Slashdot Mirror
CPI Sues FCC Over U.S. Broadband Competition
seriouslywtf writes "The Center for Public Integrity (CPI) wants to access data from the FCC on broadband subscriptions in various parts of the US, but the FCC won't hand it over. Why? Because the FCC thinks giving the CPI the data will give a competitive advantage to the other broadband companies. The FCC says everything is fine and has generated reports saying nothing needs to be done. From the article: 'But the agency's methods for generating these reports have come under scrutiny, and CPI wants to take a look for itself. When talking about broadband deployment, for instance, the FCC says that any particular ZIP code has broadband access if even a single cable or DSL connection exists there. It also classes "broadband" as anything above 200kbps — a woefully low standard for any true broadband connection.'"
from TFA: "CPI now finds itself in a District Court battle against the agency, which is being supported by AT&T, Verizon, and the three major industry trade groups: NCTA (cable), CTIA (wireless), and USTA (telephone)."
Just because I don't care, it doesn't mean I don't understand. Homer J. Simpson
Doesn't the request fall under FOIA? Which basically means the FCC has to give the information up. If this isn't the case would someone kindly enlighten me?
but I'm still waiting for the article to load.
I can see no reasonable argument why this data can't be public record. In fact, if it was public record, that would negate the "fears" the FCC has of it being a competitive advantage to one company over another.
I think probably the whole mission of the FCC is more in iconic thing -- "don't worry, the government is in control!" -- and this data getting out would result in a lot of people asking WTF is up with the FCC if they can't put together a proper report.
Sony ha
but it's faster than dialup, and if that's how one is drawing the line (i.e., broadband is anything that isn't dialup), then 200kbps is probably as good a number as any. I seem to recall that my first ISDN connection was only 128kbps.
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
Things like this are what are the cause of the dismal internet connection in the US.
:(){
Why not just make it available to any company that wants to see it?
LINUX ONLINE POKER: Linux Poker
The Center for Public Integrity (CPI) wants to find out exactly how competitive the US broadband market is. To do that, it needs access to the raw data collected by the FCC, but the agency has refused to turn it over on the grounds that it could give a competitive advantage to other companies. CPI now finds itself in a District Court battle against the agency, which is being supported by AT&T, Verizon, and the three major industry trade groups: NCTA (cable), CTIA (wireless), and USTA (telephone).
CPI wants the FCC database of Form 477 filings. These documents are filed with the FCC by every telecom company in the US, and they give the agency data on each company's line deployments, broken down by ZIP code (and generally unaudited by the FCC). The FCC then uses this data to generate reports about the state of broadband competition, usually arguing that nothing radical needs to be done.
But the agency's methods for generating these reports have come under scrutiny, and CPI wants to take a look for itself. When talking about broadband deployment, for instance, the FCC says that any particular ZIP code has broadband access if even a single cable or DSL connection exists there. It also classes "broadband" as anything above 200kbps--a woefully low standard for any true broadband connection.
The General Accounting Office, the federal government's internal watchdog agency, took the FCC to task (PDF) last May for the way it prepared these reports. The GAO's own examination of Form 477 data found that the median number of broadband options in a particular ZIP code was two, not eight as the FCC claimed.
CPI filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the FCC on August 24. After the statutory 20 business days had passed without any word from the agency, CPI filed suit on September 25, 2006. That apparently got the FCC's attention; the FOIA request was officially denied the next day.
The matter is now in the hands of a federal judge, and the FCC is trying to have the case dismissed. The agency argues that the material in the reports is confidential business information and that the release of it could damage the companies involved. In a court filing, Alan Feldman of the FCC tells the court how this might work. "For example," he says, "information about how a company's number of lines has increased or decreased in a particular area over time provides competitors with insights into how that company is focusing its investment and marketing efforts." He also notes that most filers requested confidentiality for their data.
