Slashdot Mirror

In my "agreement" with Comcast, it states that they own all of my information and may sell or give it to anyone they please if they call them a "partner". I've been told that I'm wrong about them being a monopoly and that we really do have a choice based on this map by the U.S. Government https://broadbandmap.fcc.gov/. The government says I'm in an area where there is no monopoly and that I can choose to not be monitored by this ISP. Maybe the investigation will help show that this is wrong?

If you look through these agreements, they basically say Comcast/Xfinity is responsible for nothing and they can share anything they want. The agreements protect xfinity/comcast from ever being in breach of any privacy agreement as they don't agree to be private about anything.

Here are the current privacy policies I found. .
https://www.xfinity.com/corporate/customers/policies/customerprivacy
https://www.xfinity.com/support/articles/comcast-web-services-terms-of-service-and-privacy-policy
https://www.xfinity.com/corporate/legal/privacystatement
https://www.xfinity.com/mobile/policies/privacy-policy
https://my.xfinity.com/privacy/

Here are some highlights:

They do not respect your request to not be tracked
Do Not Track Disclosure

The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) established a process to develop a “Do Not Track” Standard. Comcast’s Websites do not currently respond to “Do Not Track” signals sent from browsers.

Information We Collect When You Use the Xfinity Mobile Service
They scan your mobile device for all installed applications and record that information. They record everything you do with those apps. They do this across all of your mobile devices, they and they share your data if THEY think it will provide you with more and better services

Comcast and third parties acting on Comcast’s behalf collect technical and service information from all Xfinity Mobile Service users, which we call “Usage Data.” Usage Data includes app usage information, equipment information, network performance and usage information, and location information. This includes information about your use of the Xfinity Mobile network, use of your device, and diagnostic data such as device performance, signal strength, dropped calls, data failures, battery strength, and network performance issues. This may also include information about what apps are on your device, the fact that an app has been used, and the length of time that an app has been running. Other information includes voice recordings or prints, reasons you give for contacting us, network traffic data, device identifiers, service options, and the number of devices you have purchased on our plans.

Users Outside of the United States GDPR? Hah We don't believe in those types of protections..

The Websites that link to this Privacy Policy are for users located in the United States. If you use the Websites from outside of the United States, then by providing any data to Comcast over the Websites or through another direct communication with Comcast, you understand and consent to the collection, use, processing, sharing, and disclosure of your personal data as described in this Privacy Policy. You also consent to the transfer of your personal data to the United States for this collection, use, processing, and disclosure. The European Commission has determined that the United States does not provide an adequate level of protection to personal data and it may not offer the same level of data protection as

It's also as if this were some sort of government petition against grievances about the business expense of dealing with all these robocalls.

Don't you dare bring up a first amendment right that cannot be squashed by claiming that it constitutes "harassment" of a public official to contact them on their office phone. Next you'll be telling me that these calls are expressly authorized by the FCC's own consumer guidance, and I simply refuse to believe it. It's criminal -- some goober on Slashdot can construct a business purpose for it so it must be. I look forward to all paid lobbyists being charged with crimes for placing such calls using similar logic.

Telecom's classic definition is phone service.

Really? Neither the dictionary nor the Telecommunications Act have such a narrow defintion:

SEC. 1. [47 U.S.C. 151] PURPOSES OF ACT, CREATION OF FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION.
For the purpose of regulating interstate and foreign commerce in Communication by wire and radio [emphasis added] so as to make available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States, without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex, a rapid, efficient, Nationwide, and world-wide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges, for the purpose of the national defense, for the purpose of promoting safety of life and property through the use of wire and radio communication, and for the purpose of securing a more effective execution of this policy by centralizing authority heretofore granted by law to several agencies and by granting additional authority with respect to interstate and foreign commerce in wire and radio communication, there is hereby created a commission to be known as the ''Federal Communications Commission,'' which shall be constituted as hereinafter provided, and which shall execute and enforce the provisions of this Act.

Or you live where there's a HOA that bans antennas on your house.

In the United States, an HOA cannot ban antennas for over-the-air reception.

With Asterisk that is almost exactly what I do for a few months now with my landline at home. And works wonders. So far 0% spam got through with 100% legit calls accuracy.

