Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

CPI Sues FCC Over U.S. Broadband Competition

Posted by Zonk on Tue Jan 23, 2007 11:25 AM
from the getting-at-the-info dept.
Businesses Communications United States IT
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.'"
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Technology: ISPs Fight To Keep Broadband Gaps Secret 170 comments
Aaron writes "Broadband Reports notes how Maryland was working on a law that would force ISPs to show exactly where they offer service and at what speed. The goal was to help map coverage gaps, since FCC broadband data is worthless for this purpose. Cable and phone company lobbyists have scuttled the plan, convincing state leaders the plan would bring 'competitive harm,' 'stifle innovation,' and even close local coffee shops. Of course the real reason is they don't want the public to know what criteria they use to determine the financial viability of your neighborhood — as they cherry-pick only the most lucrative areas for next-generation services. The Center for Public Integrity is trying to obtain the unreleased raw FCC penetration data, but these companies are also fighting this tooth and nail."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

CPI Sues FCC Over U.S. Broadband Competition 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • 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)."
    • 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: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Xaoswolf (524554)
        it's illegal for them to tell you that you can't bolt a dish to their building?
        • There are other options that don't involve bolting a dish to the building. A 5 gallon bucket with concrete is possible or maybe the apartments are really duplexes with some amount of yard space (which is my situation) where a post can be put into the ground (as one of my neighbors has done). Personally, I have Verizon FiOS (broadband and TV) after leaving Comcast but that is a relatively recent alternative to the Comcast strangle hold on the county I'm in.
        • That's the loophole.

          They can't tell you that you can't have a satellite dish. That's what the state law states. But they can tell you that you can't bolt it to their building. So if you have a private balcony, as long as you have something else to bolt it to, you're ok. But if you don't have a private balcony, or if it's too small, or if there's no clear line of sight with the correct portion of the sky, you're out of luck.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by ciscoguy01 (635963)
        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

    • This is inevitable (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Colin Smith (2679) on Tuesday January 23 2007, @11:46AM (#17724686)
      It's called Regulatory Capture [wikipedia.org]. And one of the reasons that the cry "the government should..." isn't the answer.
       
      • 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.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Ash Vince (602485)
        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

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Colin Smith (2679)

          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.

           
    • FTA:The agency argues that the material in the reports is confidential business information and that the release of it could damage the companies involved.

      What other industries can hide behind this excuse for existing services? D
    • > rom 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)."

      Stockholm syndrome - FCC staff spend so much time with the people they are regulating, that they've forgotten they're supposed to be working for us.

  • FOIA? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by joshetc (955226) on Tuesday January 23 2007, @11:34AM (#17724526)
    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: (Score:3, Informative)

      by ryanguill (988659)
      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: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by PopeRatzo (965947) *

        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 c

    • Re:FOIA? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Intron (870560) on Tuesday January 23 2007, @11:45AM (#17724684)
      http://www.fcc.gov/foia/#typesnot [fcc.gov]

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

      • Re:FOIA? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Mr. Underbridge (666784) on Tuesday January 23 2007, @12:03PM (#17724968)

        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.

      • Presumably they're relying on this one:

        "Although most FCC documents, records, and publications are accessible through FOIA, some types of FCC records are not available. Section 552(b) of the FOIA contains nine types of records which are routinely exempt from disclosure under the FOIA:
        ...
        4. Trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential, 5 U.S.C 552(b)(4);"
      • 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 knowle
  • 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.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by drooling-dog (189103)
      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.
      • [quote]Another company could then move in quickly to offer services where they know Verizon is weak.[/quote]

        Problem is that other company would still end up either (a) dealing with Verizon or whoever else owns the lines or (b) running their own lines. Neither one of those seems to be an endeavour that would be undertaken lightly.

        The only "fear" they should have is that if this gets released, people might start asking questions and end up realizing ISPs and the FCC are in cahoots and get slapped with some n
  • 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.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by ari_j (90255)
      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
        • I'd even be okay with ZIP codes if it weren't a binary statistic. There's a lot more to the story than whether or not a given ZIP code has broadband access. What portion of the population in a given ZIP code has access? What portion wouldn't pay for broadband access even if it were available? Things like that.
    • 72k per pots line so I can talk and still have 1.7 lines open for data. That's broad enough for me. But then I live at the end of a pots line strung in the 1920's and they laugh when I ask for voice mail. Basically anyone who says 200 k is slow is an asshole or living in a fantasy world. If you aren't downloading othe people's movies or video games 200 k is ok. No don't get me wrong not OK for a business but that's not what this thread is about.
      • Basically anyone who says 200 k is slow is an asshole or living in a fantasy world. If you aren't downloading othe people's movies or video games 200 k is ok.

