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."
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.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
Cressey added that he couldn't imagine a scenario where the reports would be valuable to terrorists.
Except, say, if they're trying to pick a quality cell phone provider?
Money Talks.
The truth is an offense, but not a sin.------R. N. Marley
Eagles may soar, but weasels never get sucked into jet engines...
Why the hell did they do the study in the first place?
The reports at issue here concern the uptime of the cell phone providers' networks, not the rate of dropped calls or coverage problems.
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.
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.
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?"
"We may face a scorched and lifeless earth, but they're accountable to their shareholders first."
When will people learn that terrorists may be using our roads, electrical grid, water supply, and grocery stores to benefit themselves? I hear some of them may even be using the telecommunications infrastructure to communicate with each other!
Once we deprive the terrorists of access to these resources, we can live safe and free. Limiting access to these things will be difficult as a practical matter, our best option is probably to blow all these things up.
We should probably burn down the schools and universities too -- there's no telling what a terrorist might do with knowledge they could gain there....
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.
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.
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?
--
make install -not war
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.