Slashdot Mirror

Oh, and while I'm at it, the FCC's regulations for transmission facilities are described in OET-65, not OET-64, and only apply to transmission frequencies above 300 kHz - and thus do not apply to AM radio.

You can be on the tower, or you can be on the ground, but you can't be on both. It's not the potential that kills, it's becoming a circuit path. Birds roosting on power distribution lines, which as a general rule are not insulated, don't die due to that fact.

That's not how any of this works.

First, the tower is grounded and at the same potential as earth. The primary concern is not electric shock.

The parent poster was concerned with worker safety when exposed to radio frequency energy.

https://transition.fcc.gov/Bur...

After performing the required calculations and determining it is safe to work at x distance from the transmitter antenna, workers will typically wear a personal RF monitor to measure exposure.

You can be on the tower, or you can be on the ground, but you can't be on both. It's not the potential that kills, it's becoming a circuit path. Birds roosting on power distribution lines, which as a general rule are not insulated, don't die due to that fact.

That's not how any of this works.

First, the tower is grounded and at the same potential as earth. The primary concern is not electric shock.

The parent poster was concerned with worker safety when exposed to radio frequency energy.

https://transition.fcc.gov/Bur...

After performing the required calculations and determining it is safe to work at x distance from the transmitter antenna, workers will typically wear a personal RF monitor to measure exposure.

Simply jam cell frequencies in the school except maybe at certain times of the day.

There is federal law prohibiting this "simple" solution.

Calls and messages from parents could be allowed and texts between students could be limited and monitored.

This, too is illegal throughout most of the world without notifying at least one and sometimes both parties to the conversation.

Requiring phone calls to students to go through the office is a pretty good solution. The office is much better prepared to minimize disruption in the classroom and is able to support a true emergency (e.g. death of a family member) with immediate emotional support / counseling to the student or the classroom.

Indeed. Satellite-satellite relays are a minority of traffic, not the majority. Where possible, the communication is a single hop - between the user and a base station located on an internet backbone.

Starlink may or may not fall into that category. The lower tier of satellites is designed to beam-form down to just 1.5 degrees, an approximate 4 km radius at the 340 km altitude. Maximum ground footprint at that altitude has a radius of ~440km, but according to their FCC filing, it will never use a beam size that large. There's text in there that implies using multiple simultaneous beams, but I'm not finding anything explicit. No time to read it all, and it's dense technical reading.

Almost all Americans have two or more broadband providers available to them

The FCC disagrees. Keeping in mind that broadband is still officially classified as 25Mbps down/3Mbps up, Figure 4 from last month's Internet Access Services report shows that only 56% of census blocks have a choice (i.e. 2+ broadband providers available), which is a far cry from "almost all Americans".

Moreover, just because broadband is available in a census block does not mean that it's available for any given household. If an ISP provides even a single residential address in a census block with broadband speeds, that census block has broadband speeds "available" so far as the self-reported numbers used in that chart are concerned, even if the remaining 99.9% of people have no access at all. In my suburban neighborhood, for instance, I have two fixed ISPs and one WISP claiming to provide broadband, but in personally contacting all of them I discovered that only one actually provides broadband at my specific address (smack dab in the middle of the neighborhood).

All of which is to say, the actual availability of 2+ broadband ISPs for any given household within the US is at most 56%, but is in all likelihood actually far less.

Innovations like "we give you a free phone with Facebook in return for ads" have been killed.

And what exactly killed them? It certainly wasn't regulation, since wireless is—and has been—specifically exempted from Title II regulation. If that innovation stopped it's not because regulations killed it: it's because market forces did. Even so, I'm not actually convinced those sorts of "innovations" are nearly as dead as you claim. T-Mobile seems to be making a habit of delivering services (e.g. Binge On) that are contrary to Net Neutrality yet good for them and consumers.

I have lived with government-run telecoms and they were a disaster; when they were privatized, service improved massively and prices went down.

I'm not suggesting we take private ISPs public, nor do I view government-run utilities as the panacea that some make them out to be. I simply view them as a way to introduce healthy competition, which is what's sorely needed in the broadband space. Some public ISPs will be lousy and some will be outstanding (just as with private ones), but the outstanding ones will force private ISPs to improve, and that improvement will bring benefits to customers outside the regions they serve.

Utility pricing is completely out of whack. In California [...]

Let's just stop right there and agree that California is doing it wrong. California's example is not how it should be done, nor is it how it's done in most other places. The fact that some places do it incorrectly doesn't mean that it's an inherently bad idea. It just means that they've botched the implementation. My local municipality provides electric and water at rates that make sense to everyone, and I'd certainly trust them to provide Internet as well, were they allowed to do so by the state.

TFA, and another poster, point out that this rule has been vacated (not just modified) so now there may be no legal restrictions on robocall devices.

Unless, of course, the current board passes a new regulation. [*crickets*]

TFA and the other poster clearly didn't read the opinion. The TCPA as a whole remains intact -- the only nuances that were rolled back were (1) the FCC's prior interpretation that smartphones constituted automated telephone dialing systems, and (2) the FCC's prior interpretation that companies using automatic dialers could be held liable for calling a phone number that used to be owned by someone who had given the company consent to call them, but then was (unbeknownst to the caller) transferred to someone else.

