Ajit Pai Refuses To Investigate Frontier's Horrible Telecom Service 232
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai has rejected a request to have the FCC investigate Frontier Communications' business practices in Minnesota, despite evidence that the company has failed to properly maintain its telecom network. An investigation by the Minnesota Commerce Department already found that Frontier's network has "frequent and lengthy" phone and Internet outages, that Frontier has failed to provide refunds or bill credits to customers even when outages lasted for months, that Frontier is guilty of frequent billing errors that caused customers to pay for services they didn't order, and that it has failed to promptly provide telephone service to all customers who request it. When we wrote about the investigation in January, Frontier said it "strongly disagrees" with the findings but did not dispute any of the specific allegations.
The Minnesota Attorney General's office is investigating whether Frontier violated state consumer-protection laws, and the state's two U.S. senators asked Pai to have the FCC investigate as well. When Pai wrote back to the senators, he said that he has asked his staff to "monitor" the state investigation but made no commitment to have the FCC investigate, too. Pai's response and the senators' letter were posted on the FCC's website this week. "For a chairman who is so concerned with rooting out waste, fraud and abuse, it's baffling that the commission tasked with overseeing billions of dollars in public money is declining to investigate the more than a thousand allegations of poor service by a company that receives that public money to provide those services," U.S. Sen. Tina Smith (D-Minn.) told Ars in a statement today. (The Minnesota investigation was based partly on more than 1,000 consumer complaints and statements.)
The Minnesota Attorney General's office is investigating whether Frontier violated state consumer-protection laws, and the state's two U.S. senators asked Pai to have the FCC investigate as well. When Pai wrote back to the senators, he said that he has asked his staff to "monitor" the state investigation but made no commitment to have the FCC investigate, too. Pai's response and the senators' letter were posted on the FCC's website this week. "For a chairman who is so concerned with rooting out waste, fraud and abuse, it's baffling that the commission tasked with overseeing billions of dollars in public money is declining to investigate the more than a thousand allegations of poor service by a company that receives that public money to provide those services," U.S. Sen. Tina Smith (D-Minn.) told Ars in a statement today. (The Minnesota investigation was based partly on more than 1,000 consumer complaints and statements.)
Corruption. (Score:5, Insightful)
As a non american this whole thing has a stink to me of corruption, although a lot of your politics does (no offence, you folks just seem pretty tolerant of money in politics).
Do you guys have an independent (ie beyond the whitehouses reach) corruption watchdog? Cos this dude seriously needs to be refered to it to find out whos fucking payroll he's on.
Re:Corruption. (Score:5, Insightful)
As an American, this looks like a more subtle form of corruption, where an official doesn't want to upset the industry that he hopes to make lots of money from once he leaves office. Also, it's a case of an official instinctively siding with the industry that he spent years working for before being put in his current office.
Re:Corruption. (Score:5, Interesting)
Don't forget there's a vested interest in having a subtle form of corruption in place by the people who appoint the officials. Ie, even though Ajit Pai was not appointed by Trump, his administration has seemed to appoint only officials intent on reducing or ignoring regulations, shrinking the government department or office, and having a "smaller government is always better" attitude (which means that doing nothing in all cases is the end goal). A deliberate attempt to undermine the government from within.
And not just Republicans, when Democrats are in power you see a similar attempt to pack offices with those holding favorable views to the administration. Many organizations essentially end up as politicall motivated throughout. Some organizations have historically been independent, such as the FBI for example, but even that is being degraded these days. There's also the myth of the "deep state" which has been accelerating the movement to make givernment bodies highly politicized instead of being independent.
The problem is that you cannot have any sort of oversight if all governement entities are politicized. Who watches the watchmen? Normally voters do this, but with the current attitude that Trump is divinely inspired and can utter random conpsiracy theory bullshit and be praised for it means there's not a lot of accountability being held by the voters either.
Re: (Score:2)
The intelligence agencies for the most part said WMDs didn't exist, this was the rank and file that said this who are the ones referred to as the deep state. It was the leadership in the intelligence agencies who said it did exist who followed bad info from people from outside the government. And the elected government leadership bought this because it fit their world view
Re: (Score:2)
George Bush, Colin Powel and Rumsfeld did. The CIA straight up told them the WMD thing was kind of bullshit.
This wasn't "The deep state", it was the state right in front of your eyes. The only thing that happened behind closed doors where intelligence analysts freaking out wondering why the GOP had put all thes
How the bleep is that subtle? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because this issue should not be solved in only Minnesota. Action by the FCC would affect all states and have all telecoms pay attention and remind them to behave properly.
