FCC Criticized For Surrendering Power To Punish Verizon After Firefighters Got Throttled During Wildfire (gizmodo.com)

Democratic lawmakers on Wednesday criticized the FCC on its response to Verizon's throttling of firefighters' data speeds as they battled a major wildfire in Northern California. "In a letter Friday, Senator Edward Markey and Congresswoman Anna Eshoo demanded answers from the FCC over what steps it is currently taking to address 'critical threats to public safety,' citing its decision to repeal Obama-era net neutrality protections," reports Gizmodo. From the report: The 2015 Open Internet Order -- overturned by the FCC's Republican majority last winter -- reclassified internet providers like Verizon as common carriers under Title II of the Federal Communications Act, granting the FCC regulatory authority that, in this instance, would have allowed the commission to investigate and potential penalize Verizon for its decision. At Chairman Ajit Pai's direction, the commission abdicated that authority this year. It no longer has the power to establish rules prohibiting Verizon from throttling emergency services, or charging police and fire departments additional fees to maintain their communications at optimal speeds when usage peaks -- say, during a wildfire, or an earthquake, or a mass shooting.

"The FCC has incorrectly suggested that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) could sufficiently fill this void," wrote Markey and Eschoo, whose congressional districting includes portions of Santa Clara. "We strongly disagree with that assertion." In their letter, the Democratic lawmakers urged the FCC to make use of its Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau and investigate the matter, saying that while the FTC may find Verizon's actions exemplify an "unfair and deceptive practice," both agencies should use "all of the tools available" to resolve this public safety matter. "To do nothing is unacceptable," they said.

Comments

Nothing will be done

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing ever is done to big corporations

Re: Nothing will be done

[Anonymous Coward]

And not by american loving politicians. One thing the dems and gop agree one, donâ(TM)t punish executives.

Re: Nothing will be done

[Anonymous Coward]

Your mom jacks off to Bernie photos because your traitor faggot father can't get it up. Deal with it Republican snowflakes. Shark week got cancelled.

Re:Nothing will be done

[BlueStrat]

Nothing ever is done to big corporations

...criticized for surrendering the power...

The FCC never had the legal authority/power in the first place. You don't use a hammer on a screw or a screwdriver on a nail. EO's and Presidential Directives are not law. The problem is not in the FCC's purview, but the FTC's until Congress passes a law or Act that says otherwise.

If you give your guy the power(s) to do an end-run around the Constitution, Congress, and due process, you give the opposition's guy the same power(s). That's not a winning strategy for either side and especially not for the people.

Strat

Re: Nothing will be done

[jd]

This debate was held in the 70s and 80s. In Reagan's time, it was well established that data was regulated the same as voice, that ISPs were telecos no different from any other.

This was settled until Bush passed an executive order nullifying this. You cannot change the law with an executive order. Bush classed data as distinct, by order.

If you want to talk Congress, fine, but start with eliminating Bush's order and THEN talk Congress.

Re: Nothing will be done

[Anonymous Coward]

So as telcos can charge extra for long distance, they can charge you extra for data that leaves their network?

Re:Nothing will be done

[Darinbob]

Hmm, Federal *Communications* Commission. It logically should have some authority over a major communications company. The FTC is clearly without doubt the wrong place, because the FTC has no power over anything. Whereas until recently it was widely agreed that the FCC as the appropriate place for this.

However the Trump administration has taken it upon itself to dismantle the government, reduce and eliminate all its power, and let corporations do whatever they want. They're not the GOP anymore or they wouldn't be pissing on Reagan's grave so much.

Re:Nothing will be done

[Anonymous Coward]

An empty set is a set, so that is something. They could found a bi-partisan committee to investigate ways to create an institution that would be capable of creating regulatory frameworks to embody those sets. And make WTO to pay for it.

Re: Nothing will be done

[jd]

No, peer-to-peer agreements for tier 1 prevent that.

Well, they did. They don't, now.

Re:Nothing will be done

[Ryanrule]

Eat shit and die

Re: Nothing will be done

[Zero__Kelvin]

Actually the term empty set is a term used to indicate that while their could be a set in some cases there is no set in this case.

Re: Nothing will be done

[Anonymous Coward]

One can never underestimate the willingness of the politicians to conceptualize on the organization of empty set of measures, and then talk about it some more to provide a confusingly empty satisfaction to the most discerning of the tax payers and voters.

Re:Nothing will be done

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing ever is done to big corporations

...criticized for surrendering the power...

The FCC never had the legal authority/power in the first place. You don't use a hammer on a screw or a screwdriver on a nail. EO's and Presidential Directives are not law. The problem is not in the FCC's purview, but the FTC's until Congress passes a law or Act that says otherwise.

If you give your guy the power(s) to do an end-run around the Constitution, Congress, and due process, you give the opposition's guy the same power(s). That's not a winning strategy for either side and especially not for the people.

Strat

The FCC has the authority. Republicans are making up excuses to burry things behind hypothetical legislature, instead of letting it possibly go to the Supreme Court where they’d win something they didn’t want won. This is a pattern in the current administration... *cough*DACA*cough*. It’s the Presidents prerogative, mostly - if you can keep him from tweeting reasons for the courts to bitch slap him, I’m just tired of stuff being called “illegal” that in the end could have been won. It’s just undoing the last President’s doings, which is unsurprising.

There are three branches in the US Government. The FCC already regulates ISPs as Title I Information Services, and it’s up to the Judicial Branch to decide if the FCC can classify ISPs as Title II Common Carrier.

But whatever, let’s see how far the President can get with the whole my hands are tied by Congress (while it’s on his side) schtick before he starts getting creative too.

Re:Nothing will be done

[BlueStrat]

Hmm, Federal *Communications* Commission. It logically should have some authority over a major communications company.

The FCC deals with technical issues and standards like RF spectrum frequency-band divisions and mode & bandwidth restrictions.

The FTC deals with how businesses operate.

This about how they operate and not a technical issue, so it's an FTC issue.

Don't like it? Get Congress to pass a law or Act to change it. Doing an end-run around the Rule of Law never works out in the end for anyone but tyrants and authoritarians.

Strat

Re:Nothing will be done

[BlueStrat]

Eat shit and die

Ignorant and angry is no way to go through life, son.

Strat

Re: Nothing will be done

[Anonymous Coward]

The FCC deals with technical issues and standards like RF spectrum frequency-band divisions and mode & bandwidth restrictions.

You don't say?

Re:Nothing will be done

[Darinbob]

FCC deals quite a lot with how to share a limited resource, who gets to use it, who doesn't get to use it, and how it gets used.

The FCC is overseen by congress and is an independent agency, it is not a part of the executive branch. No new law is needed here, congress already created statues to grant it the authority to regulate interstate communication via wire or RF.

Re:Nothing will be done

[novakyu]

You don't use a hammer on a screw

'Shows what you know.