Meanwhile, as was all over the news at the time, the FCC actually issued MORE rules clamping down MORE on actual robocallers back in November. Crickets indeed.

TFA, and another poster, point out that this rule has been vacated (not just modified) so now there may be no legal restrictions on robocall devices.

Unless, of course, the current board passes a new regulation. [*crickets*]

TFA and the other poster clearly didn't read the opinion. The TCPA as a whole remains intact -- the only nuances that were rolled back were (1) the FCC's prior interpretation that smartphones constituted automated telephone dialing systems, and (2) the FCC's prior interpretation that companies using automatic dialers could be held liable for calling a phone number that used to be owned by someone who had given the company consent to call them, but then was (unbeknownst to the caller) transferred to someone else.

Meanwhile, as was all over the news at the time, the FCC actually issued MORE rules clamping down MORE on actual robocallers back in November. Crickets indeed.

If you read the court's opinion (or even the summary), it clearly says the FCC's overreach was considering "ordinary calls from any conventional smartphone" to fall under robocall regulation. Putting aside your obvious dislike of Pai, do you honestly believe they should?

I'm curious, how many innocent cell-phone owners were indicted under this (clearly crazy) interpretation of the law?

If it was a lot, then cool, the FCC got something right.

I never imagined I would be defending an action of that right-wing-asshole sock puppet Pai, but any overly broad interpretation of a law allowing reasonable and proper activities to be prosecuted at the whim of some random official is a threat to liberty and the rule of law. E.g., the confiscation. without due process, of monies/properties suspected by whatever random backwoods sheriff to be the result of drug activity.

If you read the court's opinion (or even the summary), it clearly says the FCC's overreach was considering "ordinary calls from any conventional smartphone" to fall under robocall regulation. Putting aside your obvious dislike of Pai, do you honestly believe they should?

I'm curious, how many innocent cell-phone owners were indicted under this (clearly crazy) interpretation of the law?

If it was a lot, then cool, the FCC got something right. I'll be surprised, but very happy and will admit that I am wrong. Though rather than throwing the rules out, the FCC should amend it to do the right thing.

If it was none, then wow, conservatives are the most gullible idiots on this planet. How can you complain about a rule which does useful things (stop annoying robo-callers) but which "might cause a problem" but hasn't in the multiple years it has been in effect? Wow, that means that some folks will believe anything, no matter how crazy or stupid or easily disprovable, that their leaders claim. Blind loyalty is the opposite of patriotism.

So, which is it? Am I happy, or are you a gullible idiot? Should be easy to demonstrate.

If you read the court's opinion (or even the summary), it clearly says the FCC's overreach was considering "ordinary calls from any conventional smartphone" to fall under robocall regulation. Putting aside your obvious dislike of Pai, do you honestly believe they should?

Really? The same guys who regulate, or used to regulate, the telegraph?

I'm a ham radio operator making extensive use of the 3.4-3.5 GHz (9cm)band. This story is useless without defining 3.5 GHz better.

If it's 3550-3700, that's not the ham band and we're ok. But what band is it? 3.5 is lots of things to lots of people.

Our link across Tampa Bay

Details haven't been posted yet. They should turn up here: http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctio...

According to a federal law or regulation http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/wireless911srvc.html, any cell phone, regardless of activation or billing issues, must be able to make a 911 call.

Pretty much anything electronic can create RF emissions. See unintentional and incidental radiators at https://www.fcc.gov/oet/ea/rfd...

Pretty much all commercially sold electronic equipment needs to be FCC certified for sale in the US specifically because they can cause interference like this. See https://www.fcc.gov/oet/ea/rfd... specifically the sections on unintentional and incidental radiators.

While the internet is a wonderful place where you can share your thoughts, when they are stupid, people will know you are stupid. It's a double-edged sword.

The FCC requirement for public access channels only apples to cable companies. It doesn't apply to satellite TV, and it doesn't apply to internet video services.

Pursuant to Section 611 of the Communications Act, local franchising authorities may require cable operators to set aside channels for public, educational, or governmental ("PEG") use.

And that is what VT has done. They've required Comcast to set aside public access channels. Comcast has decided that they can continue to run 480p analog feeds, because nobody told them they couldn't. Until this recent renewal of their monopoly contract as a cable operator in VT where VT said they needed to provide digital HD public access channels.

Comcast could have just not signed that contract extension if they didn't want to do that. But no, they didn't. They signed it, and then sued. How in the world does that make any sense? That's abusive and evil, and allows them to keep their title as the biggest pieces of shit in the cable market.

If you read the report, it goes through times when it's including cell data and times when it's not. It also lays out exactly why it's making those two choices as required by the laws that tell the FCC what to do.

It's all spelled out in the report.

https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_pub...

Anyone interested in this topic needs to read the actual report. There the FCC goes through the numbers behind its conclusions and the legal requirements that it faces when going about its analysis.

But more importantly, the FCC report simply doesn't come to the conclusion that Slashdot reports here. In fact it explicitly says that there is more progress to be made, and that it was a lot more than Network Neutrality stuff going on last year.

The report is a fine report that we should be able to get behind, as it promotes efforts to expand Broadband to more people.

Missreporting like this is not helpful.

Here's a link to the report:
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_pub...