For mobile still is a pain in the ass to filter out spam calls even if you can use some apps that check a huge database of spam numbers which are updated every day like https://unknownphone.com

Or you can homebrew your own. Telemarketing_RoboCall_Data.csv

Really? Why bother, TMo?

That limitation is temporary. I wish the summary had bothered to mention anything about the technical side of what T-Mobile's doing, because it's news for nerds after all.

What T-Mobile is implementing is a technical standard known as STIR/SHAKEN which is explicitly designed to prevent spoofed calls, among other things. Even the FCC itself (PDF) back in 2015/2016 was big on this particular framework for combating robocalls. So much so that one of the very, very few things Ajit Pai managed to do right for consumers was have the FCC require (PDF) that U.S. telecoms implement STIR/SHAKEN, and do so "without delay". Oh yeah, and they're required to interoperate.

So right now the Note9 is the first phone to support it. Others will follow. I'm sure Apple devices will get it quickly, probably with iOS 13 this year. And to respond to your specific complaint, it's "only TMo to TMo" right now because they're the first to implement the framework. Once the other telcos get their STIR/SHAKEN setups going, calls between networks should also be able to be verified.

And just for funsies, here's a full hour-long (!) video on the framework and how it works, as well its status in various countries, not just the U.S.

Really? Why bother, TMo?

That limitation is temporary. I wish the summary had bothered to mention anything about the technical side of what T-Mobile's doing, because it's news for nerds after all.

What T-Mobile is implementing is a technical standard known as STIR/SHAKEN which is explicitly designed to prevent spoofed calls, among other things. Even the FCC itself (PDF) back in 2015/2016 was big on this particular framework for combating robocalls. So much so that one of the very, very few things Ajit Pai managed to do right for consumers was have the FCC require (PDF) that U.S. telecoms implement STIR/SHAKEN, and do so "without delay". Oh yeah, and they're required to interoperate.

So right now the Note9 is the first phone to support it. Others will follow. I'm sure Apple devices will get it quickly, probably with iOS 13 this year. And to respond to your specific complaint, it's "only TMo to TMo" right now because they're the first to implement the framework. Once the other telcos get their STIR/SHAKEN setups going, calls between networks should also be able to be verified.

And just for funsies, here's a full hour-long (!) video on the framework and how it works, as well its status in various countries, not just the U.S.

I was surprised as well, about 40 channels on an average day.

The break down is something like:
2 - NBC (SD and HD)
2 - ABC (SD and HD)
2 - CBS (SD and HD)
2 - Fox (SD and HD)
6 - PBS (Regular, Create, and something else; SD and HD)
2 - CW (SD and HD)
2 - Ion (SD and HD)
1 - MyTv (random old tv shows: Gilligans Island, Hogans Heros, Twilight Zone, etc)
1 - Movie (Odd random movies, usually nothing worth note)
2 - Telemuno (SD and HD)
1 - Analog channel (very fuzzy but old tv shows like Charles in Charge, Growing Pains, The Brady Bunch, etc)
1 - Comet (scifi shows like Babylon 5, Space 1999, Lost in Space, etc)
3 - Music channels (Blues, Rock, Folk)
5+ - Religious channels
1 - Stadium (Sports, not sure if current or even popular as I don't watch sports)
3 - Infomercial
3 - Always blank
3 to 5 - Ones I don't even bother with.

All this and I'm about 90 miles from a major city and I'm picking up stations from there (and I installed a 55 mile certified antenna; outside on the side of the house).

I was only hoping for the major 5 (CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox, and PBS), but surprised I got more.

The FCC also has a search feature here: https://www.fcc.gov/media/engineering/dtvmaps. Take that with a grain of salt though as my zip code only shows 6 stations.

Yes, the BDAC was organized by the FCC. There's your first clue that the FCC isn't the BDAC and the BDAC isn't the FCC. It's similar to how while the Presidency is created by the Constitution, the President isn't the Constitution and if the President says something, it's not the Constitution saying it.

The BDAC has no power, other than to make a recommendation, i.e. give their advice.

