The FCC's Sneaky Plan To Make It Easier To Ignore ISP Complaints
from the nothing-to-see-here dept
From real news to fake news then back again. The FCC this week was slated to vote on some seemingly insubstantial changes to the way the agency fields consumer complaints, but journalists and consumer advocates appear to have derailed the plan. It began when a few Senators expressed concern that the agency was subtly changing the wording to its consumer complaint process, potentially making it easier for the agency to ignore them entirely:
"As the chief communications regulator, the FCC plays a critical role in ensuring consumers -- including families, small businesses and struggling Americans -- get fair and honest treatment from their service providers. We worry that the proposed change signals that the FCC no longer intends to play this role, and will instead simply tell consumers with limited means and time that they need to start an expensive and complicated formal legal process."
As it stands, consumers have two options if they want to file a complaint about their ISP or cable company with the FCC. They can either file an informal complaint, which is free, or they can file a formal complaint, which requires a $225 fee and begins a long, court-like process that involves oodles of paperwork and numerous hearings. For obvious reasons most consumers don't select the latter. In fact, during the net neutrality repeal fight only one consumer actually bothered to even file a truly formal complaint, though that complaint does a pretty stellar job explaining why the net neutrality repeal was terrible (pdf).
In short, subtle wording changes by the agency reduced the likelihood that the FCC would have to take informal complaints seriously, forcing consumers toward a formal filing and the costly $225 fee to begin any meaningful process. When initial news outlets reported on the story, they incorrectly implied that the $225 for a formal complaint was new. Pai's staff was quick to pounce on those incorrect headlines to insist numerous media reports were "fake news":
Fake news travels fast! Nothing is changing. In fact, here is a guide on the FCC's website about how the FCC processes informal complaints. It was posted under the prior Commission and remains in effect. https://t.co/s27JmKnmSe https://t.co/jsJjU1orS3
— Matthew Berry (@matthewberryfcc) July 11, 2018
This is fake news. No change is being proposed to the FCC's process for handling informal complaints. I've rarely seen an article about an FCC item that has been this far off base. https://t.co/L59YxbggSY
— Matthew Berry (@matthewberryfcc) July 10, 2018
Berry's denial quickly got outlets like the Washington Post to issue stories "debunking" the previous stories, parroting Berry's claim that nothing was actually changing (though it's worth noting that the Post had to later walk back the headline below claiming such). Berry, as you can imagine, really liked that:
Kudos to the Washington Post for setting the record straight! https://t.co/nxh3M7Svlo
— Matthew Berry (@matthewberryfcc) July 11, 2018
The problem: consumer advocates like Free Press then clearly spelled out precisely what language was being changed, and why the Post was wrong to believe the FCC's claims at face value:
Here's the redline of the existing rule, with the proposed changes shown in red -- and then my yellow highlights on top of that. It's funny when @matthewberryfcc says there are no changes to see here, when there are so many changes; but we're going to focus on three of them. pic.twitter.com/w4bMXUZk1V
— Matt Wood (@mattfwood) July 11, 2018
While minor (for example the term "disposition" is fiddled with in footnotes), many of the changes did indeed reduce the FCC's obligation to take consumer complaints seriously and intervene:
The first obvious one is the FCC no longer says it "will" set a deadline for a carrier response, but it "may." If you can't grasp the difference there, then next time you ask someone if they're going to pay you back, see whether they say "I may...." instead of saying "I will."
— Matt Wood (@mattfwood) July 11, 2018
As the day wore on, tech journalists were again reporting that yes, the FCC did appear to be subtly tinkering with rules surrounding complaint handling to make it easier to ignore your complaints (again, unless you're willing to pay $225, file lots of paperwork and attend hearings). By day's end, the Washington Post received leaked word from the agency that it would be scrapping the change-that-supposedly-wasn't-a-change after "political backlash":
"The Federal Communications Commission has dropped the parts of its proposal dealing with informal complaints, according to multiple people familiar with the matter. The move comes after Democratic FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel requested the provisions be struck. Several officials cited the political backlash over the issue as a reason the FCC will not vote on those provisions Thursday, with one official saying the proposal on informal complaints was never a “conservative plot” intended to harm consumers. The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal agency deliberations."
But this morning, the Post was then told that the agency might be including the language after all:
Just in: Multiple people now tell me @AjitPaiFCC has changed his mind and WILL be holding a vote today on the proposed informal complaint rules as originally planned. News of the course change comes minutes before the FCC is due to s s start its monthly meeting. https://t.co/yGRntql12k
— Brian Fung (@b_fung) July 12, 2018
Whatever the outcome, it highlights how paying attention to often wonky policy really does matter. Pai, a telecom policy wonk since his days working at Verizon, has spent the last year building the agency he envisions: namely one that sits on its hands while giant ISPs dictate most major policies, leading us down the miraculous path to supposed telecom Utopia. Pai's Title II repeal already gutted much of the FCC's authority over ISPs, and it's unclear how many other revisions and rule changes he's shoveled through for similar effect. Whoever winds up replacing Pai will have their work cut out identifying and reversing many of these changes, if they're reversed at all.
Meanwhile, it should probably go without saying that an agency that has completely made up supporting data for its net neutrality repeal, and made up a DDOS attack in an incredibly bizarre attempt to downplay the "John Oliver effect," probably shouldn't be giving lectures on "fake news" (whatever the hell that means) anytime soon.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: ajit pai, complaints, consumer protection, fcc, isps, matthew berry, oversight
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Pay to Play (or complain)
Poor people are going to be the worst served. The most likely to complain. This seems like a great way to silence their voices in the truest spirit of free speech. Free speech -- which is that ISPs can "edit" the internet. Wow, it all seems to come together under this administration.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pay to Play (or complain)
That was the justification for Citizens United. We're just seeing more of that justification being implemented here.
Never assume they work for you. That's the first trick they make you fall for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Pay to Play (or complain)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Confusion reins..
What is the FCC supposed to do, if they Dont protect the Communications of this country??
"Perspective: Why the FCC should die (by Declan McCullagh, CNet)" I think I found it..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]