Well the "jury is out" but there is a lot more data around! Here is a 2013 peer reviewed paper, "Electromagnetic fields act via activation of voltage-gated calcium channels to produce beneficial or adverse effects" by Martin L Pall* https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
You can see a list of his other papers here; https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
2016 by same, "Microwave frequency electromagnetic fields (EMFs) produce widespread neuropsychiatric effects including depression." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... "Non-thermal microwave/lower frequency electromagnetic fields (EMFs) act via voltage-gated calcium channel (VGCC) activation. " So much for the 'thermal is everything' approach at least on this band.

Hourlong video with Pall https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
And here is another one with that devious hippie Mercola; https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

A whole bunch of bills in Massachusetts https://sites.google.com/site/...

Maryland did a whole thing on wifi and kids https://phpa.health.maryland.g...

The site Undark went a ways into the topic https://undark.org/article/cel...

0.08 W/kg they say from FCC. Per here a lot of other health bodies demand or advise far far lower RF exposure. https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/7...
Regulatory FCC/ANSI– USA– 900MHzrange 610,000 nW/cm2
Regulatory Italy,Poland,Hungary,Bulgaria,China,Russia 10,000nW/cm2
Regulatory Switzerland 4,500nW/cm2
Recommendation– EcologInstitute (2000) 300nW/cm2
Recommendation– SalzburgResolution(2000) 100nW/cm2
Recommendation– BioInitiativeReport(2008) https://www.newlook.dteenergy....

big texas report (everything bigger in texas) http://www.puc.texas.gov/indus...

Anyways I suggest you dig around, there is all sorts of interesting stuff coming up on this topic.

What did the FCC do that prevents states from enacting net neutrality

It depends on whether or not you think there is any such thing as intrastate commerce.

If you think intrastate commerce is a real thing that exists, and therefore SCOTUS might be disobeyed (as is happening with marijuana legalization, for example), then they haven't done anything to prevent it, because we didn't yet enact an amendment to the US constitution to give FCC this new power that they're demanding.

But if you think SCOTUS will be obeyed (i.e. ALL activities that anyone can conceive of, are always interstate commerce, there are no limits to federal power except for things explicitly forbidden in the constitution, the framers had absolutely nothing in mind when they wrote the 10th amendment), then the thing that they did to take that power away from the states was to give the recent unpopular order.

Here is the FCC's order (PDF), and the relevant part is in section III(E)(7) (paragraph 194) on page 117 of that PDF. HTH.

Got an authorative source for this?

Would the FCC order itself suffice for you? Directly from the same order that repealed Title II classification for ISPs, the FCC itself said (emphasis mine):

We therefore preempt any state or local measures that would effectively impose rules or requirements that we have repealed or decided to refrain from imposing in this order or that would impose more stringent requirements for any aspect of broadband service that we address in this order.

It was fairly trivial to find, given that they put it in the section entitled "Preemption of Inconsistent State and Local Regulations", with that particular quote coming from page 110, paragraph 191. A few paragraphs later they provide an argument for their legal authority to preempt the states, but that authority will doubtless be challenged in court whenever the FCC sues California or vice versa, given that the California bill flies directly in the face of that preemption. The Montana and New York approaches use a backdoor approach to dealing with the issue that doesn't directly defy the FCC's order, so it's entirely possible that they may be allowed to remain in place even if the California bill gets tossed out. Of course, being that they're based on executive orders, the very next governor of those states could easily repeal the order.

Anyway, going back to (what I assume was) your earlier question:

Wasn't the point of striking NN to cede power that the FCC really doesn't have and allow states to figure out what's best for themselves? Or does that not fit the anti-Trump narrative?

No, not only was it not the point, it was explicitly not the point, and as such it fits just fine with the anti-Trump narrative surrounding net neutrality.

>the FCC removed a regulation, it didn't create one.
Obviously you're ignorant of what is in the FCC ruling. Why don't you go read it I'll wait...

Ah, who am I kidding? Everyone knows you won't read shit.

We conclude that regulation of broadband Internet access service should be governed
principally by a uniform set of federal regulations, rather than by a patchwork that includes separate state and local requirements. Our order today establishes a calibrated federal regulatory regime based on the pro-competitive, deregulatory goals of the 1996 Act. Allowing state and local governments to adopt their own separate requirements, which could impose far greater burdens than the federal regulatory regime, could significantly disrupt the balance we strike here. Federal courts have uniformly held that an affirmative federal policy of deregulation is entitled to the same preemptive effect as a federal policy of regulation. 726 In addition, allowing state or local regulation of broadband Internet access service could impair the provision of such service by requiring each ISP to comply with a patchwork of separate and potentially conflicting requirements across all of the different jurisdictions in which it operates. 727 Just as the Title II Order promised to “exercise our preemption authority to preclude states from imposing regulations on broadband service that are inconsistent” with the federal regulatory scheme, we conclude that we should exercise our authority to preempt any state or local requirements that are inconsistent with the federal deregulatory approach we adopt today. 728
195. We therefore preempt any state or local measures that would effectively impose rules or
requirements that we have repealed or decided to refrain from imposing in this order or that would impose more stringent requirements for any aspect of broadband service that we address in this order.

