Slashdot Mirror

The FCC won't comply with FOIA.

WTF? FCC comments are open to anyone and searchable.

The FCC won't comply with FOIA.

WTF? FCC comments are open to anyone and searchable.

Try reading and understanding the paragraph that the article is paraphrasing.

https://transition.fcc.gov/Dai...

The article is claiming that the FCC position is the complete opposite from what the FCC says it is in the document. The article is pulling something out of context to make a false assertion. Here is another section from the FCC document, that explains the true position of the FCC:

Below we examine both how consumers perceive the offer of broadband Internet access service, as well as the nature of the service actually offered by ISPs, and conclude that ISPs are best understood as offering a service that inextricably intertwines the information processing capabilities described above and transmission.

Cloudflare is a CDN, not an ISP.

Name an argument for why Net Neutrality for ISPs is good and desirable, that would not also apply to the CDNs. You can't. Therefor, the distinction you just made is without difference.

you'e an idiot

Yeah, this seems like the only kind of argument you and yours are capable of.

The FCC has a published API for bulk submission of comments. Why is anyone surprised that someone took the phone book and posted a bunch of bogus comments from everyone from Aaron Aaronson to Zebediah Zywiec? https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/public-api-docs.html

I found this one, with my wife's aunt's correct name and address: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filin...

Only problem is that she died in 2006.

Looks like the spambots are stealing cartoon character identities also.. misspelled even. Ha. https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filin...

He is saying he is just returning to the rules that existed for most of the life of the net when it was vibrant and grew just fine.

He then points out to the useful idiots who've been conned into supporting the "net neutrality" gimmick by a handful of megacorps with PR teams that these very companies who talk about freedom and openness and all data being treated equally are in fact muzzling all sorts of speech they oppose and treating all sorts of data differently based on whatever arbitrary criteria they choose. The people in silicon valley who are making billions spying on people and selling their data are pushi9ng people to support cheap and relaible transport for their data with completely illusory and hypocritical arguments.

Try actually reading the whole statement.

Where was he when there was a white supremacist as a White House adviser?

According to you and yours, there is a White supremacist in the Oval Office. It does not mean, what you think it means...

That said, I strongly doubt, any of those people "supremacists" have ever told Pai anything like

• Indian cocksucker, you don't belong here. Leave the country now.
• GO BACK TO INDIA YOU FUCKING TOWEL HEAD TERRORIST

... or any of the other well-reasoned and sensible arguments collected here.

Where was he when there was a white supremacist as a White House adviser?

According to you and yours, there is a White supremacist in the Oval Office. It does not mean, what you think it means...

That said, I strongly doubt, any of those people "supremacists" have ever told Pai anything like

• Indian cocksucker, you don't belong here. Leave the country now.
• GO BACK TO INDIA YOU FUCKING TOWEL HEAD TERRORIST

... or any of the other well-reasoned and sensible arguments collected here.

No Blocking, No Throttling and No Paid Prioritization

Feel free to point out where exactly in the proposal it bans blocking, throttling or paid prioritization: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_pub.... Hint; it's not on page 134, chapter 235 where all three are explicitly no longer banned.

Actually they were until the FCC passed a rule in 2011 (effective in 2012) to require commercials to be at the same average volume as the programs around them.

I remember many nights where I would be watching TV getting a baby asleep only to have an ad come on that was blaring at a higher volume and would wake the kid up.

Over on Twitter, a frequently promoted Tweet is Comcast claiming that they're not going to block/throttle anything.

