Biden selects Rosenworcel as acting chair of Federal Communications Commission

[RaleighGuy]

Biden designated Jessica Rosenworcel to serve as the acting chairwoman of the Federal Communications Commission. Rosenworcel is a fervent supporter of net neutrality. Rosenworcel still may face early early obstacles at the commission. New vacancies at the FCC may leave it deadlocked at two Democrats and two Republicans

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/21/biden-ftc-fcc-chair/

 

[djmorgan]

Biden designated Jessica Rosenworcel to serve as the acting chairwoman of the Federal Communications Commission. Rosenworcel is a fervent supporter of net neutrality. Rosenworcel still may face early early obstacles at the commission. New vacancies at the FCC may leave it deadlocked at two Democrats and two Republicans

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/21/biden-ftc-fcc-chair/

During the riot today in San Antonio to demand police reforms in the upcoming Police contract I monitored people coordinating their efforts on two-way radios and twitter. Does the FCC monitor these riots or do they only work on a complaint basis?

 

[RaleighGuy]

During the riot today in San Antonio to demand police reforms in the upcoming Police contract I monitored people coordinating their efforts on two-way radios and twitter. Does the FCC monitor these riots or do they only work on a complaint basis?

Due to limited resources, and huge number of protests around the country, they don't have the man power to monitor illegal radio traffic at all protests or events. I'm sure similar activity goes on at major sporting events, air shows, large parades and other places large groups of people gather as well. Most enforcement activities are done after repeated complaints over a period of time rather than at an isolated event.

 

[AK9R]

Does the FCC monitor these riots or do they only work on a complaint basis?

You might want to take a look at the FCC announcement in this thread: FCC: Amateur & Personal Radio Users Reminded Not to Use Radios in Crimes

 

[mmckenna]

Does the FCC monitor these riots or do they only work on a complaint basis?

Everything I've experienced is that they are complaint based enforcement.

 

[RaleighGuy]

You might want to take a look at the FCC announcement in this thread: FCC: Amateur & Personal Radio Users Reminded Not to Use Radios in Crimes

Which amounts to something less than wear your seat belts

 

[es93546]

I'm glad she is a defender of net neutrality. That is important, especially to rural residents. We fear that internet providers will charge more for remote areas. There are some house and senate members who have advocated a change, even calling the system where IP's charging differential fees "net neutrality," when the opposite is true.

As for interference enforcement, I wish someone would pass a bill to give the FCC more enforcement presence. Sometimes it is out of control where I live, right next to a major ski area. People bring handhelds from the city and somehow thing they have an exclusive right to the frequency outside of their FCC license authorization area. Sometimes they get a hold of some type of programmable radio and just put in whatever frequency they think they can get away with. They may, or may not, have a business license in the city. Sometimes they start interfering with businesses in town.

A couple of times while I was working for the U.S. Forest Service I would hear them talking simplex on USFS repeater input frequencies. If, by chance, they programmed a tone along with the input frequency used for a nearby repeater they could not hear the repeater as they were working simplex. I tried to locate these folks, sometimes programming my BK handheld to work simplex also. I would talk to them and not identify myself, but they always got suspicious and stopped transmitting, sometimes when I was within 1,000 or less feet from them. They were in large campgrounds, so I didn't have the advantage of them being the only people in an area. I realize the USFS frequencies are not in the jurisdiction of the FCC, but their presence would help find these folks. A few times it seemed like these people might have been firefighters who brought their work radios with them on vacation and were using them similar to FRS radios. A couple of times, when someone got suspicious, someone would come on the air and tell their wife or kids to stop transmitting and "go to channel 2," which I had no idea of what it was. I smelled a firefighter with some radio experience being behind it all.

As it stands right now, interference in rural areas is likely far down the list of priorities.

 

[mmckenna]

As it stands right now, interference in rural areas is likely far down the list of priorities.

The FCC will prioritize interference to public safety agencies. They just don't respond very fast, and they don't have enough staff to go around. I talked to one of their guys a few months ago, and he was nice and helpful. But basically it requires an agency to complain, and provide some details for them to work off of. Even then, it's one guy with a small spectrum analyzer and a directional antenna. Only so much they can do.

 

[n1das]

You might want to take a look at the FCC announcement in this thread: FCC: Amateur & Personal Radio Users Reminded Not to Use Radios in Crimes

I picked this up on the myGMRS.com forums. It's an old thread from 2016 and it documents types of activities which might have prompted the FCC's "friendly reminder" not to use radios in crimes. Note the popularity of the Baofeng UV-5R being freely used.

Militia Radio Frequencies

The militia-patriot movement in America has embraced radio communications in a big way. Within the past decade, the methods and communications gear have evolved from basic CB or FRS radios, to now …

radiofreeq.wordpress.com

Rosenworcel being a fervent defender of net neutralilty is good news.

 

[AK9R]

We fear that internet providers will charge more for remote areas.

