FCC Calls Operation Chokehold “Irresponsible,” Fake Steve Backs Down
6:12 pm, December 16th, 2009, Leander Kahney
Fake Steve is backing down from Operating Chokehold as the FCC calls it "irresponsible."
As the FCC calls Fake Steve’s fast-growing Operation Chokehold “irresponsible,” Fake Steve is backing down from the protest he started as a joke.
Contacted by ABCNews, the chief of the FCC’s public safety and homeland security bureau warned iPhone users against crashing AT&T’s network. In a statement, he said:
“Threats of this nature are serious and we caution the public to use common sense and good judgment when accessing the Internet from their commercial mobile devices… To purposely try to disrupt or negatively impact a network with ill-intent is irresponsible and presents a significant public safety concern.”
As reported earlier, Fake Steve’s Operation Chokehold — which started as a joke — is growing fast. The number of Facebook fans has jumped from about 300 on Tuesday to more than 2,000 by Wednesday afternoon.
Indeed, the protest is growing so fast it has alarmed Fake Steve, aka Newsweek columnist Dan Lyons, who is backing down.
“I’m trying to find a way to spin it down and get everyone to back off,” he said in an email.
On his blog, Lyons is now asking protesters not to overwhelm AT&T’s network. Instead, Lyons is suggesting a flashmob-style protest outside AT&T’s stores. The suggestion isn’t going down so well with some readers.
“Don’t turn pussy, Lyons,” wote mark2000 in the comments.
“Don’t apologize, backpedal, or otherwise wimp out,” added reader jycitizen. “I don’t think this will have a Y2K effect on the overall service if people participate in this so called flash mob. I do hope it will be enough of a PR gaffe that companies like AT&T will stop taking their customers for granted, and will shine the light back on issues of consumer protection and net neutrality.”
Fake Steve called on disgruntled AT&T customers to bring AT&T’s data network “to its knees” at 12 noon PST this Friday, December 18. (Here’s Fake Steve’s original Operation Chokehold post).
The action was prompted by comments made by AT&T’s CEO Ralph de la Vega that some iPhone users are using too much data.
Posted by Leander Kahney in Fake Steve, News, iPhone | Comment on this article
If you enjoyed this article:
Subscribe via RSS or email, or follow us on Facebook and Twitter
Oh come on, I’m all for this “Chokehold”, AT&T needs to wake up somehow…..
yourofl10, on December 16th, 2009 at 6:50 pm
Dan Lyons is an ass-clown. I’m sure AT&T’s goal is to piss off it’s customers. There’s no way it wants to satisfy it’s customers so that when the iPhone is supported by other carriers (and it will happen) they will choose to stay with AT&T. People don’t seem to realize that AT&T is an amalgamation of several smaller regional networks that Cingular was trying to tie together. Is it patchwork? Yes, but they have been and are continuing to work on it.
In any case, trying to crash the network is only going to inconvenience the people who are trying to use it. That’s quite the effective protest. *eyeroll*
To Dan Lyons and the hoard of idiots blindly following his lead – do something productive, not destructive.
Conrad, on December 16th, 2009 at 7:15 pm
It’s unbelievable how much the events of 9/11 have marred the US. This is now not seen as a protest, but rather almost an act of terrorism.
Does AT&T’s lack of network reliability also pose a potential public safety concern? I imagine that statement reflects the loss of cellular service, which may prevent people from calling emergency response units (fire, police, etc.). However, don’t dropped calls, poor reception, and spotty service also pose the same risks. Yet AT&T, because they’re a large organization, have operated with impunity.
Sure the iPhone is a behemoth when it comes to data consumption. But AT&T had two years to erect new towers and deal with the problem. Instead, they just took customers money and provided nothing in return. Only now have things reached the tipping point, and they are scrambling, looking for excuses. Ridiculous.
Quite simply, they thought the iPhone would be just another smartphone. And that consumers would consume so little data, that they could bilk customers just like they do with every other phone. If they didn’t, they surely would have imposed data limits (as they do ridiculously do in Canada). But they didn’t.
Wake up people. AT&T underestimated the fact that they would actually have to provide a service.
While it must be nice to sell a boatload of memberships to people for your gym that don’t use it past January, you still have to consider the people that actually will use your facilities. While some do, not everyone can line your pockets asking nothing in return…
I imagine Fake Steve is going to pull out or face some kind of criminal charge. And that brings be back to my opening point: The US is so far gone with terrorism that it really needs to be addressed…
WS, on December 16th, 2009 at 7:30 pm
I knew that FSJ was in over his head. FCC should send someone to investigate this clown, with the threat of possible jail time.
Ray Steinbeck, on December 16th, 2009 at 8:46 pm
AT&T should request a federal investigation, whether this Dan Lyon’s idiot is guilty of a crime or warrants a criminal investigation (as defined by Bush-era Patriot Act laws, enacted after 9/11).