CPI hopes to add the Form 477 data to its Media Tracker, a web site that shows consumers the available broadband providers, cable operators, television and radio stations, and newspapers in the area.
This post climbed Mt. Washington.
Here's a better link with more details... http://www.publicintegrity.org/telecom/report.aspx ?aid=837
CPI filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the FCC on August 24. After the statutory 20 business days had passed without any word from the agency, CPI filed suit on September 25, 2006. That apparently got the FCC's attention; the FOIA request was officially denied the next day.
The matter is now in the hands of a federal judge, and the FCC is trying to have the case dismissed. The agency argues that the material in the reports is confidential business information and that the release of it could damage the companies involved. In a court filing, Alan Feldman of the FCC tells the court how this might work. "For example," he says, "information about how a company's number of lines has increased or decreased in a particular area over time provides competitors with insights into how that company is focusing its investment and marketing efforts." He also notes that most filers requested confidentiality for their data.
When the GAO says you did something wrong, you generally did something wrong and need to fix it.
The FCC's behavior is pretty brazen; the CPI isn't a broadband service provider, so I suspect that other than verifying the FCC's results (or disproving them), the data is in pretty good hands. The fact is the FCC is playing politics and trying to stay on the good side of industry -- for what reason I can't say. It would surprise me if there's more going on here, and if they keep stalling, the FCC could end up being threatened with a Congressional investigation, which I think they'd like to avoid.
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
It's called Regulatory Capture. And one of the reasons that the cry "the government should..." isn't the answer.
Deleted
The FCC seems to be spending less time ensuring a competitive market for communications and wasting more time monitoring and sending out fines to radio and TV stations for using "bad language." I for one think that it is high time this group had a complete makeover. The people that are running things don't seem to have a clue about technology and the emerging markets that are being exploited by their lack of attention. This trend stinks of payoffs and corporate meddling. I'm not making any accusations as I have nothing but the smell to prove this idea, but when a group is trying to help generate more competition and the FCC refuses to support them it makes me wonder what's hiding under the covers. I'm no conspiracy maniac, but there's no way to see the FCC's position in a positive light.
Dissenter
"There is no knowledge that is not power."
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I could imagine that no broadband provider really wants that amount of transparency into their deployment. Each one will have markets that they are getting by on advertising campaigns and would prefer Joe Public not to see that their competition, who isn't spending millions on ads, has 3x as many deployments as them in a particular zip code. It's like job security through obscurity for them.
For country-bumpkin Joe Hicks, 25 KB/s is almost a four-fold increase on an unreliable dial-up connection that may or may not peak at 7 KB/s. Maybe not "broad" enough for most us /.'ers, but certainly broader than DUN.
On that, should 1MB/s be considered Broadband? Either way, I'd say anything over the standard, consumer-level ISDN speeds of yore (ie, 128kbps) should be considered "broad".
I think you hit on the key point here; The Center for Public Integrity isn't an ISP. they're a watchdog group, so the FCC's objection is nonsensical.
It's like telling the police "I'm not going to honor your search warrant because it might give you an advantage over the other counterfeiting operations." Actually, it makes even less sense, because if you did this you could at least be setting yourself up for an insanity defense.
This is even worse than their claim that giving out cell phone service area / outage maps (so that people could tell if the vendors were lying to them before they signed a contract) would somehow help the terrorists beat us over here before they could beat us over there or something.
--MarkusQ
Broadband is not a vague term at all. Broadband is just a signaling method for sharing a transmission medium between multiple senders/receivers. Another method is to use baseband signaling.
With broadband signaling, each sender has use of the medium for the entire length of the communication. No one sender had full control over the medium, as any other sender could transmit at any time. That's why early cable users experienced super-highs and super-lows, depending on number of users. I suspect that's gotten better.
Baseband signaling (100Base-TX, anyone?) requires that each sender break transmission up into fixed-sized pieces. Each sender had full control over the medium for a very small length of time. Baseband circuits are very predictable and the provider can guarantee availability and quality of service.