Of course they are, even the proposal by the FCC right now includes language that addresses this specifically :

142. Many of the largest ISPs have committed in this proceeding not to block or throttle legal
content.507 These commitments can be enforced by the FTC under Section 5, protecting consumers
without imposing public-utility regulation on ISPs.508 As discussed below, we believe that case-by-case,
ex post regulation better serves a dynamic industry like the Internet and reduces the risk of overregulation.509
We also reject assertions that the FTC has insufficient authority, because, as Verizon
argues, âoe[i]f broadband service providersâ(TM) conduct falls outside [the FTCâ(TM)s] grant of jurisdictionâ"that is, if their actions cannot be described as anticompetitive, unfair, or deceptiveâ"then the conduct should not
be banned in the first place.â510 And the transparency rule that we announce today should allay any
concerns about the ambiguity of ISP commitments,511 by requiring ISPs to disclose if the ISPs block or
throttle legal content. Finally, we expect that any attempt by ISPs to undermine the openness of the
Internet would be resisted by consumers and edge providers.512 We also observe that all states have laws
proscribing deceptive trade practices.513

From page 83 of the proposal : http://transition.fcc.gov/Dail...

Basically, the FCC wants to reclass ISPs from Title II utilities to Information Services and let the FTC and market dictacte what is and isn't acceptable behavior. It's not like the FCC doesn't believe in Neutrality, they just don't think they are the body that should enforce it through heavy handed regulation.

.. the actual proposed changes :

http://transition.fcc.gov/Dail...

Oh look, this is all about changing back ISP classification from Utilities to Information services. Not so black and white now uh ? Too bad the media is banking on keeping people mad and uninformed.

Further, the no-blocking rule adopted today again applies to transmissions of lawful content and does not prevent or restrict a broadband provider from refusing to transmit unlawful material, such as child pornography or copyright-infringing materials.

So what's up with these claims that the FCC is 'finally' going up against copyright-infringement?

He's defending net neutrality which I assume we all want, so maybe we should give him a break.

Sure, we all want Net Neutrality. However, I don't think Mr. Trudeau, a drama teacher, understands exactly what the FCC is rolling back.

Even the FCC Commissioner, Micheal Orielly, an Obama appointee, doesn't like the 2015 FCC regulations, as they are not the Net Neutrality we want. From his dissent :

(page 399)

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

The FCC âoefactâ sheet promised bright line rules, but the reality is that the bulk of this rulemaking
will be conducted through case-by-case adjudication, mostly at the Bureau level and in the courts. To be
sure, there are three bright line rules: no blocking, no throttling, and no paid prioritization. But those are
mere needles in a Title II haystack.

So basically, what we want, ie, no blocking, no throttling, no paid prioritization, are not the things the regulations really cover. Feel free to go through the PDF I linked, it contains both the Legislation and Micheal's dissent to it. This is a much more complicated matter than simply Net Neutrality vs Not Net Neutrality. The Media is simply not doing a proper job of reporting what is actually going on, and instead simply trying to paint a binary black and white picture of the situation to foster emotional backlash against the administration.

This is not over yet! Sadly, we need to keep saying the same thing to the same people, who want to ignore the overwhelming, bipartisan public support for net neutrality. Weigh in directly with the FCC with this form, type 17-108 in the "Proceeding(s)" box, then fill in the rest of the required information.

This is a battle between the interests of consumers (citizens) and the interests of large ISPs (corporations). It is also crucial to us as citizens to have the free speech protections provided by strong net neutrality rules. Economists and lawyers have studied this. Claims that net neutrality rules hinder innovation have proved to be nonsense, empirically. Claims that existing antitrust law provides adequate net-neutrality protections have proved to be nonsense, legally. Tell the FCC to serve the public interest, not just corporate interests.

You're just now realising that the Republicans and conservative idealogy in general is about reducing the state's control and power over the Governed ? The whole of Trump's campaign and his accomplishments as a President have been about reducing the amount of regulation and the power of the Federal apparatus, in favor of more local control.

The reasoning being : the people of New York shouldn't get to interfere and meddle in the affairs of the people in Arizona. You're not paying attention or understanding the policies if you've just now realised that "Big Government" is what Trump wants to tear down.

Net Neutrality, in the form of the FCC using Title II status for Internet Service Providers, is a blatant example. What we wanted :

- No blocking
- No Throttling
- No Paid Prioritization

What we got :

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

Close to 600 paragraphs of rules and regulations, and shoving ISPs into Title II FCC regulations. If you check the last few pages of the PDF, it is a dissent from the Commissioner of the FCC, Michael Orielly. This commissionner is an Obama appointee, so not some GOP or Trump crony, and yet he states very clear that the current legislation is massive overreach and goes counter to what Net Neutrality should be.

