This home in Silver Spring became fully involved in fire after neighbors couldn't reach 911 and had to rescue the 94-year old resident themselves.

More than 10,000 calls to 911 during last month’s blizzard on the east coast failed to reach emergency officials over Verizon’s network according to the Federal Communications Commission.  Even worse, terrorism experts suspect the 911 failures could impact the entire nation during a major disaster, weather event, or terrorist attack.

Last month, a Silver Spring residence went up in flames and neighbors had to rescue the 94-year old owner themselves after repeated attempts to call 911 failed.

The latest and most serious incident occurred in Washington, D.C. and its suburbs Jan. 26 when a snowstorm triggered more than 10,000 calls for help that never reached emergency responders.  The blame is being laid at the feet of one company — Verizon Communications.

All 14 circuits in the Verizon network that properly route all wireless calls in Montgomery County failed and nine of 10 Verizon circuits in Prince George’s County failed over a five-hour period on the night in question. This resulted in approximately 8,300 blocked 911 calls in Montgomery County and 1,700 blocked 911 calls in Prince George’s County that evening, according to Rear Admiral Jamie Barnett, Chief of the FCC’s Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau.

“I know that you will agree that any 911 call which is not connected can have serious consequences, but the large number of missed 911 calls on January 26 is truly alarming,” Barnett wrote Verizon. “The ability to call 911 is critical to the safety of the public. This is especially true during extreme weather events. The public rightly expects that they can use 911 to reach the appropriate first responders in an emergency. In addition to your written response, I request a meeting with appropriate representatives from Verizon within the next two weeks to discuss your resolution of this matter.”

Barnett and the FCC also expressed concerns these problems may not be an isolated incident, but could be a nightmare waiting to happen wherever Verizon provides telephone service.

Verizon blamed an equipment failure and an avalanche of calls for the problem.

“We have been addressing this issue directly with the counties involved, and will work cooperatively to address the FCC’s questions, as well,” said Harry Mitchell, a Verizon spokesman.

[flv width=”600″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Montgomery County 911 No answer.flv[/flv]

This YouTube video shows a 911 call in Montgomery County going unanswered for nearly a minute and a half.  (2 minutes)

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WUSA Washington 911 Service Problems 2-22-11.flv[/flv]

WUSA-TV in Washington has followed the 911 disruptions for several weeks now.  Channel 9 picks up the story starting with the fire in Silver Spring.  (6 minutes)

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WTTG Washington 911 Service Problems 2-22-11.flv[/flv]

WTTG-TV in Washington also reports on the frustration from 911 callers as well as city and local officials annoyed with Verizon.  (6 minutes)

Watching two governments — one in Ottawa, the other Washington — debate important broadband issues has been an illuminating experience for this American.  As Canada continues to deal with a firestorm of protests against broadband pricing ripoffs from usage-based billing, the debate over Net Neutrality achieved new levels of absurdity in Washington yesterday as a largely Republican crowd fought to overturn the FCC’s watered-down open Internet protection policies.

Watching and listening to a combined eight hours of hearings both north and south of the border this month has cast a striking contrast between our two governments.  After it was all over, I can forgive anyone who decides Congress is filled with a bunch of uninformed meat-heads who fight for the talking points attached to their fat contribution checks from the telecommunications industry.

It is unseemly watching Republicans fall all over themselves to impress AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast with their grasp of these companies’ arguments against an open and free Internet.  There are also some bad Democrats on AT&T and Verizon’s virtual payroll, but the hearings this week in the House of Representatives were over the top — a Republican Valentine’s Day present for Big Telecom, replete with clueless representatives who clearly don’t understand the concept of Net Neutrality beyond the 3×5 index cards handed to them by one of their respective staffers.  For the most reactionary members, handing out photoshopped-pictures of Leon Trotsky hugging Barack Obama in front of a spool of fiber optic cable would have been just as effective.

The deservedly-undercovered Judiciary Committee hearings featured a single wireless ISP (WISP) owner who appears to spend most of his free time writing in the Comment sections of major American newspapers and social media sites.  His concern?  A technicality in the current Net Neutrality rules about customers running web servers.  ServerGate.  There’s a hot button issue if there ever was one.  Brett Glass’ customers are much more interested in watching online video, a concept that frightens a lot of WISP owners into placing usage caps on their service to discourage them from doing that.