The FCC is a specific commission which has members who vote on things they're authorized to vote on by Congress. None of the commissioners of the FCC are also members of the BDAC.

Here are the advisory committees established under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), none of which have any power other than to "advise":

Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee
        Communications Security, Reliability and Interoperability Council
        Consumer Advisory Committee
        Disability Advisory Committee
        Diversity and Digital Empowerment
        North American Numbering Council
        Technological Advisory Council
        World Radiocommunication Conference

So when the members of one of these advisory committees gives their advice, they aren't acting on behalf of the FCC, speaking on behalf of the FCC, nor on behalf of the commissioners who are members of the FCC, they're instead attempting to influence the FCC (and others) by giving their advice.

Hopefully, that clears up the difference for you.

Yes, the BDAC was organized by the FCC. There's your first clue that the FCC isn't the BDAC and the BDAC isn't the FCC. It's similar to how while the Presidency is created by the Constitution, the President isn't the Constitution and if the President says something, it's not the Constitution saying it.

The BDAC has no power, other than to make a recommendation, i.e. give their advice.

The FCC is a specific commission which has members who vote on things they're authorized to vote on by Congress. None of the commissioners of the FCC are also members of the BDAC.

Here are the advisory committees established under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), none of which have any power other than to "advise":

Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee
        Communications Security, Reliability and Interoperability Council
        Consumer Advisory Committee
        Disability Advisory Committee
        Diversity and Digital Empowerment
        North American Numbering Council
        Technological Advisory Council
        World Radiocommunication Conference

So when the members of one of these advisory committees gives their advice, they aren't acting on behalf of the FCC, speaking on behalf of the FCC, nor on behalf of the commissioners who are members of the FCC, they're instead attempting to influence the FCC (and others) by giving their advice.

Hopefully, that clears up the difference for you.

https://www.fcc.gov/mobility-f...

Mobility Fund Phase II (MF-II) will make up to $4.53 billion in support available over 10 years to primarily rural areas that lack unsubsidized 4G Long Term Evolution (LTE) service. MF-II is critically important to supporting mobile voice and broadband coverage, incentivizing the deployment of mobile wireless service through a reverse auction, and ensuring that 4G LTE service is preserved and advanced in those areas of the country that lack unsubsidized service.

I could try a pole with an antenna on top, which worked great at my last home, except my current HOA won't allow that.

It looks like your HOA is imposing rules about TV antenna mast height that "preclude reception of an acceptable quality signal". If the mast required for NBC affiliate reception is less than 12 feet tall, put it up anyway and tell your HOA to forward its complaint against you to the FCC.

Even if you rent, you may be able to install an antenna. If you own your property, there are federal laws that allow you to install an antenna for the purpose of receiving video broadcasts and despite what HOAs may claim, you can install them on your roof.
https://www.fcc.gov/media/over...

You should tell your HOA that there is a federal law preventing them from restricting antenna installations unless they can show it doesn't put an unreasonable burden on you.
https://www.fcc.gov/media/over...

They're planning at least 18 hours of coverage a day at the 70th parallel, which is pretty far north:

https://licensing.fcc.gov/myib...

There aren't a ton of people living above the 70th parallel, so this still seems like a better solution than trying to cover eight million square kilometers of sparsely populated areas with fixed broadband. And if Canada wants 24 hour coverage north of the 70th parallel, presumably they could pay SpaceX to provide that additional coverage, and I'd bet it'd still be a better investment.

The 60 GHz band was opened up because it's easily absorbed by O2 oxygen molecules. That means it has high attenuation in the air, and thus low range, making it rather useless for traditional long-range radio transmission. But it's perfect for an open radio frequency, where the attenuation means your neighbor's 60 GHz transmissions are less likely to interfere with yours.

2.4 GHz was opened for the same reason (absorbed by water - how microwave ovens at 2.45 GHz work). I haven't been able to track down why 5 GHz was opened, but the fact that it's also used for doppler weather radar suggests attenuation by water as well.

Basically, any frequency which will penetrate well and thus have good range would become useless if opened up, due to interference from devices used by other people nearby. The cellular frequencies are an exception, since it's up to the cellular companies to actively manage bandwidth allocation (i.e. prevent interference) on the frequencies they leased.

https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/...