PG, on December 16th, 2009 at 8:53 pm
AT&T has to provide the service. It has to find a way to boost service or otherwise get down on its knees under public pressure.
Adrian Hoe, on December 16th, 2009 at 9:09 pm
Isn’t it obvious what’s happening here? AT&T provides a subpar service and when the iPhone is opened up to other networks, AT&T will suffer when customers jump ship for another carrier. Then, due to lost revenue and tough economic times, AT&T will merge with Sprint to compete with Verizon. Then there will be two huge cellphone companies. But there can be only one. The government will step in to regulate the “monopoly” and we will have government run cellphone service, and they’ll be in control of yet another form of communication the American people have come to rely on. It’s another step in the grand conspiracy. Duh.
Dan, on December 16th, 2009 at 9:18 pm
> AT&T has to provide the service. It has to find a way to boost service
> or otherwise get down on its knees under public pressure.
Yes, I agree. But you missed the point. The point being that Dan Lyons is basically encouraging a form of DISRUPTIVE corporate sabotage, disrupting public telecommunications, which borders on terrorism, in order to force a change of policy on AT&T. This is something that Osama bin Laden does and Hezbollah would love to do to their enemies.
In a democratic nation (and capitalist society) like the USA, this is unacceptable, and our American culture considers it bordering on terrorism.
GOPfanboy, on December 16th, 2009 at 9:18 pm
all this safety stuff is ridiculous. it poses a serious safety threat? yes, in theory, if someone were to try to call 911 then there would be a problem, but att should have some sort of prioritization system to keep at least those calls running. i guess that is too hard for them though. but c’mon, its a protest, which we are free to do in this country, and it’s less likely that anyone will get hurt because of this as opposed to the protests that often turn into violent riots.
Willie, on December 16th, 2009 at 9:54 pm
@Ray Steinbeck what has he done that is illegal? he has organized a protest, which we have the right to do in this country. he hasnt taken any action other than writing a blog post. i dont see why you think he needs such harsh punishment.
Willie, on December 16th, 2009 at 9:57 pm
I work for a medium-sized county hospital, and we are on the AT&T network. Our “medical charting” has recently gone all digital, paperless. Many (but not all) of our computer terminals are also on WiFi. Our AT&T wireless service is pretty smooth, for the most part.
If for some reason (it’s a small chance, but in theory) AT&T services were disrupted because some mob of angry Dan Lyon’s followers brought down local telecom services…… well…. I would hope that our hospital’s Board of Directors would demand an FCC investigation and (possible?) criminal charges on Mr. Fake Steve Jobs, if the problem can be traced to his call for disruption.
Protest is one thing. A protest that disrupts the lives, disrupts the financial well-bring, or disrupts vital services (e.g. hospitals serve very sick people, and we cannot afford for our communications services to be crippled) harms the interests of innocent bystanders or local businesses…. does indeed border on terrorism.
i do agree with the guy above that said Fake Steve should be investigated for criminal activity, or the FCC needs to check out if he did anything illegal.
just my honest opinion
melisa, on December 16th, 2009 at 10:17 pm
@Willie yeah, it’s like organizing a “protest” against the highway system by getting everyone to block all the highways they can with their cars at the same time.
DV, on December 16th, 2009 at 10:31 pm
Kudos to Cult of Mac for reporting this kerfluffle responsibly, rather than the breathless, “blame Lyons for not being willing to risk federal prosecution” attitude being parlayed by a hyperbolic Mashable columnist here: http://ow.ly/MTJk
At the end of the day, anyone who’s buying the line that this protest would’ve prevented Grandma from reaching 911 in an emergency is buying a load of AT&T bull dung. This event is about nothing more than a corporation that wants very badly to welsh on the deal it willingly agreed to, and which has so far netted it millions of new customers in an industry that takes hundreds of dollars to attract each new contract.
BD in Ohio, on December 16th, 2009 at 10:36 pm
Please to call his dumass idea terrorism is foolish. asj=king for federal investgations is stupid. this is a guy who’s fed up with probably the only cell service he can get in his area. AT&T is the blame for this since they claim the most fastest 3G network with nothing to show for it but empty promisses. atleast t mobile is trying to roll out 3G. I’ve seen 3G move into areas that never had 3G before. now where’s AT&T counting all that money they did not spend in the infrastructure. isn’t there a federal law or should be to provide 911 service. the fed should be looking into AT&T’s unfair business practices they are starting thier hole i’m a monopoly the federal goverment don’t scare me crap again. These are the guys who own the telicom industry and when asked to provide a little service with there infrastructure. they claim people are using to much band width. time to cut AT&T off at the knees again and send em back to federal court. even though this guy is a dumbass he has a point. but her’s how i would do this get a net petition going to get 1,000,000 people to file small claims suits against AT&T for providing sub par service this would force AT&T to answer each suit seperatly without a lawyer present. now these suits are decided by a judge so no acting like an idiot or it will be you in big trouble. this will work get enough people suing AT&T thier move would be to either make it go away by settling or consolidate to class action status where the outcome would be the same customers who the crapped on in the first place would be the jury and AT&T would probably have to still settle. the only other thing that could happen is the federal government gets involved does a big federal investigation based on AT&Ts subpar service and levey fines to AT&T and force them to either leave the celphone or fix their network which is supossed to be upgraded.