>States have been making their own regulations regarding abortion now since Rove v Wade, even though the "supreme" law of the land, aka a woman's right, can be superseded by a state regulation, you're going to have a hard time arguing against state regulation regarding which communications companies states choose to to business with.

Man, that is probably the worst example you could have chosen, since the so-called "woman's right" was created by judicial fiat, rather than by Congress, or the Founding Fathers. But in case you don't know, states that have attempted to pass anti-abortion laws like creating burdensome restrictions on abortion doctors and what not, usually get ruled unconstitutional 9 times out of 10. Rove v. Wade.? Are you drunk?

net neutrality can be described in a single paragraph.

The Democrats don't want a single paragraph, or even a single page. What they're grandstanding to put back in place is 300+ pages of corporate second-guessing and micromanagement.

The underlying problem is https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_pub... . As best I can tell, those were the new standards for E911 location precision from 2015, which completely screwed up the working E911 system by requiring more precision than was physically possible with the existing, stable system from TruePosition, in use by most cell phone vendors. That system involved bolting hardware onto the cell phone towers, hardware that worked pretty well. They had a nice display of the system that survived the 9/11 bombings and helped provide location date to rescuers, including people who were underground in places with the doors covered with rubble.

Sadly, the updated regulations required even more accuracy. The cell phone companies are now pursuing "evaluation" projects for independent systems, none of which work. And Trueposition is *gone*. They got absorbed into a locaiton company called Skyhook, but kept their old management that failed to keep them intact. They're supporting only a few legacy systems E911 systems, and have since had two rounds of layoffs.

It should be possible to use other location systems, such as Skyhook's or Google maps or iPhone recovery tools to make some working location services for E911. Even Wayz would be a starting point. Getting the companies to play well with the data, or allow sharing of that data just for emergency services, is a software integration problem and an ethical morass due to privacy concerns.

No driving from city to city and changing to smaller more expensive networks. No fees to access another small network in the USA simply for enjoying the freedom to move around the USA. Stay with your existing plan all over the USA as your brand will finally be able to get access to all of the USA. No more very local monopolies that gathered up all the local spectrum keeping out other brands from all over the USA. Enjoy your bands support, pricing and quality of service all over the USA. No more unexpected payments demanded from local monopolies to connect in their state, city. Wireless spectrum was to allow innovative communications services all over the USA. Not to be small local monopolies that demand connection payments as they got granted the ability to be the only network in that part of the USA.

How do you expect CBRS licenses will change this situation? The CBRS plan from 2015 until late 2017 was to have census-tract-sized licenses, covering a smaller area than has been licensed before. The TMO/CTIA proposal is to use PEA (Partial Economic Area)-sized licenses, which cover metro areas or large swaths of rural areas. This would make the license area similar to existing cellular licenses, far from "nationwide" like you are saying.

Enjoy the freedom to travel all over the USA with your own trusted telco plan. No more strange costs just for making a call in California or New Jersey because someone local got all the spectrum and kept it so they could get extra payments for people trying to make a call.

CBRS is an acronym for Citizens Broadband Radio Service. "Telco", "call cost", and "national" aren't really very relevant to this discussion.

Taken from the FCC's NPRM on CBRS:
6. This regulatory adaptability should make the 3.5 GHz Band hospitable to a wide variety of users, deployment models, and business cases, including some solutions to market needs not adequately served by our conventional licensed or unlicensed rules. Carriers can avail themselves of "success-based" license acquisition, deploying small cells on a GAA basis where they need additional capacity and paying for the surety of license protection only in targeted locations where they find a demonstrable need for more interference protection. Real estate owners can deploy neutral host systems in high-traffic venues, allowing for cost-effective network sharing among multiple wireless providers and their customers. Manufacturers, utilities, and other large industries can construct private wireless broadband networks to automate processes that require some measure of interference protection and yet are not appropriately outsourced to a commercial cellular network. Smart grid, rural broadband, small cell backhaul, and other point-to-multipoint networks can potentially access three times more bandwidth than was available under our previous 3650-3700 MHz band rules. All of these applications could share common wireless technologies, providing economies of scale and facilitating intensive use of the spectrum.

Soon your trusted telco brand will be available all over the USA at the same easy to understand rates. Enjoy making calls and using data all over the USA without local monopolies adding their extra data costs.

As I've shown above, that isn't the purpose of CBRS, nor will CBRS enable this while previous spectrum auctions have failed. There is nothing preventing large carriers from bidding on these licenses, large or small. Large licenses shut out the very users CBRS was intended for, though, solely for the benefit of the large cellular carriers. I don't believe most Americans view the large carriers with the same rosey glasses as you. "Your trusted telco brand" may have better approval ratings than Congress, but that's a pretty low bar.

It seems to me that the FCC has been lowering its standards ever since Ajit took over control. Nothing new here.

Except that it's not being lowered: https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/0808160504329/FCC-17-109A1.pdf

If you can't meet the standard, then just lower the standards! Who knew it would be so easy to provide broadband speeds to everyone?

Quick - What is the current definition for mobile broadband at the FCC?

Answer - Trick question, it has no current definition, they are proposing the first definition of mobile broadband ever - your anger at the Trump Administration has forced you to invent reasons to maintain your anger at them. You literally have no idea what you are upset about, you just saw a bunch of villagers yelling and waving protest signs and it looked like fun so you decided to join in.

