Ajit Pai Killed Rules That Could Have Helped Florida Recover From Hurricane (arstechnica.com)

sharkbiter shares a report from Ars Technica: The Federal Communications Commission chairman slammed wireless carriers on Tuesday for failing to quickly restore phone service in Florida after Hurricane Michael, calling the delay "completely unacceptable." But FCC Chairman Ajit Pai's statement ignored his agency's deregulatory blitz that left consumers without protections designed to ensure restoration of service after disasters, according to longtime telecom attorney and consumer advocate Harold Feld.

The Obama-era FCC wrote new regulations to protect consumers after Verizon tried to avoid rebuilding wireline phone infrastructure in Fire Island, New York, after Hurricane Sandy hit the area in October 2012. But Pai repealed those rules, claiming that they prevented carriers from upgrading old copper networks to fiber. Pai's repeal order makes zero mentions of Fire Island and makes reference to Verizon's response to Hurricane Sandy only once, in a footnote. Among other things, the November 2017 FCC action eliminated a requirement that telcos turning off copper networks must provide Americans with service at least as good as those old copper networks. This change lets carriers replace wireline service with mobile service only, even if the new mobile option wouldn't pass a "functional test" that Pai's FCC eliminated. Additionally, "in June 2018, Chairman Pai further deregulated telephone providers to make it easier to discontinue service after a natural disaster," Feld wrote. In response to Pai's deregulation, Feld wrote: "The situation in Florida shows what happens when regulators abandon their responsibilities to protect the public based on unenforceable promises from companies eager to cut costs for maintenance and emergency preparedness. This should be a wake-up call for the 37 states that have eliminated traditional oversight of telecommunications services and those states considering similar deregulation: critical communications services cannot be left without some kind of public oversight."

Comments

Ajit Pai Killed...

[Anonymous Coward]

... Oh... there's more?

Captcha: executor
(You can't make things like this up...)

Re:Ajit Pai Killed...

[Opportunist]

Some sentences should end early to be good.

Re:Ajit Pai Killed...

[BeauHD (5555555)]

Yeah, everyone wishes.

Ajit Pal is a LIAR and a THIEF and deserves to be exiled back to India where he belongs. He is such a big scamster he probably made his first bucks with those fake antivirus scams where you call up India and give them your credit card. This guy is just like TRUMP. He needs to be found for treason and convicted and sentenced to 500 years in prison with no chance for peroll. We need to stick it to the TRUMP administration and let them know how we FEEL and who is the BOSS.

xXxXx..::BeauHD::..xXxXx
s e n i o r e d i t o r

Re:Ajit Pai Killed...

[Anonymous Coward]

How come you can't post using your actual Slashdot Editor account with the badge and everything?

Also, it's "parole", dipshit.

Re: Ajit Pai Killed...

[Anonymous Coward]

Pai is bad, Trump is bad, blah, blah, whine, whine.... No need to be objective or try to understand the issues.....

Re: Ajit Pai Killed...

[UnknowingFool]

Woah there. Pai is a terrible human being but there's no need to punish innocent Indians with his presence.

Re: Ajit Pai Killed...

[Anonymous Coward]

I never said anything about Trump or Pai being bad; I just thought that the phrasing and the Captcha were funny.
Also first post. Is that still a thing around here?
Also, blahblah, blahblahblah, blah!

Captcha: conquer

Cell Phones More Important

[neonv]

I have to say, restoring cell service is probably more important than copper service. Hardly anyone has landlines. Notice how they hardly mention that it is copper wires they are talking about ...

Re: Cell Phones More Important

[Anonymous Coward]

The Fake News like to mislead. But another traditional mode of communication that I wish would make a comeback is the radio.

Re:Cell Phones More Important

[Anonymous Coward]

Lots of people have landlines. Landlines are all over the US, because in the past under the AT&T monopoly, they were forced by regulation to wire up damn near every place in the country that could physically be wired up. In some of those places, they can't get much cell service due to geography, and landlines are really rather necessary.

Current local telephony companies want to get rid of landlines, because maintaining all those copper lines is expensive (and many of the workers with experience doing that work are unionized). They'd rather just put in cells, or at least put in fiber. But what they really want to do is drop customers completely in places where doing either might not be profitable, even though they're still supposed to be bound by universal service requirements.

Communication networks need to be run as utilities, at least the physical part itself, not by for-profit companies worried more about padding the CEOs pocket next quarter than about providing service to every place in the country.

Re:Cell Phones More Important

[MightyYar]

This summary reads like a lobbyist wrote it. In Florida they can't even get the cell towers going because the backbone took such a hit - that would be the case with or without copper regulations. The copper rules would affect consumers during the rebuilding phase, not in the immediate aftermath. This is the kind of hyperbolic bullshit that has replaced actual discussion in this country.

Re:Cell Phones More Important

[Anonymous Coward]

ACTUALLY FAGGOT you need wires to get to the cell towers MORON. Nice try FOX NEWS FAGGOTS OF NO VALUE.

Re:Cell Phones More Important

[sjames]

Too bad Verizon has totally failed on the cellular front as well.

Re:Cell Phones More Important

[sjames]

AT&T managed it. Verizon, not so much.

Re:Cell Phones More Important

[arbiter1]

Sad how they blame the lack of rules for not forcing them to FIX their down network. Seems like this is how liberal think that only way things will get done is if there is government regulation telling companies to do their job to fix their broke network.

Re:Cell Phones More Important

[LemonFire]

Can you hear me now?

-- No SIG today.

Re:Cell Phones More Important

[ShanghaiBill]

Lots of people have landlines.

But should we all have to subsidize these Luddites?

Current local telephony companies want to get rid of landlines, because maintaining all those copper lines is expensive

If it is expensive, and fewer and fewer people are using it, wouldn't it make more sense to kill POTS and use those resources to make wireless more reliable?

We shouldn't tax the future to subsidize the past.

If we really want to subsidize landlines to every location, it should be fiber broadband, not copper phone lines. The fiber can survive a massive solar flare, while the copper cannot.

Re: Cell Phones More Important

[DontBeAMoran]

Yeah, but unfortunately video killed the radio star.

Re:Cell Phones More Important

[Anonymous Coward]

Every Verizon customer in Bay and Gulf counties will be automatically credited for 3 months of mobile service for each line. This free service is for both consumer and business accounts.â

Not so bad. Go get a cheapo AT&T go phone an use that until the verizon service comes back after suffering extensive damage from a Cat4-only-missed-becoming-Cat5-by-2mph-winds-hurricane that hit just last week!

https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/16/17986510/hurricane-michael-fcc-ajit-pai-verizon-att-tmobile-sprint-recovery

Yeah, if only there had been Obama-era regulations in place to prevent the hurricane from even hitting the Florida panhandle, this never would have happened in the first place. Thanks Drumpf!

Re:Cell Phones More Important

[b0s0z0ku]

They're talking about fiber too. Instead of requiring telcos to either rebuild copper or upgrade to fiber, they allow telcos to go wireless-only, forcing crappy-yappy mobile internet on customers. The issue isn't landlines, it's also the availability of fast, reliable, consistent fixed-line internet. (ideally fiber)

Re:Cell Phones More Important

[b0s0z0ku]

Problem is that they're allowing telcos to drop ALL fixed-line (copper OR fiber) service in certain locations. And wireless is only a good alternative if you like random slowdowns, high latency, and generally shit service.

Re:Cell Phones More Important

[Anonymous Coward]

except the wee little problem is... in hurricanes there is no one to keep those cell services running. And if they do keep a few running they are completely overloaded. It's complete BS to say that any wireless service can replace wire/fiber. That's the key issue here. It didn't say keep copper wires, it says they needed to be replaced with something as good as or better. Wireless service is not better in emergencies.

Re: Cell Phones More Important

[Anonymous Coward]

Government regulation doesn't prevent shitty companies from being shitty. It might incentivize being less shitty, but at the end of the day they will just pass any fines on to the customer... Because wait for it... they are a shitty company

Re:Cell Phones More Important

[Darinbob]

They're not called Luddites, they're normal people who just aren't as rich and hip as you are.

Re:Cell Phones More Important

[ShanghaiBill]

They're not called Luddites, they're normal people who just aren't as rich and hip as you are.

If they are poor, why not give them food or medicine or even money so they can buy what they need, instead of really expensive phone lines?

Re:Cell Phones More Important

[Darinbob]

Hmm, cheaper than mobile phones.

Re:Cell Phones More Important

[terrycarlino]

Less than 50% of consumers have landlines.

On the other hand nearly 100% of businesses have landlines, and are likely to in the foreseeable future. I pretty much guarantee those business customers will get their phone service working.

This is a prime example of government doing it wrong. To start with government should not be telling companies what kind of technology they should be using. If what is wanted is universal coverage then say that and let the company decide how to meet that universal coverage requirement. Set standards for bandwidth, cost, etc. and require the companies to meet them, but leave the how to them.

And make it a law, not a regulation so that political appointees can't change them with the political wind.

Re: Cell Phones More Important

[Anonymous Coward]

The idea that everything can be free is what's killing our economy. Copper lines and even fiber used to be relatively cheap to install, labor and other costs now make it prohibitively expensive. Continuing to require legacy hardware in low population and remote locations is a waste and a reason that costs keep driving up and up. Oftenit will cost 10-20k to connect houses in these areas which often have poor economies. Moving to more modern and reliable services that are significantly cheaper is important.

Small towns and people are getting crushed by infrastructure costs and to just think that the government or larger cities will just absorb it at no cost to the consumer is naive.

