install. But there are lots of areas without current reception, and the failure modes when too many people try to use them at once are ... unpleasant. (A "trunk busy" signal is a lot nicer than just no connection, which doesn't give an indication of what the problem is.)
Of course one of the reasons for cell phones being cheaper (where they're cheaper) is that you don't need as much hard
Re: (Score:2)
trivial != cheap
Re: Cell Phones More Important (Score:2)
You have forgotten that the rich are that way because they are smarter than you and/or 'work' harder, and are therefore better stewards of money than you are, and we should therefore give them more.
Re: (Score:2)
They're not called Luddites, they're normal people who just aren't as rich and hip as you are.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm, cheaper than mobile phones.
Re: (Score:3)
Hmm, cheaper than mobile phones.
Nope. Not cheaper than free.
People in the US whose income qualifies them for government assistance for food and healthcare costs also qualifies them for a free cellphone with internet access. Remember the 'Obamaphone' program? That program is still running strong.
Strat
Re: Cell Phones More Important (Score:5, Insightful)
There are no "free phones", somebody pays in the end.
There are cost-effective phones, ones whose benefit exceeds the cost and thus have long-term negative cost.
A land line can last a hundred years without needing replacing, if it's built right.
A cell phone tower is unlikely to survive the next storm, no matter how well you built it.
That's a lot of cell phone towers you have to rebuild to be equal to one land line.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not actually true. Wire services need to be maintained, and cell phone towers could be build to be durable. But they weren't required to be. Also there need to be more of them (and smaller cells) to allow for periods of high usage, such as after a disaster. And this also wasn't required.
Re: Cell Phones More Important (Score:2)
Re: Cell Phones More Important (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, that's why. Give the poor the infrastructure to educate themselves and properly apply for jobs and you help them feed themselves.
Re: Cell Phones More Important (Score:3)
Except in places where it's all gig economy and abusive management.
A lot of people on the ASD want to work, and are geeks equal to RMS or Linus Torvalds, but can't because in America only the conformists get the jobs.
What good is it to make it easier for them to go nowhere?
Until the ADA is properly enforceable (which means eliminating gig and hire-at-will entirely), all you do is create a smoke and mirrors remedy that chokes and confuses. Until Americans learn to embrace different, things will remain the sa
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The POTS system actually works in most disasters, unlike the cell networks that quickly get over loaded. The reason why is that the POTS network provides it's own power over different network layout than the power lines if you have a traditional phone instead of a computerized wireless model, which I always kept one hooked up in case of emergency. The cell networks can get flooded with too many calls and the fiber lines fail the instant the batteries go dead. I have been through situations where the cell ne
Re: Cell Phones More Important (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also over the last few decades a lot of places have been moving infrastructure underground during normal road repair and maintenance. That being said phone lines are rather resilient while strung on poles also.
Land lines give superior bandwidth (Score:2)
To cell. Why should I subsidise inferior technology?
Re: Land lines give superior bandwidth (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My point precisely.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know where you live, but in Las Vegas every new house is built with at least 2 phone lines, everybody does however use cat5 now so you can convert those to network ports providing they go back to a central location like a closet, and not the old way of a stud bay in the garage next to the electric panel.
Re:Cell Phones More Important (Score:5, Insightful)
This summary reads like a lobbyist wrote it. In Florida they can't even get the cell towers going because the backbone took such a hit - that would be the case with or without copper regulations. The copper rules would affect consumers during the rebuilding phase, not in the immediate aftermath. This is the kind of hyperbolic bullshit that has replaced actual discussion in this country.
Re: (Score:2)
AT&T managed it. Verizon, not so much.
Re: (Score:2)
AT&T apparently uses a different backhaul system. Actually, thanks, you've given me something to Google over coffee this morning :)
Re: (Score:3)
Not so bad. Go get a cheapo AT&T go phone an use that until the verizon service comes back after suffering extensive damage from a Cat4-only-missed-becoming-Cat5-by-2mph-winds-hurricane that hit just last week!
That has GOT to be the most clueless comment yet in this story! Where do you think they're going to go to get this Go phone? They're in the middle of a disaster area. The roads are closed. The power is down. They can't get food and water and you think they can just pop down to the mobile shop and pick up a new phone? AT&T's equipment went through the very same storm. It's just that AT&T was prepared and they have gone in as far as they could into the disaster area and sent up drones with tower equip
Re: (Score:2)
The thing is, I'm honestly not sure if they're just giving excuses or if they're so far out of touch that they think crap like the grandfather post is an actual solution.