I for one support Net Neutrality, but I don't support massive government regulation gone wild. Try to even find a single article about Net Neutrality that offers a balanced viewpoint about what is really going on. You won't. The MSM is using you as pawns to keep Big Government going.

Suppose you are asked to come up with rules saying what publishers can and can't do. Should that be based on a vote of the people (risking suppression of political or religious dissent) or based on detailed critiques of the different options available to you and their consequences? Should your standards for IT security be based on a vote of your customers?

Public comment is sometimes incredibly useful and important, but it's not magic and it's not majority-wins. It's about having a group of experts with domain knowledge making policy. You can still ask Congress to change the law to override them.

Of course there's a problem with the distributed incentive to comment on the consumer side. If you don't have money riding on a regulation, you're not going to invest in comment. But if you want a comment to be meaningful, you need to either dive deep enough to make your comment be really good, or you have to hire (or get together with others to hire) someone to help you do that diving. A good lawyer can help you do that. The declaratory ruling, report, and order is a couple of hundred pages long--unless you are going to pay a professional to dig through it or spend a lot of time on it, the chance of critiquing it in a meaningful way that will make someone think about or modify their position is extremely low.

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

Then how about passing "government rights of way" neutrality?

There have been many attempts to do this but the money spent lobbying to prevent it is in the millions.

In 1992 the US Congress passed Public Law 102-385. Section 7 amended the Communications Act of 1934 to prohibit the grant of an exclusive franchise and the franchise authority may not "unreasonably refuse to award" additional franchises. Franchises are how a government grants access to the government rights-of-way.

That was 25 years ago.

Neither Michael Orielly or Ajit Pai are "Obama appointed chairman".

https://www.fcc.gov/about/lead...

Michael Oâ(TM)Rielly was nominated for a seat on the Federal Communications Commission by President Barack Obama on August 1, 2013 and was confirmed unanimously by the United States Senate on October 29, 2013. He was sworn into office on November 4, 2013. On January 29, 2015, he was sworn into office for a new term, following his re-nomination by the President and confirmation by the United States Senate.

But but... That was changed! They are lying! Ok. Let's try :

https://techcrunch.com/2014/12...

Want something to wash down that crow there buddy ? ^_^

[Citation needed]
None of what you said is true.

Except it is true. What is being discussed here is the following policy :

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

This was enacted in 2015. You can read Micheal Orielly's dissent, but most important is this part :

The FCC "fact" sheet promised bright line rules, but the reality is that the bulk of this rulemaking
will be conducted through case-by-case adjudication, mostly at the Bureau level and in the courts. To be
sure, there are three bright line rules: no blocking, no throttling, and no paid prioritization. But those are
mere needles in a Title II haystack.

Before you lob accusations of Michael being a Trump crony, you need to read up on him. He's the Obama appointed FCC Commissioner, and was appointed in 2013, 2 years before Title II was applied as a form of "Net Neutrality" that just isn't Net Neutrality. It's government overreach.

Michael, the commisionner of the FCC, wants the same thing we all want. 3 simple guiding principals. I don't know why people are mad and revolting that the FCC is attempting to correct a mistake it made in 2015. If anything, reading the actual opinions of people involved, it seems they do want actual Net Neutrality.

Are you really opposed to the 3 guiding principals of "no blocking, no throttling, and no paid prioritization" ? Because that's what I want in Net Neutrality. Title II does not give us that.

Net Neutrality today is not what Net Neutrality was back in the days. These days, we're actually discussing 2015's FCC Title II rules. See :

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

Part of Micheal Orielly's dissent to this (he's an Obama appointee for anyone thinking this is a Trump thing), the part relevant to framing our understanding of old vs new Net Neutrality, is as follows (see page 399) :

The FCC "fact" sheet promised bright line rules, but the reality is that the bulk of this rulemaking
will be conducted through case-by-case adjudication, mostly at the Bureau level and in the courts. To be
sure, there are three bright line rules: no blocking, no throttling, and no paid prioritization. But those are
mere needles in a Title II haystack.