--
Where there is will, there is a way

Wait, the former Verizon Lobbyist did what?

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't say! Wow! What do you mean it wasn't in the interest of the public good? Such a surprise!

'works as intended'

[Anonymous Coward]

ashitpile says, as he pats his fat wallet, "it's what my 'customers' wanted."

Re: 'works as intended'

[Anonymous Coward]

Regulations will continue to be lifted until consumers get what they deserve!

Misleading advertising

[burtosis]

If they simply had called it a 25gig then throttle plan this wouldn't be confused with net neutrality. Instead it's advertised as the best unlimited everything, the data usage in real time is difficult to track for average users, and no one reads fine print leading to the confusion. In that case I'd agree it's deceptive and in this case led to an unsafe condition. Too bad deceptive advertising likely won't get fixed for the common people.

Re: Misleading advertising

[Anonymous Coward]

Which calls into question why government officials and first responders are relying on it during emergencies.

Also they have frequency set aside for first responders and forest fire crews. Did they suddenly become uneducated on how a radio, a compass and a map works.

Re: Misleading advertising

[burtosis]

The problem is relying on second rate consumer data plans for critical infrastructure. This was a management failure, not a technical failure. Sending firefighting back to the 1960s is not the answer.

Re:Misleading advertising

[Anonymous Coward]

If the department paid $2/month more for the next upgraded plan, none of this would be in headlines everywhere. Seriously, are we that easily entertained to waste people's time reading stories about how Verizon made $2/month more off of some fire department?

In reality, they should be praising Verizon for offering such affordable service, even if they have to pay for every single GB. The alternative is setting up your own radio network, and I can tell you from experience this doesn't come cheap. Custom radios: thousands. Tower locations: thousands. FCC licenses: a hassle. Guys you send out to sites when the radios go down: lots of $$$ there too. Hard to see a separate radio system happening anywhere less than $500,000/yr for a small department and a few hilltop repeaters. If Verizon said they had to charge $100/mo, they should just say: "ok, thank you!"

I think the REAL story is: "Fire department cheaps out and whines about it to newspapers, are these the people you want saving your life?"

Re: Misleading advertising

[Anonymous Coward]

Because Verizon insisted they could provide the useful services at a lower price, so there was no need or value in having a solution from a dedicated provider.

Turns out they were just fibbing.

Re: Misleading advertising

[Anonymous Coward]

Which calls into question why government officials and first responders are relying on it during emergencies.

Yes, of course. When a corporation fucks you over, the question isn't "why and is what they did illegal". It's "why rely on the corporation"? I mean, governments aren't in any sort of position to demand, investigate, or punish in such circumstances. This would be radically different if there was an understandable equipment failure because of said emergency. Instead, it's purely a technological one and a clerical one (at least according to Verizon).

Also they have frequency set aside for first responders and forest fire crews. Did they suddenly become uneducated on how a radio, a compass and a map works.

I imagine that a phone would allow for mass distributing updates on wind patterns, water drops, and allow better coordination of positions of all people with a much better mechanism to communicate to each individual as needed. Yes, you have a radio, a compass, and a map as appropriate, but trying to build all the communication network with tie-in to computers is probably more expensive than routing it through the extant network. More generally, in most circumstances that network will survive the emergency so there's no sane reason to heavily rely upon radio/compass/map except as a fallback when there are much better alternatives with much more efficient/effective outcomes.

Please, stop being an apologist. There's a lot of things you could reasonably complain about, but there's a good reason firefighters want to increase their use of technology and why the law specific gives priority in emergencies to emergency personnel. Technology allows better coordination, better information sharing, and generally a much better active "fighting force" especially for something like fires, earthquake rescue, etc.

If it does turn out that an over reliance on technology can be shown to have made them incompetent with radio/compass/maps, then that would be a valid complaint. Nothing I've heard suggests that was the actual issue. Twisting a choice by Verizon into something else is really absurd.

Re:Misleading advertising

[ShanghaiBill]

If they simply had called it a 25gig then throttle plan this wouldn't be confused with net neutrality.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with network neutrality. That is a completely separate issue.

Re: Misleading advertising

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that you did not read the article. Verizon did not uphold their part of the bargain that all parties negotiated. When told to fix it, a company representative offered a deal that was different than what was agreed upon, and insisted that it will not be followed. Unfortunately for Verizon, the services in qustions were employed as life-saving measures. Verizon, therefore, broke a life-saving measure that was mutually agreed, and demanded more money. Given the circumstance, it was criminal.

Re:Misleading advertising

[Pentium100]

I do not know how public acquisition works in the US, but in my country, the government puts out the specifications for whatever they want to buy, get offers and has to choose the cheapest offer that meets the specs.

So, if two companies offered unlimited data service, but one offer was $2 cheaper, then that would be chosen (or the office may be sued by the company who offered the cheaper service).

Re:Misleading advertising

[burtosis]

That's why I said it was confused with net neutrality. I'm not sure you read the quote.

Re: Misleading advertising

[jd]

That's the rule in the U.S., except they never check if the company has any intention of delivering. Hence the massive overruns, failed projects, etc. Ditto for the UK.

Re: Misleading advertising

[Anonymous Coward]

May you die in a fire you retarded piece of shit Shanghai Bill. May your family become smoked meats briefly. You are a fucking moron.

Re: Misleading advertising

[sg_oneill]

Having worked on systems fire crew in Australia use, it's not as simple as that. In a well run fire fighting system there's tonnes, gigabytes and potentially terrabytes of data flying about , GIS fuel (ie how deep leaf matter is in places etc etc etc) maps, data on how the wind is behaving as superheated smoke starts fucking with local pressure systems, fire behavioural models, as well as complicated logistics to get fire fighters in and civilians out of the fight.whilst monitoring safety and trying to anticipate medical and infrastructure requirements in real time.
I agree this isn't something that should be entrusted to cheap and nasty consumer broadband , but it's absolutely not something that can be replaced with Walky-talky radios.

Re: Misleading advertising

[Anonymous Coward]

So much hatred, tsk tsk. I will pray for you, you poor misguided soul. May you find the help you so obviously need.

Re: Misleading advertising

[Truth_Quark]

Which calls into question why government officials and first responders are relying on it during emergencies.

It's not telephone services. It's a modern real time logistics and resource managements system.

From the DECLARATION OF FIRE CHIEF ANTHONY BOWDEN to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

6. Only a few weeks ago, County Fire deployed OES Incident Support Unit 5262 ("OES 5262"), to the Mendocino Complex Fire, now the largest fire in state history. OES 5262 ADD2 USCA Case #18-1051 Document #1746555 Filed: 08/20/2018 Page 4 of 58 is deployed to large incidents as a command and control resource. Its primary function is to track, organize, and prioritize routing of resowces from around the state and country to the sites where they are most needed. OES 5262 relies heavily on the use of specialized software and Google Sheets to do near-real-time resource tracking through the use of cloud computing over the Internet.