We are NOT a country of independent states. The days of having an incredibly loose confederation of squabbling states are over; we had a civil war to emphasize this, and the demographics are amazingly different today, and there is much internal migration between the states. If we can't have a nationwide standard apply to corporations tha
Re:Corruption. (Score:5, Insightful)
As a non american this whole thing has a stink to me of corruption, although a lot of your politics does (no offence, you folks just seem pretty tolerant of money in politics).
There's a lot of push to get money out of politics, but just as much push by the people with money to keep it in politics. It's hard to change the system when the only way to get elected is to take money from 'somebody'; making most politicians at least somewhat complicit. This is the end result of unrestrained free market capitalism.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The telcos have ... signed deals with each other to avoid competition from industry.
No they haven't. That would leave a paper trail which may someday be randomly prosecuted as a violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. (A quaint law still on the books that no one has enforced effectively in 50 years.) The telcos have been doing this since Ma Bell got busted up into completely non-competing regional entities. They're very very good at wink-and-a-nod divvying up of the markets among them so no one has to invest any more than the bare minimum while achieving maximum gouging without leaving
AOC got elected without it (Score:2)
Tell your friends and family to refuse to vote for any politician who takes corporate money. Small dollar donations only. That's a good start. Why anyone would vote for someone who's openly on the take [commondreams.org] is beyond me...
Re: (Score:2)
On one hand, I think we are beyond the point where a virtue vote matters: Say you get a good number of people to refuse the Democrat nominee because he took corporate money, okay... then I hope you like Donald Trump.
On the other hand, I think we are beyond the point where that choice really matters. Joe Biden is nothing like Donald Trump, but the status quo isn't worth supporting if the outcome of it is eventually Donald Trump.
The problem is we know we need to change, but we lack a realistic path to do so.
Re: (Score:2)
I like Bernie, I worry about his age, but he seems a solid guy.
But the whitehouse seems to change people. Look at Obama prior to his election. Bright eyed, bushy tailed progressive who talked a big game about shifting the power away from wall street into the hands of the common folk, pulling the US out of entanglements in the mid east, closing down that horrifying Guantanamo bay camp and returning A
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. The people who are the most tolerant all the money in politics are... wait for it... politicians. The biggest opponents to the various plans to reduce the amount of money sloshing around in the political system are the politicians themselves. Occasionally, one will wake up from their money-induced stupor, write up a bill that limits the amount of money in the system, maybe even get some co-sponsors, but, if it even comes
Watchdogs (Score:5, Insightful)
As a non american this whole thing has a stink to me of corruption, although a lot of your politics does (no offence, you folks just seem pretty tolerant of money in politics).
It's a combination of corruption and misplaced ideology. So you aren't wrong about that. Ajit Pai is a first class asshat and a corporate stooge.
Money is in politics everywhere. If you think where you live is somehow different your are delusional. The only difference is exactly how the money influences politics in your particular locale. That said it's gotten especially toxic recently in the US. Recently in the US we've had some folks get into power who appointed a supreme court which has a majority with the philosophy that limitations on political spending are somehow a limitation on free speech. It's an absurd and damaging argument because it de-facto makes having more money equal having more free speech rights. There is no currently obvious political path to fixing this foolish state of affairs either even though most americans favor limitations on political spending [pewresearch.org].
Do you guys have an independent (ie beyond the whitehouses reach) corruption watchdog?
The answer to that is complicated. Within the executive branch the answer is technically no but in practice some departments charged with oversight do have reasonable autonomy. Congress also has the ability to provide substantial oversight though lately they've been pretty lax in that duty. And the judicial branch also provides real limits. The press also serves an important function in the US in providing oversight.
Cos this dude seriously needs to be refered to it to find out whos fucking payroll he's on.
It's not really a mystery who Ajit Pai is owned by. He was a lobbyist and industry hack for along time. His political motivations have never been much of a mystery. But as long as the orange orangutan is in the white house and congress is split and/or republican controlled, there isn't much that can be done to curb his excesses.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Watchdogs (Score:5, Informative)
To me that sounds as a no. All the rest is symantics.
Must be nice to live in some mythical land where everything has simple answers.
A watchdog is an entity that is not only willing, but also able to take action AND the action results into something.
