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."

Comments

they've pretty much proven..

[User 956]

Just the same, the FCC won't release the data to consumers, citing national security risks.

Once again, confirming the fact that "national security risks" and "risks to corporate profit" are the same thing.

Re:they've pretty much proven..

[lawpoop]

It's about removing the government's ability to regulate business and promote the interest of citizens above the interest of corporations. They don't feel that corporations should have any accountability or responsibility whatsoever. It's about creating a climate and culture where the government doesn't oversee corporations and punish wrongdoing. Bush & Co. don't have any specific interest in telecoms; they just want corporate feudalism in general.

Re:they've pretty much proven..

[profplump]

Given that the security and stability of a nation is in large part a function of a sufficiently strong economy, "national security risks" and "risks to profit" are the same to some degree, regardless of your politics.

That's not to say this data should be kept secret, or that the "national security" banner isn't used to hide thing for political purposes, but it's silly to pretend that the economy plays no part in security.

The first law of politics

[dingbatdr]

Money Talks.

It would have been handy ....

[xlordtyrantx]

... to have some information like that. I know when I first got a cell phone plan, I had no clue as to who to go with. After joining up with Cingular, I find out that they don't cover my area really well, and that if I wanted coverage, I needed to go with Verison. I could have used that info early on, before getting stuck into a two year contract... Oh, and everything that we want to know these days seems to only help the terrorist. Anyone else notice that?

Well, if they aren't going to release it...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why the hell did they do the study in the first place?

Not happy

[LParks]

So the Government uses my tax dollars to commision a report, and then denies me the information within that report?

This is information that I am paying for and could weigh heavily in my decision of which service to subscribe to. It is ridiculous that the government does not support a consumer-driven economy.

Yet another...

[FunWithKnives]

Yet another incident wherein the public is not allowed to see/do/say/read/etc something because it would be a "national security risk". This is bullshit, obviously. They're using the Terrorism Scare (sort of a neo-Red Scare) to justify actions that would otherwise generate a lot of flack.

"We've been collecting information on cellphone services, and have produced a ranking of reliability. But, unfortunately, if we let Joe Sixpack have access to this information, the terrorists will win! So of course you realize that we're just keeping your best interests at heart, right? You wouldn't want the terrorists to blow up little Johnny's elementary school, now would you?"

Re:Isn't it obvious?

[timeOday]

Besides, the fact that something can help terrorists should NOT prevent it, unless the benefit to them outweighs the benefit to the rest of us. Roads, electricity, phones, Internet, cars... all are crucial terrorist tools, so what?

Direct quote?!

[ThePyro]

What I think is more important than grammar mistakes is that your article summary was posted in the form of a direct quotation, with no indication that your words had been edited. That's extremely poor journalism. Quotation marks should always been reserved for direct word-for-word quotations... any changes by editors must be clearly indicated as such by the use of brackets. Or, the editors should paraphrase the summary instead of writing it in the form of a direct quote.

National Security Excuses

[Doc Ruby]

If America doesn't convert the totally unaccountable "national security" excuse into a government system that's part of the oversight mechanism of checks and balances, then unaccountable government will destroy America. The national security excuse is therefore clear and present danger to real national security.

I note that "national security" is the excuse that Bush gives to protect his warrantless NSA spying on Americans, which covers the same telcos these reliability data could expose as unreliable with immunity, though they can use the data themselves for anything they want, including business competition.

Is there anyone left who believes Bush and his "national security" excuses are anything but fascism: government by and for, but not of, corporations? Anyone who believes anyone coming after Bush will be any more accountable, now that Bush has proven how easy it is for even a fool to abuse us this way, while we're actually under attack?

Why do they hate America?