Slashdot Mirror
FCC Won't Release Cell Carrier Reliability Data
imuffin writes "MSNBC is reporting that the FCC has been collecting data on the reliability of different cell phone carriers in the US. This data could be invaluable to consumers trying to choose a company to sign a lengthy contract with. Just the same, the FCC won't release the data to consumers, citing national security risks. The data collection on cell services began in 2004, but were simultaneously pulled from public view. FOIA requests to obtain the data have been denied, and commentators feel this is simply for the government's convenience." From the article: "'There is nothing mysterious behind it, it is corporate competition protection,' said [terrorism analyst Roger Cressey] ... 'The only reason for the government to not let these records get out is then one telco provider could run a full-page ad saying 'the government says we're more reliable.'' Cressey added that he couldn't imagine a scenario where the reports would be valuable to terrorists."
The reports at issue here concern the uptime of the cell phone providers' networks, not the rate of dropped calls or coverage problems.
You know, I normally mod down grammar nazis. But I can't help but complain here. My article summary has been so heavily edited that I barely recognize it. When I submitted this story, it didn't have these subject/verb disagreements:
The data collection on cell services began in 2004, but were simultaneously pulled from public view.
or
FOIA requests to obtain the data has been denied,
And I certainly wouldn't use the questionable idiom "Just the same."
Come on, mods. If you're going to edit my submission beyond recognition and destroy its grammatical integrity while you're at it, at least don't attribute the submission to me.
Part of the problem is there's network, and then there's network. Just because you operate the most extensive network of any single cell phone company doesn't mean you have the biggest area where your customers can place non-roaming calls.
For example, I have a phone with T-Mobile. T-Mobile has a pretty small network; however, you can roam on a lot of other networks, particularly Cellular One in my area, at no additional charge over your normal plan. So the effective network is bigger than their actual company network.
Other cell phone providers have bigger networks themselves, but don't partner with anyone, so their effective network may be smaller.
paintball
What does it mean?
It means that no one can tell you who the best provider will be for you - it means that even independent published reports are only a GUIDE, not what you'll experience.
You should try the provider where you'll be using your cell phone BEFORE you sign a contract. Not doing so is being personally irresponsible. Most providers have some sort of 30-day contractual escape clause - verify your service's quality BEFORE you're committed.
The FCC is an independent agency that answers to Congress, not the president.
Wow, thanks for the laugh, that's the funniest thing I've read all day.
FWIW, the commissioners are appointed by the President, and then confirmed by congresscritters. 3/2 split by political party.
Source? The FCC website The congressional oversight is a joke.
1984 was supposed to be a warning, not an instruction manual.
It's not a study. The cell phone providers must provide the information to the FCC. It's not about coverage; it's about times when the system was unavailable for some reason (technical problem). Landline providers must provide the same information.
I think there is more behind the scenes than people realize. There have been complaints about unreliable cell coverage and other telecommunications issues filed with the FCC for years. Maybe they're gathering evidence to determine if charges or additional legislation are required.
If that's the case, it's pretty clear why they don't want to release the data: it's evidence.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Each cell within the network provides comprehensive parametric info, so billing addresses don't factor in, not directly anyway. If the carrier has an outage, it's not so difficult to figure a fairly accurate estimate of the numbers affected. Mostly it would come down to the honesty of the telco's.
I'm involved with contributing data to the reports in question. Let me point out that the accusation against the FCC isn't quite right. Submitter claims that the FCC has been collecting data on the "reliability" of different cell phone carriers in the US -- data that could be be invaluable to consumers. The data in question are actually "outage reports" that involve FCC reportable events. These types of events generally involve damage to systems and read like: "911 service down to 175,000 subscribers for 17 hours due to fiber burned in arson event at 777 Bozo St.", or "45,000 subscribers had no services in Deer Meadows when falling tree knocked over Hwy 32 repeater". They describe specific incidents and addresses with number of subscriber minutes affected.
Outage event reports full of acts of God (and acts of vandals) do not provide any data on the actual "reliability" of cell phone carriers as judged by consumers. Consumer reliability is seen as: "How often do my calls drop - how many areas of town have no service - how often do my call attempts say 'try again' or 'network busy'". Knowing that 20,000 users lost long distance service in BFE when an idiot with a backhoe dug up a fiber does not help with those questions -- oversubscribed cell phone towers are not reported as outage events. In short, the FCC does not know who the most "reliable" carriers are -- only which ones sustain the most damage to their facilities.
As for security matters: If anyone wanted to create havoc, they'd take one glance at the report and burn down the sites responsible for the largest outages listed. "National infrastructure" is described in painstaking detail. It wouldn't take a criminal mastermind - only a couple of drunk high school kids.