Re: Cell Phones More Important (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The "towers" aren't down, the fiber backhaul is. So, no, that never occured to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, the towers are down. AT&T managed to get a few drones up to act as towers. They must have had working backhaul to connect them to.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess the point is, there isn't much point in putting up towers if there isn't anything to hook them up to. Looking into it a little this morning, it looks like maybe AT&T has some microwave infrastructure - possibly inherited from its Cingular acquisition - and Verizon had moved to fiber optic backhaul.
Re: (Score:2)
What scenario do you have in your head where the fiber lines are snapped but the copper miraculously survive? Do you think that they still use copper as backhaul or something? You seem confused. Copper is a last-mile solution, not a replacement for fiber backhaul. An alternative backhaul would be microwave.
Re: (Score:2)
I completely agree with all of that, and even if I didn't it is a nice honest argument. Unlike the summary, which is trying to link a tragedy to something at best distantly related to score political points.
Re: (Score:2)
Too bad Verizon has totally failed on the cellular front as well.
Re: Cell Phones More Important (Score:3)
In aircraft manufacture, or medical appliances, if you don't meet standards you can't sell the product.
Why should this be different? People die when communications fail, after all.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Copper does have some role. For one, as mentioned above, it's a vital service for businesses. It's also very important in a disaster situation where there is a prolonged power outage. Get power to the exchange, and all the landline phones it serves will work. Cell service is only good for as long as people have power, and maybe a day after that before the flat batteries hit.
Re: (Score:2)
I know lot's of people who still have basic land line service. And I'm sure most businesses have land lines... I don't know of any business that relies fully on cell towers.
I know I will always have a land line in my home for one main reason. Have you ever been in a situation where everyone in a city tries to use their cell phones at the same time (i.e. natural disaster)? I have, and cell towers are easily overloaded in that situation. My land line... worked like a charm to phone out of the city.
Re: (Score:2)
I went back to having a landline after I noticed that certain recruitment agencies in the UK "retained by the electronics and embedded industry" kept blitzing me by Email and social media each and every time I tried sending off a resume by Email. Also, I discovered that there was an unexplained international block on incoming calls from the USA and Canada on my mobile phone line.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but unfortunately video killed the radio star.
Re: Cell Phones More Important (Score:3)
Wireless is not better any of the time, merely more convenient a little of the time. It's inherently limited in bandwidth, for a start. (Optic to the home will do 50gbps, but a single high-end fibre will do 111tbps.) It's also much harder to sniff traffic on a physically private network than on a broadcast network.
But don't expect the aficionados to recognize these details or your disaster scenario, they're determined they are right and won't let facts get in the way.
Credit where credit's due (Score:3, Funny)
In light of Ajit Pai's decisions and their influence on this disaster, I would like to borrow some words from a former president, and state that Ajit Pai is doing one hell of a job.
I think the phrase was "heck of a job" (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
That's sordid. The worst part was "head of FEMA" was a plumb position to which you appointed a donor or funds raiser who was otherwise incompetent and unskilled at management.
Then during a hurricane during Clinton, the guy screwed up, and Washington swore they'd never use the Head of Fema position in that way ever again, not no way, not no how. It would be an actual, competent manager if not someone outright skilled in disaster management.
Not so long after came "Brownie", the same old thing. This guy was
Re:Credit where credit's due (Score:5, Interesting)
In light of Ajit Pai's decisions and their influence on this disaster, I would like to borrow some words from a former president, and state that Ajit Pai is doing one hell of a job.
Ahh. Bushisms... Those were simpler times, when the president was only mildly incompetent, and a tool of his advisors.
Re:Credit where credit's due (Score:4, Interesting)
Bush was an idiotic, self-serving theocrat... but at least under Bush I could say with confidence he wouldn't start a nuclear war because another national leader insulted him on the internet. I'm no longer confident of that with Trump.
so what do these rules have to do with.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Because emergency communications are critical to human safety. They received subsidies to put these lines in place with the explicit understanding that they would maintain them, even during emergencies and natural disasters. Our taxes went to assist them in building this. Are you that dense that you can't recognize that?
This isn't about commercial profit. This is about human safety.