Not necessarily. Not all watchdogs are the same nor should they. Watchdogs come in many forms and functions. Sometimes they have strict oversight resposibilities and strong powers. Sometimes their role is merely to point out malfeasance and/or provide objective data. Some (like the press) are outside government entirely and have no formal authority as a watchdog but considerable influence in ways that matter. All of these types of watchdogs are necessary for various purposes and situations. The entire reason out government has executive, legislative, and judicial branches is so that they can all be watchdogs on each other. Any government entity is going to be answerable to either the president, congress, or the supreme court. Your government functions similarly unless you live in a dictatorship.
The US has lots of oversight groups with appropriate levels of independence. For example the Congressional Budget Office [cbo.gov] is a non-partisan group charged with making objective, independent analysis for congressional spending and spending proposals. They do not recommend policies and their role isn't to take actions but merely to inform all interested parties of the facts. They do a good job and they are hugely useful and important as a watchdog. Giving them teeth to enforce actions would actually be counterproductive to their mission as a watchdog.
Re: (Score:3)
To me that sounds as a no. All the rest is symantics.
Must be nice to live in some mythical land where everything has simple answers.
A watchdog is an entity that is not only willing, but also able to take action AND the action results into something.
Not necessarily. Not all watchdogs are the same nor should they. Watchdogs come in many forms and functions. Sometimes they have strict oversight resposibilities and strong powers. Sometimes their role is merely to point out malfeasance and/or provide objective data. Some (like the press) are outside government entirely and have no formal authority as a watchdog but considerable influence in ways that matter..
Do you still think that the press has influence in "ways that matter"? I mean, it used to. But with social media, identity politics, the increased isolation of the population in general (working remotely, less social interaction, etc.), and the press increasing their focus on politics (at the expense of real-world issues) the press has lost a lot of its power of persuasion and is no longer seen as objective.
I would argue that both the Press and Congress are no longer the check on the Executive Branch th
Re: (Score:2)
Ajit Pai is a first class asshat and a corporate stooge.
Isn't it about time we upgrade him from asshat to shitweasel? I'm thinking it's time.
Re: (Score:2)
The argument is there is no point because the senate would not move forward even if the house impeached. This is where Schiff comes in. It isnt as if the senate is nearly 50% held by democrats already, and its not like there are not plenty of Republicans in the senate who would if anything rather have Pence in office than Trump, that probably includes McConnell and Pense himself.
It's too late for that, though. If impeachable evidence was produced early enough in Trump's term, a significant amount of Republicans in Congress would probably have backed it, especially since Pence is much more aligned with traditional Republican values and policies and would have made for your basic, standard Republican president. However, Trump's been in office too long and they've been forced to (at least appear) to back him on so many different things that to turn around and impeach him now would s
Re: (Score:3)
But as long as the orange orangutan is in the white house and congress is split and/or republican controlled, there isn't much that can be done to curb his excesses.
The inescapable reality is the entire investigation really is either witch hunt Trump says it was (possible) and part of plot to overturn a lawfully settled election. Or its all kabuki theater to rile up the base (likely). Either way it does not make Democrats look very good to a thinking person. Not suggesting the GOP is in anyway more noble (its not) but the false virtue the Democrats cloak themselves in is really off putting.
Except that you are ignoring the most important part of the investigation: Understanding how the Russians interfered with the US election
Yes, determining if the Trump campaign teamed up with the Russians was also a part of it. But the really important part was to determine the methods used by the Russians and how to prevent it in the future. That alone was worth the investigation. But everyone is so riled up about their team winning or losing that they are missing the point that all voters lose when glo
Re: (Score:2)
As a non american this whole thing has a stink to me of corruption, although a lot of your politics does (no offence, you folks just seem pretty tolerant of money in politics).
Do you guys have an independent (ie beyond the whitehouses reach) corruption watchdog? Cos this dude seriously needs to be refered to it to find out whos fucking payroll he's on.
Oh, yeah, we got lots of corruption here. That's what happens when various corporate interests effectively take over the government. The vast majority of the population have been shut out of the political process, at least at the state and national level. They can vote every few years for Kang or Kodos and nothing much changes.
The USA is effectively an oligarchy at this point. I think most Americans realize this on some level. But we don't want to admit how bad things really are. We have a self image
Re: (Score:2)
As a non american this whole thing has a stink to me of corruption, although a lot of your politics does (no offence, you folks just seem pretty tolerant of money in politics).
We have no choice. Some people really did try to fix that money in politics issue specifically with a law, but the Supreme Court ruled it was unconstitutional by saying, in part, that corporations were legally the same as people so restricting the money was the same as restricting free speech (violated the first amendment to the US Constitution to do that).
Do you guys have an independent (ie beyond the whitehouses reach) corruption watchdog? Cos this dude seriously needs to be refered to it to find out whos fucking payroll he's on.