Lets see how the org that runs it sees it.

This same argument has been going on for a long time. Right now these platforms are playing 'cop' because of advertising and some very vocal people. However, eventually they will be brought under the umbrella of the FCC and its rules. The FCC has taken a 'light touch' on the internet to let it thrive. But both data providers and ISPs are poking holes in the very fabric of what built the internet. Freedom of speech and light cost.

The FCC can be ordered by congress to insure freedom of speech and declare the providers of data under a new category of 'providers'. Then regulate them. It does not even have to be that hard but basically 'everyone is treated equally'.

These companies have been ducking in and out of Title I and Title II and using whatever suits them to lock in their business and gaslight us into thinking outright censorship is a good thing. Its not.

The idea is older than that. The extension of EAS to cell phones was publicly announced in 2009 (prior to Obama) - http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs... but the actual order to FCC was given in 2006.

Such a misguided idea connecting safety alerts to the president.

Yep, it's mostly a marketing failure... I mean even the official site says:

What alerts does WEA deliver?
Alerts from WEA cover only critical emergency situations. Consumers may receive only three types of alerts:

Alerts issued by the President
Alerts involving imminent threats to safety or life
Amber Alerts

Participating carriers may allow subscribers to block all but Presidential alerts.

I mean it is natural that it's the President addressing the country in a crisis, but they could have just called it "National Security alerts" for example. Like you can't opt out of the warning that WWIII just started. It's kinda hard for me to think of a "critical emergency" that doesn't fit any of those three.

This was implemented during under Obama:

WEA was established in 2008 pursuant to the Warning, Alert and Response Network (WARN) Act and became operational in 2012.

The statute also preempts local decisions premised directly or indirectly on the environmental effects of radio frequency (RF) emissions, assuming that the provider is in compliance with the Commission's RF rules.

In other words, ban what you want - but the FCC will ignore your ban and you have no legal standing as a city/town/State to say "we're worried about RF emissions" and use that as any part of the justification in banning new cell towers/sites.

Another reform would be to restrict spoofing. You should only be allowed to spoof if you own both numbers. This is another "American problem".

Spoofing numbers you don't own (as part of spam or a scam) is already illegal. The problem is (1) there's no way for the recipient to figure out who the actual caller from a spoofed number is, so they don't know who to sue or even complain about. And (2) as with junk mail, the spammers make up a significant fraction of phone company revenue, so the phone companies don't want to fix Caller ID to make it impossible to spoof a number they don't own.

With regards to (2), the phone companies are protected by their Common Carrier status, so it's probably going to take a change to phone protocols to prevent spoofing. e.g. Change how VoIP-to-VoIP calls are made so they also send a datagram encrypted with a private key owned by the caller. The receiving VoIP device looks up the Caller ID number in a public database to find that number's public key, and uses that key to decrypt the datagram. If the decryption fails, then it knows the caller doesn't have the proper private key for that Caller ID number, meaning the number has been spoofed, and drops the call. If the decryption is successful, then it knows the Caller ID info is accurate and allows the call to ring through.

See Wireless Priority Service

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

https://www.dhs.gov/wps-faq

When the FCC defines broadband as 25 Mbps, many cellular wireless speeds already exceed wired speeds. Particularly in areas where the only broadband available is DSL (max speed of ADSL is 24 Mbps).

Cellular falls behind when lots of people are using bandwidth simultaneously. In wired connections, each node has a dedicated wire and bandwidth. But in wireless communications, the bandwidth is shared. 5G attempts to address that by using MIMO - basically using directional antennas to transmit different things to different locations over the same frequencies. (Imagine it as people in a room using directional flashlights to send messages to each other, instead of controlling a single light switch which turns the room's ceiling light on/off.) I'm curious to see how well it works when scaled up from the simple 2x2 and 3x3 MIMO found in 802.11ac routers.

I'd rather have slow DSL than fast mobile, personally, because my household uses about 300GB/mo.

But the FCC thinks they're interchangable, which is a big problem.

Also 39% of rural Americans don't even have access to the current standard. As a government entity they ought to be focused on that, from a 14th Amendment perspective. If their rules are slowing new deployments, that's an equal protection issue, and the data shows that the Title II rules did just that.