Chairman Walden

Another witness at that hearing came straight from a telecom industry funded think tank.  Inviting AT&T to appear themselves would have effectively cut out the middleman and saved everyone a whole lot of time.

Gigi Sohn from Public Knowledge was left alone to stick up for Julius Genachowski’s cowardly-lion Net Neutrality rules, which in this author’s opinion are barely better than nothing, fatally flawed and one court decision away from oblivion.

Yesterday’s hearing featured FCC Commissioners on a partisan griddle as members of Congress asked softball questions of those they favored, and strafed the ones they don’t with long-winded lectures.

Republican members had no time for stories of Providers Gone Wild, particularly Comcast’s secret squeeze of its customers’ broadband speeds when running peer-to-peer software.  Such stories conflict with their talking point world view that broadband from the private sector should be run any damn way they please.  When some go to far, “they are isolated incidents” claimed Republican members, to the nodding affirmation of the two Republican commissioners.

Julius Genachowski was reduced to defending his homeopathic net regulations as a regulatory “light touch” — like a dew kissed raspberry on a summer morning.  But representing regulation as harmless didn’t do him any favors, because he forgot his audience.

Drive-by Hearing: For much of the hearing, C-SPAN cameras caught most of the seats empty as members came and went.

No argument about moderated government regulation is ever going to fly in a room with members like Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) who spent her five minutes of talk time scorching the FCC for holding up the Comcast-NBC merger with questions.  How. dare. they.

Congressional hearings used to be about fact finding and allowing members to educate themselves on the issues before casting their votes.  No more.  These days, hearings are an exchange of preconceived talking points as members switch between grilling or ignoring the witnesses they don’t like while fawning over those they do.

GigaOm called the entire affair “nauseating” and helpfully condensed the only three things you need to take from the hearings:

• FCC Chairman Genachowski said the Level 3 and Comcast debate over access to Comcast’s last mile subscribers is a business issue and not a net neutrality issue.
• FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell resurrected the ghost of unlicensed white spaces and set it up as a competitive threat to existing ISPs. He then used that threat of eventual competition to argue we no longer need net neutrality rules. I tend to agree that if we had robust broadband competition, we wouldn’t need network neutrality, but according to McDowell, white spaces aren’t dead. If they aren’t dead, that’s important.
• The FCC will keep the docket open on its effort to reclassify broadband, which would give the FCC the legal authority under existing laws regulate broadband as a transportation service (the so-called Title II authority). This is a good thing for network neutrality fans, as the existing net neutrality rules will likely be challenged in court, and keeping that docket open leaves a back door for the FCC to implement rules. However, the industry hates the idea of reclassification and will fight it tooth and nail. It also means more hearings, comments and arguments over the entire issue.

Contrast this with more than a week of hearings in Canada on usage-based billing.  The differences are nothing less than striking.  Members attending those hearings were well-informed about most of the issues surrounding the usage-based billing debate and aside from the occasional minor grandstanding and long-winded questions, got to the bottom of the issues at hand and were prepared to challenge assertions made in all sides of the debate.  They even pronounced everything correctly.  A 10 minute exchange over the pricing formulas for Bell’s wholesale Gateway Access Service (GAS) probably won’t get you a soundbite on the evening news, but it will enlighten a member of Parliament about just how unjustified these pricing schemes are.

Not so in Washington, where net policy nuance is a French word meaning “weakness” or “socialist takeover.”

Bell Canada must surely wish they lived in a country where the hired help in Congress can reflexively support whatever is on the company’s agenda… for the right price.  For the moment, they are stuck exchanging Valentines with their close friends at the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, most of whom came from the industry they now regulate.

Minutes after Washington’s hearings ended, several Republicans, with their minds already made up, introduced a Joint Resolution to override the FCC’s authority on Net Neutrality and sweep the free and open Internet into a dustbin.  There are new owners of the Internet in town and it’s past time you got used to it — they are AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast.  Your bill is in the mail.  You can thank us now or later.

Congress' Joint Resolution requires a simple majority -and- the President's signature to pass. Ironically, the Republicans touted the measure as "filibuster-proof," but considering the president is likely to veto it, a filibuster is the least of their problems.

Just shy of one month after adoption, the Federal Communication Commission’s Net Neutrality rules face a legal challenge by one of the parties that helped write them.

Verizon Communications filed suit Thursday in the same federal court that in April threw out much of the authority the FCC thought it had over online telecommunications.