7. Resources tracked across such a large event include personnel and equipment supplied from local governments across California; the State of California; federal agencies including the Department of Defense, the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Forest Service; and other countries. As of Monday, August 13, 2018, the response effort for the wildfires burning across California included 13,000 firefighters, multiple aircraft, dozens or hundreds of hulldozers, and hundreds of fire engines. The wildfires have resulted in over 726,000 acres burned and roughly 2,000 structures destroyed. With several months left in what is a "normal" fire season, we fully expect these numbers to rise.

8. OES 5262 also coordinates all local government resources deployed to the Mendocino Complex Fire. That is, the unit facilitates resource check-in and routing for local government resources. In doing so, the unit typically exchanges 5-10 gigabytes of data per day via the Internet using a mobile router and wireless connection. Near-real-time information exchange is vital to proper function. In large and complex fires, resource allocation requires immediate information. Dated or stale information regarding the availability or need for resources can slow response times and render them far less effective. Resources could be deployed to the wrong fire, the wrong part of a fire, or fail to be deployed at all. Even small delays in response translate into devastating effects, including loss of property, and, in some cases, loss of life.

Also they have frequency set aside for first responders and forest fire crews. Did they suddenly become uneducated on how a radio, a compass and a map works.

Dropping back to radios, compasses and maps is obviously sub-optimal, but if you're expecting the command and control center to be able to perform command and control, you might not have that option ready.

The problem is that they were throttled at a critical time, and the outcome was poorer coordination of the response until Verison was paid off to lift the throttle.

Re: Misleading advertising

[Anonymous Coward]

If the family becomes smoked meats then others will not starve.

I canâ(TM)t wait for my that mouth watering smoked long pig.

Itâ(TM)s mmmmm mmmmmm good!

Re: Misleading advertising

[c6gunner]

So, if two companies offered unlimited data service, but one offer was $2 cheaper, then that would be chosen (or the office may be sued by the company who offered the cheaper service).

That would be true if the service was actually the same, but they never are. You can put all of your requirements in the bid request. Typically you would define the speeds you expect, the service availability, the total amount of data needed per month, etc. Just because two different companies both market their plans as "unlimited" doesn't mean that both of them can actually deliver all of what you require.

Re: Misleading advertising

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck you and most especially, fuck Verizon.

Re: Misleading advertising

[Anonymous Coward]

The Lord helps those who help themselves, not FAGGOT LYING TRAITORS, NOT EVEN A LITTLE BIT.

Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like PRISON

Re:Misleading advertising

[chispito]

That's why I said it was confused with net neutrality. I'm not sure you read the quote.

I'm pretty sure the people who are claiming this is a NN issue are not confused, they are attempting to confuse others.

Re: Misleading advertising

[Anonymous Coward]

One article I read said that there was no negative consequence because one of the employees simply turned their phone into a hotspot. Maybe that should just be part of their official plan? To steal employee's data. I mean, if they're going for "so economical, we don't even want to pay $2/mo more for our data", I guess they just need to steal whatever. Just be careful if they use some cheapo paper harness or something to attempt to save your life from a second story house.

Re: Misleading advertising

[Anonymous Coward]

"The problem is that they were throttled at a critical time, and the outcome was poorer coordination of the response until Verison was paid off to lift the throttle."

If their operation was so dependent upon having a constant fast internet connection, why was there no secondary system to take over? A different provider even? What if it was a REAL emergency and CDMA was being actively jammed and GSM was not? Obviously it wasn't that important to them.

Re:Misleading advertising

[Anonymous Coward]

Different country, but it really doesn't work like that. It depends on requirements and internal scoring, usually. Could even be arbitrary, though must be defensible in Court. Depends if the people in charge pull in the right people to see if the bid is feasible or not. Often when they do not, maybe sometimes because of bribes, it all ends in flames. By then, these people are onto the next disaster. So yeah, if they choose the cheapest bid, on the surface, that could be easier to defend, but absolutely The Wrong Decision and requirements should really be designed to avoid that, but not over-designed to hinder competition.

Re: Misleading advertising

[Anonymous Coward]

Which calls into question why government officials and first responders are relying on it during emergencies.

Yes, of course. When a corporation fucks you over, the question isn't "why and is what they did illegal". It's "why rely on the corporation"? I mean, governments aren't in any sort of position to demand, investigate, or punish in such circumstances.

Well, governments are in the position to set all the rules. They set the rules that make 'corporations' possible, for example.

Where I live, corporations provide the phone+mobile services. But to be allowed to operate a commercial phone/mobile service, they have some obligations. One of them is to provide for emergency services. This has some consequences:
1. You can always call the emergency services, even if your phone is otherwise blocked (for not paying bills, or having a mobile phone but not being customer of any carrier, etc.)
2. Emergency services has guaranteed bandwith should they need it. I.e. consider there are thousands of firefighters, cops & ambulance crews using their specially provided emrgency cellphones in some area with few towers. Then they are the ones that get through, because they get absolute priority. Ordinary people/businesses are the ones that gets low priority or shut out in emergencies - no matter what 'plan' they might have.

Don't like those obligations, don't run a phone service. Of course the corporations just bill their customers, so indirectly, the customers pay for emergency service bandwith.

Re: Misleading advertising

[Anonymous Coward]

CDMA being actively jammed? Does that happen outside of war? Anyway, illegal transmitters are easy to triangulate. In peacetime, a bunch of angry cops appear and shuts the transmitter down. In wartime, some sort of guided bomb do the same.

Re: Misleading advertising

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, when you write the spec they bid for, make sure to include fines for not delivering. And make those fines bigger than the cost of delivering, obviously.

If you forget this step, there is still the option of not paying when the company isn't delivering.

Re: Misleading advertising

[Anonymous Coward]

Got it. So either all three of you are shills or liars. The ability for the FCC to address this complaint (or should we say requirement) was part of the net neutrality regulations that were repealed. If course I strongly suspect you know that.

Re: Misleading advertising

[drinkypoo]

I agree this isn't something that should be entrusted to cheap and nasty consumer broadband , but it's absolutely not something that can be replaced with Walky-talky radios.

There's no other system that can carry the traffic. Satellite phones won't handle that much throughput, satellite internet ala HughesNet or Exede has to be aimed, and the only other system in place to cover remote areas is cellular.

Re: Misleading advertising

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why the FCC Should mandate Fiber Optic to every tree!!

Re: Misleading advertising

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah they were too busy taking turns gangbanging your pasty white jap wife. She took the white mans dick like a pro. When the black man stepped up. She said "damnnnn your dick is 20x the size of my husband bills".

She was then overheard saying "get this guys, I bought bill a Real doll that looks just like me, so I don't have to have sex with him. He's actually having sex with the doll right now and THINKS it's me, what a toolbag with a small dick."