Essentially, Title II is too vast, to burdensome and basically serves as a stiffling mechanism to Internet growth, while failing to promote the 3 essential rules of Net Neutrality we've fought a decade and more for. How anyone just wants to hang out to a 2 year old set of rules that are simply too heavy handed and do not serve our goals is beyond me. It's not like we're discussing repealing 2 decade old rules here. We didn't have Title II prior to 2015 and the Internet was just fine.

True Net Neutrality would be simple as Mr. Orielly points out.

By implementing this standard,

The Reuters article that prompted this discussion is absolutely pathetic reporting, since it doesn't bother to link to the rule. The previous discussion at least had this link.

If you look therein, you will find no mention of A/323, and no mention of any intention to allocate frequency space for the backchannel. There is limited space already, it doesn't seem likely there will be one.

In any case, the use of an amplified antenna would prevent the backchannel. The amplifier is one-way and any outgoing transmission would be prevented. With the existing limits on signal range, any station that cuts off viewers that can't pick up a signal with an unamplified external antenna would be stupid. Relying on an internal antenna would be foolish and create safety issues.

I also Google all numbers not in my list. Never answer robocalls. That encourages them.

It's good to see the U.S. government acting as it should. About 15 years late, but better than never.

The article linked in the Slashdot summary has little information.

The FCC meets today to discuss the new rules: FCC Commission Meets Tomorrow; Will Address Robocall Blocking (Nov. 15, yesterday)

I found a PDF of the FCC's ideas about helping prevent robocalls at the November 2017 Open Commission Meeting -- Blocking Unlawful Robocalls (PDF).

The summary? Nothing has been done yet.

I also Google all numbers not in my list. Never answer robocalls. That encourages them.

It's good to see the U.S. government acting as it should. About 15 years late, but better than never.

The article linked in the Slashdot summary has little information.

The FCC meets today to discuss the new rules: FCC Commission Meets Tomorrow; Will Address Robocall Blocking (Nov. 15, yesterday)

I found a PDF of the FCC's ideas about helping prevent robocalls at the November 2017 Open Commission Meeting -- Blocking Unlawful Robocalls (PDF).

The summary? Nothing has been done yet.

I also Google all numbers not in my list. Never answer robocalls. That encourages them.

It's good to see the U.S. government acting as it should. About 15 years late, but better than never.

The article linked in the Slashdot summary has little information.

The FCC meets today to discuss the new rules: FCC Commission Meets Tomorrow; Will Address Robocall Blocking (Nov. 15, yesterday)

I found a PDF of the FCC's ideas about helping prevent robocalls at the November 2017 Open Commission Meeting -- Blocking Unlawful Robocalls (PDF).

The summary? Nothing has been done yet.

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filin...

Make sure they hear about it -- privacy is important, turning all TVs into IoT devices is stupid...

Search for Docket 16-142

Authorizing Permissive Use of the ‘Next Generation’ Broadcast Television Standard
Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking– GN Docket No. 16-142

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filin...

Make sure they hear about it -- privacy is important, turning all TVs into IoT devices is stupid...

"Broadband is an essential utility" is a debate in its own right, but has no relevance here in any event. FTFA:

The decision affects Business Data Services (BDS)

This isn't about home broadband. Reading the FCC's original Report and Order should remove any doubt about that.

I think the complexity of implementation prohibited further development...

Interference with radio signals is also prohibited by federal law, and as a result there isn't a huge market for them in the US.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...

https://www.fcc.gov/general/ja...

lazy practice of private for-profit prisons. Fifteen bucks for a two-minute phone call? That's just fucking outrageous!

Ah, you weren't around before the breakup of Bell Telephone, were you? A five minute call between New York and Los Angeles used to cost $2.16 in 1975 (page 280). More than $10 in 2017 dollars. Those were the days... not.

