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.'"

Comments

Federal agency = Corporate lap dog

[zasos]

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)."

Re:Federal agency = Corporate lap dog

[morgan_greywolf]

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)."

Of course. Personally, I think the broadband providers have all illegally divided up the market. In most areas, you can get DSL, cable, FTTN, or wireless, but rarely can you seem to be able pick from more than one in the list. And in many cases, you can't even pick between cable providers.

While both WOW! and Comcast are available in my area, my apartment complex has an exclusive contract with Comcast so no other cable providers are allowed. And you can't get DSL because they won't let you run any lines to the building. Satellite is out because they won't let you put up a dish (despite the fact that this is illegal), and broadband mobile wireless service is conveniently not available yet.

Many cities in my region have exclusive deals with either Comcast or Bright House as well, despite the fact that competition was supposed to have been opened. Many of the competitve phone carriers don't offer DSL because AT&T has locked them out. And DSL is very much dependant on distance from the CO. Forget if you're like me and live in an outlying area of town.

I'll bet if you get that report, you'll be able to figure out exactly how AT&T and Comcast and so forth have divided up the market, providing each of them limited monopolies in set areas.

FOIA?

[joshetc]

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?

Re:FOIA?

[Mr. Underbridge]

This lists the 9 exemptions allowed for refusing FOIA requests. Bureaucratic obstinance doesn't seem to be on the list.

No, but this is, and I imagine that's what they'll quote:

"4. Trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential"

I'm sure they'll say the respective companies' detailed coverage and speed maps would be useful to the competition, blah, blah.

This is inevitable

[Colin Smith]

It's called Regulatory Capture. And one of the reasons that the cry "the government should..." isn't the answer.

Re:This is inevitable

[Ash Vince]

But there are plenty of other countries where state regulation of industries like broadband, other telecoms, transportation, energy (gas and electric) and television do result in better service for the consumer at less cost. So why is that these schemes always fail in the states yet in other countries they work fine?

In europe regulatory bodies seem to have alot more success with out becomming corrupted by the companies they are supposed to regulate. I know absolutely nothing about why these things happen in the US (hence me asking this question) but I do know that the most widely known failures we have had in the UK along similar lines is in Food and Farming regulations or advertising, both of which are expected to get funding from the companies they are supposed to be keeping under control. Obviously this causes a conflict of interest. In the case of farming this resulted in some really great fuckups (Foot and Mouth, BSE).

I think the key to the successful regulation is giving the body in question generous funding and also the teeth to back any threats. Would the US constitution allow the government to form a body which could effectively dictate prices to a company without the company getting any say in the matter? Would anyone in america actually vote for a government that did such things or would they get labelled as communists long before they came into office?