Blog Post

AEIdeas

Comments in a new brief filed this week by 22 state attorneys general reveal that a Bay Area fire department vehicle experienced a reduction in cellular speeds once it reached its designated data amounts outlined in a service agreement with its carrier, Verizon. As California continues to grapple with historic wildfires across the state that have affected thousands and tragically claimed multiple lives, these revelations are concerning to say the least. But upon objective examination, the facts reveal this situation has nothing to do with net neutrality.

Looking into the matter, Verizon confirmed the incident was a customer service mistake. It appears the fire department’s chosen government service plan was one that allowed for a designated allotment of high-speed data at a set monthly price. When data usage for the plan was exceeded, the speed would be reduced. Verizon acknowledged it has a practice to refrain from slowing data speeds when a public safety customer is addressing an emergency, but in this instance the company failed due to a customer support error.

Verizon made a serious mistake, which warranted an apology and assurance that it would take steps to ensure it doesn’t happen again. However, watching the news unfold over the past 24 hours, it is troubling to see some groups and overzealous activists attempt to twist this story into something it is not: an issue about net neutrality. This was a clear mistake in customer service support, not a violation of rules defined by the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) 2015 Open Internet Order.

Under the 2015 rules, service agreements like this are 100 percent legal. The Open Internet rules were crafted to police illegal, anticompetitive practices in which a provider could manipulate and slow speeds of competitors. It did, however, permit carriers to engage in network management practices, including unlimited data plans that experience reduced speeds when certain usage thresholds are exceeded. Even in the footnotes of the government’s own brief challenging the reversal of the 2015 FCC Order, the petitioners acknowledge that Verizon did not violate the 2015 rules when responding to the Santa Clara Fire Department.

In any case, the Federal Trade Commission is fully capable of addressing net neutrality concerns and is the lead cop on the beat, as was the case until 2015.

The reality here is that in any emergency or life-threatening situation, businesses have a moral obligation to do whatever they can to ensure public safety. No questions asked. Verizon made a mistake in this situation by not recognizing its own practice of suspending speed reductions in the interest of public safety, and that’s a serious issue that must be addressed immediately. But this wasn’t a violation of net neutrality, and it’s wrong for activists to try to opportunistically fit a square peg into a round hole. All that does is diminish the seriousness of important discussions on how to fund first responders and ensure public safety officials have the resources needed to protect our communities when they are needed the most.