The problem isn't for-profit prisons, nor capitalism, nor a host of other things being mentioned. The problem is simply that the prison phone system is a monopoly - there is no competition for providing phone calls to prisoners. Since it's a monopoly, the prison can charge whatever they want. It would be no different for a state-run prison - the cable and local phone / Internet monopolies we currently live under are all courtesy of the government. They are monopolies granted by the local government.

Cell phones allow prisoners to bypass that monopoly.

...he is not presently operating the Stations within the parameters set forth for experimental authorizations, that is, solely in order to utilize "radio waves in experiments with a view to the development of science or technique." Rather, he is operating the Stations as regular full-time programming adjuncts to WAPA and WISO, including advertisements. ...such operations are not appropriate for stations with experimental authorizations. In the Petition, Blanco-Pi makes it clear that he seeks to retain the Stations, not based on any further experimentation, but rather on their value as full-time re-broadcasters of the programming carried on WAPA and WISO. ...he opposes the loss of the Stations because they extend WISO and WAPA's service to other parts of the island of Puerto Rico. Blanco-Pi argues that he should be allowed to have a greater coverage area for the programming broadcast over his existing full-power stations, in part because he believes his programming to be superior to his competitors'. However, no broadcaster can simply transform experimental stations into full-time program services, much less extend those services to other communities in order to program against its competitors. ..."establishment of a new AM booster station merely to extend the service of an existing AM station impermissibly circumvents our commercial AM filing window and competitive bidding processes."

An HOA does not have the authority to block or prevent the installation of an antenna designed to receive television signals:

https://www.fcc.gov/media/over...

At least Wheeler came around and took actions directly against the interests of his prior masters in supporting Title II

The Obama-Appointed-Republican Pai is still firmly in their pocket. Don't forget that Pai was on the NCTA's legal team for the BrandX case which completely gutted the Telecom's open-access provisions, and he was against the increase of the definition of 'Broadband' from 4mbps to 25mbps just a couple years ago (because 4mbps was enough for a whole family...)

Anyone who wants to see the twisted Orwellian bullshit this guy writes should read this: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_pub...

If you want some detail into those factor, look through the comments in "COMMENTS OF SMART COMMUNITIES SITING COALITION" ( comprised of individual localities, local government associations, and local agencies responsible for roadway safety which collectively represent more than 1,800 communities and nearly 30 million residents in 10 states. ) at https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1...

These deals with micro-cell deployment, but it is pretty typical>

"Notably, the primary cause of delays in application processing continues to be the failure of applicants to submit complete applications. For example, as a routine matter, Mobilitie has submitted cookie cutter proposals for 100-120 foot towers in the public rights-of-way, without doing any meaningful field engineering, or making any significant effort to comply with state, federal or local requirements – imposing significant cost on communities."

I've seen companies turn essentially blank pieces of paper - obviously attempting to throw it over the fence so they can claim 'progress' and meet some deadline - then gripe because they are being 'held up'.

True -- assuming that they didn't sell off their broadcasting license -- which quite a few did. A list of all the stations going dark is at : https://auctiondata.fcc.gov/pu...

Last summer the FCC allowed stations to enter into an auction for their active frequencies. This was for all stations that had an active UHF or VHF license. Many decided to participate in the auction and sell off their license.

A consequence of this is that with half of the stations going away, the remaining stations' licenses will be consolidated and pushed to a lower frequency, with the higher frequencies then being re-assigned to cell companies.

A 3-second google search comes up with the FCC site with all the details : https://www.fcc.gov/about-fcc/... with a list of all the stations going dark on this report : https://auctiondata.fcc.gov/pu...

Last summer the FCC allowed stations to enter into an auction for their active frequencies. This was for all stations that had an active UHF or VHF license. Many decided to participate in the auction and sell off their license.

A consequence of this is that with half of the stations going away, the remaining stations' licenses will be consolidated and pushed to a lower frequency, with the higher frequencies then being re-assigned to cell companies.

A 3-second google search comes up with the FCC site with all the details : https://www.fcc.gov/about-fcc/... with a list of all the stations going dark on this report : https://auctiondata.fcc.gov/pu...