Re: Cell Phones More Important

[Anonymous Coward]

I'vegotminesoupyours-ism is killing this country.

Re: Cell Phones More Important

[b0s0z0ku]

Bullshit. Homes are already connected to electricity -- running a thin fiber cable is trivial by comparison. What's killing this country is over-spending on military, overly aggressive law enforcement, and mass incarceration.

Re:Cell Phones More Important

[Anonymous Coward]

Slash-dot can't stop pimping the Trotsky-slut line. Like a Soros-spewed drum-beat ... echos bitchy cosmopolitan kant at NewYorker & NYT & Boston Globe. Makes ya wanna vomit.

Re:Cell Phones More Important

[ShanghaiBill]

Problem is that they're allowing telcos to drop ALL fixed-line (copper OR fiber) service in certain locations.

Why is that a problem? You should be free to live in a remote area. You should not expect others to subsidize your lifestyle.

And wireless is only a good alternative if you like random slowdowns, high latency, and generally shit service.

They should spend their resources fixing this problem instead of maintaining lightly used but expensive legacy infrastructure.

Re:Cell Phones More Important

[Anonymous Coward]

I have to say, restoring cell service is probably more important than copper service. Hardly anyone has landlines. Notice how they hardly mention that it is copper wires they are talking about ...

So which is it? Can't you make up your mind?

First you say it's important to get cell service restored.

Then one sentence later you say that hardly anyone uses those cell towers that are wired into the phone network and so they shouldn't bother getting cell service restored.

So should they or shouldn't they?

Then your final sentence out right shows you don't even realize that cell towers need connected to the phone network to, you know, be connected to the phone network. But the fact you have no clue how they work isn't your fault, it's the articles fault for not explaining it.
Except it does explain it, and you're just too illiterate or ignorant to understand it.

I actually can't wait for trumps new laws to get signed in that make stupidity a crime and so hope you get thrown in jail for it.

Re:Cell Phones More Important

[Anonymous Coward]

The POTS system actually works in most disasters, unlike the cell networks that quickly get over loaded. The reason why is that the POTS network provides it's own power over different network layout than the power lines if you have a traditional phone instead of a computerized wireless model, which I always kept one hooked up in case of emergency. The cell networks can get flooded with too many calls and the fiber lines fail the instant the batteries go dead. I have been through situations where the cell networks failed and Ive been in situations where the power lines where out yet I could still make a phone call over hard line.

Re:Cell Phones More Important

[BlueStrat]

Hmm, cheaper than mobile phones.

Nope. Not cheaper than free.

People in the US whose income qualifies them for government assistance for food and healthcare costs also qualifies them for a free cellphone with internet access. Remember the 'Obamaphone' program? That program is still running strong.

Strat

Re:Cell Phones More Important

[Calydor]

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, that's why. Give the poor the infrastructure to educate themselves and properly apply for jobs and you help them feed themselves.

Re:Cell Phones More Important

[SuricouRaven]

Copper does have some role. For one, as mentioned above, it's a vital service for businesses. It's also very important in a disaster situation where there is a prolonged power outage. Get power to the exchange, and all the landline phones it serves will work. Cell service is only good for as long as people have power, and maybe a day after that before the flat batteries hit.

Re:Cell Phones More Important

[Anonymous Coward]

It has been many years since I have seen new housing developments get wired for landlines. It isn't even an option anymore unless you are building a custom home and are okay with paying out the ass for it, including 'the last mile'.

numbnuts

Re:Cell Phones More Important

[Anonymous Coward]

The copper rules would affect consumers during the rebuilding phase, not in the immediate aftermath.

What the summary said, is the rules required them to replace the failed infrastructure with equivalent or better, so copper could be replaced with fiber.

I'm not seeing a problem here. AT&T I know is criminally negligent and has failed to upgrade their infrastructure to anything modern leaving many outside major cities without a true broadband option.

Regulations tend to come about because companies do things that are Evil or at least vastly not in the interest of the average American. Removing them does allow companies to be more efficient at making profit, but that often comes, yet again, at the expense of them again falling to really act in the larger public interest. These same companies block in legal battles small towns and cities from establishing their own broadband.

One job of government is to insure public infrastructure gets built and maintained. If that occurs without any interference whatsoever, then great. If interference is required, then obviously it should attempt to spend the public's dollars wisely. Regulations are an alternative to direct spending, though one that requires care in application.

Re: Cell Phones More Important

[jd]

Because of reception areas and cost of maintenance, cell is more expensive. It's also less reliable. It is only when you cherry pick the numbers that cell is cost-effective.

Re: Cell Phones More Important

[jd]

Actually, you should.

It's more efficient and infinitely cheaper if we support one another than if we live in isolated caves. The Internet wasn't created by a person or a company but through subsidy and cooperation. And thus all projects worth having are born.

Re: Cell Phones More Important

[jd]

There are no "free phones", somebody pays in the end.

There are cost-effective phones, ones whose benefit exceeds the cost and thus have long-term negative cost.

A land line can last a hundred years without needing replacing, if it's built right.

A cell phone tower is unlikely to survive the next storm, no matter how well you built it.

That's a lot of cell phone towers you have to rebuild to be equal to one land line.

Re: Cell Phones More Important

[jd]

Except in places where it's all gig economy and abusive management.

A lot of people on the ASD want to work, and are geeks equal to RMS or Linus Torvalds, but can't because in America only the conformists get the jobs.

What good is it to make it easier for them to go nowhere?

Until the ADA is properly enforceable (which means eliminating gig and hire-at-will entirely), all you do is create a smoke and mirrors remedy that chokes and confuses. Until Americans learn to embrace different, things will remain the same.

Re: Cell Phones More Important

[jd]

In aircraft manufacture, or medical appliances, if you don't meet standards you can't sell the product.

Why should this be different? People die when communications fail, after all.

Re: Cell Phones More Important

[jd]

Wireless is not better any of the time, merely more convenient a little of the time. It's inherently limited in bandwidth, for a start. (Optic to the home will do 50gbps, but a single high-end fibre will do 111tbps.) It's also much harder to sniff traffic on a physically private network than on a broadcast network.

But don't expect the aficionados to recognize these details or your disaster scenario, they're determined they are right and won't let facts get in the way.

Re: Cell Phones More Important

[Anonymous Coward]

Here in Denmark every house have a copper line (in the ground as we have neither telephone nor electricity poles anymore (except for a few high voltage transmission lines.)) But as almost everybody have switched to cellphones, the copper is used only for ADSL internet connection. Many people have fiber now, put down by the power companies, so that usage have also dropped.

Re: Cell Phones More Important

[Anonymous Coward]

A damning inditement of the state of mental health care in the US.

Re: Cell Phones More Important

[Zero__Kelvin]

You are an idiot. People lived there before cell phones existed. They didn't opt to pioneer new territory after cell phones were common. Trying to suggest some people don't have a right to the resources to communicate with the "outside world" is ludicrous.

Re: Cell Phones More Important

[Anonymous Coward]

Thus all Trotsky-slut masturbation is born. Get off my lawn. You want it ... you buy it.

Re: Cell Phones More Important

[Zero__Kelvin]

FYI: That program was started when Bush was President and the Republicans started calling them Obama phones when Obama took office.

Re: Cell Phones More Important

[Zero__Kelvin]

Many if not most businesses use VOIP now, so while there are wires they are not POTS wires.

Re: Cell Phones More Important

[Zero__Kelvin]

Did it ever occur to you the cell towers being down is exactly *why* copper lines are important?

Re:Cell Phones More Important

[Anonymous Coward]

How about you make your own non-profit telecommunications company. If you're correct then your business will accomplish everything you want without "padding a CEO's pockets"

Show us how it's done, fuckhead!

Re:Cell Phones More Important

[squiggleslash]

...which is why we need to reduce the cost of living, and guess what, subsidizing living in remote areas while deprecating services and infrastructure in areas that are either high density or could be is almost certainly the number one reason why the cost of living is through the roof in the US.

I completely agree we need to make sure that everyone has access to telecommunications, but undermining cities and forcing everyone to live in the suburbs and/or country, and then paying through the nose to support that is the exact opposite of what we should be doing.

Re: Cell Phones More Important

[Anonymous Coward]

Which book of talking points did this come from?

Re:Cell Phones More Important

[Anonymous Coward]

The POTS system actually works in most disasters

Does it? I'd have thought stuff stuck up in the air on poles might be quite vulnerable to winds and the assorted shit that winds blow around.

Re:Cell Phones More Important

[Anonymous Coward]

I have to say, restoring cell service is probably more important than copper service. Hardly anyone has landlines. Notice how they hardly mention that it is copper wires they are talking about ...

Funny, after tornadoes hit Ottawa, Canada, it was the cell phone system that was down:

* https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cellphones-emergencies-batteries-tornado-1.4844158

Re:Cell Phones More Important

[Ol Olsoc]

They should spend their resources fixing this problem instead of maintaining lightly used but expensive legacy infrastructure.

And that fix is?

Re: Cell Phones More Important

[macwhiz]

Yes, it does. Phone wires are lower down on the pole, so the debris usually gets hung up in the power lines up top and doesnâ(TM)t make it to the phone wires. The phone wires also usually have more slack, so they can absorb more impact. Theyâ(TM)re also typically strung along steel support wires that give them additional strength. It takes a lot more damage to take out a landline phone wire than to take out the power lines. Also, unlike the power lines, phone lines donâ(TM)t have circuit breakers on the poles that go out when something bridges the wires. Often, power outages are caused by transient faults (squirrel across the wires, say) that clears itself, but until a lineman comes out to reset the breaker at the top of a nearby pole, the powerâ(TM)s out. Thatâ(TM)s not a thing with landlines.

