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.

Re:Federal agency = Corporate lap dog

[Xaoswolf]

it's illegal for them to tell you that you can't bolt a dish to their building?

Re:Federal agency = Corporate lap dog

[ciscoguy01]

The broadband providers are doing everything they can to keep pesky competition away. That's natural and normal for a business, but the facts are they are mostly what has always been regulated utilities. Uh, except in there "new media" markets.

They own the copper wires running all over town to bring you your telephone and your dsl.
But they don't really own them, WE the ratepayers hired them to build them. WE own them.
Remember those PUC "rate cases"? Where they say "we had to build new wires here, a new CO there, it cost this much so we need to increase the telephone rates this much".

They are loathe to let any other providers use "their wires" and that makes sense too since they have to maintain them as regulated utilities - for the phone. But this prevents them from having to be troubled by any of that pesky competition in their DSL service.
That would be fine if they weren't the custodians of OUR WIRES, which they were paid to build and are still paid to maintain.

These telcos are and have always been protected from competition by their monopoly status. Now they are big and want to compete, but no one can compete with them on their DSL, since you cannot practically switch. There's really no competition, which is why when you sign up for AT&T DSL it's $12.99 a month, but just for the first year, then they sock it to you. And you have nowhere to go.

I hope this organization gets their information from the FCC that will actually promote competition in the Telco business. Don't get me started on what they are doing to competitive VOIP providers and Net Neutrality! Well, actually I have written on both those extensively.

Re:Federal agency = Corporate lap dog

[pixelite]

That depends...

Generally, users may install a satellite dish that is 1 meter (39.37 inches) or less on their own property or property on which they have the exclusive use, such as leased or rented property. In Section 207 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Congress adopted the Over-the-Air Reception Devices Rule. This rule applies to governmental and nongovernmental restrictions imposed on a consumer's ability to receive video programming signals from direct broadcast satellites, wireless cable providers, and television broadcast stations. The rule outlaws restrictions intended to prevent a consumer from installing, maintaining, or using an antenna. The rule applies to a broad range of potential regulatory bodies, laws, or regulations:

        * Building regulations
        * Condominium or cooperative association restrictions
        * Homeowner association rules
        * Land-use regulations
        * Lease restrictions
        * Other restrictions on property within the exclusive use or control of the antenna user where the user has an ownership or leasehold interest in the property
        * Private covenants
        * Zoning regulations

There is a three-part test to determine whether a particular restriction is illegal under the rule. It must:

      1. Unreasonably delay or prevent the use of the antenna
      2. Unreasonably increases the cost of the antenna or service
      3. Prevent a person from receiving or transmitting an acceptable quality signal

The rule does not prohibit restrictions based on legitimate safety concerns, nor does it prohibit restrictions intended to preserve designated or eligible historic or prehistoric properties. In such cases, the restriction must be no more burdensome than necessary to accomplish its safety or preservation purposes.

Excerpt From:
http://law.enotes.com/everyday-law-encyclopedia/sa tellite-and-cable

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?

[ryanguill]

From TFA:

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.

Apparently the FCC doesn't think so...

Re:FOIA?

[Intron]

http://www.fcc.gov/foia/#typesnot

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

Re:FOIA?

[PopeRatzo]

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.

What a strange way for the FCC to put it: They don't want to release the subscription data because it will give a competitive advantage to the "other broadband companies". Who are they referring to here? The CPI isn't a broadband company, and the FCC isn't a broadband company(but there's some evidence that they represent one or more).

And if the information is made public, then who is the "other" companies that will get the advantage?

We should never pretend that any part of what happens in the US economy is the result of the workings of the "free market". Ol' Uncle Miltie didn't do us any favors when he put this free market fantasy into the soft skulls of those that consider themselves "conservatives" or "libertarians".

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.

Text if slashdotted

[LotsOfPhil]

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.

Better link...from the horse's mouth...

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

Here's a better link with more details... http://www.publicintegrity.org/telecom/report.aspx ?aid=837

The FCC is out of line

[Billosaur]

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.

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.

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?

Re:This is inevitable

[Colin Smith]

do result in better service for the consumer at less cost. Really... There are 25 regulatory bodies for each sector in the EU. One for each member country. Whether that leads to cheaper better service, I ... doubt... However it does make it very difficult for one or three major players in the market to corrupt the regulators for their own purposes.

I'm inclined to suppose that a monopoly of government begets monopolies in commerce.

Re:I'll grant you that 200kbps is slow,

[ari_j]

I think 200Kbps is perfectly fair, if not a bit high. What I don't like is the use of one connection per ZIP code as a fair measure of that entire ZIP code having broadband access. Some ZIP codes cover, say, a town of 1,500 people and the surrounding rural area where another 1,500 live. A cable or DSL provider in the town covers only half of the ZIP code's population but, under this measure, the entire ZIP code is deemed to have broadband access. ZIP codes are meant to make delivering mail easy, not to measure the lives of those who receive mail in each one.

FCC's Internal Anti-Trust Issues

[Dissenter]

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.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Hypocrisy

[merc]

"[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?

Digital Divide

[TheWoozle]

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!

Re:What do you expect?

[drooling-dog]

I think probably the whole mission of the FCC is more in iconic thing -- "don't worry, the government is in control!"

A more cynical and accurate view would be that the FCC is beholden to the industry it's supposed to be regulating, and like the rest of the executive branch has little or no concept of any public interest to be upheld. The commissioners and other top bureaucrats there know who's going to be buttering their bread when they leave government service in a couple of years.

The "other" companies

[LMacG]

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.