Given that the expense of providing high-speed Internet to rural areas, where the population density is much less than in cities and suburbs, is higher, why shouldn't providers be able to charge higher rates?

As for interference enforcement, I wish someone would pass a bill to give the FCC more enforcement presence.

It takes funding. Are you willing to pay higher taxes and/or fees in order to get better service from the FCC? Should Congress allocate more money to the FCC for enforcement? How about more money to the NWS for weather forecasting? Or, more money to the Federal Highway Administration so they can fund road improvements? Or, more money for school lunch programs so our kids get fed? Granted, the U.S. federal government wastes a lot of money on seemingly frivolous projects. But, those frivolous projects are important to somebody even if they aren't important to you.

But basically it requires an agency to complain, and provide some details for them to work off of.

That's why the FCC and ARRL collaborated on the development of the Volunteer Monitor program so that the VMs can collect details that are forwarded to the FCC for further investigation and action.

Note the popularity of the Baofeng UV-5R being freely used.

Unfortunately, there are still too many people on the Internet who say you can use these radios on GMRS, MURS, etc., and you probably won't get caught.

 

[es93546]

Given that the expense of providing high-speed Internet to rural areas, where the population density is much less than in cities and suburbs, is higher, why shouldn't providers be able to charge higher rates?

That could be said for electric utilities, phone and cable TV services as well. Traditionally, all customers pay the same amount for these three services, regardless of their location. Why should the internet be any different? Sure, there are many services unique to rural areas, especially in California, with its huge urban population, that comprises 95% of the states population. Rural counties cannot generate enough gas tax revenue to build and maintain the state highways in their counties, so gas taxes collected in urban areas, in a manner of thinking subsidize the road systems in rural counties. However, the county I live in gets very high visitation from the population in cities. Look at the cell phone system, it takes a lot of towers to cover rural counties. Rural residents don't pay more for their cell service. However, look at the visitors to rural counties, who demand cell phone service be better in areas they take their vacations. Sometimes the rural residents don't really care if certain areas get better coverage, it is the urban residents visiting who push for better coverage.

Rural areas not only provide places for people to recreate, they also provide much of the water used for irrigation and residential use. Should we charge the urban residents for this? Watersheds that produce clean water require efforts of federal, state and local governments. The rural counties don't charge urban residents for those costs. Rural areas also produce agricultural products for urban consumption. These are but a few of the services rural areas provide to allow urban residents to survive. However, urban areas refine the oil and manufacture most of the products we need in rural areas to survive. The point is that both the urban and rural areas depend on each other and charging more for rural residents internet access doesn't make sense in light of how the other utilities have shared costs to all customers in the system.

It takes funding. Are you willing to pay higher taxes and/or fees in order to get better service from the FCC? Should Congress allocate more money to the FCC for enforcement? How about more money to the NWS for weather forecasting? Or, more money to the Federal Highway Administration so they can fund road improvements? Or, more money for school lunch programs so our kids get fed? Granted, the U.S. federal government wastes a lot of money on seemingly frivolous projects. But, those frivolous projects are important to somebody even if they aren't important to you.

Of course, I realize this better than most folks may. I'm retired from the U.S. Forest Service and worked during 7 presidential administrations. I've seen budgets grow, only to be slashed by the next administration because they don't understand or appreciate what natural resource agencies accomplish. Of that 7 I watched 2 of those presidents that were openly and not so openly, hostile to us. As for budgets it is always a matter of priorities. Everyone sees the priorities differently. The only thing I can say without being too political, is that the warning about the military-industrial complex given by Dwight Eisenhower has been ignored. I think we can't provide a lot of services given what is spent in that area. But again, that is just my opinion and of course, others will disagree with me.

 

[es93546]

I picked this up on the myGMRS.com forums. It's an old thread from 2016 and it documents types of activities which might have prompted the FCC's "friendly reminder" not to use radios in crimes. Note the popularity of the Baofeng UV-5R being freely used.

Militia Radio Frequencies

The militia-patriot movement in America has embraced radio communications in a big way. Within the past decade, the methods and communications gear have evolved from basic CB or FRS radios, to now …

radiofreeq.wordpress.com

Rosenworcel being a fervent defender of net neutralilty is good news.

I took a brief look at the article you linked to and noticed it is from 2016. Some of the news reports of the capitol insurrection have noted that the event was preplanned and coordinated, showing these terrorists using the same model of radio. So, nearly 5 years after that article, what they wer observing was repeated.

 

[AK9R]

Why should the internet be any different?

So, are you advocating that Internet Service Providers have oversight from public utility commissions and go through rate-setting hearings before those commissions?