Re:Cell Phones More Important

[Ol Olsoc]

To start with government should not be telling companies what kind of technology they should be using. If what is wanted is universal coverage then say that and let the company decide how to meet that universal coverage requirement. Set standards for bandwidth, cost, etc. and require the companies to meet them, but leave the how to them.

And make it a law, not a regulation so that political appointees can't change them with the political wind.

You're cute! First get government out of technology, then put them right back in via a law.

As well, setting standards is regulation under a different word.

Re: Cell Phones More Important

[Anonymous Coward]

"A land line can last a hundred years without needing replacing, if it's built right."

Unfortunately you still nail them to wooden posts, like a century ago when phone and electricity was introduced.
It was supposed to be temporary.

Re:Cell Phones More Important

[Anonymous Coward]

"The reason why is that the POTS network provides it's own power over different network layout than the power lines"

Unfortunately they got nailed to the same wooden posts as the electric line and both were blown away by the hurricane.

Re:Cell Phones More Important

[SGDarkKnight]

I know lot's of people who still have basic land line service. And I'm sure most businesses have land lines... I don't know of any business that relies fully on cell towers.

I know I will always have a land line in my home for one main reason. Have you ever been in a situation where everyone in a city tries to use their cell phones at the same time (i.e. natural disaster)? I have, and cell towers are easily overloaded in that situation. My land line... worked like a charm to phone out of the city.

Re: Cell Phones More Important

[MightyYar]

The "towers" aren't down, the fiber backhaul is. So, no, that never occured to me.

Re:Cell Phones More Important

[MightyYar]

I completely agree with all of that, and even if I didn't it is a nice honest argument. Unlike the summary, which is trying to link a tragedy to something at best distantly related to score political points.

Re:Cell Phones More Important

[MightyYar]

AT&T apparently uses a different backhaul system. Actually, thanks, you've given me something to Google over coffee this morning :)

Re: Cell Phones More Important

[Anonymous Coward]

Reality. It's what's for dinner.

Re:Cell Phones More Important

[Anonymous Coward]

My pay as you go is much cheaper than my land line even factoring in the fixed cost of the smart phone. I need the land line for a fax machine. Yes, please don't tell me how they are dead. They just won't go away.

Re:Cell Phones More Important

[Anonymous Coward]

The network layout is different, just because the power went out because a pole on 6th st went down doesn't mean you lose phone service on 8th, because the phone lines are carrying their own power and their terminal is on 12th.

And as stated by another poster, the lines themselves tend to be lower on the pole, given more slack and supported by a steel cable giving them more resilience and the possibility to continue working even if all of the pols on the block came down because the power lines pulled the poles down.

Re:Cell Phones More Important

[sjames]

Not so bad. Go get a cheapo AT&T go phone an use that until the verizon service comes back after suffering extensive damage from a Cat4-only-missed-becoming-Cat5-by-2mph-winds-hurricane that hit just last week!

That has GOT to be the most clueless comment yet in this story! Where do you think they're going to go to get this Go phone? They're in the middle of a disaster area. The roads are closed. The power is down. They can't get food and water and you think they can just pop down to the mobile shop and pick up a new phone? AT&T's equipment went through the very same storm. It's just that AT&T was prepared and they have gone in as far as they could into the disaster area and sent up drones with tower equipment on them to provide service in the affected area so that people could let their families know they weren't dead and perhaps get some idea about when help might come.

And Verizon's response? They are magnanimously not billing for service they're not providing.

Re: Cell Phones More Important

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the You've got yours through some nebulous and nefarious means that I will accuse you of and I need to have the government take it from you and give it to me because its not fair, is killing our country.

Re:Cell Phones More Important

[Anonymous Coward]

That sounds like socialism .... I like it!!

Re: Cell Phones More Important

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't try to reason with the NPC, it'll just confuse them and they will start repeating themselves.

Re:Cell Phones More Important

[Anonymous Coward]

I can imagine the reason for the need of legislation: corruption and the lack of public service ethos in the regulating bodies. Setting lower bounds for the benefit of economy and public safety shouldn't be a point of conflict, but apparently the US public haven't had the confidence on their political system for some time, if ever, even in the questions of common sense.

Re:Cell Phones More Important

[Barsteward]

You first have to get fibre installed but until then you are stuck with broadband over copper. Who is going to pay for mass fibre rollout?

Re: Cell Phones More Important

[HiThere]

Well, if you limit your coverage to areas with dense populations and no obstructions then cell phones can be cheaper to install. But there are lots of areas without current reception, and the failure modes when too many people try to use them at once are ... unpleasant. (A "trunk busy" signal is a lot nicer than just no connection, which doesn't give an indication of what the problem is.)

Of course one of the reasons for cell phones being cheaper (where they're cheaper) is that you don't need as much hardware when you can count statistically on not too many people using the system at once. If you build out so that you won't ever get overwhelmed (which not even the wired connection does) it would be more expensive.

Re: Cell Phones More Important

[HiThere]

That's not actually true. Wire services need to be maintained, and cell phone towers could be build to be durable. But they weren't required to be. Also there need to be more of them (and smaller cells) to allow for periods of high usage, such as after a disaster. And this also wasn't required.

Re: Cell Phones More Important

[suutar]

trivial != cheap

Re:Cell Phones More Important

[suutar]

he didn't say get government out of technology, he said prescribe goals instead of methods.

Re:Cell Phones More Important

[Anonymous Coward]

But should we all have to subsidize these Luddites?

Who's the Luddite? Isn't removing this infrastructure a leap backwards of 50 or 60 years?
Also, if you've ever heard of DSL.. It's doing much of Internet in the US, and in my country it's well over 50% of residential Internet. Is ADSL2+ with 802.11n router a Luddite thing now? What isn't?

You should also be dropping power lines, because power lines reek of 1930s USSR electrification campaign. Or is it by removing them, you'll be worse off than 1930s USSR?

Re: Cell Phones More Important

[Anonymous Coward]

Lol at labor cost. Labor is expensive, but thanks to neoliberalism what was blue collar middle class now is underclass minimum wage. At least in countries like France where you have to be a skilled worker to land a minimum wage job. If it's different in the US that's because it's a corrupt country and they allow min wage to not be adjusted for inflation.
You can't get an unskilled job for digging holes, trenches and planting poles anyway : this shit is mechanized.

Re: Cell Phones More Important

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you may be confusing life line service (~$5-10/mo) with free cell phone(welfare) AFAIK the obama phone shit didnt start until 2nd term.

Re: Cell Phones More Important

[Highdude702]

Also over the last few decades a lot of places have been moving infrastructure underground during normal road repair and maintenance. That being said phone lines are rather resilient while strung on poles also.

Re: Cell Phones More Important

[Anonymous Coward]

What I can say while agreeing with you is infrastructure/utilities are overextended. An Internet cable is trivial though, the problem is how many zillions you need to maintain, replace, overhaul things like street roads and sewage for a thousand square miles of suburbia and box stores in parking lots.

... TRUMP got elected for promising to fix this as well as getting the US out of the Middle East!

Re:Cell Phones More Important

[Highdude702]

I don't know where you live, but in Las Vegas every new house is built with at least 2 phone lines, everybody does however use cat5 now so you can convert those to network ports providing they go back to a central location like a closet, and not the old way of a stud bay in the garage next to the electric panel.

Re: Cell Phones More Important

[Anonymous Coward]

Not one from Hitlery Cunt Clinton. She campaigned on total war against Syria, rule of Wall Street on everything and anything, Israel uber Alles, and affirmative action for wymin or shit like that. I don't understand right-wing nuts, she would have been a perfect replacement for their daddy W. Bush.

Re:Cell Phones More Important

[Anonymous Coward]

Build an Eiffel Tower in your backwards and put your wireless antennas on top.

Re:Cell Phones More Important

[Anonymous Coward]

Less than 50% of consumers have landlines.

How many have DSL but technically no landline? If landlines OR DSL are more than 50%, then the factoid relies on a technicality.

Re:Cell Phones More Important

[bjdevil66]

You should not expect others to subsidize your lifestyle.

Actually, landline owners (and their providers) are funding/supporting a legacy telecom backbone that works reliably. That allows YOU to subsidize YOUR "no landline", mostly texting and app-using lifestyle without concern for the "what ifs". You get to save some monthly coin to spend on your next new iPhone XI or Galaxy 10 while knowing you've got a backup available when the shit hits the fan and you can't get a signal because "all circuits are busy right now", or there's been a storm, major power outage, etc.

Why does your lifestyle get a pass?

Re:Cell Phones More Important

[mikael]

I went back to having a landline after I noticed that certain recruitment agencies in the UK "retained by the electronics and embedded industry" kept blitzing me by Email and social media each and every time I tried sending off a resume by Email. Also, I discovered that there was an unexplained international block on incoming calls from the USA and Canada on my mobile phone line.

Re:Cell Phones More Important

[mikael]

In Norway, they split up the distribution of service (the network) from the actual phone billing contract, much like other countries have separated electricity generation (wind, solar, nuclear) from the actual distribution.

Re: Cell Phones More Important

[Anonymous Coward]

Another delusional repubtard.

Went from talking about infrastructure costing too much to maintain, to we must stop giving poor people hand outs, it's killing us.

So what about all those hand outs and tax breaks the rich get? You don't Bat an eye.

Fucking hypocrite repubtard.

Re: Cell Phones More Important

[Anonymous Coward]

So when a repubtard does it == good

But if a libturd does it == bad.