“We are deeply concerned by the FCC’s assertion of broad authority for sweeping new regulation of broadband networks and the Internet itself,” said Michael E. Glover, Verizon’s senior vice president and deputy general counsel. “We believe this assertion of authority goes well beyond any authority provided by Congress, and creates uncertainty for the communications industry, innovators, investors and consumers.”

Verizon’s lead attorney in the case in Helgi Walker, who will be a familiar face in the court — Walker successfully argued the original case Comcast brought against the Commission for trying to regulate its Internet service.

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski's cowardly cave-in on strong Net Neutrality was rewarded with... a lawsuit from Verizon to overturn the regulations the company helped write.

But Verizon wants an even greater shot at success, asking for the same panel of judges who ruled in the Comcast case to also hear its challenge.

“Verizon has made a blatant attempt to locate its challenge in a favorable appeals court forum,” said Andrew Jay Schwartzman, senior vice president and policy director of the Media Access Project.

Outgunned.  Again.

The earlier decision in the Comcast case not only stripped the FCC’s authority to regulate broadband under a regulatory framework established under the Bush Administration, it derided the logic behind it.  During arguments, the FCC’s general counsel acknowledged he was likely to lose the case, and actually asked the Court for guidance on how to write better rules.

Remarkably, Verizon’s legal challenge comes after the company worked closely with the Commission to moderate Net Neutrality regulations.  The rules issued in December exempted wireless communications and were criticized by consumer groups for not truly representing a free and open Internet.

Rob Pegoraro, a Washington Post columnist, was incredulous the phone company was spending subscribers’ money fighting net policies that nearly mirrored the voluntary agreement it reached with Google last year.

“Okay, so you’re going to spend some of my money to fight a minimal set of regulations written to stop you from tampering with my Internet access? How is that supposed to make me feel comfortable doing business with you?

“(Note to Verizon: You are not only an enormous telecom conglomerate, you are The Phone Company. You don’t get to say “trust me.”)

“Then I got more annoyed.

“The regulations that Verizon regards as an affront to the Constitution match up closely with the proposal that Verizon published with Google in August–a suggested regulatory framework that many people, myself included, criticized for its minimal restrictions on wireless broadband services.

[…] “And not only did Verizon think that its proposed set of rules would be good for business last summer, it did so as recently as 2:25 p.m. Thursday, when a post on its public-policy blog favorably cited those suggestions.”

Nate Anderson at Ars Technica isn’t sure why Verizon is spending time fighting rules it supposedly agrees with either, and he produced a chart proving it:

Excerpted below are the main Verizon/Google provisions, followed by their matching item in the FCC’s “open Internet” order from December. All are exact quotes.

Despite the perceived rush to court, legal challenges against the FCC’s Net Neutrality rules were widely expected.  The FCC continues to tell the press (on background), it believes it has the authority to enact Internet-related regulations and policies.  But many court watchers familiar with the District of Columbia Court of Appeals think it is more likely than not Verizon will prevail on similar legal arguments Comcast used to win its case.

What then?

Pegoraro: “I’d like to think that it would be fitting if the FCC responded by returning to the regulatory strategy it should have adopted in the first place: putting broadband Internet services back under a simplified form of the “Title II” common-carrier regulation that most operated under until 2005.”

“But if the FCC couldn’t find the gumption to choose that more aggressive but more legally grounded option before, why would it now?”

Since federal courts ruled that corporations are people, shouldn’t that mean those corporations also deserve the same privacy rights you and I enjoy?

AT&T intends to find out at the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of FCC v. AT&T Inc., an effort to win privacy rights for itself and keep potentially embarrassing documents out of the hands of third parties.

At least one court — the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which includes the very-business-friendly state of Delaware, agreed with AT&T.  It ruled that since a corporation is also defined as a  “person,” it deserved enhanced protections available to ordinary citizens.

In AT&T’s world, that includes adjectives — all things personal, as in “personal privacy.”

The implications of such an interpretation are stunning, and judicial activism on this scale would deliver a golden platter of new rights to corporate interests that would wipe away oversight and more than a century of accepted business law.

AT&T could use its new powers to deny requests for documents and other materials, on the principle it would violate its privacy and potentially “embarrass” the company.  AT&T as an entity could get the right to remain silent and enjoy double jeopardy protections from repeated investigations.

It would be like watching a Law & Order episode with a corporate logo propped up at the defense table.

Overreach much, AT&T?