Re: Misleading advertising

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realize, that the hotspot he created, would run off the same fucking Verizon network and therefore still be fucking throttled?

Nah, you just wanted to try and be snarky, instead you made yourself look like a fucking idiot.

Re: Misleading advertising

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you engage the services of a backup caterer for a wedding reception in case your primary caterer fails to provide the agreed upon amount of food? Verizon was contracted to provide the stated data services. At an important time, they *decided not to*, until they were paid further.

Re: Misleading advertising

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe the focus was on the Cheap and Nasty Consumer part of the offer as opposed to a business level agreement where a the level of service gets prioritized during times of emergency rather than shaped,

This AGAIN?

[markdavis]

OMG! Give it a rest!!! If they didn't want a capped with throttled data plan, then they should should have:

1) Negotiated some other deal
2) Signed up for a metered plan
3) Found some other vendor
or
4) Built their own mobile system

I mean, it is NOT A SECRET that [perhaps all] so-called "unlimited" data plans throttle after a cap. READ YOUR CONTRACT. It has nothing to do with "net neutrality", it has to do with the industries' definition of "unlimited". It is not Verizon's "duty" to read your minds and adjust their plans to whatever use the government agency wants to use it for, to, oh.... "save the children" or whatnot. They are not shaping of traffic based on where the data was coming from or going to, it is just a cap and then throttled after that. Old "unlimited at full speed" plans ended many years ago and consumers HATED overage charges and unpredictable bills that came before, so this cap-then-throttle concept is what replaced it. Again, you might not like it, but that is WHAT YOU SIGNED UP FOR!!

If the mobile industry (and pretty much all ISP's now) definition of "unlimited" is what needs attacking, perhaps choosing a new name for it would help, then that is the domain of the FTC, not the FCC.

Re: This AGAIN?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is not Verizon's "duty" to read your minds and adjust their plans to whatever use the government agency wants to use it for,

Actually, it is. You should read the relevant contracts, including the license Verizon got on order to have a share of the electromagnetic spectrum.

If Verizon didn't want to live up to the expectations of their choosing to do business with a public safety agency, they can go ahead and surrender their interests.

Re: This AGAIN?

[ooloorie]

If Verizon didn't want to live up to the expectations of their choosing to do business with a public safety agency, they can go ahead and surrender their interests.

Verizon is happy to satisfy their obligations: like any non-consumer entity that depends critically on service, the fire department should sign up for a metered business plan and pay for it.

It was the public safety agency's choice to sign up for consumer level plans, and a quite irresponsible choice one might add.

Re: This AGAIN?

[ShanghaiBill]

Actually, it is. You should read the relevant contracts

Got a link?

Re: This AGAIN?

[jd]

They did negotiate another plan.

It's common knowledge the plan they had specifically included a clause for no throttling in emergencies. The discussion is over whether Verizon can lawfully break contractual clauses because they feel like it, and if so which ones.

Currently, the FCC and Federal government are inclined to the view that contractual clauses are irrelevant. The courts are undecided. If the courts do decide contracts have no legal standing, that could have some I interesting consequences.

Re:This AGAIN?

[Truth_Quark]

It has nothing to do with "net neutrality", it has to do with the industries' definition of "unlimited".

It has something to do with "net neutrality". The repealed net neutrality laws did ban throttling. (Although they had an exception for "reasonable network management" ... which this throttling wasn't, it throttled at all times after 25GB, no matter what the load on the network was)

Re: This AGAIN?

[c6gunner]

It's common knowledge the plan they had specifically included a clause for no throttling in emergencies.

No, it's not. It seems to be a common assumption, but an assumption is not knowledge. Insofar as any of the articles have discussed this, none of them have stated that this was part of any contract. From what I can gather Verizon just has an internal policy that directs employees to lift throttling restrictions if/when emergency personnel call in and tell them that they need data for emergency use. It's not a contractual requirement, it's a "we're trying to be decent human beings" policy.

Now, since you seem so self-certain about your "common knowledge", I'm sure you'll be able to link to the relevant contract and quote the section in question, right?

Re:This AGAIN?

[Anonymous Coward]

Read the summary and headline first. Verizon has a policy of dropping caps for emergency services during emergencies. Their customer support failed to do this in a timely manner and instead tried to influence the emergency services onto a different plan.

This relates back to NN indirectly because the way the rollback was implemented. It prevents the FCC from doing anything /wrt emergency services' access during emergencies. The logic behind this was that the FTC could handle matters related to service.

The concern is that the FTC might not be able to do much in this case while the FCC also can't.

This specific case might have just been some lack of training. It seems unlikely anyone in upper management would risk the bad press so soon after their lobbying success and so soon before important re-elections. But that there are no consequences and that consequences for future issues can't currently be considered is something that concerns me.

Re: This AGAIN?

[jd]

I'm able to state that the senior officials and firemen involved have all stated this to be part of the contract. If you wanted to know, you'd be asking them. Asking me suggests you'd rather not know. I'm curious as to why. Because then you'd be faced with an incontrovertible fact that you'd been lied to?

That happens. It's better to find out the truth even if it means corporations do bad things to good people and that libertarian philosophy doesn't work in a monoculture.

Re: This AGAIN?

[Anonymous Coward]

If part of contract they should sue. No need for FTC or FCC involvement. Iâ(TM)m not part of contract get a better plan so your data is not throtttled.

Re: This AGAIN?

[LynnwoodRooster]

Did Verizon lift the cap once they were officially notified this is an emergency? If so - what's the problem?

Re: This AGAIN?

[Anonymous Coward]

Verizon is happy to satisfy their obligations:

Nope. Verizon is well-known for not providing satisfactory service. See all the complaints against them.

It was the public safety agency's choice to sign up for consumer level plans, and a quite irresponsible choice one might add.

Nope. It was Verizon's choice, they knowingly and deliberagely implemented throttling on their own, with no legitimate reason to do so, and despite being previously informed that the throttling (a violation of said contract) interfered with operations, continued to do so.

Hence the complaint against them.

Re: This AGAIN?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are Technica linked to the brief filed by the firefighters, it references the contracts, I don't know if the full text is included but the contact information would let you make an appropriate request.

Re: This AGAIN?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, in fact, they did not, that was the problem, Verizon Customer Service followed the script used for "normal" folks, not the one for emergency providers.

Re: This AGAIN?

[LynnwoodRooster]

I had heard that, but I heard that once Verizon authenticated the emergency provider, more bandwidth was turned. In other words, just because someone calls up and says "I'm an emergency provider, I need more bandwidth" they just don't drop everything and crank up your limits. They want to see a little proof of identification, first.

Re: This AGAIN?

[c6gunner]

I'm able to state that the senior officials and firemen involved have all stated this to be part of the contract.

You're able to state all kinds of things, but until you support them with actual evidence it's all meaningless.

Re: This AGAIN?

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL. You people are so stupid.

