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

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: 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: 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.