Many members of the U.S. Supreme Court apparently thought so during last week’s arguments, judging from the astonished reactions to AT&T lawyer Geoffrey Klineberg’s reasoning.

“Anything that would embarrass the corporation is – is a privacy interest?” Justice Antonin Scalia asked. “You talk about personal characteristics. That doesn’t mean the characteristics of General Motors. You talk about personal qualities. It doesn’t mean the qualities of General Motors. [The ‘personal privacy’ of a corporation] is a very strange phrase to me.”

Chief Justice John Roberts was also skeptical of AT&T “adjective”-shopping, noting several examples of adjectives with different meanings from their root nouns: “craft and crafty; squirrel and squirrely; pastor and pastoral.”

AT&T is no stranger to the federal court system, pouring millions of dollars into a range of legal actions that suggest the company takes its “Rethink Possible” slogan to literal extremes in some business-friendly legal venues.  [Stop the Cap! covered an earlier California case where AT&T argued consumers do not have the right to file class action lawsuits against the company.]

At Issue: Earlier AT&T Wrongdoing

In 2004, SBC Communications (which now owns AT&T) overcharged the government to provide technology services to several Connecticut schools, under the government’s E-Rate program (funded by telephone ratepayers).  After earlier abuses in the program were exposed and the federal government was threatening to expand investigations, SBC turned themselves in and handed over documents demanded by the Federal Communications Commission.  In return for its cooperation, AT&T got to admit no wrongdoing, but did pay a half-million dollar fine.

That didn’t sit well with CompTel, a Washington-based phone company trade association.  In 2005, Mary Albert, the group’s assistant general counsel e-mailed a request for copies of the documents collected by the FCC in the case.

“I made the request because I was very surprised to see the FCC enter into a consent decree in a case like this,” Albert said. “There has been a serious problem with E-Rate fraud over the years. I don’t mean to accuse AT&T of fraud, but there were clearly [enough] problems with its billing [to the program] that it reimbursed the government.”

Klineberg

Under federal law, documents collected by the government have to be made public under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), so long as those documents do not violate national security or expose certain personal, private information (typically home addresses, phone numbers, Social Security numbers, etc.)  Companies also have long-standing, existing exemptions protecting confidential trade secrets and other proprietary business information.

Albert expected to receive documents with “blacked-out” information protecting AT&T’s trade secrets, but instead she ended up with nothing.

AT&T argues the release of -any- of the documents would embarrass the company and violate its personal privacy.  It demanded, and got the FCC to withhold release of the documents and the dispute has been working its way through the court system.

The FCC argues corporations can’t sue over invasion of privacy.  Why?  Because they are an entity, not a person.

How does someone violate the privacy of a corporate entity that doesn’t live, breathe, or even blush?

Legal observers say the case isn’t really about protecting AT&T from potential embarrassment — it’s about curtailing the government’s right to request and receive documents from companies as part of its oversight process and to investigate potential wrongdoing.

On cue, Lawrence J. Spiwak, president of the Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal & Economic Public Policy Studies (which receives substantial funding from AT&T), argues AT&T’s arguments have merit because if corporations are not protected under FOIA’s law-enforcement exemption, they will be less forthcoming to the government.

In other words, if you don’t give AT&T what it wants, it will bury, shred or hide important documents when regulators come looking.

Netgear's N300 Router

Test My ISP is a project underway in cooperation with the Federal Communications Commission and SamKnows, a broadband testing firm that has an excellent record in the United Kingdom, where it has been testing ISP claims vs. actual performance for a few years now.

Some of our readers decided to enroll in the ongoing speed test after reading an earlier article about the project, and it appears some of our readers have started receiving their test equipment — a Netgear N300 (WNR3500L) Gigabit Wireless Router — this week.

They are still accepting volunteers, and getting approved to participate appears to be easier than one might think (although it may be several weeks before you hear back).  All they ask is that you install their equipment in place of, or in tandem with your existing router, and allow it to “call home” occasional speed measurement results (which you can also monitor yourself) from time to time.  At the end of the three-year program, participants get to keep the wireless N router.

If you are a participant, we’d love to hear about your experiences in our comment section.  Have you been able to see the results of your own tests?  How do they compare with the speeds ISPs claim you will get in their marketing?

By the way, some reviews on the router are spotty, with the most frequent problems being:

• Limited range wireless
• Wireless connection drops frequently, requiring reset
• Auto-configuration does not work well
• Support comes from an Indian call center that never deviates from a script

Share your thoughts in the comment section.