Short answer - not really.
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit. What you demand is censorship. You hate people from a different social class and want to censor them. .
If we want to equate money with speech, that's perfectly fine. Limit everyone's political money/speech to a finite number, such as $1000 per year(since there is an actual physical limit on how much a person can actually speak, it makes sense to have a physical limit on how much that speech can be expressed financially). This can be donated to an individual campaign, a PAC, or a political party, in whole or in part. Or are you saying everyone has an equal right to free speech, but some people are more equ
Re: (Score:2)
We have limits on the amount individuals can contribute to a campaign already.
Re: (Score:2)
We have limits on the amount individuals can contribute to a campaign already.
But there are no limits on contributions to PACs, which also have no limits on what they can spend. I say treat a campaign as equal to a PAC as equal to a party. Even better would be to only allow organizations/companies to have the same limits. So, for example, the NRA or Planned Parenthood can only donate a maximum of $1000 a year.
Re: (Score:2)
I see you're getting lots of great responses. Other than echoing the other responses, as an American I'll add that our "system" is corrupt by design. The very fact that "lobbying" exists at all is proof. That someone with big money can hire shills to waste congress' time, and that they'll listen, is corruption.
Our system was supposed to prevent corruption. We grow up learning in school that our system has "checks and balances" built in. However, power mongers have cleverly subverted those loose checks.
Re: (Score:2)
in the 1970's, I remember the ralph nader era. we had people fighting for consumer rights, back then.
whatever happened to that?
oh, right. rethuglicans took over and keep ruining things for regular people ;(
Re: (Score:2)
What you are failing to understand is that we all KNOW it is corruption, every one of us, on both sides. Our system is rife with it. It's blatant and obvious. But because our partisanship has run away with us, we think up ways to defend it do we can shed doubt that our "side" is corrupt.
Look, stop focusing on the details. All that matters over here is being on the winning team. How you get there and what you do with it is unimportant.
Why duplicate efforts? (Score:2)
So ... There seems to be an issue in Minnesota. The Minnesota attorney general and other relevant officials are doing their job and handling it. At the federal level, the FCC has said for the moment they don't see a need to duplicate what Minnesota is already doing.
Why, exactly, should two agencies at two levels of government run duplicate investigations? When the state is doing their job and handling an issue in their state, why exactly should the federal government step in where it really doesn't
Re: (Score:2)
No offense, but as an American, it sounds like the state of Minnesota has this under control and got butt-hurt that the FCC thinks the same thing. That the Federal Government is declining to do something redundant is GOOD news. This asinine indirect "Orange Man Bad" spin fraught with insinuation there is corruption is trash.
As an American, I pity folks in other countries who have succumbed to their Ingsoc EU overlords.
Re: (Score:2)
We shouldn't need a popular referendum on allowing gay marriage anyway, since the constitution already protect such things. Thus most referendums were actually about opposing gay marriage (and in many states these movements were indeed about changing the state's constitution to allow this restriction). The courts are not legislating this, they're just adjudicating between different laws and holding that the constitutions take precedent over the laws derived from the constitutions.
Re: (Score:2)
It's simple, Frontier Communications has a large amount of debt, negative income and will likely go out of business soon. Hence, minimal FCC attention.
Surely those factors warrant enhanced FCC attention, due to the obvious impacts on customers and communications security?
If Frontier's service is that bad... (Score:2)
... and they won't refund customers for lengthy outages, that seems more like a concern for the Federal Trade Commission. Of course, with the current administration, I'm not sure that group will be any more inclined to take up the issue.
Jurisdiction (Score:3)
Also, it looks like Minnesota is investigating Frontier already. If the issues are limited to Minnesota and they are already handling it, not sure why the FCC would need to get involved.
Re:Jurisdiction (Score:5, Informative)
not sure why the FCC would need to get involved.
From the FCC themselves: [fcc.gov]
The Federal Communications Commission regulates interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and U.S. territories.
It is literally what they are supposed to do.
Re: (Score:2)
not sure why the FCC would need to get involved.
From the FCC themselves: [fcc.gov]
The Federal Communications Commission regulates interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and U.S. territories.
It is literally what they are supposed to do.
If Frontier was only violating FCC regulations (e.g. using frequencies that are allocated to another company or purpose), then yes, the FCC should be in charge of the investigation. Based on the summary, though, it sounds like Frontier is committing regular fraud/theft, which can just as easily be handled by civil lawsuits and the state.