Click here, read the actual FCC document - if you are in a hurry, just skip to page 7, and read sections 18 and 19:

18. The Commission has not previously set a mobile speed benchmark

19. We seek comment on whether a mobile speed benchmark of 10 Mbps/1 Mbps is
appropriate for mobile broadband services.

How about a few facts?

Fixed Broadband definition (p. 6):

14. We seek comment on the appropriate benchmark for fixed advanced telecommunications
capability. Should we maintain the 25 Mbps download, 3 Mbps upload (25 Mbps/3 Mbps) speed
benchmark, and to apply it to all forms of fixed broadband? For example, the most recent Internet Access
Services Report finds that 59 percent of residential fixed connections equal or exceed such speed.34
Should we consider modifying the 25 Mbps/3 Mbps benchmark? Those proposing different speed
benchmarks should specify and provide justifications for their proposed alternatives. We also seek
comment on whether there are other sources or data points we should consider.

Mobile Broadband Definition (p. 7):

18. The Commission has not previously set a mobile speed benchmark.37 Our consideration
of whether and how to set a speed benchmark will be informed by assessing the mobile broadband
services and speeds that are available to consumers today, as well as evidence regarding what services
consumers are choosing today, and what might be available in the near future. We ask commenters to
address these factors in their comments. Should the Commission set a mobile speed benchmark, and if
so, what it should be? We anticipate that any speed benchmark we set would be lower than the 25
Mbps/3 Mbps benchmark adopted for fixed broadband services, given differing capabilities of mobile
broadband. We ask commenters to discuss this choice.38 We seek comment on how use cases,
engineering studies, and any other relevant empirical data should inform a mobile speed benchmark in
terms of both the downlink and the uplink speed.

19. We seek comment on whether a mobile speed benchmark of 10 Mbps/1 Mbps is
appropriate for mobile broadband services. Would a download speed benchmark higher or lower than 10
Mbps be appropriate for the purpose of assessing American consumers’ access to advanced
telecommunications capability? How should we appropriately consider edge speed in setting a mobile
speed benchmark? As discussed below, in setting any mobile speed benchmark, how should we take into
account the important issues of reliability/consistency of service and latency in the mobile broadband
environment? Would it be more practical to use deployment of various air interface technologies (e.g.,
LTE) as a proxy for speed benchmarks? In this case, could we maintain a technology-neutral evaluation
but rely on deployment of technologies we understand to typically be used to provide mobile advanced
telecommunications capability?

How about a few facts?

Fixed Broadband definition (p. 6):

14. We seek comment on the appropriate benchmark for fixed advanced telecommunications
capability. Should we maintain the 25 Mbps download, 3 Mbps upload (25 Mbps/3 Mbps) speed
benchmark, and to apply it to all forms of fixed broadband? For example, the most recent Internet Access
Services Report finds that 59 percent of residential fixed connections equal or exceed such speed.34
Should we consider modifying the 25 Mbps/3 Mbps benchmark? Those proposing different speed
benchmarks should specify and provide justifications for their proposed alternatives. We also seek
comment on whether there are other sources or data points we should consider.

Mobile Broadband Definition (p. 7):

18. The Commission has not previously set a mobile speed benchmark.37 Our consideration
of whether and how to set a speed benchmark will be informed by assessing the mobile broadband
services and speeds that are available to consumers today, as well as evidence regarding what services
consumers are choosing today, and what might be available in the near future. We ask commenters to
address these factors in their comments. Should the Commission set a mobile speed benchmark, and if
so, what it should be? We anticipate that any speed benchmark we set would be lower than the 25
Mbps/3 Mbps benchmark adopted for fixed broadband services, given differing capabilities of mobile
broadband. We ask commenters to discuss this choice.38 We seek comment on how use cases,
engineering studies, and any other relevant empirical data should inform a mobile speed benchmark in
terms of both the downlink and the uplink speed.

19. We seek comment on whether a mobile speed benchmark of 10 Mbps/1 Mbps is
appropriate for mobile broadband services. Would a download speed benchmark higher or lower than 10
Mbps be appropriate for the purpose of assessing American consumers’ access to advanced
telecommunications capability? How should we appropriately consider edge speed in setting a mobile
speed benchmark? As discussed below, in setting any mobile speed benchmark, how should we take into
account the important issues of reliability/consistency of service and latency in the mobile broadband
environment? Would it be more practical to use deployment of various air interface technologies (e.g.,
LTE) as a proxy for speed benchmarks? In this case, could we maintain a technology-neutral evaluation
but rely on deployment of technologies we understand to typically be used to provide mobile advanced
telecommunications capability?

The reason ISPs want 10/1 to be recognized as "broadband" is so they can ignore customers who don't have access to 25/3 fixed broadband while still claiming that they're being adequately served. While they're not changing the definition of fixed broadband, they are effectively lowering the standard by arguing that a mobile connection is a viable way to access the internet.

From Comcast's filing with the FCC:

Leaving aside that the 25/3 Mbps benchmark is an arbitrary cut-off as explained below, any factually-based analysis of the marketplace demonstrates that Americans already have access to a growing number of offerings over varied transmission media, including fixed wireless, satellite, and mobile wireless, which are increasingly capable of very fast speeds. More importantly, Dr. Evans’ analysis ignores the fact that speeds lower than 25/3 Mbps can and do meet the needs of many consumers. As Dr. Christian Dippon explains, “[f]or many people, 10 Mbps service, or even 3 Mbps, is more than adequate.”