When you call you VERIFY you own or have access to the account right away. So then you can make any changes.

Have you never called customer support. You call Verizon, they ask you questions to verify you identity. Once verified they can make changes or offer support.

So yea, calling up and saying "I'm a California firefighter and here is the account details, we need more data" is and was the right thing to do. Verizon said NO!

Re:This AGAIN?

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of these big fires have many many different organizations helping, local, county, city, state volunteer both local and abroad, even from foreign countries (we had teams from Australia for our last big one) many thousands of personnel.

I’m sure central command was fine with data, how can they manage people that aren’t in their usual command?

Should they all negotiate contracts before they fight the fire?
I have a ~30 mile by ~ 25 mile burned area by my house, it burned for over a month, knowing that Verizon could have lessened that is kinda just what I’d expect from Verizon.

I say we put Verizon’s board and execs and managers in a beautiful wood mansion in the woods and let mother nana tire negotiate the terms for us.

Re: This AGAIN?

[LynnwoodRooster]

Call on a business account. Some of my employees can call and get basic information, but they cannot change the account settings - only a few of us are authorized to do that. It's quite common in the business/corporate/Government world to have people with different levels of access. But if all you've ever had was a small, individual account, I can understand how you don't get it.

Re: This AGAIN?

[Anonymous Coward]

This wasn't an account setting problem on the firefighting side. It was on Verizon's end of things where they implemented for no valid reason, artificial scarcity and then tried to coerce a customer in an emergency situation.

As somebody who may not understand why and how Verizon is known to misbehave, you probably can't grasp the situation but concoct a narrative that fits your established preconceptions.

Re: This AGAIN?

[Anonymous Coward]

The contracts are available to view. They are not secret nor private, but public documents.

So you can look at them any time you want.

If you don't do it, what can anybody else do?

Re: This AGAIN?

[Anonymous Coward]

I did look at them. That's how in know that they didn't include any promises not to throttle. But they do include the offer of a free unicorn for all emergency personnel. Clearly you guys haven't bothered to look at them if you don't know this.

Re:California's fault for poor water management!

[PopeRatzo]

It's California's fault the firefighters even had to be there.

Yeah, if California didn't insist on having, you know, trees then they wouldn't have to fight wildfires.

In fact, we are now learning that President Trump is secretly working with Robert Mueller to prosecute the State of California for having trees as soon as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are sent to Guantanamo and executed.

Subscribe to my YouTube channel.

#GreatAwakening #thestorm #americafirst #cabal #truth #thedonald #freedom #kag #TrustThePlan #GeorgeSoros #RebelHeart #ClassicalLiberals #BuildThatWall #RedHenRestaurant #thecalmbeforethestorm #MakeAmericaGreatAgain #PresidentTrump #KanyeWest #QAnon #GoldenAge #LawOfAttraction #AbrahamHicks #TheEliteAreCRAPPINGthemselves

Ajit Pai.

[Anonymous Coward]

What a fucking TOOL..
I smell a clear conflict of interest here..
Ajit Pai,
go home please..

You have fucked up enough shit as it is..
thank you

Re: Ajit Pai.

[that this is not und]

Your very own Emmanuel Goldstein.

Rage at his image! For five minutes!

Re: Ajit Pai.

[Anonymous Coward]

Shut up

Yea, Mod Point things NO ONE UNDERSTANDS, MsMash your showing your value as a well oiled TOOL, yet once again..

Re: Ajit Pai.

[Anonymous Coward]

why the fuck are you surprised?
this place is a virtual TOOL shed.

clear conflict

Re:California's fault for poor water management!

[Anonymous Coward]

The Trees must be culled for their war on Christmas. #Pope Pence Sez

Re:Complainers

[Anonymous Coward]

complain. All the time. About everything. No matter what.

Only fools listen.

I'm sorry were you saying something?

seriously?

[ooloorie]

Bowden said that Verizon, whom the country fire department had paid for “unlimited data,”

Was the data limited? No, just the throughput.

hobbled the first responders’ ability to communicate “despite being informed that throttling was actively impeding County Fire’s ability to provide crisis-response and essential emergency services.”

Throttling happens on consumer plans. If you want business or professional level service, you need to pay for it. Trying to run a fire department on consumer data plans is negligent and Bowden should be held responsible.

Re:seriously?

[drinkypoo]

Throttling happens on consumer plans. If you want business or professional level service, you need to pay for it.

They were on a professional-level service. In fact, they were on a plan for emergency services.

Re: seriously?

[that this is not und]

A plan for emergency services would by necessity have to involve planning for contengencies during emergencies. So who in the Fire Department drew up the FMEA documents, and have they been fired yet?

Re: seriously?

[drinkypoo]

A plan for emergency services would by necessity have to involve planning for contengencies during emergencies.

It was Verizon's policy to remove caps when contacted during emergency situations, and they did not follow that policy. Verizon has admitted that it was their mistake.

Re:seriously?

[burtosis]

They were on a professional-level service. In fact, they were on a plan for emergency services.

That's news to me. Every article I've read such as this one indicates it was a commercial data capped plan. The articles seem consistent in that after the incident started they asked them to lift the throttling. Then again the news isn't what it used to be. Do you have a source?

Re: seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

"oops. our bad."

(translation: o shit, we got caught).

"we promise it will never happen again"

(translation: we'll do much better to ensure we don't get caught next time).

"it's our policy"

(translation: it is our policy.. to screw customers in the ass with a rusty pitch fork at every opportunity).

Re: seriously?

[jd]

They were on a corporate plan with a specific emergency clause that stated that in a declared emergency, Verizon promised not to throttle.

Verizon broke contract.

This should be end of story, but apparently there's a lot of support for the idea that contracts have no standing. If this reaches SCOTUS and is confirmed, contract law will be nullified.

You sure that's a good idea?

Re: seriously?

[ArchieBunker]

So again this has nothing to do with net neutrality just general incompetence.

Re: seriously?

[ooloorie]

They were on a corporate plan with a specific emergency clause that stated that in a declared emergency, Verizon promised not to throttle. Verizon broke contract.

Their complaint does not mention that, and business plans are generally not "unlimited (with throttling)". They switched to a full, no-throttle business plan only after this problem occurred.

And if Verizon did break the contract, how is this an FCC matter? Contractual violations are not regulatory issues, they are properly resolved in civil court (and throttling has nothing to do with net neutrality). For a government agency to try to use a regulatory agency to avoid going to civil court is unacceptable.

The Santa Clara Fire Department's claims are absurd.

Re:seriously?

[ooloorie]

They were on a professional-level service. In fact, they were on a plan for emergency services.

Bowden doesn't talk about that in his complaint letter to the FCC; he's just saying "how dare these people throttle our data when we're trying to fight a fire".

Furthermore, throttling has nothing to do with net neutrality and it isn't a regulatory issue. If Verizon failed to live up to their contractual commitment, that's an issue for a civil court. For the SCFD to pursue this issue through the FCC is absurd political posturing, nothing more.