I don't know how it is in CA. In Indiana, there is a public utility commission that oversees things like electric, natural gas, and water utilities. A privately-owned electric utility can't raise their rates with out going before the PUC. ISPs have no such restrictions. They can raise their rates whenever they want. On the other hand, in most IN communities, customers have two choices for Internet service: the local telephone provider (which is regulated by the state) or the local cable TV provider (which is not regulated by the state). And, the odd twist with the cable TV providers is that they were often granted exclusive franchises by the various cities and towns. Now that the cable providers have moved towards being ISPs, they still have exclusive franchises in their territories. My electric utility, which began life as a rural electric cooperative, has partnered with a fiber Internet provider, but they are blocked from running that fiber into neighborhoods where the cable TV providers have an exclusive franchise.

The point I'm making is that net neutrality seems to be about choice, but there are other factors besides one cable TV provider, now ISP, blocking content from their competitors. I'm highly in favor of customers having a choice of ISP, but it will be expensive to provide that choice in rural areas and I think that fairly applying that choice means that the cable TV franchises need to be abolished. Unfortunately, the major cable TV carriers have been allowed to transition into huge media conglomerates (Comcast, I'm talking about you) with immense lobbying power in Washington DC.

 

[es93546]

So, are you advocating that Internet Service Providers have oversight from public utility commissions and go through rate-setting hearings before those commissions?

I don't know how it is in CA. In Indiana, there is a public utility commission that oversees things like electric, natural gas, and water utilities. A privately-owned electric utility can't raise their rates with out going before the PUC. ISPs have no such restrictions. They can raise their rates whenever they want. On the other hand, in most IN communities, customers have two choices for Internet service: the local telephone provider (which is regulated by the state) or the local cable TV provider (which is not regulated by the state). And, the odd twist with the cable TV providers is that they were often granted exclusive franchises by the various cities and towns. Now that the cable providers have moved towards being ISPs, they still have exclusive franchises in their territories. My electric utility, which began life as a rural electric cooperative, has partnered with a fiber Internet provider, but they are blocked from running that fiber into neighborhoods where the cable TV providers have an exclusive franchise.

The point I'm making is that net neutrality seems to be about choice, but there are other factors besides one cable TV provider, now ISP, blocking content from their competitors. I'm highly in favor of customers having a choice of ISP, but it will be expensive to provide that choice in rural areas and I think that fairly applying that choice means that the cable TV franchises need to be abolished. Unfortunately, the major cable TV carriers have been allowed to transition into huge media conglomerates (Comcast, I'm talking about you) with immense lobbying power in Washington DC.

You raise some very good points. Thank you for the information you provided. I had not considered the other utilities and the state PUC's. I'm aging and losing some cognitive functioning and should have remembered that factor. I know I would have just a few years ago. Aging sucks! Actually my cognitive loss is associated with a trauma that visited me 4 decades ago. I won't go any further on this.

The small town I live in doesn't really have choice. We have a cable TV ISP, but I'm not sure if the town has given them a franchise. We can also use Verizon as our ISP. We are in a unique situation here. In 2009-2010 a fiber optic line was laid in from Barstow, California to Carson City, Nevada. It was the first utility to connect Mono and Inyo Counties with Nevada. This was an American Recovery project that was dubbed "Digital 395" as it was buried next to U.S. Highway 395 for most of its route. It was considered a priority project as California's main existing fiber optic lines were sort of a single path situation that in the case of failure could not be rerouted to northern Nevada. Digital 395 provided a second access point or connection. Both the states of Nevada and California were involved in getting this project completed. . The counties were also involved and their authorization mandated that some communities off of U.S. 395 had to be connected as part of the project. So the somewhat remote counties of the eastern Sierra have fiber optic connections, which reach a point in town where our connections are carried over TV cable to individual homes and businesses. We are able to get the same speeds that metro areas have. We have speeds that far exceed what is guaranteed for our accounts. Verizon opted to not participate in the Digital 395 project and offered much less than the TV company does. Nearly everyone dropped their Verizon provider in favor of the TV companies fiber optic connection.

Now, if net neutrality is abolished individual websites could charge above that if we wished to connect with them. This kicks out the little guys and would turn the internet into a,"those with the most money would have the loudest voices," similar to how our Congress is functioning now. The "Citizens United" Supreme Court ruling facilitates that. That is what the net neutrality advocates are trying to prevent on the internet. Given my cognitive difficulties this is the best I can do off the top of my head. You may offer a different perspective on this.

The last sentence of your post is concerning. Conglomerates have been lobbying to end net neutrality. Those in the Congress that are advancing their causes have lied about what net neutrality is.

 

[es93546]

P.S. Our internet connection fee is comparable to what people in metro areas pay. That is why I raised the point that the entire system or grid shares the costs, just like PUC regulated utilities.

 

[INDY72]

Want to step on toes about it? Bundling, this is the real problem. Telecom giants now can spank you all day as they combined TV, ISP, landline telephone, cellular, and even satellite media. That is where the real evil is now. Convenience has a cost, that you lost your real freedom of choice to being all in one slaves. Same as with scanners.