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.'"

Re:Federal agency = Corporate lap dog

[Anonymous Coward]

so they will report it any way they like it... and you, dear consumer, will like it...

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.

Re:FOIA?

[Intron]

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: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.

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: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".

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.

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.