Re: seriously?

[whoever57]

Yeah, this was a "customer support mistake" in the same way that Wells Fargo got caught out time and time again for things such as opening accounts for people who never asked for them.

This issue was escalated within Verizon. It beggars belief to think that somewhere along the line someone didn't think to apply the existing "policy".

Verizon's mistake was that they let it get to the point that they were called out on it. It was a PR mistake by Verizon, not a mistake in applying the "policy".

Re: seriously?

[Darinbob]

You'll never convince an anti-government cheerleader to admit that any company can do wrong, it is against the whole free-market religion.

Re:seriously?

[Kirth]

Throttling happens on consumer plans.

Oh yeah? Is that some kind of traditional wisdom handed down from your forefathers in the USA?

Because that's not what's expected in the rest of the world.

Re: seriously?

[jd]

Verizon is a telecommunications provider. The laws governing what a teleco can do to a pipe IS FCC business.

Re:seriously?

[ooloorie]

Is that some kind of traditional wisdom handed down from your forefathers in the USA?

No, just a statement of fact: consumer plans generally allow for throttling, if you want to avoid that, you need to buy a different kind of plan.

Because that's not what's expected in the rest of the world.

In my experience, Europe had unlimited plans with throttling years before the US. Switzerland certainly still does: "inOne mobile data XL -- Up to 30 GB per month, with subsequent speed reduction but no additional costs."

Assuming your website reflects your origins, I find it quite encouraging that an educated Swiss guy like you is joining in in Europe's long-standing tradition of cultural chauvinism, ignorance about his own continent, and anti-Americanism! Switzerland is finally becoming truly European!

Re: seriously?

[ooloorie]

You obviously don't understand the proper function of a regulatory agency vs a court of law.

Re: seriously?

[drinkypoo]

So again this has nothing to do with net neutrality just general incompetence.

The net neutrality bill included an anti-throttling provision, so saying that it has nothing to do with net neutrality is deeply and fundamentally ignorant.

Re: seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

The net neutrality bill included an anti-throttling provision

No, it didn't; at least not in the sense that many people seem to think.

The 2015 Open Internet Order restricted impairment or degradation of lawful Internet traffic on the basis of content, applications, services, or device, but allowed reasonable network management.

Re: seriously?

[jd]

I understand the role of the FCC. I understand its regulations and I understand how its role with the Internet has changed. I've read its rules and regulations. Have you?

Ummm, you might be interested to learn I've been using, not playing, with the Internet since the mid 1980s, have built one international hub and been employed by another, and have actively worked with the IETF.

In other words, that four digit UID isn't bought. Show respect for your elders, we might have learned things over the years.

If you do not understand the posts of those who have been there, done that, ASK. DONT ASSUME you are all wise. If you do not understand, that is YOUR failure. Fix it.

Re: seriously?

[ooloorie]

Ummm, you might be interested to learn I've been using, not playing, with the Internet since the mid 1980s, have built one international hub and been employed by another, and have actively worked with the IETF.

How is that experience, such as it is, relevant to the question of whether it is the job of the FCC to enforce a contract dispute?

In other words, that four digit UID isn't bought. Show respect for your elders, we might have learned things over the years.

I don't like arguments from authority, which is why I generally don't talk about my background online and don't use my original Slashdot UID. In addition, a lot of the people I knew from the early ARPANET, UNIX, and Linux days unfortunately never grew up and stuck with their adolescent beliefs throughout life. Some of them lead such sad existences that they think a four digit UID on Slashdot and having used the Internet since the mid-1980's are actually achievements or signs of wisdom.

Re: seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realize we can go back and read the bill right? And that you are lying thru your teeth.

Paid shill much?

Re: seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

Did this fall under network management? It didn't? No? Then stfu. It has nothing to do with this.

Re: seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm going to repeat what drinkypoo said because you can't grasp this.

The net neutrality bill included an anti-throttling provision, so saying that it has nothing to do with net neutrality is deeply and fundamentally ignorant.

Is that so hard to understand?

Re: seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

So in other words the TLDR is "I'm
An ignorant fuck who is going to keep spouting FUD because that's what I choose to believe. And you are stupid for not believing the same FUD that I fell for"

Got it.

Because you are all up and down this thread looking like a straight up idiot. You have been proven wrong over and over and still say "nah nah nah I can't hear you"

So please, either prove them
Wrong or stfu.

Re: seriously?

[ooloorie]

You have been proven wrong over and over

You mean proof like "that four digit UID isn't bought"?

I'm An ignorant fuck who is going to keep spouting FUD because that's what I choose to believe. And you are stupid for not believing the same FUD that I fell for

JD, that is an excellent summary of your position.

Re: seriously?

[ooloorie]

Show respect for your elders, we might have learned things over the years.

I just read your bio. You were gifted as a kid, but then seem to have just dropped the ball in your teens. You still have a couple of decades to fulfill your potential; don't waste the time.

Re: seriously?

[drinkypoo]

The 2015 Open Internet Order restricted impairment or degradation of lawful Internet traffic on the basis of content, applications, services, or device, but allowed reasonable network management.

And yet, no reasonable network management was being performed. It was both against the public interest, and Verizon's own policy.

Re: seriously?

[drinkypoo]

You'll never convince an anti-government cheerleader to admit that any company can do wrong, it is against the whole free-market religion.

I'm a big fan of the free market myself, but you can't have one without regulation...

Re:California's fault for poor water management!

[pslytely psycho]

"#MAGA"

My
Attorney
Got
Arrested.
MAGA!

You can't build your own mobile system

[rsilvergun]

we've granted the cell phone companies a spectrum monopoly. This is actually necessary given the nature of radio waves, but rather than treat it like a lease on the public commons we 'sold' an unlimited monopoly to certain spectrum to each carrier. You don't get to compete with Verizon because that's not how radio works, and cell phones are just fancy radios.

As for another vendor, see above.

As for negotiating, They can't negotiate since the kind of spectrum that reaches out to where the fires are was sold to Verizon.

As for a metered plan, screw that noise. It's a public good (radio waves) and the fire department. Just use eminent domain to require them to provide unlimited service to emergency services. That is literally what eminent domain is for. It's bad enough we're letting the cell phone companies abuse us but now we're letting them endanger our lives and our property in blind obedience to some capitalist ideal we had pounded into our skulls in grade school. Jeez, enough already.

Re:You can't build your own mobile system

[markdavis]

>"You can't build your own mobile system"

You can if you are the government. They already have plenty of spectrum allocated to themselves. And they are certainly way, way large enough to do so.

>"we've granted the cell phone companies a spectrum monopoly"

There is limited spectrum, so there has to be some rules. Also, it isn't technically a monopoly, there are currently 4 large available to everyone that covers everywhere in addition to numerous small players..