Don't get me wrong, Pai is a corporate stooge that should never be allowed anywhere near the FCC, but I do agree on this one issue that the complaints are better handled
Re:Jurisdiction (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Service outages? No - that's an FTC thing. Do you complain to the DOT about the crappy oil change you received? No. The FTC regulates quality of services and goods. The FCC regulates use of bandwidth.
What the FCC does [fcc.gov] - it's about technology, innovation, and use of spectrum. Nothing about quality of service.
What the FTC does [ftc.gov] - it's about protecting from fraudulent, unfair, and deceptive practices like stating 99% uptime then delivering significantly less than that.
I know you hate Orange Man and Pai
Re: (Score:2)
Service outages?
First of all the exact words were: "Frequent and lengthy outages". The FCC doesn't care that you didn't have phone service for an hour. The FCC cares that people in an area can't use 911 for extended periods of time. Again, what do you does "Frequent and lengthy outages" disrupting 911 means to you? Sounds like an FCC thing.
No - that's an FTC thing.
Again false.
Do you complain to the DOT about the crappy oil change you received? No. The FTC regulates quality of services and goods.
Terrible analogy. An oil change has nothing to with the DoT. The FCC by mandate is involved with telephone and internet.
The FCC regulates use of bandwidth.
From your own link: "The Federal Communications Commis
Re: (Score:2)
What Frontier is accused of doing is not limted to state or federal level only. The state, the FCC, and the FTC can have concurrent jurisdiction. In this case the reliability of a telephone network should be a huge concern for the FCC as a matter of public safety when it comes to being able to call 911. The contracts of customers and refunds is a matter for the state/FTC. No one is saying the FCC should take over the state’s investigation; the FCC should conduct their own as it seems Frontier may be in breach of several FCC regulations.
Completely agree. If there are specific issues that are under the FCC's jurisdiction, which you and other posters have pointed out, then the FCC should be investigating those issues.
Re: (Score:2)
In this case the reliability of a telephone network should be a huge concern for the FCC as a matter of public safety when it comes to being able to call 911.
The FCC does not concern itself with minor outages, it has a requirement to consider large-scale and special outages - see https://www.law.cornell.edu/cf... [cornell.edu] - but individual access to call 911 isn't a specific priority, when a large enough number of subscribers suffer an extended outage, then they get involved.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure it has jurisdiction, but only over matters it directly regulates. There are weird jurisdiction and procedural matters that come into play here. For example, if the FCC comes in and starts an investigation into violating a federal rule that has an analog to a state rule, that *may* tank the state investigation. If the state is already in the middle of an investigation, it's better to let them finish and pick up where they left off if they don't turn up anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The FCC has higher jurisdiction than Minnesota especially since telephone and Internet traffic goes beyond state lines and the jurisdictions overlap.
There is no such thing as "higher" jurisdiction. Both entities may have jurisdiction over the same regulatory violations. Which has control over a particular regulation under some specific circumstances is up to an administrative court to decide. Usually it's decided between the federal and state agencies, which is probably what was done in this case, and is done in most cases.
A FCC investigation does not stop a state one and vice versa.
It absolutely can. The issue is, if the conduct rises to a criminal charge for the same underlying rule violation, you can't be char
Re: (Score:2)
There is no such thing as "higher" jurisdiction.
So if a person is accused of murder at federal and state levels, the Federal government cannot request the person for federal murder charges first. Also if there is conviction in both courts, the state gets precedence over the federal government when it comes to incarceration? I think not.
It absolutely can. The issue is, if the conduct rises to a criminal charge for the same underlying rule violation, you can't be charged by both the state and federal regulatory agencies.
First nothing stops both the FCC and the state from investigating. You've confused investigation with "charges". Also you can absolutely be charged at two different levels.
That's double jeopardy. If there are two different rules and two different charges stemming from different conduct, that would be another matter.
That is not double jeopardy [wklaw.com]: "Nothing prevents com
Re: (Score:2)
So if a person is accused of murder at federal and state levels, the Federal government cannot request the person for federal murder charges first. Also if there is conviction in both courts, the state gets precedence over the federal government when it comes to incarceration? I think not.
No, if there is a disagreement between the federal and state prosecutor, it would go before an administrative court to figure out who has jurisdiction.
That is not double jeopardy [wklaw.com]: "Nothing prevents competing state and federal agencies from bringing similar criminal charges arising out of the same act against a single defendant so long as a crime can be charged at both the state and federal level.. Double jeopardy only applies to one jurisdiction at a time. A state government cannot bring a second prosecution against you for the same state crime once you’ve been acquitted. The same goes for the federal government regarding a federal offense."
