Wireless Carriers Fight Rules Preventing Them From Screwing Firefighters During Emergencies
from the ill-communication dept
You might recall that Verizon found itself under fire last summer after it throttled the data connection of California firefighters as they were busy battling the Mendocino Complex Fire. When the firefighters complained to Verizon, the company didn't immediately put the restrictions on hold; instead they attempted to upsell the providers to a faster plan. While not technically a net neutrality violation, the repeal of the net neutrality rules (and FCC authority over ISPs) did impede the first responders' ability to effectively contest the restrictions. Verizon also ultimately admitted that the move was in direct violation of the company's own rules.
Last week, California took the first steps toward passing a law that would prevent wireless carriers from imposing such restrictions on first responders during an emergency. Not too surprisingly, wireless carriers (who've effectively been dictating all federal telecom policy the last few years) weren't too keen on that idea:
"A letter sent to the California Assembly’s Communications and Conveyance Committee last week by CTIA, which represents the wireless industry, argues that language in the bill — which states that providers may not “impair or degrade” internet traffic — is ambiguous. CTIA also cited concern with the amount of people who could declare a state of emergency, and wrote that providers should be notified of an emergency if they’re expected to adjust service."
Consumer groups, as you might expect, suggested that wireless carriers were being a touch melodramatic:
"It’s basically bogus,” Falcon said. “The legislation is straightforward in that they just can’t throttle public safety like they did in Santa Clara where they took their 50 Mbps down/10 Mbps up connection and brought it down to kilobits speed where it was useless to them."
Granted, much like state privacy and net neutrality laws, it's another instance of how you wouldn't need these additional restrictions if wireless carriers hadn't neutered modest and popular federal guidelines. Of course in this instance, while the throttling of firefighters didn't run directly afoul of the FCC's since-discarded 2015 net neutrality rules (Verizon at least disclosed the restrictions in its fine print, and didn't discriminate against specific types of traffic) it did once again highlight how wireless carriers are routinely misleading and utterly terrible when it comes to customer service.
Much of the problem stems from companies like Verizon selling an "unlimited" product -- then imposing all manner of confusing limits, something they've been getting fined and criticized for the better part of the last fifteen years. Such restrictions don't just confuse customers, they create bold new headaches where companies impose arbitrary restrictions, then charge consumers more money to tap dance around them (HD streaming on Verizon unlimited plans, for example, is now a pricey luxury option).
And while the net neutrality rules themselves may not have prevented Verizon from doing this, the repeal of those rules didn't just kill net neutrality. It effectively neutered the FCC's authority (at direct ISP lobby request), then shoveled most remaining authority to an FTC critics have long stated lacks the authority to adequately police telecom (the whole reason the ISP lobby wanted it). That means far less recourse for consumers and competitors getting caught up in wireless carriers' never-ending quest to nickel-and-dime them, using a rotating crop of increasingly annoying, confusing, and often unnecessary network restrictions.
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: california, degrading traffic, emergency services, fire fighters, net neutrality, throttling
Companies: verizon
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
This is why some agencies need a closed communications system dedicated to a purpose, these things usually have spectrum allocated. This costs over and above what could be provided by the local public communications services and I'm sure that some out there champion such efficiencies but, things do not always works out as planned. Perhaps Verizon would have felt differently had it been their assets in peril.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Reminiscent of E911 inception.
They'll dedicate frequencies/bandwidth to first responders after the third or fourth round of court battles.
And add a First Responder Tax to every phone bill every month, just like we pay for E911 service.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It is horrible enough when disaster occurs but when someone or corporation then attempts to profit off said disaster .... Grrrrrrrr
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Perhaps Verizon would have felt differently had it been their assets in peril."
Having first responders sit and watch while Verizon corporate offices burned to the ground because their data connection was throttled would generate immense levels of Schadenfreude.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Do you REALLY think Verizon (or any large corporation) doesn't insure everything for four times it's replacement value?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Are the stockholders aware of this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, and they're reminded four times a year in the Quarterly reports under "Expenses, Insurance Premiums".
Maybe YOU would invest in a company that didn't insure personnel / buildings / vehicles / gear, but most people wouldn't touch it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
at four times it's replacement value
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Devil's Advocate
Yes, Verizon did a big wrong here. However, Verizon had help from the State of California and Californians themselves.
The CA state government chose to spend money on those business/constituent entities who kept the current politicians in office or got those who promised the moon into office. The CA state govt could have spent money on an isolated communications infrastructure, which they controlled. Yes, this would have been expensive, if they had done so then the Verizon blackmail wouldn't have happened.
Please remember also, that the CA voters accepted the Verizon dependency by their election choices. It is nearly certain that some despicable govt bureaucrat got an "Attaboy" for setting up this deal with Verizon. Further, at some level, the people who lost their homes chose to accept the risk of the loss rather than insist that state government properly prepare (and pay the taxes therefor). Further, the parasitic corporate/personal types chose to help the destruction of those around them by also voting for their own personal best interest. Virtually no one in CA accepted that there needs to be a balance between personal best interest, in the short term, and the long term, and the group.
The good of the many DOES NOT out-weigh the good of the few. Nor does the good (and rights) of the few out-weigh the good of the many. There must be an intelligent, rational balance. Risk is a part of life and NO ONE has a right to safety.
There is plenty of blame for all. Verizon definitely needs to be condemned and punished. Also, the CA politicians need to be also chastised. Further, the parasitic CA corporations and individuals need to be dealt with, somehow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Devil's Advocate
"Please remember also, that the CA voters accepted the Verizon dependency by their election choices."