They are explicitly stating that 10mbps down is "more than adequate" for consumers, and even go a step further by trying to argue that 3mbps down is somehow good enough. This is in direct response to the current 25/3 threshold for fixed broadband, which according to their own filing is only available to 76% of Americans as of mid-2016. If 10/1 is considered broadband, they can claim 100% broadband coverage.

The real gullible people are the ones who think that anything a big ISP says can be taken at face value. They're experts at playing mind games, and if you think standards aren't being lowered here, you're the one getting played.

As it turns out, although it used to be 4/1, the FCC adopted 25/3 as the new definition on 29 January 2015.

It sounds like you've been told half-truths. Yes, the FCC is planning to change the limit of what's considered "broadband" to 10/1. Yes, it was previously 4/1. But it is currently 25/3, so 10/1 is a significant downgrade.

https://www.fcc.gov/reports-re...

For 2015, 2016 and 2017, the speed of 25/1 is what they used as the definition of Broadband. The proposal is to lower this to 10/1 so that most cellular providers will meet the definition.

Try again next time.

... when last year's FCC said it would be 25mbps, per Wheeler's 2016 draft progress report

That's for fixed broadband, it's the mobile broadband definition that is changing (though I haven't yet been able to find out what the current mobile speed is defined as). If you look at the actual FCC document, it clearly states that the fixed broadband definition should remain the same (at 25 down / 3 up)

Heaven forbid anyone should reply with, like, actual facts...

From 2016 we have:

1. Approximately 34 million Americans still lack access to fixed broadband at the FCC’s benchmark speed of 25 Mbps for downloads, 3 Mbps for uploads

2. Advanced telecommunications capability requires access to both fixed and mobile broadband

REF: FCC Fact Sheet: 2016 Broadband Progress Report, Chairman’s Draft, https://assets.documentcloud.o...

From 2017 under Ajit Pai we have:

1. We seek comment on the appropriate benchmark for fixed advanced telecommunications capability. Should we maintain the 25 Mbps download, 3 Mbps upload (25 Mbps/3 Mbps) speed benchmark, and to apply it to all forms of fixed broadband?

2. We seek comment on whether a mobile speed benchmark of 10 Mbps/1 Mbps is appropriate for mobile broadband services. Would a download speed benchmark higher or lower than 10 Mbps be appropriate for the purpose of assessing American consumers’ access to advanced telecommunications capability?

REF: FCC THIRTEENTH SECTION 7 06 REPORT NOTICE OF INQUIRY, http://transition.fcc.gov/Dail...

Maybe I'm blind but I don't see anything in the second document about changing the benchmark speeds for fixed broadband services.

First, we propose to maintain the current speed benchmark of 25 Mbps download and 3 Mbps upload (25 Mbps/3 Mbps) for fixed broadband, and we also seek comment about other potential benchmarks.

We seek comment on whether a mobile speed benchmark of 10 Mbps/1 Mbps is appropriate for mobile broadband services. Would a download speed benchmark higher or lower than 10 Mbps be appropriate for the purpose of assessing American consumers’ access to advanced telecommunications capability?

It's talked about here...the 10/1 is a proposed standard for "mobile broadband".

Page 6, paragraph 14:Should we maintain the 25 Mbps download, 3 Mbps upload (25 Mbps/3 Mbps) speed benchmark, and to apply it to all forms of fixed broadband? and in the footnotes: The 25 Mbps/3 Mbps speed benchmark was established in the 2015 Report and maintained in the 2016 Report. Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, and Possible Steps to Accelerate Such Deployment Pursuant to Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, as Amended by the Broadband Data Improvement Act, GN Docket No. 14-126, 2015 Broadband Progress Report and Notice of Inquiry on Immediate Action to Accelerate Deployment, 30 FCC Rcd 1375, 1403 -08, paras. 45 -55 (2015) (2015 Report ); 2016 Report , 31 FCC Rcd at 722, paras. 51 -52.

Page 7, paragraph 18: The Commission has not previously set a mobile speed benchmark...We seek comment on whether a mobile speed benchmark of 10 Mbps/1 Mbps is appropriate for mobile broadband services.

IMHO, 10/1 is probably "good enough" for "mobile broadband", but only as long as that isn't your ONLY choice. Most people aren't hotspoting multiple devices off a single cell phone.

Let me focus in on something you got there...

Or any of a large number of other things that they would do were it not for the courts to stop some of it

So I'm going to go with this idea that you believe in legal recourse. If not then just skip the rest of this, we're just not going to go anywhere.

So the question remains: who do people who exhibit a complete distrust of the government suddenly accept promises at face value from the same government?

The thing is this. There have been at least three dozen cases but here's one for you 600 F.3d 642 that have established that there is not a legal recourse for network traffic manipulation without the following things. The FCC must approve of what those rules are for network traffic, which they did in 2007. The FCC may only apply those rules to those classified as Title II, which in 2010, Comcast was not classified as. So, lacking Title II classification the courts have ruled that there is no current legal recourse for network traffic manipulation.

