Slashdot Mirror
No, the FCC is Not Forcing Consumers To Pay $225 To File Complaints (washingtonpost.com)
Having your voice heard at the Federal Communications Commission could soon cost you hundreds of dollars, according to congressional Democrats Tuesday who oppose a looming rule change by the nation's top telecom and cable regulator. But that may not be the case after all, a review of the FCC proposal shows. From a report: At issue is a proposal that the FCC is expected to vote on Thursday that looks at the agency's process for handling "informal" complaints -- the kind you might file if you've received an unwanted robocall or if you've heard something indecent on the radio. Under the proposal, the FCC could soon pass the informal complaints it receives directly to the companies that consumers are complaining about, the lawmakers said in a letter to FCC Chairman Ajit Pai. That might result in FCC staff no longer reviewing those submissions, they said. And customers who receive no relief from the companies would then be forced to lodge a "formal" complaint at the FCC, an existing procedure that costs $225.
"To advise consumers that they file a $225 formal complaint if not satisfied ignores the core mission of the FCC -- working in the public interest," wrote Reps. Frank Pallone Jr. (D-N.J.) and Mike Doyle (D-Pa.). The controversy was first reported by the Verge. Staffers for the House Energy and Commerce Committee did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The FCC said in a statement that the lawmakers had misunderstood the proposal. "The item would not change the Commission's handling of informal complaints," the agency said.
"To advise consumers that they file a $225 formal complaint if not satisfied ignores the core mission of the FCC -- working in the public interest," wrote Reps. Frank Pallone Jr. (D-N.J.) and Mike Doyle (D-Pa.). The controversy was first reported by the Verge. Staffers for the House Energy and Commerce Committee did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The FCC said in a statement that the lawmakers had misunderstood the proposal. "The item would not change the Commission's handling of informal complaints," the agency said.
From the summary it seems that a regular complaint is still free, but now it will go straight to the company whose offense triggered a consumer to lodge a complaint. If they don't do anything to improve on the situation and the consumer wants to see something happen, the next option is the $225 formal complaint.
In other words it appears that if you want the FCC to do something other than just pass the complaint on and wash their hands of it, you will pay $225. If you're OK with that then you can still complain for free.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
The FCC is reading and working informal complaints now. The proposal is to stop doing that and just pass the complaints on. I can be ignored by my phone company and ISP all by myself, thank you very much. If I'm contacting the FCC it's _because_ I'm being ignored. This let's the FCC ignore the complaints unless you pay $225 bucks. It's practically a poll tax.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
The funny part is how all the "muh Fox" and "muh Breitbart" people that you inoculated your comment against via your disclaimer will never ever ever admit that their left-wing biased sites are just as bad.
Most working class people cannot afford to throw $200+ toward a complaint that might help them deal with a big business---if there is a legal basis for intervention, which, of course, they have no way of knowing without consulting a lawyer.
A decent chunk of people couldn't throw $200+ toward a complaint even if it would definitely result in action.
If the FCC is supposed to oversee the telecom industry in the interest of the public, then this is a great way to slough off one of its fundamental responsibilities. Removing consumer protections often provokes outrage, so apparently the new plan is to simply render the protections meaningless or difficult to invoke.
Has anyone started a pool on how much Pai gets paid by Verizon when he's hired after stepping down from the FCC? I want in on that action.
---
According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
If you read the article and the rebuttal statements from the FCC, it appears this is the new policy:
You will still be able to file an "informal" complaint, but those are the ones that just get forwarded to the spam folder at the company you're complaining about and ignored entirely by the FCC.
However, if you want to file a formal complaint to the FCC, you will be required to pay $225 at the time you file your complaint, which will then be forwarded to the spam folder at the FCC before being completely ignored.
If you want to form a complaint that won't be ignored by the FCC, you must be a registered lobbyist for the telecom industry, be a member of a Trump Country Club, or god you must be new here, get the fuck out before we call security.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I called Novell once to report a bug in their software... they asked me for a credit card number, as obviously reporting a bug was using software support services that the billed $200/hr for! (For the record, they were clearing interrupt flags on return from interrupt instead of saving and restoring the state of the flags, meaning that interrupts disabled before entering Novell code were mysteriously enabled after. They also told me, "I'm going through the Windows code, and we've already fixed that issue!" Sure... but not in any code that was available for me to use!
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Dead on accurate... after the fact. They changed their headline for one. It used to read :
"The FCC wants to charge you $225 to review your complaint".
Whereas it now reads :
"Democrats argue a new FCC rule would hinder consumers, but Commission says they got it wrong".
This is a typical tactic, where you post an initial story, with initial "wrong facts" and "sensational" headline. Get a massive ton of shares of social media and get the outrage rolling, and then silently update the story to be less biased/sensational when the initial surge of visits/shares has died down.