Weak Sauce. Politicians lie, this is a well established fact and yet you want to place the blame at the feet of the voters for things that a politician does once in office ... things they may have never publicly discussed - but you voted for them so its your fault.
Sounds like authoritarian bullshit to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Devil's Advocate
It's entirely the fault of YOUNG California voters.
The older ones recalled what a f'up Gov Moonbeam was forty years ago.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Devil's Advocate
Divide and conquer huh
Let's just blame the latest generation, who is that these days anyways ....
hmmm - oh yeah, the Millennials.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Devil's Advocate
When you're a member of the "older generation" you'll realize how screwed up you were as a kid and in college.
If Moonbeam had to be elected by ONLY those who'd suffered under him 30 years earlier, he'd never have been elected again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Devil's Advocate
You seem somewhat confused with your silly assumptions and ridiculous conclusions, but I find that entertaining so do keep up the good work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Devil's Advocate
Voters get the government they deserve.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"The government they deserve"
So then serfs get the government they deserve? The US democracy was hacked by big money long before my generation, or my grandfather's. Robber barons never lost power.
Also as old as everyone alive today: countless ways to make US democracy more democratic. Our reforms trickle in like papal concessions to science.
Feel free to offer actual solutions to oppression.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Devil's Advocate
Uyo said "it" Wrong.
It's:
Every Nation eats the Paint chips it Deserves!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Devil's Advocate
I'd agree if our votes actually counted for anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Devil's Advocate
if all those eligible were allowed ...
if all votes cast were counted ...
if gerrymandering were somehow stopped
if politicians did not lie
if ....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Devil's Advocate
If ifs and buts were candies and nuts, it'd be Christmas year round. But it's not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Devil's Advocate
"There must be an intelligent, rational balance. Risk is a part of life and NO ONE has a right to safety."
We pay people to help safeguard our well-being. They should receive all the help necessary to do their jobs. Whatever this "balance" is, it should lean more in favor of firefighters who're trying to save lives rather than the CEOs who're trying to gouge every last cent out of the general populace even as their houses and lives burn.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Devil's Advocate
"Please remember also, that the CA voters accepted the Verizon dependency by their election choices."
This is most likely untrue. It depends on several assumptions that aren't necessarily accurate:
That the decision was made or overseen by an elected official rather than an unelected government employee.
That any public official would campaign on this particular topic and then actually follow through with whatever they said when in office. (The system is setup with incentives for this desired result to not happen.)
The reality is that we have setup a system where getting elected requires giant bags of money. Since it's always better to spend someone else's giant bags of money than your own (assuming you have said giant bags at all) it pretty much means candidates are required to accept bribes (err, campaign contributions) to get elected. This naturally incentives the morally bankrupt to run for office and discourages the morally strong from doing so. Even if the odd morally strong person does get elected, it all but ensures that the level of corruption is high in aggregate and is "just the way things get done". Until this reality changes then the kind of government we see now is unlikely to change.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Devil's Advocate
Inmate: sure I’m still me but if you had a good warden things would only look bad in here instead of when I was released out there.
That’s the Crux of your argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Throttling (outside of QoS) and overage fees should be made illegal at this point. There's no point to it other than tricking customers into paying more than they should. Most people don't give a shit about how much bandwidth they're using, they just want their streaming video to not buffer all the time and their games not to lag. But essentially the telecom/cable companies are telling their customers "Don't use this service we're selling you too much or we'll either make it either unusable or we'll charge you huge overage fees."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
QoS is not throttling. It's prioritizing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Let me cut through that river of bull####
1:Back before you came up with that “priority” crap there was none. That’s You people and you know who I’m talking about when I say you. I got internet. I had internet.
2: if one firefighter dies amd they find out it’s Because of that shit “priority” privilege stuff? Have a good lawyer. That’s all
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
lol
Corporate speak
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The telcos did nothing wrong .
Look in the mirror , YOU caused this
by electing ignorant morons over and over again
thinking they are there for your benefit .
Oh and this only applies to those who actually vote .
Those who don't ......well just be happy of the shit they throw down
for to you to wallow in .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Gaslighting is not just for corporate anymore, now it can be done to everyone!
WoooHoooo! Ridem Cowboy!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Why is it trolls always punctuate like they're bat-shit crazy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So that others can make fun of them
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Inmate:yeah I mean you knew who I was when you released me. I can’t be responsible for what I do. I killed fifteen people man! I BELONG in here! Let out dan instead he just rode his bike at the wrong hour.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As much as i hate Verizon, this isnt all on them.
Why is public safety on a private network in the first place? Secondly the fire dept cheaped out when purchasing the service. The folks placing these contracts are suppose to be experts and know how to read a contract, the fire dept is not a typical user. Your public safety was a second priority to them.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/08/verizon-throttled-fire-departments-unlimited-data-durin g-calif-wildfire/
...Verizon also noted that the fire department purchased a data service plan that is slowed down after a data usage threshold is reached. But Verizon said it "made a mistake" in communicating with the department about the terms of the plan...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: As much as i hate Verizon, this isnt all on them.
Isn't is strange how agreements between government and industry end up costing the public, over and over ....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: As much as i hate Verizon, this isnt all on them.
“Why is public safety on a private network in the first place”
Politics. Maintaining comms for many these days is really expensive. Especially for the cash strapped. And everyone wins...just like with the internet tch
[ link to this | view in chronology ]