So the question is, where does this all come from? PL104-104 passed by Congress in 1996. In this law Congress dictates in section 509 that section 230 of Title II of 47 USC 201 is amended that gives the FCC the power to dictate what is "fair" for "network traffic". That basically sets it up as, the word "fair" can be defined by the FCC. And after several legal battles between 1996 and 1998, the FCC commissioned a study to define what "fair" meant, because that's what Congress told them to do and judges really couldn't do much because the definition by law of fair was to be defined by the FCC.

They haven't shown that to me, and I don't accept the argument that they are no longer promising something they don't need to promise means they're going to do the opposite. But that's a personal decision.

You are right except when you walk into a court room. Which is the entire point here. We've all got different points of views on what "fair" is, that's why we have laws. It's sort of the axiom of what "fair" means except not agreeing with it means going to jail or fines. And that was the entire point, judges couldn't just magically whip up a definition of what fair meant back in 1996, but there wasn't really anything in the books to give them guidance. But I digress. The FCC in 1998 begins to make rules on what fair meant, and in 2002 they come forward with what those rules are in something with a horrible name called the "Cable Modem Order" here I'll save you a Google.. Here's a fun bit for you.

The Communications Act does not clearly indicate how cable modem service should be classified or regulated; the relevant statutory provisions do not yield easy or obvious answers to the questions at hand; and the case law interpreting those provisions is extensive and complex.

As you can see by this point (and we're only at 2002), there were so many lawsuits that you couldn't even make good rules based on case law, because I know a lot of us find it hard to remember this, but the Internet was literally fucked traffic wise back then. Now I should make it abundantly clear here, we're talking about traffic here. Case law had already established a clear distinction between "service" and "traffic". Basically, as long as your connection didn't go dark, you weren't in any violation of FTC rules and since the FCC hasn't spoken up yet about it. A connection to the Internet, even if it completely blocked email, was just a connection to the Internet, no harm/no foul. That's the difference that case law had at least agreed on by "service" versus "traffic". And so if you couldn't access Microsoft's website, there's no legal recourse, but if you just couldn't get on

You said name "broadband" options not 25+mbps options.

From 2015 BROADBAND PROGRESS REPORT AND NOTICE OF INQUIRY ON IMMEDIATE ACTION TO ACCELERATE DEPLOYMENT

We take the needs of multiple users into account when considering what level of service is necessary to be considered advanced telecommunications capability. We consider, too, the services that providers are offering today, as well as the services that American consumers are choosing. With these factors in mind, we find that, having “advanced telecommunications capability” requires access to actual download speeds of at least 25 Mbps and actual upload speeds of at least 3 Mbps (25 Mbps/3 Mbps).

Well for a start three of them voted for it, how about name and shame them all, not just the only idiot who was willing to promote that scam. Just looking at that guy and the idiocy he comes up with and you know, you just know he was the only one stupid enough to destroy his public image for the rest of his life, all the others chickened out and with good reason. There are at least two others skulking in the background https://www.fcc.gov/about/lead... [fcc.gov], wish them a merry fucking christmas.

Oh for sanity's sake, stop the whining!

One of the rarest things ever just happened, almost as rare as bottled unicorn farts, a federal government agency actually gave back some of the scope-creep it was handed and chose to forego increasing their fiefdom in favor of allowing Congress to write laws to address the issues like things are supposed to be done. It's a miracle on a scale that merits alerting the fucking Vatican! People should be dancing in the fucking streets and a national holiday declared!

But all you can do is whine like a bitch on Slashdot because you're too low-info to understand the discussion and either too lazy or too stupid to educate yourself before you open your pie-hole.

Well for a start three of them voted for it, how about name and shame them all, not just the only idiot who was willing to promote that scam. Just looking at that guy and the idiocy he comes up with and you know, you just know he was the only one stupid enough to destroy his public image for the rest of his life, all the others chickened out and with good reason. There are at least two others skulking in the background https://www.fcc.gov/about/lead..., wish them a merry fucking christmas.

I think you mean, "inconceivable!"

Ajit Pai keeps claiming that this just restores things to the way they were in 2015 before the Open Internet Order of 2015. While that is technically true, it was only prior to 2005 and between 2014-2015 that net neutrality wasn't in place. The statements by Ajit Pai, Ted Cruz, and others that the Internet did fine without regulation is not true.

The FCC first established some net neutrality concepts in 2005 as an "Internet Policy Statement": Net neutrality was not needed before then because ISPs did not start the bad behavior until 2004-2005, for example, Madison River Communications blocking competing VoIP services. The FCC didn't establish regulations until they were needed.

The 2005 "Internet Policy Statement" was pretty basic:
"(1) consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice; (2) consumers are entitled to run applications and services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement; (3) consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network; and (4) consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers."
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_pub...

The FCC then expanded those concepts into the "Open Internet Order of 2010:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Unfortunately, on January 14, 2014, the DC Circuit Court ruled in Verizon Communications Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission that the FCC had no authority to enforce the Open Internet Order on service providers unless they were identified as "common carriers."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

To still be able to regulate ISPs after this court decision, the FCC established the new "Open Internet Order of 2015" that classified ISPs as common carriers:
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_pub...