Got it. We know now to kindly ignore your drivel.

Re: Cell Phones More Important

[Anonymous Coward]

Our taxes already fucking paid for it. But they reneged and the government let them.

Re: Cell Phones More Important

[Anonymous Coward]

What? Your post makes no fucking sense.

This must be how repubtards sleep at night. Willful stupidity.

Re: Cell Phones More Important

[Anonymous Coward]

And the repubtards voted him up.

This is what's wrong with this country. Repubtards acting willfully stupid. Blame the left, deflect deflect.

Re: Cell Phones More Important

[Anonymous Coward]

So copper lines would have been a good backup you say?

You don't fucking say. Imagine that. When the backhaul fiber goes down, we still have copper to communicate over.

Re: Cell Phones More Important

[Anonymous Coward]

Repubtards, calling the kettle black.

Championing for laws to lock up people for things they don't like. The repubtard way.

Re: Cell Phones More Important

[sjames]

The thing is, I'm honestly not sure if they're just giving excuses or if they're so far out of touch that they think crap like the grandfather post is an actual solution.

Re: Cell Phones More Important

[Zero__Kelvin]

No, you are confused. Before there were smart phones there were regular clamshell type phone that were also called Obama phones.

Re: Cell Phones More Important

[fortfive]

You have forgotten that the rich are that way because they are smarter than you and/or 'work' harder, and are therefore better stewards of money than you are, and we should therefore give them more.

Re: Cell Phones More Important

[fortfive]

Utility CEO's are quite effective at padding their parachutes (see Duke energy), but at least there are some public interest mandates and oversight. As a result, the grid works pretty close to perfect, although rates are probably too high.

Re: Cell Phones More Important

[sjames]

Actually, the towers are down. AT&T managed to get a few drones up to act as towers. They must have had working backhaul to connect them to.

Re:Cell Phones More Important

[Ol Olsoc]

he didn't say get government out of technology, he said prescribe goals instead of methods.

Let's say you have 10 companies wanting to provide cellular coverage. They have 10 different implementations, Codecs and frequencies.

But in a deregulated world, it is evil to tell them that they should have standards. That is socialism and nearly communism.

But hey, laws will fix that. Amirite?

Re: Cell Phones More Important

[MightyYar]

I guess the point is, there isn't much point in putting up towers if there isn't anything to hook them up to. Looking into it a little this morning, it looks like maybe AT&T has some microwave infrastructure - possibly inherited from its Cingular acquisition - and Verizon had moved to fiber optic backhaul.

Re: Cell Phones More Important

[MightyYar]

What scenario do you have in your head where the fiber lines are snapped but the copper miraculously survive? Do you think that they still use copper as backhaul or something? You seem confused. Copper is a last-mile solution, not a replacement for fiber backhaul. An alternative backhaul would be microwave.

Re: Cell Phones More Important

[sjames]

According to AT&T, the flying COWs use satellite for backhaul. I'm thinking Verizon didn't lose any satellites in the hurricane.

Re:Cell Phones More Important

[Anonymous Coward]

In the northwest it isn't done at all which pisses me off because the only good internet provider is century link. The other option is Comcast which obviously sucks ass.

It is not an option at all up here. Hasn't been for years. The newest houses that I have seen with landlines are about 10 years old.

Re: Cell Phones More Important

[MightyYar]

Would federal copper legislation/rules have given Verizon satellite backhaul?

Re: Cell Phones More Important

[sjames]

The copper legislation comes in later. This suggests that we need better readiness to recover from disaster in general.

However, since backhaul lines are generally buried, I do wonder why they would be down. In AT&T's case, they use satellite backhaul for the flying COWs because they want them to be useful in any situation. They also use them for non-emergency special events to provide adequate coverage where the backhaul lines are likely at planned capacity already..

Re: Cell Phones More Important

[MightyYar]

Right, I'm not arguing whether Verizon sucks or not. I'm arguing that this disaster is being exploited politically by the writer of the summary, and dishonestly at that.

Re:Cell Phones More Important

[Anonymous Coward]

"Less than 50% of consumers have landlines."

Wrong. Almost 100% of USA consumers have landlines, they're simply not active.

Re: Cell Phones More Important

[Anonymous Coward]

By that logic, the rich could save a boatload by un-electrifying rural America. I hear the spot price on copper is fairly high, too. Win-win! Let rural America turn back in the the third world backwater that it so desperately wants to become.

Re: Cell Phones More Important

[Anonymous Coward]

Jesus said so in the new testament.

Re: Cell Phones More Important

[Anonymous Coward]

80% of the middle class losses are to upper class. Upper class is growing, but the gap is spreading.

Re:Cell Phones More Important

[Anonymous Coward]

Every power outage that I've been in, the phone service dropped out. At least the fiber internet kept working because of the UPS and underground fiber instead of phone lines sharing the same power pole that went down and took out the power. And don't get me started on underground pots. When the power goes out, normally because of inclement weather, meaning I can barely hear the person on the other side and visa versa. As for cell towers getting overwhelmed. I've never had this during an outage, but I have had "all circuits busy" message when trying to use my POTS during an outage.

Re:Cell Phones More Important

[Anonymous Coward]

During Hurricane Irene, POTS was the first to die. Lasted on average, about 45 minutes. Cell towers kept running for days.

Credit where credit's due

[theM_xl]

In light of Ajit Pai's decisions and their influence on this disaster, I would like to borrow some words from a former president, and state that Ajit Pai is doing one hell of a job.

Re:Credit where credit's due

[Carewolf]

In light of Ajit Pai's decisions and their influence on this disaster, I would like to borrow some words from a former president, and state that Ajit Pai is doing one hell of a job.

Ahh. Bushisms... Those were simpler times, when the president was only mildly incompetent, and a tool of his advisors.

Re:Credit where credit's due

[SuricouRaven]

Bush was an idiotic, self-serving theocrat... but at least under Bush I could say with confidence he wouldn't start a nuclear war because another national leader insulted him on the internet. I'm no longer confident of that with Trump.

Re:Credit where credit's due

[Anonymous Coward]

Then you're a fool.

Re:Credit where credit's due

[Anonymous Coward]

Half the country blames Trump for how they feel as if that is a criticism of Trump.

No one is in control of your emotions except you, even if you choose to absolve responsibility.

Re:Credit where credit's due

[Anonymous Coward]

> I'm no longer confident of that with Trump.

That's due to the media. They keep telling you stories that suit them. They write utter BS headlines and then tell maybe half the truth in the article to cover their asses. Also, they'll find some excuse for you to hate the next guy even more. You can't trust *any* of them. Yes, that very much includes Trump & co. not just the media.

I suggest completely ignoring outrage bait and basing your opinion on facts you can reasonably verify, not other people's opinions.

Re: Credit where credit's due

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you trusting trump, makes YOU the fool.

Re: Credit where credit's due

[Anonymous Coward]

How's that shoe fit repubtard? Because we wore it for 8 years. Your turn shit stain.

Re:Credit where credit's due

[Anonymous Coward]

In case you didn't notice, he did not start a war in the situation, but he did put a threat on the road to denuclearization.

Re:Credit where credit's due

[Anonymous Coward]

Same road they've been promising to travel real soon now for at least 25 years - but why would they start now, when they can get so much out of Trump for nothing more than another promise?

And don't forget, he actually tore up the agreement with another potential nuclear threat, showing how little point there is in committing to anything.

What a clueless dot head!

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe he ought to go shit in the street.

Re:What a clueless dot head!

[Opportunist]

What do you expect from Ashit Pile?

So this Ajit person is a killer

[Anonymous Coward]

What can be done to this killer that immediately impacts the mid-terms? Can he be sent to Arabia and stoned to death? Beheaded? Dismembered? Remembered? Is he another Putin stooge? Does he answer to Trump? Does he answer to his name? What kind of name is that? Is he a rapist? Does he like beer? Who is this Ajit person, and should I care?

Re:So this Ajit person is a killer

[DontBeAMoran]

Does he answer to his name? What kind of name is that? Does he like beer?

I gotta admit, I laughed at those parts.

Smudge Much?

[Anonymous Coward]

Let us put this in perspective. Because the market should drive the response.. right? This article clearly calls out Verizon's response from the previous tragedy of Hurricane Sandy (even though that was about wired phone service).

Fast-forward to this latest environmental impact.. and again... Verizon's response sucks more than the Mega-Maid in Space-balls. Verizon's lack of a legitimate restoration plan from Hurricane Sandy... well... means they don't care about the bottom line. They are just as many businesses do.. marginalizing the bottom line.

As much as I hate my current carrier... AT&T rolled in many portable cell stations after Hurricane Michael and they are still there today... serving their customer base. Verizon has not provided this response. As a matter of fact... I'd bet Paul Marcelli is happy he's now the voice of Sprint.

Peace out.

Re:Smudge Much?

[b0s0z0ku]

Fortunately, the NY Attorney General cock-slapped Verizon into rebuilding Fire Island's copper network as fiber after Sandy hit. I doubt that Florida (mostly Repub) authorities will be as proactive, though.

Re:Smudge Much?

[Rockoon]

Do you often think laying fiber down in sand is the same as laying it down in soil?

Re:Smudge Much?

[b0s0z0ku]

If they can bring electricity and water to homes on Fire Island, they can bring fiber. This isn't an engineering issue, this is a Verizon-being-fuckheads issue.