You're right. It's actually a bit more complicated than that, but for some crimes you *can* be prosecuted twice. That might change, however:
https://www.law.com/thelegalin... [law.com]
Your assumption is that the state and federal levels have exactly the same regulations and the same violations. That may not be the case. Frontier may have violated only state regulations (which the FCC doesn't care about) or only federal violations (which Minnesota has no power to enforce) or both. Both regulatory agencies have investigate separately as to which of their violations may have occurred.
Again, the federal government *may* investigate at the same time, but in general, they'll wait for the state investigation to wrap up. There have been cases where the state and federal (a
Re: (Score:2)
No, if there is a disagreement between the federal and state prosecutor, it would go before an administrative court to figure out who has jurisdiction.
No. Administrative courts [wikipedia.org] do not decide such matters. If there is disagreement between federal and state prosecutors, it can go to the courts but not an administrative court. Most of the time the federal prosecutors will win based on Preemption standards [cornell.edu].
Again, the federal government *may* investigate at the same time, but in general, they'll wait for the state investigation to wrap up.
No there is no "general" when it comes to state vs federal investigations concurrently. The problem is the state is not investigating federal violations of regulations in this case. Minnesota can only investigate violations to Minnesota regulations not fede
Re: (Score:2)
The complaints are about local service and billing - not interstate communications.
The FCC monitors for large-scale outages, but minor extended outages are outside their purview.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The FCC only gets involved if multiple states have filed a complaint against the same company, or there's an issu
Re: (Score:2)
Wired communications monopolies (like Frontier) are regulated by the state's Public Utilities Commission [mn.gov]. That's the trade-off the state/local government offers when it gives a company (a utility) a monopoly. The company gets a monopoly, but it's regulated by the state's PUC. I suggest you browse your state's PUC website [wikipedia.org] to learn more about how it works, since you seem to be unaware of this.
I suggest you learn what concurrent jurisdiction [wikipedia.org] means. Any entity can be under two different bodies of regulation. It is not either/or when it comes to jurisdiction. While state and local laws may apply to telephone and internet, Federal laws supersedes them. In some cases there might be laws and regulations that apply in one jurisdiction and not the other.
The FCC only gets involved if multiple states have filed a complaint against the same company, or there's an issue which spans multiple states (e.g. long distance phone service), or said company is violating FCC rules and regulations and the state fails to act.
False. This is just regulatory action [commlawcenter.com] for Jan 2018.
If the Minnesota PUC has absolved Frontier of wrongdoing and decided not to take action, then attempting to kick the complaint up to the FCC is venue shopping - appealing to the other parent because you didn't like the first parent's decision.
No, that's not how federal and state laws work. For any violation of the law on two levels, you can f
Re: (Score:2)
*Interstate* means between states, not within one state. *Literally* Minnesota seems to have this under control and may, in an oddly positive turn of events in US history, actually be able to handle this with state, rather than Federal, power.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Jurisdiction (Score:2)
Yes, its authority covers all 50 states. /reading101
That doesn't mean every issue within state boundaries.
Just because it received federal money for an interstate project doesn't mean the problems identified in a single state are within its purview.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
First of all, this isn't a violation of federal regulations, it's a Terms of Service violation. Nor is it about Federal funding, nor the project for which the funding was granted.
Further, this is about service in MN, period.
So it's a MN issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If the issues are limited to Minnesota and they are already handling it, not sure why the FCC would need to get involved.
Because Ajit Pai! This is Slashdot, after all.
Re: (Score:3)
Isolated to a singular state (Score:1, Informative)
If it's isolated to a singular state, and state agencies are investigating, why would a federal agency get involved? If it's determined to cross state lines then of course a federal agency will get involved. Why are people so ignorant of this?
Re: (Score:2)
It isn’t though. Every market they took over from Verizon is likely to have similar experiences. They also get federal money, so it is a federal issue.
Frontier will be bankrupt soon enough though, so someone else will come in and sweep up their assets.
Re:Isolated to a singular state (Score:5, Informative)
If it's isolated to a singular state, and state agencies are investigating, why would a federal agency get involved? If it's determined to cross state lines then of course a federal agency will get involved. Why are people so ignorant of this?
If you had read the article, you would know. Ignorant, indeed.
Re: (Score:2)
The Muslims have it right (Score:1, Funny)
Sometimes Jihad is the answer.
Maybe I'm wrong but (Score:4)
Don't Telecoms fall under Public Utility Commission jurisdiction vs the FCC ?