Make sure to hide the correction way down. The Verge's story has this paragraph now :
"Update and correction July 11th, 12:30PM ET: The article has been updated to include the FCCâ(TM)s response and to clarify that the informal complaints change was expressed by the congressmen; this article previously described the change as requiring consumers to pay a $225 fee, as stated in the letter."
So yes, The Verge's story was initially bad. It was just later amended to be "Oh wait, lol journalism, our bad". Why did you jump at "you right-wing" people right away and call it conspiracy ?
"Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
Pai is making the government more _useful_. It's just a difference of opinion regarding for whom it should be useful. Pai thinks it's the wealthy oligarchs who pay him and you seem to be of the opinion that it's the people who elected his boss (Donald Trump). See, just a difference of opinion really...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Where did the Verge come into play? I thought this was from the Washington Post?
Here's the old / existing version:
 1.717 Procedure.
The Commission will forward informal complaints to the appropriate carrier for investigation. The carrier will, within such time as may be prescribed, advise the Commission in writing, with a copy to the complainant, of its satisfaction of the complaint or of its refusal or inability to do so. Where there are clear indications from the carrierâ(TM)s report or from other communications with the parties that the complaint has been satisfied, the Commission may, in its discretion, consider a complaint proceeding to be closed, without response to the complainant. In all other cases, the Commission will contact the complainant regarding its review and disposition of the matters raised. If the complainant is not satisfied by the carrierâ(TM)s response and the Commissionâ(TM)s disposition, it may file a formal complaint in accordance with  1.721 of this part.
A quick summary of the old/existing process:
The FCC informs the company of the complaint. If they don't resolve it, the consumer can file a formal complaint ($255)
In actual practice - the FCC logs complaints to a database and acts when there are many similar complaints against a company, or similar companies.
And the new version:
1.717 Procedure.
The Commission will forward informal complaints to the appropriate carrier for investigation and may set a due date for the carrier to provide a written response to the informal complaint to the Commission, with a copy to the complainant. The response will advise the Commission of the carrierâ(TM)s satisfaction of the complaint or of its refusal or inability to do so. Where there are clear indications from the carrierâ(TM)s response or from other communications with the parties that the complaint has been satisfied, the Commission may, in its discretion, consider a complaint proceeding to be closed. In all other cases, the Commission will notify the complainant that if the complainant is not satisfied by the carrierâ(TM)s response, or if the carrier has failed to submit a response by the due date, the complainant may file a formal complaint in accordance with  1.721 of this part.
A quick summary of the proposed process:
The FCC informs the company of the complaint. If they don't resolve it, the consumer can file a formal complaint ($255)
In actual practice - the FCC logs complaints to a database and acts when there are many similar complaints against a company, or similar companies.
If it's unclear what the facts are... don't state things as fact then, which the initial Verge headline did. That's like one of the big problems with current day journalism, it's not based on facts.
Again : stop making this a right vs left thing. It's a bad thing regardless of your side of the political aisle.
"Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
...you're suggesting that congresspeople of the opposition party may have "misunderstood" (accidentally or deliberately) and then used that "mistaken" information to gin up outrage?
Hm. Can't imagine that happening in America.
-Styopa
When a story breaks, it's often unclear what the facts are, and the reporting is subject to change. This is not unusual.
You are correct, it's not unusual. The problem though is it *should* be unusual, or at least rare if standard journalistic practices where being followed. Why is it customary to *verify* facts using multiple primary sources? Because if you do that, you won't get the actual facts wrong nearly as often.
So, let's all put on our big boy pants and call the media on this failure to do their jobs and chase the profits and prestige of being FIRST to print, to heck with verifying the fact cause we can just retract them with some corrections after we've driven our traffic numbers up. How do we hold them accountable? Stop reading their "breaking news" stories when they are getting it wrong regularly. Mark those sites that won't be responsible journalists and treat them as what they are, tabloids, gossip sites, (or dare I say it, "false news")
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
What bugs me is that the federal law preempts civil suits against the likes of phone spammers, those who ignore the do-not-call list, etc.
My family has our land lines on the do-not-call list and yet is running a higher ratio of junk to real calls than junk to real snail mail, and the robocallers are starting to show up on our cellphones (which is supposedly strictly a no-no).
If we could civil-sue the offenders (say, in small-claims court) for damages in the form of the cost of our time and resources in receiving those calls, we could recover at least some of our losses, while the offenders might think twice about re-offending. But we can't, because the federal government preempted such suits, and then doesn't take effective action against the offenders, so the level of offence, and resulting damage, explodes.
It seems to me that such preemption might constitute a "taking" under the Fifth Amendment (for the alleged "public purpose" of avoiding crippling legitimate businesses with bogus suits from disgruntled customers when they make a legitimate phone contact).
If so, the Fed owes us all a lot of money.
Anyone up for running a class-action to recover that? B-)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way