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 But Pai repealed those rules, claiming that they prevented carriers from upgrading old copper networks to fiber.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

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]

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

[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

[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 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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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:Ajit Pai Killed...

[Opportunist]

Some sentences should end early to be good.

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?

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....

[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....

[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: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"?

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: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.

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.

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.