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."
I don't see the big deal since if the report said that carrier Z had the best quality and tons of customers migrated to carrier Z, it would add additional strain to their system and they would end up with lesser reliablity. Of course, the people leaving carriers A through Y would leave those carriers with a lighter load and probably better service, so it would all balance out in the end.
The point is that people should be able to get a reasonable idea of what they are getting into when they sign 2 year contracts, and I imagine that these stats will change wildly over time and whoever is at the top now won't stay there forever.
Things you think are in the Constitution, but are not.
FTA: Consumers have no idea how reliable their cell phone service will be when they buy a phone and sign a long-term contract.
...
...
This blatant over generalization is contradicted by
FTA: Complaints about cell phone service are near the top of every list of consumer gripes. The Illinois attorney general's office, for example, last year ranked cell phone complaints as the fourth-most-common complainComplaints about cell phone service are near the top of every list of consumer gripes. The Illinois attorney general's office, for example, last year ranked cell phone complaints as the fourth-most-common complain
People talk. They aren't just complaining to the authorities, either. As a result, everybody knows spotty service is an issue when they decide on *any* service provider. Caveat emptor is understood, so we move on to other decision factors. A much more significant factor is the family/friends connection. If the majority of the people I will be calling are on service X, I'm going with service X, even if service Y is more reliable, because service X will likely be lower cost.
I think this article is an attempt to enrage the masses because MSNBS is angry at being rejected by the FCC. It's a troll.
Not necessarily. What if I just moved into the area, and I don't have that many local friends? What if my friends are stupid, and I'd rather trust some sort of objective report? What if my friends are generally poor and don't have cell phones? What if my friends all work at the same place and their phones all come from a single provider, affording me no comparison? What if my friends all live far enough away that their cell outages aren't the same as mine? I can keep listing if you want me to, but the point is that in order to make an informed decision about something, we need information. Who are you to say what kind of information we should or shouldn't find more valuable?
Let's just say for a second that you 100% correct and that MSNBC is angry at being rejected their FOIA request by the FCC.
So? What difference does it make?
If MSNBC files a legitimate FOIA request (which they did), and the FCC rejects it for bogus reasons (which they did), it doesn't matter what MSNBC's motivations were or how they feel about it. It is wrong, and it needs to be fixed. Otherwise, we're setting the precedent of government denying FOIA requests for reasons that may have to do with more important things, like holding government accountable or protecting freedom.
I don't care if MSNBC wanted to use the report as toilet paper, it's publicly-funded non-national-security info that they have a right by law to get.
>So the Government uses my tax dollars to commision a report,
>and then denies me the information within that report?
No. They used *OUR* tax dollars. You, as an individual, aren't necessarily entitled to much of anything purchased collectively.
>>> Cressey added that he couldn't imagine a scenario where the reports would be valuable to terrorists.
How about if the report highlights single points of failure that are a bit dicey already and could be targeted to wipe out the network causing untold damage to businesses.
It didn't exactly take much imagination to come up with that.
All it needs is a large explosion somewhere (not necessarily with any loss of life) added to a communication blackout and you've got pandemonium. Yeah I've heard of landlines, satellite phones and VoIP but these aren't what the majority will use to check up on their relatives and loved ones.
Oh, give me a break. If that were the case, they would be pusing to prevent the FCC from having anything to do with the carriers at all. The report never would have existed.
More likely, somebody is an idiot and actually believes that data is sensitive, somebody thinks calling the data sensitive will make them seem more important, thus advancing their career, or the report is so poorly done that they want to bury it before people realize their incompetence.
This culture we have of pinning things we don't like on politicians we don't like even if there is no evidence or connection is absurd. It is *the* reason that the leaders of both our major political parties are complete morons who's sole talent is pinning blame on somebody else. We get it. You don't like Bush. But stand up and have some principles. Otherwise you are no better than he is.
I know if I was going to use cellphones to detonate bombs, or communicate with others during a plot, I would definately like to know who the most reliable network belonged to.
I don't believe that the FCC has weighed the benefits of consumers being able to have Government collected data to aid them in making their decision when selecting a provider against the ills of terrorists having the same tool.
The data has been collected, that in itself is a security threat when the information is kept the out of the hands of the average American.
In such a situation, it is more likely for a specially trained terrorist informant to get ahold of the data than it is for a law abiding citizen.
Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
I would find out who is privy to the report and then track down who they use, chances are it's one of the ones at the top of the list we don't see. Well at least in their area I would suspect. But they may know how bad it really is and not even own a cell phone!
Clever or not, I got nothing...