Meanwhile

[Anonymous Coward]

Here, on the other side of the pond, the telecoms quickly turned the wire lines into wireless links without any catastrophe as soon as technology was there. The helicopter assisted wood cutting to prevent snow induced damage on the lines was probably just too expensive. Regulating a level of service and preparedness is a different from regulating an implementation. Still, the penalties for the industry are needed even more in the abstract case to make the message clear and concrete.

History Lesson.

[Anonymous Coward]

Doing the math, That's 1.6% of total Florida Households and around 10% of Georgean Households with Zero Telephony service; No cell or Landline, no internet.

Large swaths of rural landscape, small towns and villages containing millions of people literally have no ability to call for emergency services. No ability to dial 911 for help, to report a burglary. No Burglar alarms for houses or businesses.

What could go wrong?

When Katrina hit New Orleans and wiped out a good chunk of the city, drug gangs from Mexico famously began moving in, thinking the US wasn't going to rebuild or was just too weak. You had blackwater agents, same as the guys in Iraq, deputized and operating in neighborhoods. There were rumors of tanks being deployed and several buildings being leveled because of that activity, e.g. MS13 moved into a hospital to setup permanent shop due to the supplies and infrastructure available for making drugs and that hospital was allegedly leveled.

Best part? Only when videos make it out of the operating theatre and onto youtube or liveleak do you get to see what was going on. There is no live streaming of anything. The blackwater guys know that; video recording is recon to them.

That's the last time you had this many people without communications infrastructure.

Taking away emergency services communication is not something to take lightly. You run the risk of foreign governments running camps and hiding munitions on your soil, and you also run the risk of criminals using areas as hide-outs from which they plan much larger crimes.

Ajit is playing with fire and has no idea what he is doing. You're looking at a fall guy in the making.

Re:History Lesson.

[Opportunist]

Ajit is playing with fire and has no idea what he is doing. You're looking at a fall guy in the making.

Any way to speed it up?

Re:History Lesson.

[Anonymous Coward]

> You had blackwater agents, same as the guys in Iraq, deputized and operating in neighborhoods. There were rumors of tanks being deployed and several buildings being leveled because of that activity, e.g. MS13 moved into a hospital to setup permanent shop due to the supplies and infrastructure available for making drugs and that hospital was allegedly leveled.

what the fuck?

Re: History Lesson.

[Anonymous Coward]

The issue is with verizon, was any other company mentioned? I used to work for GTE Wireless before it sadly became Verizon. GTE was one of the best companies i ever worked for as good as ibm in the old days before the early 90s sell off. GTE had an amazing response plan for any issue. I should know. It was my job as part of IT to setup a complete small call center in case we lost the midwest hq for some reason. We had several cows that could be put into place as a temporary towers and they were towed by heavy duty dodge trucks with the v10. So we could go most places. The landline would be useless compared to cellular comms and radio for first responders let alone families. This article seems more like another excuse to shame the fcc rather than place the issues on Verizon.

-geekpoet

Re:History Lesson.

[Krishnoid]

Speed up someone playing with fire with no idea what he's doing? At that (new) rate, we could end up with him as president.

Re:History Lesson.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I clearly was missing something since I couldn't find weed anywhere after Katrina for months.

I remember the rumor cops were burning bodies in "The East," lots of mostly petty theft, and a handful Blackwater douche bags at the FEMA headquarters that seemed certifiable.

Oh and thousands of people's homes that were destroyed with all their possessions and hundreds dead. I guess I must have just blocked out the real horror wrought by the brown people.

Re: History Lesson.

[Anonymous Coward]

So I think you have been playing a touch to many video games.

The reality is with hurricanes will often take out land lines, putting in digital cell networks will get connectivity to people far faster than dealing with thousands of physical hookups, and greatly reduces network complexity to all systems to restored far faster.

To be honest even net neutrality is a horrible concept when it comes to emergency services because it allows people to Stevie that their watching YouTube videos or streaming is as important as more important communication platforms.

Re: History Lesson.

[jd]

I'd love to know how a hurricane could take out adequately buried cable. The wind speed at that depth must be pretty close to.... oh, zero?

Re: History Lesson.

[jd]

Also, net neutrality doesn't mean video streaming is as important as emergency communications. It means that emergency traffic cannot be displaced by video games because you're guaranteed the pipe you bought.

Re:History Lesson.

[Opportunist]

Ladies and Gentlemen, you see the Dilbert Principle at work.

See what happens when you make shooting people to get rid of them illegal?

Re:History Lesson.

[Anonymous Coward]

If Ajit Pai and his staff diverted all the time, energy (i.e. staff bandwidth), and expenses away from all his travelling around making useless speeches and f***ing up the Internet in the process, and put in the necessary work, we wouldn't be saddled with billions of scam robo-calls clogging the PSTN (both landline and cellular).

The progress to date on that issue has been minimal at best, and the trend is disheartening.

Re:History Lesson.

[Opportunist]

Now where's the kickback in that?

Re:History Lesson.

[Anonymous Coward]

I initially stopped reading the headline at "Ajit Pai Killed" :D
But then realized they would just find another stooge anyway.

so what do these rules have to do with....

[arbiter1]

So what do these rules have to do with VERIZON not working to repair their network after a weather event? Isn't it in their own self interest to get there as quick as possible to repair their cell towers to get service BACK to their paying customers instead of gov forcing them to do it? All this sounds to me is Liberals trying to push an agenda that doesn't even make 1 lick of sense.

Re:so what do these rules have to do with....

[Anonymous Coward]

Because emergency communications are critical to human safety. They received subsidies to put these lines in place with the explicit understanding that they would maintain them, even during emergencies and natural disasters. Our taxes went to assist them in building this. Are you that dense that you can't recognize that?

This isn't about commercial profit. This is about human safety.

Re:so what do these rules have to do with....

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't it in their own self interest to get there as quick as possible

No, it's not. They save a bundle by waiting until weather conditions are more favorable. And, they do not have enough competition to fear losing most of their paying customers.

Re:so what do these rules have to do with....

[DNS-and-BIND]

Leftists, not liberals. Liberals believe in free speech. They might disagree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it. Leftists happily use censorship and it is their weapon of first resort. They really believe you shouldn't be able to speak if you disagree with them.

Re:so what do these rules have to do with....

[Anonymous Coward]

Because they were paid to do exactly that, and that's the requirement if they wanted to provide service in the area. Verizon cheaped out because their lobby buddies in congress convinced the sell outs that their cheap service could be used an emergency. Turns out, it couldn't

Re:so what do these rules have to do with....

[Anonymous Coward]

but will defend to the death your right

That is a noble sentiment, but a big fat lie in most cases. People say this who have never and will never serve in the military, and would avoid combat in any circumstance that involved defending some scoundrel saying things they hate.

Also, people who say this are often keen on taking some other freedom away, for example many freedom of speech advocates want to take away the right for civilians to own firearms.

Generally speaking, people aren't very noble. Nor very smart.

Re:so what do these rules have to do with....

[Darinbob]

Verizon, and most other telcos, don't want to be in the business of being vital infrastructure and universal service. What they want to do is just sell consumers overpriced products with bad service so that they can collect more profits. The FCC used to say that if they want to use our limited airwaves then they need to maintain a certain level of responsibility.

Re:so what do these rules have to do with....

[meglon]

I spent my time in the military, so i've defended your right to speak, even though you're a useless hyper-partisan twat who has his head up his ass. Cunt conservatives like you don't give a shit about anyone elses freedoms; you seem to think they fact you can't be a worthless fucking bigot without being called out is someone restricting your speech. Be a worthless shit, just don't expect liberals, or leftists, to not call you a cunt for being that way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:so what do these rules have to do with....

[Ichijo]

Well there's some incentive to get their networks working quickly, before too many users complain and demand refunds, and also for bragging rights to say they fixed their network before their competitors did, but the repairs cost money so that's the disincentive.

Now if they charged by the gigabyte, they would be losing a lot more money, but it's more lucrative to falsely advertise "unlimited" bandwidth and throttle your heaviest users. Yes, Pai rolled back the rule against that, too, remember? What a mess.

Re:so what do these rules have to do with....

[Anonymous Coward]

What a Trotsky-slut prick you are. Entitled much ? Keep your power-mad entitled nose outa my speech ... whatever the fuck it is. You have NO rights Bosco ... period.

Re:so what do these rules have to do with....

[SuricouRaven]

That depends on the area. One thing which really bothers service providers is universal service mandates - they have to maintain cables running across mile after mile after mile of country track to serve the town of Bumfuck, population sixty. There's no prospect of making a profit on that. The federal government addresses this with the Universal Service Fund, which grants service providers handouts to subsidise provision in rural areas. Maintaining the reliability of this service is a very low priority though, as it doesn't actually make any money directly.

Re:so what do these rules have to do with....

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope you had fun in the military, and got something out of it, but the idea that you defended anything apart from geopolitical interests and long-term economic strategic gains, is painfully stupid.

Re:so what do these rules have to do with....

[Anonymous Coward]

You are arguing with the wrong guy.

He's saying real liberals, classic liberals, are for individual freedoms. That includes the right to self-defense and to keep and bear arms.

They also believe in things like freedom of association and the right to be an asshole - and the correlated right to avoid assholes. They believe in personal responsibility and the freedom to screw up your life - so freedom to do drugs, become a sex worker, basically anything that doesn't involve forcing someone else to bear the consequences of your decisions.

That's what a liberal believes in. True self-ownership. Want to be a gay-married, transgender, cocaine-addicted, work-obsessed porn producer? Knock yourself out. Just don't ask me to subsidize it, and don't be surprised if I don't personally approve. It's none of my business and as long as you don't expect the state to force me to pay for your drug treatment, or toss me in jail if I don't feel like calling you "Xe" or pay for your reassignment surgery, I'm all for it, if I'm a classical liberal.