        Hmm, I think 20 Mbps is slow, so I must be a super-duper asshole. Doing a day to day operation like 'svn up' would be incredibly slow on 0.2 Mbps, I can't image how long it would take to download security patches. I would think anybody connecting directly to the internet at that speed is probably a hazard to the internet as botnet node. If you are a bo
      • Broadband is for downloading video. You'd be fine with your dial-up for anything else.
      • Funnily, I have 3 MBps, and that's ugly slow. Even funnier, I have an internal Gigabit network, and that's still quite slow for many things I do.

        Excuse us who actually *do* things with the network for wanting faster connections.

        Internet: Not just for surfing ASCII pr0n any more!
    • yes thier definition of broadband is obviously designed not to count ISDN BRI (and i suspect there are other restrictions to discount leased lines which are way too expensive for homes/small buisnesses) but to count even the most crippled forms of dsl/cable.

    • The trouble is that "broadband" is a completely vague term. I seem to recall anything under 256kbps was labelled as "midband" here in the UK for a while until it died simply because no ISPs provided it when broadband became widespread.

      What's really necessary though is a specific rule on performance for what can be called broadband. Whether that's a specific speed in kbps or some kind of equation based on the average users supposed bandwidth requirement for a given year (ie. a bandwidth equivalent of the Ret [wikipedia.org]

      • The trouble is that "broadband" is a completely vague term. I seem to recall anything under 256kbps was labelled as "midband" here in the UK for a while until it died simply because no ISPs provided it when broadband became widespread.

        Using any kind of pseudo-superlative to describe a current technology is a bad idea since it will be obsolete in a couple of years. Up here in Québec, "broadband" cable internet has been available for many years now through Videotron [videotron.com]. When it all started, they labeled t

        • Yes, but we're dealing with a technical term that has entered public mindset and right there you've got two definitions for it. One as you described and another that's "really fast internet". The two different uses don't necessarily tie in.

          For example modern dial-up connections are technically broadband, yet if I started marketing my 56kbps service as broadband how long do you think I'd last before being bitchslapped with false advertising accusations?
    • Since my parents live and try to do business out of a house where the fastest connection they can get is 26k (on a good day), I'd kill for 200kbps "broadband".
    • Agreed theres nothing wrong with using 200kbps as a metric. Its pretty much saying 'anything but phone modems and ISDN' which is good enough as any definition. If they upped to a more crowd pleasing number than I would imagine many ISPs would claim 'top speeds of x' with x being some datarate thats possible but unattainable.

  • Better link...from the horse's mouth... (Score:3, Informative)

    by xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) on Tuesday January 23 2007, @11:41AM (#17724648)
    Here's a better link with more details... http://www.publicintegrity.org/telecom/report.aspx ?aid=837 [publicintegrity.org]

  • 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.

    • Because the FCC thinks giving the CPI the data will give a competitive advantage to the other broadband companies.

      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.

      I think you hit on the key point here; The Center for Public Integrity [publicintegrity.org] 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

  • FCC's Internal Anti-Trust Issues (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Dissenter (16782) on Tuesday January 23 2007, @11:49AM (#17724746)
    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.
      • Yea, but that was about 10-15 years ago when they broke up the Bell company into the baby bells. Then again they're all right back together again now.... Guess that takes a something away from their previous success.
  • Damnit, I couldn't find a single funny comment in this thread. What a tremendous waste of my working hours!

  • Hypocrisy (Score:3, Insightful)

    by merc (115854) <slashdot@upt.org> on Tuesday January 23 2007, @12:24PM (#17725280) Homepage
    "[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?
    • Last time I looked the FCC was a government agency, not a private company - big difference. Without the raw data you can't get a look at the actual specifics of broadband deployment in the United States. I also realize that telcos have "trade secret" data but that's the cost of being a telco. Telcos have recieved over $200 billion in tax breaks since 1996 designed to speed the deployment of high speed internet access. I suspect know if they actually did anything is worth knowing.

  • Digital Divide (Score:4, Insightful)

    by TheWoozle (984500) on Tuesday January 23 2007, @12:44PM (#17725620)
    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!
  • 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 r

  • The "other" companies (Score:5, Informative)

    by LMacG (118321) on Tuesday January 23 2007, @01:17PM (#17726212) Journal
    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 [publicintegrity.org].

    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.
    • 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 w
    • Why not just make it available to any company that wants to see it?

      stop tryin' to use that logic stuff here, boy. we don't work that way 'round here.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.