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

Pai was announcing an upcoming report from the FCC's inspector general. That inspector general is David L. Hunt. https://www.fcc.gov/inspector-general He was appointed in 2011, during the Obama administration, http://thehill.com/policy/technology/137015-david-hunt-named-fcc-inspector-general So this an Obama appointee reporting on an Obama appointee, not Pai going after an Obama administration official.

Illegal for governments offering franchise agreements as well, since 1992. The Communications Act authorizes local franchising authorities to grant one or more franchises within their jurisdiction. However, a local franchising authority may not grant an exclusive franchise, and may not unreasonably withhold its consent for new service.

A critical part of Internet openness involves Internet service providers being transparent about their business practices. That's why the FCC has imposed enhanced transparency requirements. Internet service providers must publicly disclose information regarding their network management practices, performance, and commercial terms of service. These disclosures must be made via a publicly available, easily accessible company website or through the FCC's website. This will discourage harmful practices and help regulators target any problematic conduct.

I can go to the most hated company in the United State and see what ports they are blocking traffic on: https://www.xfinity.com/suppor...

I expect to get modded down for making the son of Satan look any better than he is portrayed, but I think it is better to have a discussion around facts than generalizations and political hype. Also I am just joking about the son of Satan and I am amazed at the hate directed at him. I wish someone would just explain with facts as why he is so wrong and misguided and then maybe I would understand, but mostly I just see a lot of hate without substance behind it (sometimes modded up to 5, can we stop doing that please!). I liked to read the slashdot comments to learn something new or insightful and not someone's political rant. I think there was a time when any rant got modded down, but maybe I am remembering wrong.

And also, the turning down sound of commercials is something I would pay good money for.

This just makes me sad for us as a species.
Not because you don't like booming loud commercials - because nobody likes them. But because this is how our country works now. I can't tell what is worse in our society, Advertisers or Lawyers. Because advertisers are the ones who jack up the volume on commercials to annoying levels, it seems especially at night for some reason. It becomes annoying to the point where the only way to stop it is through legal means. Then our government has to get involved and put policies in place to prohibit it. Yet it still continues. see CALM Act.

We have this horrible ecosystem of advertisers / lawyers invading and influencing our lives constantly. They feed each other, we are the food. To the point where we are willing to pay money to make it stop. This is not only about commercials on TV, you can look at many aspects of our lives and see their influences there as well. It's all quite disturbing.

You're entitled to your own opinion. Not to your facts.
Here are 87 FCC enforcement actions from the last six months.

https://transition.fcc.gov/eb/...

They don't even stop illegal radio equipment from being imported- then sold everywhere from big box stores to truck stops.

Do you want to give them the budget and manpower to do this job well? They do fine and confiscate equipment -- here is one place they list field actions. This includes all kinds of unlicensed and illegal activity. Some of the notices include actions against retailers selling uncertificated radios.

It's a hard job to catch every radio illegally imported to the US and sold in a small truck stop somewhere. I've brought back radios that are illegal to sell in the US, but because they are ham radios I can use them here. They look just like FRS. Do you want to spend the money training every customs agent to detect the difference? And do you want MORE customs agents searching MORE incoming citizens to stop this? I didn't think so.

They cannot even clean up problem frequencies where *everyone* knows who the offenders are.

Do you REALLY want the US legal system to be based on "everyone knows"?

No LPFM application filing window period is presently scheduled.

When a new filing window period is scheduled, it will be announced via Public Notice and posted on the FCC's web site, in several locations, including this web page, at least 30 days before the start of the filing period. We regret that we are not able to provide personal or advance notice to interested parties. All applications must be electronically filed. [The last filing period as in October 2013.]

(source)

Soon as they let me file, I'll listen to what they have to say. (and by the way, law is not the fount of righteousness)

If one wants to setup an FM transmitter for non-commercial use as part of a hobby. There is always the amateur radio license:
https://www.eham.net/newham/wh...

Which allows for even higher power than the LPFM licenses which would probably be more fitting for use here.

There are also FRS and GMRS licenses that allow FM operation.