>"As for negotiating, They can't negotiate since the kind of spectrum that reaches out to where the fires are was sold to Verizon.

You are saying a major player/customer like a State can't negotiate for a better plan? I think that is doubtful.

>"As for a metered plan, screw that noise. It's a public good (radio waves) and the fire department."

Blah, blah, "save the children" again. There is nothing wrong with a metered plan and paying for what is actually used. It doesn't matter what the data is used for. Besides, how do WE know all the data in this case was actually business related?

>"Just use eminent domain to require them to provide unlimited service to emergency services"

They could. But all this noise is about net neutrality, which it is not. Or about Verizon doing something strange, unusual, or unknown, which it is not. Or about it "saving the children"-like stuff, which it is not. They don't need "unlimited" service, they just need a metered service... just like most things are metered (gas, water, electricity, traditional long distance, 411 service, plumbers, taxi fares, etc). It is, literally, exactly what they need, and Verizon absolutely would sell them such a plan.

>"in blind obedience to some capitalist idea"

Your continued religion of Socialism keeps shining through... This article is about some stupid government officials (who you apparently think are so capable of running and regulating everything) who can't read or understand typical mobile contracts... ones that all the rest of us seem to understand quite well. It would be different if the article were about an ACTUAL use case where the government couldn't negotiate a workable contract for the data they [actually] need. But I bet such a use case doesn't exist.

>"Jeez, enough already."

On that we can agree!

Re:You can't build your own mobile system

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you actually speak for Verizon, or merely presume to do so?

Re: You can't build your own mobile system

[Anonymous Coward]

You can if you are the government. They already have plenty of spectrum allocated to themselves. And they are certainly way, way large enough to do so.

Verizon begged them not to do so, pleading that their commercial offerings were sufficient, and promising to provide proper support during emergencies.

They failed to act properly.

See the problem yet? Or are you still in denial?

Re: You can't build your own mobile system

[markdavis]

>"See the problem yet? Or are you still in denial?"

Show me the contract they signed. If it fails to say anything about data caps with throttling, then you can call me in denial. I have a feeling the contract plainly states the terms that Verizon used.

Re: You can't build your own mobile system

[Anonymous Coward]

You are wrong, the contract is in Ars Technica along with the complaint.

Verizon tried to strong arm and say "well for a couple extra dollars we can..."

AFTER everything was agreed upon.

Re: You can't build your own mobile system

[markdavis]

>"You are wrong, the contract is in Ars Technica along with the complaint."

I am unable to locate the contract on the article:

https://arstechnica.com/tech-p...

Re: You can't build your own mobile system

[Anonymous Coward]

Literally true, you would have had to follow the actual link to view it, but you can state without technically making a false claim that it is not in the article.

Still, that you didn't view the associated materials does discredit you with people who did, and know you could have done so yourself with ease.

Re: You can't build your own mobile system

[Anonymous Coward]

Show me the contract they signed. If it fails to say anything about data caps with throttling, then you can call me in denial. I have a feeling the contract plainly states the terms that Verizon used.

Your feelings are irrelevant, you can request a copy of the contract yourself from the fire department's public affairs office and see what it stated regarding Verizon's obligations in regards taking on an emergency service provider as a client.

Or you can decline to do so. Then you will be lacking facts.

Oh one more thing

[rsilvergun]

[oldmanrant] is it just me or did the quality of discourse really go to heck recently here on /.? I mean, I'm not expeting everybody here to be a ham radio enthusiast but I'd like to think this being a geek and tech forum we'd all know enough about how cell phones work, how spectrum is dolled out and why, if you're out in the boondocks fighting fires you'd need to stick with a particular carrier to understand why the fire department doesn't have a lot of options for a mobile carrier. I mean, I needed to know that just to choose a carrier (I picked T-Mobile because although their spectrum sucks in building and out on a trail it's the best in a city and I don't do astronomy and hiking so speed and cheap unlimited data was what I was after). [/oldmanrant]

What does anyone expect...

[sydbarrett74]

...with Ajit Pai fellating Verizon and tickling its balls?

Re:What does anyone expect...

[Anonymous Coward]

Tickliing, hell, they've shoved his balls in as well. It would have given them chipmunk cheeks, but it turns the whole stunt was more like swallowing one elbow of mac & cheese and left everyone feeling dissatisfied.

Net neutrality???

[fafalone]

It appears that 'net neutrality' is being used by people to cover every bad ISP behavior. This incident had nothing to do with net neutrality. Their entire service was throttled, it wasn't a particular 3rd party website that was throttled or put in the slow lane because the 3rd party hadn't paid Verizon, nor a specific protocol that was throttled-- those are what net neutrality addresses, and that's it. And that myth seems to go hand in hand with people thinking net neutrality prohibits basic QoS. Nope.
All this misusing the term is ultimately going to be counterproductive in getting good rules in place.

Re:Net neutrality???

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe you are correct. However, the issues are still related due to the nature of how NN was repealed. In this case, the issue is that the FCC has declared that it can't do anything for this type of case. The idea being that the FTC could handle cases involving anything that affects the consumer... But the FTC can't do much more than force Verizon to clarify "Unlimited".

There is the annoying issue of NN being intertwined with semi-related topics. News articles will always refer to these as being due to the 2015 and/or 2018 changes to NN as people recognize those terms.

Re:Net neutrality???

[ArchieBunker]

The FCC doesn't have the power to control the internet. All they can do is make sure the transmitters are operating within specifications. They don't have a say with things like packet latency or priority. The FCC can't make any new laws or regulations all they can do is make suggestions to congress. What they can do is issue fines and revoke broadcast licenses. A new agency is needed but I'm not exactly a fan of the government having a hand in everything.

Re: Net neutrality???

[c6gunner]

But the FTC can't do much more than force Verizon to clarify "Unlimited".

Which is all that's required. This whole thing seems to have been caused bt the fire departments chief IT guy presentung this plan as "totally unlimited" to the actual firefighters. If, instead, he had said "I got you this plan which is super fast for 25 gigabytes and then slow as balls afterwards", it's unlikely that anyone else would have signed off on it ... and if they did, they would only have themselves to blame.

Remove the ambiguity about what "unlimited" means and people can make properly informed decisions.

Re:Net neutrality???

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you. A nice refreshing bit of sanity. Neutrality has nothing to do with speed caps or throttling the entire service.

Not that I agree with "Neutrality"(tm) legislation. I, for one, honestly think the market is handling it just fine by itself. My connection is no different than it's been since I had a PPP connection when I was researching at my university in the early 90's, or later my commercial dial up connection to my awesome local ISP I worked at for a year or so, or my shitty 768/128 DSL connection from the checkmark company that couldn't ever deliver the promised speeds until 3:30 AM. I've never once had a service or destination degraded based on who I was connecting to.