I know anytime we have a big outage it's a " PUC Reportable ".
Re: (Score:2)
The complaints in this story are from ONE state, so by this article, the issue is a state-level issue, being addressed at the state level.
"For a chairman concerned with rooting out fraud" (Score:3)
Shill (Score:3, Informative)
What do you expect? He's an Ex Verizon exec. He has no business being in that position.
Why post this? (Score:2)
Lets save everyone some effort and simply report when Ajit Pai actually does something beneficial or useful to the average consumer. That would actually be news.
Frontier SUX (Score:3)
They're still tacking on $10/mo for their router even though 1) I don't have it, sent it back with receipts using their packaging 2) won't remove the $10 because I have to "have their router" and "it's necessary for support." Yeah Frontier SUX so I'm kicking them to the curb, fortunately I have alternatives.
No, he didn't (Score:3)
As you know, in 2015, the Commission authorized Frontier to receive CAP Phase II model-based support for nearly 47,000 locations in Minnesota. Before the Commission issued this authorization, Frontier provided a written commitment stating that it would satisfy the service obligations associated with this funding and acknowledging that failure to do so could result in penalties andlor enforcement actions. Since that authorization, Frontier has reported to the FCC that it has met or exceeded each of its deployment milestones in CAP-eligible areas in Minnesota and annually submitted the required reports and certifications. Moreover, the Minnesota Public Utility Commission has annually certified to the Commission that Frontier used the high-cost funds appropriately.
Nevertheless, the FCC will remain vigilant to ensure that our rules are observed and taxpayer funds respected. Accordingly, I have conveyed the information from your letter regarding the state commission’s investigation to our staff and have asked them carefully to monitor this development. Thank you for bringing this aspect of the issue to my attention.
That doesn't sound like a "refusal to investigate" to me? Maybe the Minnesota PUC should be complaining to the FCC too if the service is so bad?
Re: (Score:2)
Moreover, the Minnesota Public Utility Commission has annually certified to the Commission that Frontier used the high-cost funds appropriately.
This quote flies in the face of the baseless claims many previous posters have made on this thread - the Minnesota PUC is satisfied with Frontiers compliance with federal requirements regarding rural development, why are people claiming otherwise? Perhaps because their particular rural location hasn't been prioritized, therefore they feel slighted and are lashing out at Frontier?
As long as you ignore how the US is set up... (Score:2)
...this anger makes perfect sense. Look, I understand this is more about side-signalling, and we should all agree that we hate Ajit Pai and Trump for the discussion to continue, amirite?
But here's a hint: see if you can remember what the "F" in FCC stands for?
This is an issue about Frontier and their shitty network IN MINNESOTA. For those of you from outside the US (and Americans who apparently slept through civics class) that means IT IS NOT A FEDERAL ISSUE. In the US states are like mini-countries, n
Re: (Score:2)
Hardly.
Just because a company receives federal funding or engages in interstate commerce doesn't mean every legal issue they face is suddenly federal.
The very idea is just silly. By your logic, they'd be sued in FEDERAL courts for, say, a building code violation?
LOL
Of course he is not (Score:2)
Never have the people been less represented by a appointed buffoon.
Re: (Score:3)
They need to stamp out the robo-callers. Until that's done, they have no other priorities as far as I'm concerned.
Seriously? Just don't answer the phone. Or do what I do; play along until they realize you are trying to waste their time and start swearing at you. I find that really fun and satisfying.
don't use the service? really? (Score:5, Insightful)
So you mean if you don't like the phone service, don't use a phone? If you don't like your electric company's service, don't use electricity? That might work for you in your world, but most of us can't just go without these things being classified as "essential services". And in places where services are monopolies (or effective monopolies, where the only options are vastly inferior) we have to rely on the government that granted them the monopoly to police their behavior. That's the deal they were given, "we're going to allow this monopoly, as long as you don't abuse it"
But this is all just boiling down to a conflict of interest in the position. Pai's got two jobs to do as commissioner - do what he's told to do, and perform the duties of his position. Mr T has created a conflict in MANY parts of government by either ordering people in those positions to act contrary to their position's duty, or by replacing the ones that refuse with stooges that will do what he says regardless of their duty to position. (he can't get rid of the department that is doing what he hates, so he's just going to undermine it to the point of being unable to do its job) Pai was put in that position because he would tow the line. And if he stops, he'll just be replaced with someone else that will. Does that make Pai evil? Probably. (or at least immoral) Would it matter if someone else was in the position? Probably not. They'd either behave the same, or get replaced with someone that would. This isn't corruption, it's croneyism.