Re:so what do these rules have to do with.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't it in their own self interest to get there as quick as possible
No, it's not. They save a bundle by waiting until weather conditions are more favorable. And, they do not have enough competition to fear losing most of their paying customers.
Re: (Score:2)
Verizon, and most other telcos, don't want to be in the business of being vital infrastructure and universal service. What they want to do is just sell consumers overpriced products with bad service so that they can collect more profits. The FCC used to say that if they want to use our limited airwaves then they need to maintain a certain level of responsibility.
Re: (Score:2)
Well there's some incentive to get their networks working quickly, before too many users complain and demand refunds, and also for bragging rights to say they fixed their network before their competitors did, but the repairs cost money so that's the disincentive.
Now if they charged by the gigabyte, they would be losing a lot more money, but it's more lucrative to falsely advertise "unlimited" bandwidth and throttle your heaviest users. Yes, Pai rolled back the rule against that, too, remember? What a mess.
Re: so what do these rules have to do with.... (Score:2)
Not really. There's no competition. And even if there were, those who have died due to a lack of service won't be signing up to it, and people tend to prefer what they know over the new.
Re: (Score:3)
That depends on the area. One thing which really bothers service providers is universal service mandates - they have to maintain cables running across mile after mile after mile of country track to serve the town of Bumfuck, population sixty. There's no prospect of making a profit on that. The federal government addresses this with the Universal Service Fund, which grants service providers handouts to subsidise provision in rural areas. Maintaining the reliability of this service is a very low priority thou
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3)
>"Given that Liberals are amongst the first to censor and restrict, whereas Leftists are the ones who introduce laws that improve freedom, you might want to swap those around. Instead, chances are I'll get trolled or modded, because censorship is after all what Liberals and Libertarians do best"
What alternate reality do you live in?? You are the one swapping things around. Libertarians, Liberals (at least as they have typically and historically been), AND Conservatives all believe in free discussion a
Re: (Score:2)
Time was the left defended the right of Neo Nazis to march, against conservative America. It was things like that that brought about "card-carrying member of the ACLU" as an epithet.
But they've discovered an apparent crack in the First Amendment, and miserable human nature is shining right through, as they use the threat of pulling federal money (a law) to order schools to censor. They are no longer fighting the good fight. They are fighting the bad fight of the dictator, who covets this power aborning.
I
Re: (Score:2)
I understand freedom. The British are free from gun violence, for the most part. That is a legitimate freedom. You would deprive the British of that freedom for something they don't want. How is that free? Imposing your beliefs on others is not giving them freedom but taking it.
Same with the freedom to roam - it is an absolute British right to go where the damn you please, as long as you violate no privacy, don't cause damage and don't break and enter. Telling us we can't do that is to tell us we aren't fre
Re: (Score:2)
>" you cannot tolerate beliefs other than your own. Proof of that is the moderation given my prior post. It's no more flamebait than yours. It's modded down because you aren't tolerant. You will not defend to the death my right to say things you don't like, you oppose them vigorously. You do not consider them, you do not even debate them. You are no hero of tolerance."
You are way off base and have no idea who I am or what I believe or do. And I do, very much, believe in the freedom of people to say what
Re: (Score:2)
We are free to have the freedom we want. This is what we chose. We are entitled to choose. This was not imposed, we demanded those laws. They were OUR choice.
You imposing your will on us is not free. You are the enemy of freedom by telling us that we aren't allowed to make our own minds up, that you must think for us. Take your bloody nanny state ideas and shove em!
Your laws restrict you from being free from. Freedom from is as legitimate a freedom as freedom to. But you deny people that freedom because you
same old same old (Score:2)
Absolute Bullshit! (Score:2, Troll)
Why are we not continuing to forcing a private entity to support deprecated technology because people refuse to move on?
While we're at it, let's force Microsoft to continue to support MS-DOS and Windows 3.1.
Linus should be regulated into supporting Version 1.0 of the kernel.
Let's get some legislation to make it illegal for Google to stop supporting my Motorola Droid running Gingerbread.
Wireless and fiber services are shit. Let's get that copper back up and running post haste! I need my 768/128 DSL line back
Re: Absolute Bullshit! (Score:2)
Linux does support version 1.0 of the kernel. Linux is 100% backwards compatible. Windows can run DOS environments. Your point?