"Progressives" folks are the ones who superficially support things like "gay rights" or "trans rights", but only as a means to create subdivided grievance groups. Those groups are then used to gin up support for an all-powerful state that must have a monopoly on force. Hence the obsession with a disarmed populace. Because without that they'll have trouble enforcing legislation that says you have to use the appropriate pronouns and pay for things you disagree with like body modification surgery or late term abortions or throwing people in jail for "hate crimes" like insulting someone's ethnic hair style.

As the "liberals" of the 70's and 80's have been trying to shed the liberal label for the more accurate misnomer "progressive" (for some reason ignoring their eugenicist past), Libertarians have been moving to reclaim the label as their own.

Re: so what do these rules have to do with....

[jd]

Given that Liberals are amongst the first to censor and restrict, whereas Leftists are the ones who introduce laws that improve freedom, you might want to swap those around.

Instead, chances are I'll get trolled or modded, because censorship is after all what Liberals and Libertarians do best.

Re: so what do these rules have to do with....

[jd]

Not really. There's no competition. And even if there were, those who have died due to a lack of service won't be signing up to it, and people tend to prefer what they know over the new.

Re: so what do these rules have to do with....

[markdavis]

>"Given that Liberals are amongst the first to censor and restrict, whereas Leftists are the ones who introduce laws that improve freedom, you might want to swap those around. Instead, chances are I'll get trolled or modded, because censorship is after all what Liberals and Libertarians do best"

What alternate reality do you live in?? You are the one swapping things around. Libertarians, Liberals (at least as they have typically and historically been), AND Conservatives all believe in free discussion and free speech and oppose censorship. It is the modern leftists who suppress speech and call anyone who disagree or try to debate with them racist, homophobe, sexist, whatever and seek to shut down communication. They cancel speeches, scream at people they don't like, claim that speech is "violence", mob events, obsess on so-called "micro-aggressions", try to get people fired for their opinions, create anti-speech "safe zones", even try to COMPEL their own type of speech (haven't you seen ANYTHING by Jordan Peterson?)

And saying that "Leftists are the ones who introduce laws that improve freedom" while implying Libertarians suppress freedom, is beyond laughable. I don't think you know what "freedom" actually is. Freedom is being free to do what you want, being free from government laws and regulations and having your money taken from you. No sect supports that more than Libertarians.

Re: so what do these rules have to do with....

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Time was the left defended the right of Neo Nazis to march, against conservative America. It was things like that that brought about "card-carrying member of the ACLU" as an epithet.

But they've discovered an apparent crack in the First Amendment, and miserable human nature is shining right through, as they use the threat of pulling federal money (a law) to order schools to censor. They are no longer fighting the good fight. They are fighting the bad fight of the dictator, who covets this power aborning.

It isn't about the value of any particular bit of speech. It is about forbidding the construction of the tools of tyranny, core to our constitutional design.

Re: so what do these rules have to do with....

[jd]

I understand freedom. The British are free from gun violence, for the most part. That is a legitimate freedom. You would deprive the British of that freedom for something they don't want. How is that free? Imposing your beliefs on others is not giving them freedom but taking it.

Same with the freedom to roam - it is an absolute British right to go where the damn you please, as long as you violate no privacy, don't cause damage and don't break and enter. Telling us we can't do that is to tell us we aren't free. We are nobody's slaves, you don't get to tell us how we measure our freedom.

The reason we have governments at all is because taking away freedom from the collective actually takes away freedom. The whole is more than the sum of the parts only when the whole works cooperatively.

People like you would have outlawed Robert Owens, Joseph Rowntree or Titus Salt, criminalized them, because you cannot tolerate beliefs other than your own.

Proof of that is the moderation given my prior post. It's no more flamebait than yours. It's modded down because you aren't tolerant. You will not defend to the death my right to say things you don't like, you oppose them vigorously. You do not consider them, you do not even debate them. You are no hero of tolerance.

No, real freedom comes not with anarchy and deprivation, but with maximal freedom across all entities, individual or otherwise. It's not even as if an "individual" can be defined, except as a transient collective that lasts a few seconds. The gestalt must have equal rights and equal responsibilities.

Freedom without responsibility, a wise man/golem once wrote, is just a word.

Re: so what do these rules have to do with....

[markdavis]

>" you cannot tolerate beliefs other than your own. Proof of that is the moderation given my prior post. It's no more flamebait than yours. It's modded down because you aren't tolerant. You will not defend to the death my right to say things you don't like, you oppose them vigorously. You do not consider them, you do not even debate them. You are no hero of tolerance."

You are way off base and have no idea who I am or what I believe or do. And I do, very much, believe in the freedom of people to say what they want, even those who disagree with me. *I* didn't mod your post down, other(s) did. I can't mod anything in this topic because I posted. And, besides, modding is not censorship.

Re: so what do these rules have to do with....

[Anonymous Coward]

"Freedom from gun violence"?

You don't actually have any understanding of what the words "freedom" or "liberty" mean.
The UK has restrictive gun laws. These laws prevent people from doing things - therefore, they are unfree and anti-liberty. In doesn't matter if you like the results or not, the laws are inherently about restricting the ability of people to do something.

Your attempt to mix that standard Marxist collectivist definitions of "freedom" in there just reveals what you are - a petty Leftist socialist would-be tyrant. And just like a good Big Brother tyrant, you want to redefine terms. Slavery is Freedom, the Individual is a Collective.

Stalin would be so proud of you.

Re: so what do these rules have to do with....

[jd]

We are free to have the freedom we want. This is what we chose. We are entitled to choose. This was not imposed, we demanded those laws. They were OUR choice.

You imposing your will on us is not free. You are the enemy of freedom by telling us that we aren't allowed to make our own minds up, that you must think for us. Take your bloody nanny state ideas and shove em!

Your laws restrict you from being free from. Freedom from is as legitimate a freedom as freedom to. But you deny people that freedom because you never understood real freedom. Real freedom is about being able to choose the balance you wish, not have it imposed on you at gun point. Real freedom means you can think and speak, not be shouted down by Libertarian thought police.

Re: so what do these rules have to do with....

[Anonymous Coward]

He doesn't understand that the government is violence. He just sees the surface and doesn't get it.

He thinks "government" giving people stuff is great.... because they need stuff. He doesn't understand that government only gets the stuff to hand out by taking it from someone else. He thinks taxes are voluntary because he voted to raise other people's taxes. He thinks that is fair.

What he doesn't understand is that if you choose to live your life a different way, he wants to kill you. He hides behind 'the government" for this part. He didn't do it. Sure, he wants to control what you do, what you put in your body, where you live, who you associate with and how you speak. But it isn't his fault if you are killed because of it.

He doesn't think far enough ahead to say "what happens if JD doesn't want to give up his gun? He just says "you have to" and is done with it. But we know that what happens is the government sends people with guns to take it away. And if you refuse they will beat you and throw you in a cage to be treated like an animal. And if you resist that, you will be shot and killed.

He doesn't think taxes are theft. Because he's all for all the spending and taking other people's money. He hides behind "the government" when it comes time to collect. You are a cheat and criminal if you don't pay up. And when they send the men with guns to make you pay up, you are violent if you still say no. And when they throw you in a cage like an animal it is because you were a criminal, not because he voted to confiscate your money and give it to someone else. And if you pick up a gun to defend your property when they come to throw you in a cage, they'll kill you. And he'll be fine with that. Because he doesn't know that he's the one who actually did the killing. He thinks he's absolved because it is the government.

If you want to have a club that he disapproves of, he'll call you intolerant. And he'll send the state to shut you down. And he's fine with that. Because he thinks "true freedom" comes from doing things that he approves of, not anything else. If you want to make a living doing something he disapproves of - maybe as a sex worker, or maybe being an MMA fighter, or maybe selling designer drugs, or maybe as a street preacher - he's happy to have his proxy cage you or kill you in order to stop you. Because he's not responsible. Not in his mind. In his mind you chose not to obey his will... so anything bad that happens after that point is on you.

He's a street thug. He just doesn't know it. He's given himself enough plausible deniability that he believes his own BS. Total obedience is freedom. I mean, he literally said that - absence of freedom is freedom. There is no individual that can be defined. It is like these people read Animal Farm and 1984 and said "hey! That sounds like a great idea!!"

NPCs

[Anonymous Coward]

hate Ajit Pai.

The Republican Death Cult

[Required Snark]

No one who reads Slashdot should be surprised by this. Underfunded emergency infrastructure during disasters causes greater destruction. It's as certain as the sun rising in the east.

Under the camouflage of deregulation the Republican Party has been consciously eliminating all sorts of infrastructure due to greed and contempt for the public good. They sit on top of the American economic pyramid of corruption and they love it. They want more wealth, more power and the sadistic thrill of watching people suffer.

Pai is a mass murderer. People have already died because of underfunded telco emergency services during natural disasters, and the number is going up. It's not if he is responsible for deaths, but how many he's caused: five, fifteen or fifty? Will it hit five hundred while he is in charge? These casualty numbers qualify him as mass murder.

This is not a singular instance. Defunding Planned Parenthood kills women, babies and children. The current opioid epidemic was caused by greedy drug manufactures tricking medical professionals to overprescribing addictive drugs. The major cause of death for people under 50 in the US is drug overdose. Eliminating smog regulation on vehicles kills through cancer, heart disease and lung ailments. Republican policy results in death increases.

The Republican Party is a Death Cult. It kills people for profit and power. That is why life expectancy in the US is declining. If you are too stupid to understand this you are a cult member. You or someone you know could end up a victim.