-M
Here's an idea: Get rid of the FCC!
It sounds crazy until you think about it. They are totally useless, can anyone name a single thing that they do which is worthwhile?
Center for Public Integrity is the last bastion of real investigative journalism left in the US. You think any of the big Media outlets wanna piss-off the FCC with a story like this?
Go get 'em CPI!!
"Creativity is allowing ones self to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep" - Scott Adams
+2 insightful? Anyone with an intelligence level greater than that of a doorknob could tell you that this post is obviously a troll.
Stupid mods on crack again.
"[T]he FCC thinks giving the CPI the data will give a competitive advantage to the other broadband companies."
And forcing Google to turn over search engine data to the USDOJ is okay, but this isn't?
It's true no man is an island, but if you take a bunch of dead guys and tie 'em together, they make a good raft.
That makes sense (why companies wouldn't want the information released). If the companies wanted to release it, CPI wouldn't have to go to the FCC. The real question is why the FCC isn't giving Americans information that would be useful to them (us).
I don't care about some dumb paper work.
I want the Public to have a share of the radio spectrum.
My Wifi FON router should have a 10 to 15 km range.
not 100 to 500 foot range. It should be illegal/unconstitutional
that we don't have reasonable Free Speech in digital spectrum.
But no We have to pay the Teloc's, the King ( of England ).
This is the sort of thing that created this country.
But some how the government has lost sight of this,
Its time to throw your cell phones (Tea) into the harbor.
As a government body the people have an avenue for redress. If it was private, then we would have no such avenue.
And if there wasn't a government agency controlling it, then all the airwaves would belong to the biggest private bully.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Personally, I think that what they're all really worried about is that the data will show that the communications companies have been very selective in rolling out broadband.
They have cherry-picked specific, high-income areas in which to roll out. It's very likely that many areas will *never* get broadband service, if these companies get their way. And they're currenly involved in heavy lobbying and lawsuits to prevent other means of servicing the areas that they're not willing to service.
I don't know what the ultimate solution should be, but broadband Internet access is vitally important to me (I work as a software engineer) and I hate that these companies and their services have such an impact on where I choose to live!
Insisting on "correct" English is like saying that there is only one, definitive recipe for chili.
4. "Trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential, 5 U.S.C 552(b)(4);"
If you read the article, they give a perfectly legitimate example of why they feel they don't want to release it, and a reasonable reason of why telcos don't want it released. Not some great conspiracy.
The arguement behind exception number 4 is that they wont be able to conduct any studies if information that can hurt the people who try to help the agency becomes public knowledge..
If you asre running a business, and your suppliers are giving you a hard time, do you want that being public information?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Because the FCC thinks giving the CPI the data will give a competitive advantage to the other broadband companies
They should have played the terrorism/national security card. The quickest way to cover your mistakes, self dealing and lack of responsiveness is to scream: "But will be used by [Al Qaeda | North Korea | Iran | Commie-Nazis | Unitarians ] (or whatever the 'threat' du jour may be) to destroy our way of life!'.
The courts don't have the back bone to challenge such claims, no matter how spurious.
So remember kiddies, its all about using fear and 'national security' to grab power and remain beyond the law.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
sums the situation up perfectly.
A lot of replies are jumping on the line in the summary that says "the FCC thinks giving the CPI the data will give a competitive advantage to the other broadband companies." But of course the linked article didn't say that; it said "the agency has refused to turn it over on the grounds that it could give a competitive advantage to other companies." Which is still a bit of a stretch from what the FCC actually said in their response.
They did cite exemption rule 4 as others have posted.
I'm not defending the FCC, by any means, but let's not be misled by a Slashdot summary that might not quite be correct.