Did Big V fuck up in this case? Probably. Is it a neutrality issue? Absoulutely fucking not. Does the government suck? Hell yeah. Do big corporations suck? Yeah, usually. Was this malicious? Should be blame Trump? Or Ajit Pai? Umm...I don't use social media but, i think the kids used to say Shaking My Fucking Head. This was just a regular old fuck up by bureaucracy. Move the fuck on.

Re:Net neutrality???

[fafalone]

Yes well in an ideal world of limited government. In this world however the FCC has the legal authority to classify the internet differently, and the legal authority to regulate NN for it after that change. This has already been litigated, so I hope you're just expressing how you think things should work instead of replacing actual facts with alternative facts like the FCC can only regulate transmitters.

Re: Net neutrality???

[Anonymous Coward]

Disagree. Throttled is not unlimited. The very purpose of throttling is to keep one from using too much data. Any plan with throttling is not unlimited. Stop calling plans with throttling unlimited. Super simple.

For those who don’t get this... imagine this was a soda machine. First cup comes out full speed in 3 seconds. Refills take an hour to fill each additional cup. This is not unlimited refills. And remember... new customers can kick you out of the way to get their first fill at full speed.

Re:Net neutrality???

[PPH]

Net neutrality was just a part of the Title II classification of broadband providers as common carriers, which was recently overturned. It is the buzzword that most people are familiar with and so it gets put in the headlines. There are numerous other issues besides NN that call for a reinstatement of common carrier status. But since this isn't about to happen, we'll just let 50 states patch together a mishmash of laws in an attempt to achieve the same result.

Re: Net neutrality???

[c6gunner]

You said "disagree", and then went on to agree with me. Fascinating.

Re: Net neutrality???

[rickb928]

Why is anyone appealing to the FCC, or the FTC? California can't mandate that emergency services receive their Internet service without degradation, at all times, and then of course pay for it? Or subsidize it, hey, it's California.

Or the local governments do so.

Seriously, don't send these decisions too far away. You've given control away. Take it back. Now.

Re:Net neutrality???

[strikethree]

All this misusing the term is ultimately going to be counterproductive in getting good rules in place.

I feel fairly certain that the misuse is intentional for the reason you set forth. :)

Assassinate Vladimir Putin!

[Anonymous Coward]

Murder the Satanic bastard today! Save Russia!

good drama

[Anonymous Coward]

Very good drama. It's as if suddenly it happened, and Verizon is mars based company.

Mobile data?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why did the firefighters even rely on a consumer-grade data plan?
Don't they have their own, specialized communication systems?

Re: California's fault for poor water management!

[phantomfive]

You make good points. Those Liberal scum.

Dedicated fire safety spectrum

[spinitch]

Expensive but Should spectrum be dedicated to fire safety and use separate systems like Tetra?

Abdicated responsibility or not doing job?

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't just 'abdicate' from duty X and not Y last time I checked, or am I missing something new here?

If the FCC doesn't want to do it's job, then basically sort the chairpeople out (ie: remove the problem) and replace with people who will fulfil their duty and responsibility.

Stop the presses

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone criticized the FCC. Oh my God. Oh the humanity! Whatever will we do!

This is a worthless garbage article.

Re: California's fault for poor water management!

[reanjr]

CA's water and forestry management is a clusterfuck of corporate and environmental protections that led directly to the wildfires. The wildfires are absolutely the fault of CA politicians and CA NIMBYs.

FirstNet?

[Rzulhgyd]

The U.S. could dedicate beachfront spectrum to a public safety first responder network, allocate money to its startup, and maybe even get in partnership with a major carrier to operate it. Maybe call it "FirstNet" or something catchy like that. Then government, in all of its wisdom, could avoid problems like this. But wait! They did! Twenty megahertz of prime 700 MHz spectrum, $7B in startup money, a lucrative 25-year contract to AT&T, AND six years since Congress passed the legislation. Someday it will live up to the dream. In the meantime, first responders can use AT&T's commercial network and even get priority access and pre-emption over mere mortals. But wait, further! First responders still predominantly use the pedestrian VZW network because .... wait for this ... it better covers where they need it to work. Really: Would more government fix California firefighters' expectations. Caveat emptor!

I don't know

[Anonymous Coward]

But if the network were critical to my operation, I wouldn't go with the cheapest plan. Seems like unmetered plans and possibly redundant links would be the way to go. (I have that with comcast, I'm sure verizon offers similar high availability options)

Re: California's fault for poor water management!

[Anonymous Coward]

Wildfires happen naturally. So please do explain.

Re:California's fault for poor water management!

[Anonymous Coward]

You're suffering from Advanced TDS. Talk to your doctor about Realitol(tm) from Roche today.

Re:California's fault for poor water management!

[pslytely psycho]

The Typhoid Mary of Trump Derangement Syndrome resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20500.
If you support this idiot, then you too share the affliction.
Please seek help.

Re:California's fault for poor water management!

[Agripa]

It's California's fault the firefighters even had to be there.

Yeah, if California didn't insist on having, you know, trees then they wouldn't have to fight wildfires.

He is referring to California's "conservation" policy going back decades to stop every forest fire allowing the forests to become overgrown producing much more destructive fires.

Re:California's fault for poor water management!

[PopeRatzo]

He is referring to California's "conservation" policy going back decades to stop every forest fire allowing the forests to become overgrown producing much more destructive fires.

Then he's referring to something that simply isn't true.

Re: California's fault for poor water management

[reanjr]

Natural wildfires perform vegetation clearing and so limit themselves. Manking comes in, clear cuts fire resistant forest, builds flammable housing next to the forest, then ensures decades of dead growth piles up on the forest floor, turning the whole thing into a tinderbox.

Wild fires are natural. But natural wild fires do not consume the type of acreage CA wild fires do.

Hang on

[dave-man]

It's easy to jump on the "evil corporation" bandwagon (although not quite everyone is). Why did the fire department not contract for service level required? Who has looked to see how much data was lots of mission critical GIS information and how much was firefighters streaming Netflix on breaks? Who has looked at the mission apps to see if they followed reasonable practices instead of just arbitrarily shuffling data around because it was the easy solution?

Mind boggling

[Anonymous Coward]

It is truly astonishing the number of people defending Verizon and attacking California. You're idiots.

Calling a plan unlimited when it isn't, or even calling it unlimited when you throttle it to 300bps after a few measly gigabytes should be illegal. While I agree it isn't quite fraud, it's definitely closely skirting deceptive advertising via duplicitous semantics. It's unethical.

As for California, water management has nothing to do with it, and if you tried to activate more than one of your brain cells, you'd figure that out. There are fires in California, Oregon, Washington and British Columbia. Every state and province on the list has ignorant self-important pundits claiming that the causes in their region were legislative and for varying incorrect, illogical and clearly partisan reasons. It's climate change, pure and simple. Think otherwise? That's okay, put on your MAGA hat and go back to your tinfoil-lined shack. Your sister is waiting for you.