Re:The Republican Death Cult

[Anonymous Coward]

Defunding Planned Parenthood kills women, babies and children.

You DO realize what Planned Parenthood does, don't you, when you talk about "killing babies and children"?

Re:The Republican Death Cult

[Anonymous Coward]

The Democratic party is just as evil, they simply have different hideous alliances.

Re:The Republican Death Cult

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realize it's been shown time and time again that when planned parenthood is properly funded along with proper healthcare in areas actual abortions go down? Hmmm.... almost like planned parenthood actually... helps family plan for children. *shocker*

Re:The Republican Death Cult

[meglon]

Considering a fetus is not a baby or child, unless you're a religious fucked in the head zealot...

About 45% of pregnancies are either miscarriages or failure to implants. The ~30% that are miscarriages could be decreased because of the 95%of what Planned Parenthood actually does... medical assistance to would be mothers. But,absolute dipshits with their heads up their ass... like you... disparage them for the other 5% of their activities: providing abortions to women who choose that option.

You want to confront the real mass destroyer of fetuses? Talk to God. All the miscarriages, all the failures to implant.... that's God.

Now, killing actual babies and children...that'd be not providing medical care for them, or food, or shelter. That'd be the GOP and conservative religious fucktards.

Re:The Republican Death Cult

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit, drink your oil faggot.

Re:The Republican Death Cult

[meglon]

No, it really isn't. democrats work for the betterment of society... ALL of society. The Grand Old Pervert party of grab-them-by-the-pussy only cares about being power, and control. Well,that and never ever taking responsibility for the things they fuck up.

Re:The Republican Death Cult

[Anonymous Coward]

That is simply a lie.

Most abortions are caused by birth control failure. When you use a product that is 99.9% effective to prevent the consequences of an act that you do 300 times a year then it's almost a sure thing that you'll end up hitting that .01%.

So push contraception and you guarantee you'll have abortion customers.

Want to prevent pregnancy? Don't have sex. Actions have consequences.

We won't even talk about the large scale human experimentation that has resulted by exposing hundreds of millions of women to a poorly tested set of drugs, which are coincidentally entering our environment through the waste processing of urine and having who knows what effect on the rest of the environment.

Re:The Republican Death Cult

[clonehappy]

So much edge in one post. Aren't there some midterms you need to be studying for?

Re: The Republican Death Cult

[jd]

The dynamics are a bit more complex, but the poster was not lying.

Access to abortion actually does reduce abortion rates. It also increases the safety of them.

Abortion rates have gone up dramatically in States that have reduced access to nearly zero. One can argue that that's because contraception access is also nearly zero, as is sex education. That's fair. However, the three are linked. The attitudes restricting one restrict them all.

Re: The Republican Death Cult

[jd]

Ideally Democrats work for the betterment of society. I suspect many believe they do and that a decent percentage actually do.

I'd love to see the Democratic party improve on that and genuinely work for the betterment of all. It means kicking out Ayn Rand supporters, plus Neocons/Reaganites in Democrat clothing. It means recognizing Sanders is considered right-wing in Europe and looking at whether those European ideals would help or harm Americans.

But for now, Democrats do not meet their ideals to the degree anyone would like. They swung to the right, in response to the Tea Party goons, and are now the party of Reagan.

Re:The Republican Death Cult

[davide marney]

Considering a fetus is not a baby or child

OK, I'll bite. What is it, then? It's a serious question. You are saying that the product of a conception between a man and a woman is not a human. What else is it, then?

Re:The Republican Death Cult

[Anonymous Coward]

When you use a product that is 99.9% effective to prevent the consequences of an act that you do 300 times a year then it's almost a sure thing that you'll end up hitting that .01%.

So which is it? .1% is 1 in 1,000. This is not the same as .01%, which is 1 in 10,000.

If it's the former, then 300/1000 = 30%. That's less than 1 in 3 and not what I'd call "almost a sure thing".

BTW, 300 times per year is about 4 times the average for married couples.

Also, "not perfect = worthless" is a pretty silly way to view the world in any case.

As for experimentation, various people have been trying to tell other people not to have sex for a few thousand years, and the results of such efforts have been mixed at best.

Re: The Republican Death Cult

[Anonymous Coward]

Please abort your own face with a baseball bat you insufferable fucktard.

Re: The Republican Death Cult

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not a human yet. Until it's a fetus it is nothing more than some cells. Killing cells != killing a baby. Those cells did not mutate into a human YET.

Now past a certain trimester; fine. My body my rules. Leave your hands off of it.

It's funny, rich white men discussing what a woman should be able to do with her body. That's rich.

Re:The Republican Death Cult

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering a fetus is not a baby or child

OK, I'll bite. What is it, then?

A fetus. That's literally the word for what it is.

It's a serious question.

No, it's utterly disingenuous rhetoric.

You are saying that the product of a conception between a man and a woman is not a human.

Nope. You just made that up.

What else is it, then?

The premise of your position is that anything other than a baby or a child isn't human, which I don't think you've thought though. For example, an adult isn't a baby or child. Are adults non-human too in your opinion?

Re: The Republican Death Cult

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is the pro life crowd always the ones telling people to kill themselves, or trying to get rid of social services, or fighting against health care?

You guys don't give a shit about human life. Stop pretending already

I think the phrase was "heck of a job"

[rsilvergun]

in case anyone's wondering what's being referred to here.

Re:I think the phrase was "heck of a job"

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

That's sordid. The worst part was "head of FEMA" was a plumb position to which you appointed a donor or funds raiser who was otherwise incompetent and unskilled at management.

Then during a hurricane during Clinton, the guy screwed up, and Washington swore they'd never use the Head of Fema position in that way ever again, not no way, not no how. It would be an actual, competent manager if not someone outright skilled in disaster management.

Not so long after came "Brownie", the same old thing. This guy was incredible because at one point he whined in a text back to the President, "Can I come home now?" i.e. have I been here long enough for show?

Re: I think the phrase was "heck of a job"

[Anonymous Coward]

Ummm, actually the hurricane happen during bush, he did an awful job.

Then during Obama's term, browning actually did a hell of a job during those hurricanes. So much so that it became a running joke about bush and his incompetent group of bandits.

How can we fire him?

[Anonymous Coward]

The guy works for us and does a terrible job.
How can we fire him?

Re: How can we fire him?

[jd]

That's just it. We the people was a big con. Government works for itself, not you. That's why it needs all the immunity and protections against the public.

America has always been based on the idea that the public and government are mortal enemies that survive by crushing the other. It's so central to the mythos that even though 2A never refers to that and in fact states the exact opposite, in the debates on 2A the focus was on who crushes who.

You cannot fire anyone in government. You cannot recall the president (you don't even elect him), you cannot sack any civil servant, you are powerless. By design. That is the way the founding fathers wanted it.

same old same old

[dicobalt]

Just another pile of BS brought to you by The United Corporations of America.

Absolute Bullshit!

[clonehappy]

Why are we not continuing to forcing a private entity to support deprecated technology because people refuse to move on?

While we're at it, let's force Microsoft to continue to support MS-DOS and Windows 3.1.

Linus should be regulated into supporting Version 1.0 of the kernel.

Let's get some legislation to make it illegal for Google to stop supporting my Motorola Droid running Gingerbread.

Wireless and fiber services are shit. Let's get that copper back up and running post haste! I need my 768/128 DSL line back online immediately! Because I'm positive Verizon, et al. are not going to ever be fixing any of the cellphone towers knocked out by the worst hurricane to hit the gulf in 60 years! I mean, it's been over a fucking week! Because in my dream utopia....you know, if only the government were in charge of the infrastructure, I'm sure it would be number one on Orange Hitler(tm)'s list!

Re:Absolute Bullshit!

[Anonymous Coward]

Leave it to some libertarian idiot to post something like that.

Next thing you are going to tell me is that we should just let people do whatever they want. Without regulations like this, just anyone could start a business braiding hair! Maybe even in their own apartment!

Just look at how much drugs cost because of greedy corporations! Without the government protecting us from those evil corporations, just imagine what it would cost! I mean, look at Mexico! They don't have the same powerful government agencies we have, and you can just buy drugs at a drug store! And at a fraction of the cost! Imagine what that does to the children!!!

They sell coca leaf tea in places like Argentina and Chile! Is that the world you want?! Where the government doesn't protect you from having a breakfast tea with actual cocaine in it?? I mean, a real government that cares about its citizens would mandate breakfast beverages with caffeine, not cocaine, am I right?

If we had real government regulations, we wouldn't have to put up with Orange Hitler anyway. If it wasn't for the first amendment allowing people to voice support for him online, we would have elected the right people, so this never would have happened. If only the government hadn't been corrupted by the evil republicans on the court in Citizen's United. Can you imagine? They said a group could produce a film with a political message! And they were formed as a Corporation! People should listen to Michael Moore on this one. He knows what he's talking about. And he says corporations shouldn't be allowed to make films with political content. #I'mWithHim!

If we had real elected officials instead of these evil people, things like this would never happen. All we need to do is give the government more power so they can protect us.

Re: Absolute Bullshit!

[jd]

Linux does support version 1.0 of the kernel. Linux is 100% backwards compatible. Windows can run DOS environments. Your point?

I'd hardly call 111tbps obsolete technology. (The article says "or better" and I'd say that's better.) Find me a wireless link with equal bandwidth and comparable latency (fixed lines will support 2ns latency per hop.)

You can't? Then it's not obsolete technology.