Broadband investment being down since 2015 is another Ajit Pai flat out lie. Investment was actually at its lowest between 2014 and 2015 when there was no net neutrality rules.

"In December 2015, AT&T’s CEO told investors that the company would 'deploy more fiber' in 2016 than it did in 2015 and that Title II would not impede its future business plans.
In December 2016, Comcast’s chief financial officer admitted to investors that any concerns it had about reclassification were based only on 'the fear of what Title II could have meant, more than what it actually meant.'
That same month, Charter’s CEO told investors, 'Title II, it didn’t really hurt us; it hasn’t hurt us.'"

https://arstechnica.com/tech-p...
https://arstechnica.com/inform...
https://www.wired.com/story/th...

I think you mean, "inconceivable!"

Ajit Pai keeps claiming that this just restores things to the way they were in 2015 before the Open Internet Order of 2015. While that is technically true, it was only prior to 2005 and between 2014-2015 that net neutrality wasn't in place. The statements by Ajit Pai, Ted Cruz, and others that the Internet did fine without regulation is not true.

The FCC first established some net neutrality concepts in 2005 as an "Internet Policy Statement": Net neutrality was not needed before then because ISPs did not start the bad behavior until 2004-2005, for example, Madison River Communications blocking competing VoIP services. The FCC didn't establish regulations until they were needed.

The 2005 "Internet Policy Statement" was pretty basic:
"(1) consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice; (2) consumers are entitled to run applications and services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement; (3) consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network; and (4) consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers."
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_pub...

The FCC then expanded those concepts into the "Open Internet Order of 2010:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Unfortunately, on January 14, 2014, the DC Circuit Court ruled in Verizon Communications Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission that the FCC had no authority to enforce the Open Internet Order on service providers unless they were identified as "common carriers."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

To still be able to regulate ISPs after this court decision, the FCC established the new "Open Internet Order of 2015" that classified ISPs as common carriers:
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_pub...

Broadband investment being down since 2015 is another Ajit Pai flat out lie. Investment was actually at its lowest between 2014 and 2015 when there was no net neutrality rules.

"In December 2015, AT&T’s CEO told investors that the company would 'deploy more fiber' in 2016 than it did in 2015 and that Title II would not impede its future business plans.
In December 2016, Comcast’s chief financial officer admitted to investors that any concerns it had about reclassification were based only on 'the fear of what Title II could have meant, more than what it actually meant.'
That same month, Charter’s CEO told investors, 'Title II, it didn’t really hurt us; it hasn’t hurt us.'"

https://arstechnica.com/tech-p...
https://arstechnica.com/inform...
https://www.wired.com/story/th...

In the comments section of his FCC blog post about giving thanks.

No. Net Neutrality is about how you route and drop IP packets, and more specifically, not doing it based on source or destination.

Further, the FCC specifically declined to apply their rules to interconnects. From page 10 of the 2015 Open Internet Order:

30. But this Order does not apply the open Internet rules to interconnection. Three factors
are critical in informing this approach to interconnection. First, the nature of Internet traffic, driven by
massive consumption of video, has challenged traditional arrangements—placing more emphasis on the
use of CDNs or even direct connections between content providers (like Netflix or Google) and last-mile
broadband providers. Second, it is clear that consumers have been subject to degradation resulting from
commercial disagreements, perhaps most notably in a series of disputes between Netflix and large last
mile broadband providers. But, third, the causes of past disruption and—just as importantly—the
potential for future degradation through interconnection disputes—are reflected in very different
narratives in the record.

Some 90 pages into the 2015 Order it explained how the 2014 Netflix-Level 3-Verizon dispute was not a violation.

Let Ajit Pai know how "thankful" you are in the comments section of his FCC Blog post.

He was made commissioner by Obama, but Trump made him chairman. At least according to the FCC.

So no, Obama did not put him into the position where he could make this decision. But clever wording, I have to give you that. It's actually true enough to not make people call you a liar but omits enough to make people think that Obama is to blame for this asshole being where he is.

He was appointed as one of the commissioners in 2012. Trump put him in chairman position of FCC in 2017. However. The way I see it, both are bidders of the corporate overlords. https://www.fcc.gov/about/lead...

First, the "You are a common carrier" but not really status the FCC tries to define. They are cutting the legislative baby in half, when it's not necessary, in an attempt to appease all sides. They keep in place an ISP's responsibility to filter specific types of traffic (things like child porn and such) while trying to claim that the ISP may not filter or throttle speeds for specific services. Such compromises don't help anybody.

Second, the exception of VPN services might be assumed to exempt VPN providers from the non-filtering of content rules. Thus the FCC gave an easy out for ISP's who which to packet filter.

Third, "providers" of data services will have higher costs to meet all the requirements newly levied on them. Such costs will be passed on to customers.

Fourth, the grievance process, where complaints about violations of the NN rules is hugely complex for the FCC. The FCC doesn't have the staff or infrastructure for this, so I figure the complaint process will be pretty much non-existent. Sure, you can file a complaint, but good luck getting the FCC to look at it, much less deal with it.

That's just a start of a few specifics. Go read the 400 pages here: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_pub...

The FCC's own rulemaking process requires it.

However, nothing obligates them to give a rat's ass about what they learn from it. Your tax dollars at work.

Never confuse "We want to hear from you" with "We care about what you say."