Only LPFM allows overlapping with the commercial FM spectrum though. So it would probably be good if the FCC opened another filing window, as it has been 5 years:
https://www.fcc.gov/media/radi...

"They cannot even clean up problem frequencies where *everyone* knows who the offenders are"

Not necessarily true.

Just recently they proposed handing down a huge fine to a hobby company (HobbyKing) for the sale of non-compliant video transmitters (FPV) for model aircraft and drone use.

Then they issued this warning which may just be sabre-rattling but does show that they're trying to do something.

The Low Power FM license already exists: https://www.fcc.gov/media/radio/lpfm
There is no application cost, but you probably need to hire a lawyer and engineer to get through the hearings for it.

One can at least get something (paperwork initiated on the part of the Gov and provider) for your "administration fee" by submitting an FCC complaint: https://consumercomplaints.fcc... This will typically prompt a phone call from the service provider where they will explain the fee and possibly offer a reduced plan. Recent experience with "Welcome to the new Frontier" gained me a non-limited term, a ~$5 decrease, a $3 increase all offsetting a new $1.99 fee. (Net gain was essentially nothing except I got Frontier to spend some "administration time" on little o'l me.)

So maybe "unlimited" is simply a concept instead of an absolute

"Unlimited" is meaningless in marketing terminology.

The net neutrality laws from 2015 are what required network providers to provide actual numbers on how much bandwidth they provide, under what terms, as well as the price.
As of a week ago, all of the laws requiring network providers marketing to contain truthful information are no longer on the books.

75GB can mean anything, including "zero".
$95/month can also mean anything, including hundreds of times that amount and repeated over any unit of time they wish.

It's currently not illegal for the above package to bill you thousands of dollars per month for exceeding 1KB of data transfer.

And no I'm not kidding or exaggerating.
(PDF warning): http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2017/db1122/DOC-347927A1.pdf

Jump to page 120 in the PDF (page 119 in the document)
This used to be the law, and now is not:

In the Title II Order, the Commission broadened the transparency rule's requirements by interpreting the rule to mandate certain additional reporting obligations it termed "enhancements." These additional reporting obligations, although falling within the same broad categories as those listed in the Open Internet Order, required that providers include far greater technical detail in their disclosures. For example, all ISPs, except small providers exempt under the Small Provider Waiver Order, were required to make specific disclosures regarding the commercial terms (including specific information regarding prices and fees), performance characteristics (including, for example, packet loss and a requirement that these disclosures be reasonably related to the performance a consumer could expect in the geographic area in which they are purchasing service), and network practices (including, for example, application and user-based practices) of the broadband Internet access services they offer.

Try like this; https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filin...

(Note: Link is "Safe For Work".)

That's great. I wonder what that guy thinks of Obamacare.

The comment form probably looked like this:

Comment: _______________________________________

Please enter your name: _____

Please enter your address: _____

[ ] Check this box to certify this is really you.

Pretty much, without even the checkbox. The actual form is here.

They also allowed bulk submissions via an API or uploading a CSV per here.

I can't believe anyone is truly shocked over this.

I don't think anyone is surprised that there were lots of fake comments. What people are surprised about is that the FCC doesn't seem to have bothered to try to weed out the fake ones. They were very obvious. Millions of identical comments (all opposing net neutrality) submitted by people with names in alphabetical order.

Of course, Ajit Pai really had no interest in getting public comments, much less in seriously considering them.

The comment form probably looked like this:

Comment: _______________________________________

Please enter your name: _____

Please enter your address: _____

[ ] Check this box to certify this is really you.

Pretty much, without even the checkbox. The actual form is here.

They also allowed bulk submissions via an API or uploading a CSV per here.

I can't believe anyone is truly shocked over this.

I don't think anyone is surprised that there were lots of fake comments. What people are surprised about is that the FCC doesn't seem to have bothered to try to weed out the fake ones. They were very obvious. Millions of identical comments (all opposing net neutrality) submitted by people with names in alphabetical order.

Of course, Ajit Pai really had no interest in getting public comments, much less in seriously considering them.

How much of "Americans' personal information" was stolen and used?

Clearly not much, given that comments were filed by George Washington, Tinkerbell Snowflakes, and Big Bird, among many others.