Copper can't do it? So what, it states "or better", says nothing about requiring copper. Wireless is intrinsically inferior, which is why Internet Tier 1 doesn't use it.

Re:Absolute Bullshit!

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are we not continuing to forcing a private entity to support deprecated technology because people refuse to move on?

Wanting to maintain a copper line in areas that don't have cell service worth a shit isn't people refusing to "move on". It's common sense. Would you trade in a 10-year old car that runs perfectly for a brand new lemon that breaks down all the time? Only if you're a fucking idiot you would.

Re: Absolute Bullshit!

[Anonymous Coward]

Only an idiot, also known as the classic repubtard.

Regulation baddsss.
  Companies gooooods.

(((Feld)))

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup, got it already.

Land lines give superior bandwidth

[jd]

To cell. Why should I subsidise inferior technology?

Re: Land lines give superior bandwidth

[Zero__Kelvin]

Because it isn't inferior. It has advantages over cell, especially in the case of natural disasters.

Re: Land lines give superior bandwidth

[jd]

My point precisely.

The answer to a poor regulation?

[thegarbz]

Lets assume for a moment that something Ajit Pai said was true (no seriously stick with me for a moment, however unlikely this premise is). Why is the answer to a poor regulation that seems to affect a minor edge case to repeal? If the regulation impeded carriers upgrading, then add verbiage to the regulation that allows them to upgrade while still being bound to the original regulation.

It could very well be that the regulation did catch edge cases that made them restrictive. I haven't read regulation but if it contains the text "service at least as good" then it should be modified (NOT SCRAPPED) but modified to instead list the specific service requirements that need to be met.

Re:The answer to a poor regulation?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes! Absolutely this!

The answer to bad regulation and bad laws is always more regulations and more laws!

I don't know why people don't understand this. It is so simple! When concentrating power and wealth in the hands of a few politicians results in lobbyists seeking handouts and special treatment for their clients, the obvious answer is to add new laws regulating the lobbyists!

And when large corporations use the government to control competition, the obvious answer isn't to reduce the power and scope of government so that they cannot do this - the answer is clearly to give the government more power to control those large corporations!

People are sheep. Only sheep would want the government to move out of the way and let them decide how to live! All right-thinking people understand that the government must decide how telephone services are delivered. And only the government must decide who can cut hair, and under what conditions. And only government can decide who is allowed to sell coffins, or cars, or alcohol. I mean, what kind of idiot thinks that it would be safe to allow more than a couple of state-mandated monopolies to distribute alcoholic beverages in a state? Some anarchist?

Can you imagine the chaos that would ensue if Texas were to allow car manufacturers to sell directly to customers,instead of using local dealers?

Or what kind of pandemonium would break out if the feds allowed the TV broadcast spectrum to be used for something other than digital TV broadcasts? What a waste of a public resource that would be!!

No, people are right to be outraged. If hundreds of square miles of infrastructure is destroyed, people are right to be outraged if it is not fully restored within hours! And surely this is the fault of bought-and-paid-for bureaucrats who are trying to reduce the power of the government. There's no way that simple laws of time and space could be responsible for such an atrocity.

Re:The answer to a poor regulation?

[andydread]

Well then if you don't wan't government to make rules for the road then quit running to government to solve your grievances. When corporations dump toxic sludge into drinking waterways do not run to government to solve the problem and they won't be making rules for how these corporations should dump their toxic sludge

Re:The answer to a poor regulation?

[Anonymous Coward]

You see! AndyDread gets it too!

If the government doesn't regulate the size of aglets on children's shoes, we get toxic waste in the streets! If you are against more regulation, people will die!!

Re:The answer to a poor regulation?

[Anonymous Coward]

You people are insane. Regulating anything leads inexorably to communism. Government should be small enough to fit in a bathtub so that we can drown it.

Rarely, if ever

[jd]

Should the market drive the response. The corporations have defined the market, not the consumer. The theory of market-driven response is predicated on consumers having a choice.

Where you have de-facto local monopolies or duopolies due to arrangements between telecos, the consumer has no choice. Likewise when information is so limited that choice does not exist.

Does anyone seriously believe most of those affected had a free choice from a diverse market, with full information on choices? If they do, they need to take a serious look at what they consider diverse or information.

Copper shouldn't be used anymore.

[Anonymous Coward]

I lived in an area where Verizon ran out FiOS. There were some towns/cities where the locals opposed switching over to fiber because they already had cable for Internet access.

This whole situation is utterly ridiculous all because cable TV started as a luxury non-telecom service, then became one once DOCSIS was implemented. Yet they don't want to be regulated like telecoms. (And now the telecoms are doing the same thing.)

regulation kills millions

[Anonymous Coward]

regulation kills many millions more people every year but liberal bias slashdot.org never talks about that. jee i wonder why?

Re: regulation kills millions

[Anonymous Coward]

Because you are an idiot repubtard and we know you are lying.

Next question?

The old law made repairmen work faster?

[biggaijin]

The argument that removing the old law requiring replacement with comparable wired service slowed down the restoration of service to hurricane victims is silly. First, cell service can be restored much more quickly than wired service in these situations no matter what. Second, having this law in place is not going to make the phone repairmen working on the poles go any faster than they already are.

Re:The old law made repairmen work faster?

[Anonymous Coward]

You idiot! A Republican is in charge now! A. Republican!! And worse, it is Donald Trump!

Obviously he's making sure that companies don't have to take care of their customers. In fact, all those people that are never going to have their service restored because Obama is no longer president are still going to be forced to pay their bill. Because Trump is a racist! And brown people deserve phone service too. And even if the hurricane made a mess, it doesn't take a week to clean up from one of the 3 strongest storms in US history. That's just your privilege talking.

Ajit Pai already took away your internet. Didn't you notice that all the big corporations are blocking access to stuff you want? That's what they do. They are owned by the big corporations. Especially Verizon. They just make Pai dance like a little monkey. He does whatever they say. That's why Verizon isn't going to restore service to the Florida panhandle. They'll just make them all pay twice as much for cellular service. And then they'll throttle that. Because Trump is racist. And evil. And misogynistic. Probably the whole thing is because Trump hates women. Not sure how. But you know he does.

VoIP

[Anonymous Coward]

Huuuuuuuuuggge argument for VoIP that is not carrier dependent.

And if you shop around, VoIP is dirt cheap compared to cellular. Pennies on the dollar dirt cheap.

Fuck Verizon. Anyone still with Big Red at this point is just getting reddogged right in the face with a big red wet verizon schlong. And liking it.

Re:VoIP

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you use that fucking VoIP? Voice over internet protocol.
How more autistic can you get? I have voice cellular because it is 10x cheaper for me than cellular Internet. I'm not in the US though, where wired Internet can also cost $100/month... How the hell is $100/month Internet plus $1/month SIP account (or the ISP's thing) 'pennies on the dollars' cheap? Dumbfuck.

Ajit pai

[Anonymous Coward]

Is clearly a millennial. He's killing ALL THE THINGS!!1!

Didn't they vote for this....

[sarren1901]

I kind of imagine most of the places that are affected by this are rural, low income, low population density areas. This defines many red states fairly accurately outside of their one or two towns they try to call cities. In a way, they are getting the government they voted for.

Now if only the same government that won't protect consumers would stop handing out monopolies to companies offering essential services and we could see the good side of deregulation, instead of just seeing the shitty side.

Alas, we all know that is exceedingly unlikely to happen short of a revolution.

Obsessed with Pai

[Anonymous Coward]

You people are literally insane. Obsessed with Ajit Pai.

Get help. Soon.

Power is far more important.

[Anonymous Coward]

After a hurricane (I live in FL my whole life and have been through many of them) the most important thing is power for A/C. Without A/C nothing else matters. Trust me.

Agitprop

[Anonymous Coward]

It won't help. This is just part of the usual playbook to make all faults real & imagined one named person's fault. Everything bad will be because they wanted it to happen because they hate you and/or are corrupt.

It doesn't matter if he has nothing to do with Verizon's crappy service or what he could do about it and it won't even matter if he tries to fix the rules later after learning of problems, it's all his fault, personally, and all the problems will go away once the people who replace him with someone they prefer get their way because they'll stop the media campaign.

Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

Not that I'm particularly found of communist / socialist countries since the smarter half of that bunch has realized that a free market is the way to success... but right-wing proponents of "minimum state" soon discover that the minimum is not the same as sufficient.

I feel sorry for those wiser guys who didn't vote for the guys currently in office, but take this opportunity to reflect on ways to improve democracy, so that instead of meaning just the victory of the majority it becomes capable to protect all minorities.

Cell Towers in Canada

[CanadianMacFan]

In September 2018 Ottawa was hit was hit with six tornadoes and parts of the city were without power for over 48 hours. I was without it for 48 hours. The cell towers near me went down after a couple of hours, as long as their batteries lasted. The cell companies were rushing around to try and get generators hooked up to their equipment.

The reception with the generators supplying electricity was terrible. I could get my mail a couple of times but no other data for the rest of the event. I could make calls though. My neighbour could only access data on his phone if he went to the end of his driveway in one spot. As soon as the electricity came back on all of the problems with the data were gone.

The cell companies used to be required to keep backup power on site but that restriction was loosened a while ago to make it easier/more profitable for the companies.

With 5G it's going to be terrible in a disaster when the cell points are going to be distributed all over instead of the relatively few cell towers. If a company has their antennas distributed on street lights throughout a city then how are they going to have backup power?

Re:Cell Towers in Canada

[Anonymous Coward]

You see! Trump appoints an industry shill like Pai and CanadianMacFan can't get cell service in Ottawa!