Slashdot Mirror


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 But Pai repealed those rules, claiming that they prevented carriers from upgrading old copper networks to fiber.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."

115 of 225 comments (clear)

  1. Cell Phones More Important by neonv · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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 ...

    1. Re:Cell Phones More Important by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Cell Phones More Important by MightyYar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    3. Re:Cell Phones More Important by sjames · · Score: 1

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

    4. Re:Cell Phones More Important by sjames · · Score: 1

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

    5. Re:Cell Phones More Important by LemonFire · · Score: 1

      Can you hear me now?

      -- No SIG today.

    6. Re: Cell Phones More Important by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but unfortunately video killed the radio star.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    7. Re:Cell Phones More Important by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      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!

    8. Re:Cell Phones More Important by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 2

      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)

    9. Re:Cell Phones More Important by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    10. Re:Cell Phones More Important by Darinbob · · Score: 1

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

    11. Re:Cell Phones More Important by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Hmm, cheaper than mobile phones.

    12. Re:Cell Phones More Important by terrycarlino · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    13. Re: Cell Phones More Important by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'vegotminesoupyours-ism is killing this country.

    14. Re:Cell Phones More Important by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1, Troll

      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.

    15. Re:Cell Phones More Important by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    16. Re:Cell Phones More Important by BlueStrat · · Score: 2

      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

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    17. Re:Cell Phones More Important by Calydor · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    18. Re:Cell Phones More Important by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      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.

    19. Re: Cell Phones More Important by jd · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    20. Re: Cell Phones More Important by jd · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    21. Re: Cell Phones More Important by jd · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    22. Re: Cell Phones More Important by jd · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    23. Re: Cell Phones More Important by jd · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    24. Re: Cell Phones More Important by jd · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    25. Re: Cell Phones More Important by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    26. Re: Cell Phones More Important by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

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

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    27. Re: Cell Phones More Important by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 2

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

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    28. Re: Cell Phones More Important by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

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

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    29. Re:Cell Phones More Important by squiggleslash · · Score: 2

      ...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.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    30. Re:Cell Phones More Important by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

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

      And that fix is?

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    31. Re: Cell Phones More Important by macwhiz · · Score: 1

      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.

    32. Re:Cell Phones More Important by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    33. Re:Cell Phones More Important by SGDarkKnight · · Score: 1

      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.

      --

      ...A no smoking section in a restaurant is like having a no peeing section in a swimming pool...
    34. Re: Cell Phones More Important by MightyYar · · Score: 1

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

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    35. Re:Cell Phones More Important by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    36. Re:Cell Phones More Important by MightyYar · · Score: 1

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

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    37. Re:Cell Phones More Important by sjames · · Score: 2

      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.

    38. Re:Cell Phones More Important by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      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?

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    39. Re: Cell Phones More Important by HiThere · · Score: 1

      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.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    40. Re: Cell Phones More Important by HiThere · · Score: 1

      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.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    41. Re: Cell Phones More Important by suutar · · Score: 1

      trivial != cheap

    42. Re:Cell Phones More Important by suutar · · Score: 1

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

    43. Re: Cell Phones More Important by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      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.

    44. Re:Cell Phones More Important by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      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.

    45. Re:Cell Phones More Important by bjdevil66 · · Score: 1

      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?

    46. Re:Cell Phones More Important by mikael · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    47. Re:Cell Phones More Important by mikael · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    48. Re: Cell Phones More Important by sjames · · Score: 1

      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.

    49. Re: Cell Phones More Important by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

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

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    50. Re: Cell Phones More Important by fortfive · · Score: 1

      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.

    51. Re: Cell Phones More Important by fortfive · · Score: 1

      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.

    52. Re: Cell Phones More Important by sjames · · Score: 1

      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.

    53. Re:Cell Phones More Important by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      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?

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    54. Re: Cell Phones More Important by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    55. Re: Cell Phones More Important by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    56. Re: Cell Phones More Important by sjames · · Score: 1

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

    57. Re: Cell Phones More Important by MightyYar · · Score: 1

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

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    58. Re: Cell Phones More Important by sjames · · Score: 1

      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..

    59. Re: Cell Phones More Important by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  2. Credit where credit's due by theM_xl · · Score: 3, Funny

    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.

    1. Re:Credit where credit's due by Carewolf · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    2. Re:Credit where credit's due by SuricouRaven · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

  3. Smudge Much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    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.

    1. Re:Smudge Much? by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      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.

    2. Re:Smudge Much? by Rockoon · · Score: 1

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

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    3. Re:Smudge Much? by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

  4. Meanwhile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    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.

  5. History Lesson. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    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.

    1. Re:History Lesson. by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Funny

      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?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:History Lesson. by Krishnoid · · Score: 1

      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.

    3. Re: History Lesson. by jd · · Score: 1

      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?

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    4. Re: History Lesson. by jd · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    5. Re:History Lesson. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

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

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

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    6. Re:History Lesson. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Now where's the kickback in that?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  6. Re:Ajit Pai Killed... by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Some sentences should end early to be good.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  7. Re:What a clueless dot head! by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    What do you expect from Ashit Pile?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  8. so what do these rules have to do with.... by arbiter1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:so what do these rules have to do with.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:so what do these rules have to do with.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:so what do these rules have to do with.... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      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.

    4. Re:so what do these rules have to do with.... by meglon · · Score: 1

      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?...

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    5. Re:so what do these rules have to do with.... by Ichijo · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    6. Re:so what do these rules have to do with.... by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      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.

    7. Re: so what do these rules have to do with.... by jd · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    8. Re: so what do these rules have to do with.... by markdavis · · Score: 2

      >"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.

    9. Re: so what do these rules have to do with.... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    10. Re: so what do these rules have to do with.... by jd · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    11. Re: so what do these rules have to do with.... by markdavis · · Score: 1

      >" 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.

    12. Re: so what do these rules have to do with.... by jd · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  9. Re:The Republican Death Cult by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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"?

  10. I think the phrase was "heck of a job" by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Informative
    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:I think the phrase was "heck of a job" by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 2

      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?

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  11. Re:So this Ajit person is a killer by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

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

    I gotta admit, I laughed at those parts.

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
  12. Re:The Republican Death Cult by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    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*

  13. Re:The Republican Death Cult by meglon · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
  14. same old same old by dicobalt · · Score: 1

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

  15. Absolute Bullshit! by clonehappy · · Score: 1, Troll

    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!

    1. Re: Absolute Bullshit! by jd · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    2. Re:Absolute Bullshit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      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.

  16. Re:The Republican Death Cult by clonehappy · · Score: 1

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

  17. Land lines give superior bandwidth by jd · · Score: 1

    To cell. Why should I subsidise inferior technology?

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    1. Re: Land lines give superior bandwidth by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

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

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    2. Re: Land lines give superior bandwidth by jd · · Score: 1

      My point precisely.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  18. The answer to a poor regulation? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    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.

    1. Re:The answer to a poor regulation? by andydread · · Score: 1

      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

  19. Rarely, if ever by jd · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  20. Re: The Republican Death Cult by jd · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  21. Re: The Republican Death Cult by jd · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  22. Re: How can we fire him? by jd · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  23. Re:The Republican Death Cult by davide+marney · · Score: 1

    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?

    --
    "We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
  24. The old law made repairmen work faster? by biggaijin · · Score: 1

    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.

  25. Didn't they vote for this.... by sarren1901 · · Score: 1

    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.

  26. Re: Ajit Pai Killed... by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

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

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  27. Cell Towers in Canada by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

    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?