Robert Jones, on December 17th, 2009 at 12:00 am
Does anyone apart from me know how criminal law works?
It’s called freedom of speech. You are free to say anything you like. Including posting on blogs. Unless he is inspiring some act of violence there is nothing anyone can do about it. People using their phones at the same time doesn’t count as an act of violence. The only way people using their phones can damage the network is if the network is crap, which is reason they are doing it in the first place.
Criminal, on December 17th, 2009 at 12:26 am
Joke my ass. Lyons started this idiotic idea two days ago, made several posts and encouraged people who commented on his blog who were running with the idea. Now he sees that there might be repercussions for his actions and is backpedaling and trying to weasel out of it. Oh, and don’t start the argument that what he was suggesting is somehow ok, the FCC’s already weighed in and that discussion is closed.
CUgamer, on December 17th, 2009 at 12:46 am
This rabid nonsense is just plain getting out of hand.
Yes, it’s a safety threat to willfully disrupt a communications network, especially a wireless carrier. A rather significant amount of your taken-for-granted public safety services depend on the wireless network, including police, fire and 911.
If you really hate AT&T that much, then stop this “rage against evil overlords” nonsense and vote with your wallet. Go get service from someone else.
AT&T will happily point out they have the lowest turnover rate and have maintained it for years. Turnover is the percent of customers per quarter who leave for another service. Verizon has the highest. Makes quite a statement, doesn’t it?
Bill, on December 17th, 2009 at 1:22 am
QUOTED from LYONS BLOG: “Don’t turn pussy, Lyons,” wote mark2000 in the comments.
hahaha. Lyons can talk the talk, but he can’t walk the walk. He talks tough, but instantly backs down when the FCC tells him to cease and desist.
The Revolución has… fizzled. El Comandante has left the bunker.
rocklee, on December 17th, 2009 at 4:39 am
You Americans kill me. I thought your country was built on the idea of freedom of speech and the right to protest. Apparently freedom of speech is fine as long as it’s what you want to hear…and protesting is fine as long as it doesn’t disrupt your personal schedule.
skids544, on December 17th, 2009 at 9:44 am
I think a lot of people who would want charges brought against Fake Steve Jobs are missing a large point. If, as unlikely as it may be, thousands of people did protest and they did bring down the network, it is their right to as customers of the service. Organized or not, they have paid for and are entitled to using the data service anyway they wish at any time. In addition, emergency services are by law not on the 3g network and should work regardless, if they were affected then this would expose a much larger issue and we’d have been lied to by not only at&t but the fcc. This is what grassroots is about, while this one is a bit childish it’s still a viable way to make a point to large corporation. If a companies service sucks, call them on it. Period.
dec19, on December 17th, 2009 at 3:49 pm
so if I use my phone at 12 noon PST this Friday, December 18, am I a terrorist or a customer with a contract AT&T need to honor?
Rick, on December 17th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
Freedom of Speech in America died after September 11. President George Bush made sure that SAFETY CONCERNS is more important than FREEDOM OF SPEECH.
I get the feeling the reason so many people think that this is a stupid idea of Lyons, because of safety concerns, and the parallels that terrorists can also organize protests exactly like this to bring down (or harass) their enemies (for example a public call for every single Muslim to simultaneously bring down a Pentagon website on a given hour). Or maybe Osama calling every Muslim hacker to simultaneous bring down a network important to the US Military.
Americans are more and more are concerned with safety and national security issues, while freedoms of speech have been pushed aside. That is a casualty of 9-11.
gecko, on December 18th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
melisa, if in fact you have a system where loss of the cell phone service leads to patient injury, and if in fact you have not put in place mitigations to deal with this, and if in fact you know this, – then – you have already committed a felony violation of the US Safe Medical Device Act. Loss of cell phone service is fairly common and predictable due to weather, natural disasters, etc. You should already have mitigations in place. So I hope those comments were entertaining hyperbole meant to entertain, much like operation chokehold.
rjh, on December 18th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
I don’t see what good is going to come out of bringing AT&T’s network “to it’s knees”.
It’s not as if AT&T’s problem are some big secret and this is suddenly going to “expose them”. If you look at it, who is a network disruption hurting? Not AT&T. Their network is already having problems in places. So this makes them have “more problems”? If it’s already broke, are you making it “broker”?
Sal C, on December 18th, 2009 at 4:36 pm