I'd hardly call 111tbps obsolete technology. (The article says "or better" and I'd say that's better.) Find me a wireless link with equal bandwidth and comparable latency (fixed lines will support 2ns latency per hop.)
You can't? Then it's not obsolete technology.
Copper can't do it? So what, it states "or better", says nothing about requiring copper. Wireless is intrinsically inferio
The answer to a poor regulation? (Score:2)
Lets assume for a moment that something Ajit Pai said was true (no seriously stick with me for a moment, however unlikely this premise is). Why is the answer to a poor regulation that seems to affect a minor edge case to repeal? If the regulation impeded carriers upgrading, then add verbiage to the regulation that allows them to upgrade while still being bound to the original regulation.
It could very well be that the regulation did catch edge cases that made them restrictive. I haven't read regulation but i
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Some sentences should end early to be good.
Re: Ajit Pai Killed... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What do you expect from Ashit Pile?
Re:History Lesson. (Score:5, Funny)
Ajit is playing with fire and has no idea what he is doing. You're looking at a fall guy in the making.
Any way to speed it up?
Re: (Score:2)
Speed up someone playing with fire with no idea what he's doing? At that (new) rate, we could end up with him as president.
Re: (Score:2)
Ladies and Gentlemen, you see the Dilbert Principle at work.
See what happens when you make shooting people to get rid of them illegal?
Re: (Score:2)
Now where's the kickback in that?
Re: History Lesson. (Score:2)
I'd love to know how a hurricane could take out adequately buried cable. The wind speed at that depth must be pretty close to.... oh, zero?
Re: History Lesson. (Score:2)
Also, net neutrality doesn't mean video streaming is as important as emergency communications. It means that emergency traffic cannot be displaced by video games because you're guaranteed the pipe you bought.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Defunding Planned Parenthood kills women, babies and children.
You DO realize what Planned Parenthood does, don't you, when you talk about "killing babies and children"?
Re: (Score:2)
About 45% of pregnancies are either miscarriages or failure to implants. The ~30% that are miscarriages could be decreased because of the 95%of what Planned Parenthood actually does... medical assistance to would be mothers. But,absolute dipshits with their heads up their ass... like you... disparage them for the other 5% of their activities: providing abortions to women who choose that option.
You want
Re: (Score:2)
OK, I'll bite. What is it, then? It's a serious question. You are saying that the product of a conception between a man and a woman is not a human. What else is it, then?
Re: The Republican Death Cult (Score:5, Insightful)
The dynamics are a bit more complex, but the poster was not lying.
Access to abortion actually does reduce abortion rates. It also increases the safety of them.
Abortion rates have gone up dramatically in States that have reduced access to nearly zero. One can argue that that's because contraception access is also nearly zero, as is sex education. That's fair. However, the three are linked. The attitudes restricting one restrict them all.
Re: (Score:2)
So much edge in one post. Aren't there some midterms you need to be studying for?
Re: The Republican Death Cult (Score:2)
Ideally Democrats work for the betterment of society. I suspect many believe they do and that a decent percentage actually do.
I'd love to see the Democratic party improve on that and genuinely work for the betterment of all. It means kicking out Ayn Rand supporters, plus Neocons/Reaganites in Democrat clothing. It means recognizing Sanders is considered right-wing in Europe and looking at whether those European ideals would help or harm Americans.
But for now, Democrats do not meet their ideals to the degree
Re: (Score:2)
I gotta admit, I laughed at those parts.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Smudge Much? (Score:5, Insightful)
Rarely, if ever (Score:5, Insightful)
Should the market drive the response. The corporations have defined the market, not the consumer. The theory of market-driven response is predicated on consumers having a choice.
Where you have de-facto local monopolies or duopolies due to arrangements between telecos, the consumer has no choice. Likewise when information is so limited that choice does not exist.
Does anyone seriously believe most of those affected had a free choice from a diverse market, with full information on choices? If they do, they need to take a serious look at what they consider diverse or information.
Re: How can we fire him? (Score:2)
That's just it. We the people was a big con. Government works for itself, not you. That's why it needs all the immunity and protections against the public.
America has always been based on the idea that the public and government are mortal enemies that survive by crushing the other. It's so central to the mythos that even though 2A never refers to that and in fact states the exact opposite, in the debates on 2A the focus was on who crushes who.
You cannot fire anyone in government. You cannot recall the presi