Coax is a good way to distribute Over the air TV. I do that. Antennas do not need to be powered or expensive, unless the reception conditions are particularly bad, so if you already have an outside antenna try what you have first.
tablotv
No Cable
Your Free TV
FCC OTA site
antennaweb.org
Making your own antenna is also possible and simple
fractal can type
fractal panel type

If it's an emergency phone call to the Coast Guard, they could just use the GPS support like E911 so they get a location from the cell phone. Surely, that's the only type of phone being used on a boat these days.

Even if they had location data, that wouldn't necessarily help them much. The caller could claim to be on the shore witnessing a problem, and the location data may very well back that statement up, since the article indicated that a lot of the pranksters like to post pictures of the helicopters and boats responding to their prank calls.

Moreover, even with calls, you can't count on location data being present. For instance, satellite phones are not exactly uncommon in remote locations, but from what I can gather, they're exempt from providing location information (emphasis mine):

The FCC's wireless 911 rules apply to all wireless licensees, broadband Personal Communications Service licensees and certain Specialized Mobile Radio licensees. Mobile Satellite Service providers, however, are currently excluded.

Here's Globalstar's take on the policy:

There is no current requirement that Mobile Satellite Services (MSS) user terminals provide automatic position location.

So far as I know, there's no way to distinguish between a spoofed call coming from Skype and an actual call lacking location data coming from a satellite phone, but I don't profess to have any sort of special knowledge in this area, so I could be mistaken. But, as I said, even if they had location data (which can be spoofed), it wouldn't necessarily solve anything, though it may help them to eliminate some calls as pranks if they see, for instance, a call about an emergency on the Atlantic coast from a caller in California.

The FCC *forced* TP-Link to support open firmware as part of a settlement agreement made AFTER these new rules.
https://www.fcc.gov/document/f...

If you read the FCC's proposal, which I'll link below, you'll see that it's about getting the FCC out of micromanaging the Internet itself while promoting stronger privacy protections for consumers.

Quoting from the proposal:
Historically, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) protected the privacy of broadband consumers, policing every online company’s privacy practices consistently and initiating numerous enforcement actions. When the Commission reclassified broadband Internet access service as a common carriage telecommunications service in 2015, however, that action stripped FTC authority over Internet service providers because the FTC is prohibited from regulating common carriers.

We propose to return jurisdiction over Internet service providers’ privacy practices to the FTC, with its decades of experience and expertise in this area.

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

To run a script that only pulls the comment on a data set and then zip it?

The FCC is saying that they would have to go through and have staff members redact all personally identifiable information in the comments.

https://transition.fcc.gov/Dai...

Which is of course bullshit. I've made public comment to government agencies and it is exactly that - public. Those comments and identifying information including names and emails are right there posted on a government web site for all to see. For example : http://csrc.nist.gov/publicati...

To run a script that only pulls the comment on a data set and then zip it?

The FCC is saying that they would have to go through and have staff members redact all personally identifiable information in the comments.

https://transition.fcc.gov/Dai...

The government should be nudging (gently at first, then onto a hard shove) the private sector to deliver high speed internet to rural areas. Not private companies.

It does.

Private companies will place their own ends above what's best for the public.

Then why not outlaw private corporations, since they only serve their own needs? Then everything will be great, like in Venezuela.

...a local franchising authority may not grant an exclusive franchise, and may not unreasonably withhold its consent for new service...

-FCC

It's more than the unnamed 19 ISPs that Ajit Pai was using as justification for rolling back the classification.

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

If I'm reading this (a 'petition' filed with the FCC) correctly, commenting expired a week ago: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_pub... However, the link in the original post shows new comments.

Has anyone figured out if it's possible to add a comment? If so, what are you using for the "proceedings" field here:
https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filin...

If I'm reading this (a 'petition' filed with the FCC) correctly, commenting expired a week ago: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_pub... However, the link in the original post shows new comments.

Has anyone figured out if it's possible to add a comment? If so, what are you using for the "proceedings" field here:
https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filin...