How much of "Americans' personal information" was stolen and used?

Clearly not much, given that comments were filed by George Washington, Tinkerbell Snowflakes, and Big Bird, among many others.

How much of "Americans' personal information" was stolen and used?

Clearly not much, given that comments were filed by George Washington, Tinkerbell Snowflakes, and Big Bird, among many others.

The comment form probably looked like this:

Comment: _______________________________________

Please enter your name: _____

Please enter your address: _____

[ ] Check this box to certify this is really you.

Pretty much, without even the checkbox. The actual form is here.

They also allowed bulk submissions via an API or uploading a CSV per here.

I can't believe anyone is truly shocked over this.

The comment form probably looked like this:

Comment: _______________________________________

Please enter your name: _____

Please enter your address: _____

[ ] Check this box to certify this is really you.

Pretty much, without even the checkbox. The actual form is here.

They also allowed bulk submissions via an API or uploading a CSV per here.

I can't believe anyone is truly shocked over this.

The main robocall legislation is the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, signed by President Bush in 1991. It generally applies to people trying to sell something. Here are the relevant FCC regulations:

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

The FTC also has some regulations based on TCPA, but again that's for solicitors.

Besides calls from solicitors, TCPA also restricts automated calls to hospitals, emergency rooms, and doctors' offices. So it may technically be illegal to use Google Assistant to schedule an appointment with a doctor. I don't think it violates the spirit of the law, though, as the law was intended to protect people from receiving unwanted, nuisance bulk calls. So long as Google Assistant does a reasonably good job, it's not a nuisance call.

Given Netflix didn't start streaming anything until 2007, and the FCC has been enforcing Network Neutrality since 2005, I'm not sure what you're talking about.

Are you under the impression the current Title II classification was the first and only attempt to enforce neutrality? Because the only reason the FCC adopted that was because of legal challenges to the 2005 order.

It still remains unclear exactly what was going on between Netflix and Comcast anyway, with the latter adamant it never blocked or throttled anything. But it certainly was resolved at a time when the FCC was enforcing neutrality, and the eyes of legislators and government were on Comcast, ready to add more restrictions on Comcast's business if it didn't behave itself and somehow got away with it legally.

For more information on NN, Wikipedia covers the history quite well.

The FCC can very, very easily write some ruling along the lines of "no service provider shall make exclusivity arrangements with local governments".

They don't have to. It has been part of federal law for more than twenty years. Exclusive franchises for cable telecommunications are prohibited. Black and white. Here is a link. Specifically:

SEC. 7. AWARD OF FRANCHISES; PROMOTION OF COMPETITION. (a) ADDITIONAL COMPETITIVE FRANCHISES.- (1) AMENDMENT.-Section 621(aX1) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 541(aX1)) is amended by inserting before the period at the end the following. "except that a franchising authority may not grant an exclusive franchise and may not unreasonably refuse to award an additional competitive franchise. Any applicant whose application for a second franchise has been denied by a final decision of the franchising authority may appeal such final decision pursuant to the provisions of section 635 for failure to comply with this subsection".

That's 1992. Twenty-six years ago. ISPs don't need such a law since ISPs are not franchised to begin with.

There you go.

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.

As others have mentioned, you are pretty wrong here. The vast majority of AM towers are the radiators and the ground is the ground plane. Between them sits a huge isolator which is generally ceramic. If you stand on the ground and touch the tower above the isolator you will get burned or dead.

This makes colocating on an AM tower a PITA as you can't just run a conductor up the tower without a transformer. There are ways to do it, my favorite being to get power off of the tower lighting circuit to power a tower mounted enclosure and then running fiber off of the tower if I need to come off of it.

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.

As others have mentioned, you are pretty wrong here. The vast majority of AM towers are the radiators and the ground is the ground plane. Between them sits a huge isolator which is generally ceramic. If you stand on the ground and touch the tower above the isolator you will get burned or dead.

This makes colocating on an AM tower a PITA as you can't just run a conductor up the tower without a transformer. There are ways to do it, my favorite being to get power off of the tower lighting circuit to power a tower mounted enclosure and then running fiber off of the tower if I need to come off of it.