And Pai's not the problem here, he's just the face of it.
Re: (Score:2)
So you mean if you don't like the phone service, don't use a phone?
Ever heard of wireless phones? They're no longer the stuff of Dick Tracy cartoons - you can get one at your local Best Buy and "cut the cord" with a wired phone provider you don't like.
If you don't like your electric company's service, don't use electricity?
Consider investigating Solar Power - roof-mounted solar cells can easily meet the needs of a modest household.
Re:don't use the service? really? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a federal issue when Frontier is RECEIVING FEDERAL FUNDING to service rural areas and doing a crap job at it.
Read the article.
Re: (Score:2)
"Pai and Trump are both conservatives, meaning they want less government involvement in the states (back to the founders' original documents and their intent as described in more detail the federalist papers)"
Maybe that's what Trump wants, but does anyone honestly believe he has read ANY of the federalist papers or could even say 3 sentences about their contents without using the words federalist or papers?
Re: (Score:2)
We have no choice but to use them or satellite.
Please re-read what you wrote - carefully.
I wasn't aware that Minnesota (the entire state) had only one telco operator (Frontier), no other internet provider or cable TV operator... Oh wait: https://www.mvtvwireless.com/o... [mvtvwireless.com]
Re:Republicans Are Complicit (Score:5, Insightful)
In the decay of America. Putin pulling those strings. Trump dances.
Not really sure we need to use the Putin straw man. Self interest and those of wealthy friends does not necessarily need the influence of an external power.
Re: (Score:2)
In the decay of America. Putin pulling those strings. Trump dances.
Not really sure we need to use the Putin straw man. Self interest and those of wealthy friends does not necessarily need the influence of an external power.
Yeah. Frontier and its precursor company have been providing crappy service since Joseph Stalin's reign of terror.
Re: Republicans Are Complicit (Score:2, Informative)
When Republicans are in power, businesses know they can get away with more.
Trump isn't enforcing Obama Era consumer or environmental regulations.
Re: Republicans Are Complicit (Score:5, Insightful)
Stop it.
Not every problem involving communications is the responsibility of the FCC to investigate. From the fine summary:
The Minnesota Attorney General's office is investigating whether Frontier violated state consumer-protection laws,
That seems appropriate.
the state's two U.S. senators asked Pai to have the FCC investigate as well. When Pai wrote back to the senators, he said that he has asked his staff to "monitor" the state investigation but made no commitment to have the FCC investigate, too.
"Made no commitment to have the FCC investigate" is not the same as "refuses to investigate."
Pai in effect said, "not now, but we'll keep an eye on it" - if the only complaints are limited to Minnesota, then an investigation by the Minnesota Attorney General sounds about right - once other states start complaining and investigating, then it may be appropriate for the FCC to step in.
Re: (Score:3)
"Made no commitment to have the FCC investigate" is not the same as "refuses to investigate."
This.
I mean, seriously, I didn't vote for the SOB either; I've despised Trump since the 1980s, but the TDS carriers fling so much fake crap about Trump that it almost makes me doubt the reality of all the real crap.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't have it both ways.
Politicians of every party have been having it both ways for as long as there have been politicians. Usually it's justified by "Those other guys did it first."
Re: (Score:2)
In the decay of America. Putin pulling those strings.
Putin has an opinion on the quality of internet speed in Minnesota? Does that seem far-fetched?
Re: Republicans Are Complicit (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The auto industry went tits up? Really? Then what were all those things blocking my way to work this morning.
Maybe you should talk to some of the business leaders that fled those cities, and took their businesses to other places like South Carolina and Tennessee that didn't have the Democrat policies that made it impossible for them to compete in the open markets.
The auto industry is doing just fine. Detroit is in shambles due to policies like forcing a business to pay unemployment for a fired employee,
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That months-long outage affects how many subscribers? The FCC is limited in the size of outages it investigates - they don't even want to know about smaller outages, per federal regulation - https://www.law.cornell.edu/cf... [cornell.edu]
Re: (Score:2)
My problem with frontier is that they knew what they were doing when they purchased the old phone lines. Instead of investing their own money in upgrading them, They are siphoning any profit that can be made from the old lines. Meanwhile they are a professional government handout seeking organization seeking funds to cherry pick locations that are profitable, without the government funding. I think they are paying out profits while setting themselves up for a government bailout in the future, because "OMG I can't loose my intenet."
In other words, your problem with Frontier is that they are a profit-seeking organization, not a non-profit charity, content to lose money year after year for your and your neighbors personal benefit.
Got it.