Slightly disreputable, albeit gregarious
But first the FCC works for Us the Public. It needs to provide resources to the Public, not just the Telco's
I don't care about some dumb paper work. I want the Public to have a share of the radio spectrum. My Wifi FON [fon.com] router should have a 10 to 15 km range. not 100 to 500 foot range. It should be illegal/unconstitutional that we don't have reasonable Free Speech in digital spectrum.
But no We have to pay the Teloc's, the King ( of England ). This is the sort of thing that created this country. But some how the government has lost sight of this,
Its time to throw your cell phones (Tea) into the harbor.
Other than completely eliminating free speech financially and otherwise, is there anything the FCC has actually done RIGHT in the last 20 years? Isn't it time to fix this regression in the Bill of Rights once and for all? SHE'S A WITCH!! BURN HER!!!
rhY
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
Kickbacks from the broadband companies?
What does your statement have to do with the FCC? He simply said the FCC is a captive to corporate interests. You said "wrong, people have a right to redress the issue".
Whether or not he's wrong, it has nothing to do with the right to correct the issue.
Unfortunately, you are wrong on this issue. There is no practical way to change the FCC. Even if a new president was elected tomorrow, they have no authority to force out the FCC commissioners. I mean, the Fed gets by because it's technically a private organization. But the FCC?
And it's not partisan, either. Bush has appointed democrats, Clinton appointed republicans.
I live in Halifax, Nova Scotia, and I was one of the first people to get real broadband here (ADSL). That was 10 years ago, and I was mightily impressed because I could hit speeds of 600KBS, pretty consistently. It cost $45/month, if I recall correctly. Now, both cable and ADSL are available, they each cost around $45/month (a bit more, I think), and I can consistently hit speeds of 600KBS on both of them. The only thing that has changed is that both are available in "light" versions, that give you 1/10th the speed for about $25/month.
Suffice to say, I'm rather suspicious that it continues to be so slow. I recall reading around the turn of the century that new forms of Cable and ADSL were just around the corner, with speeds in the tens of megabits.
Apparently the FCC putting the symbolic Homestar Post-It(tm) note on broadband competition:
"Everything is fine, nothing is broken."
root@allevil:~#
Has anyone considered contacting the FCC's Office of Inspector General about this issue?
OIGs are around to prevent "Waste, Fraud, and Abuse", I'm sure this falls in there somewhere.
And believe me, OIGs are not lapdogs to their respective organizations, I worked in one and our Agency wasn't fond of us...;)
FCC OIG
General Description of U.S. OIGs
With the first link, the chain is forged.
As one of the people who file the FCC Form 477 that provides the FCC with data on broadband deployment by zipcode, I have the option on the form of asking the FCC to keep the information confidential. As far as I know, everyone who submits data makes that request. It is doubtful the FCC can comply with the CPI request without violating the conditions under which the information was collected.
There are rarely Wireless ISPs (excluding satelite) in areas which are well serviced by Cable.
:(
I'm presumably in the minority since I have Wireless, Cable and (several) DSL options here. The wireless turns out to be the most expensive, slowest download and fastest upload of the bunch. I like them because they are local and have competent tech support, but i doubt they are a serious threat to the big guys
CPI could accumulate the the same dataset needed over time if they would put up an online survey. If it's for a good cause or a decent public-accessable dataset, I'm sure they would find plenty of happy volunteers. All it would take is a web-form where you can volunteer your location, cable service, fees, advertized bandwidth, and other known competitors in area. Then they can provide some test packets to record the current actual service available at that time. Use this dataset to produce multiple geographic map overlays, and people could use this to quickly spot the best deals in a region, exclusionary zones, false/misleading advertizing, etc.
because it would benefit the public.
I'm sure if you send them the web survey idea, the new E.D. would strongly consider it, even if a couple of bad seeds still linger there. Though I don't think this method would generate as much or as quickly the data (bad grammar, I know) as their potential partnerships in the past would. Or simply getting it from the FCC would. There's also a matter of their web department in recent years being run by a communications, marketing and editorial beaureaucracy instead of a tech person.