FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition

techdirtfeed writes "For years, plenty of folks (including the Government Accountability Office) have been pointing out that the way the FCC measures broadband competition is very flawed. It simply assumes that if a single household in a zip code is offered broadband by provider A, then every household in that zip code can get broadband from provider A. See the problem? For some reason the FCC still hasn't changed its ways, but at least they're starting to realize the problem. They're now saying they need to change the way they measure competition. Commissioner Michael Copps points out: 'Our statistical methodology seems almost calculated to obscure just how far our country is falling behind many other industrialized nations in broadband availability, adoption, speed and price.'"

one problem

[wizardforce]

If they handle broadband internet monopolies like they do Microsoft it won't matter if their methods are flawed.

Mobile Broadband

[Tofystedeth]

from TFA

mobile broadband is only allowed for very limited applications (no video, no streaming, no downloads, no VoIP, etc.)

What else does that leave? Http? I mean, when you get rid of all the stuff in that statementm, and account for a few more with the '.etc', there isn't much else you can do. I suppose maybe telnet? That is of course ignoring the fact that simply saying "no downloads" completely eliminates most everything.

Isn't the Zip code unusually large

[grahamsz]

In my parents postal code (in scotland) there are 11 homes, the exchange is less than a thousand feet from any of them so they all qualify for roughly the same speed of DSL.

My zip code in colorado probably has several thousand homes. I have three broadband options (DSL, Cable, Wireless) but I wouldn't be surprised to know there were people in my zip who couldn't get any.

If the FCC switched to using ZIP+4 then it would probably be a much more accurate and comparable method.

FCC should know its place

[pwizard2]

The FCC should definitely be restructured and be given a refresher course of its mission... it was originally created to govern communication frequency allocation, and that's where it should stay. It should not be acting like an unofficial censorship bureau and/or advocate to the MPAA; it should be neutral on those issues.

Yeah

[Znrch]

I'm from a medium-to-large sized agricultural city in California. While people within the city limits can get broadband fairly easily, it took several years of prodding to even get a technician/installer out to my parent's house. Their house, in the county, is about 50-60 feet off the street. They finally got a guy to come out, but the service is absolutely horrible. Someone mentioned doing it by area codes I think. I don't know what it's like elsewhere, but here area codes cover a larger area than zip codes. Then you'd have worse problems trying to get an accurate sampling.

Re:Isn't the Zip code unusually large

[Moridineas]

But you're still missing the point. Ok, great, now you've got finer granularity, but it's still totally imprecise! One zip+4 can be an abandoned lot, a single household, multiple houses, or a highrise apartment complex. The data is equally meaningless except now you've got a lot more ZIP+4s to look at than you do ZIPs.

i think it's much better at this point to measure who DOESN'T have broadband access. Let's do households, ACTUAL places where people live. How many residences don't have access?

Re:Don't forget

[stinerman]

Nice troll.

I worked on an advisory board regarding cable regulation. Here are the facts (Ohio-centric):

Any cable company can come in and negotiate with the city to use their rights-of-way. You would expect the cable company would have to pay to use the government property right? Or are you in the habit of just giving large businesses whatever they want? Part of the agreement to use this property is customer service standards as well as other quality assurance issues. In fact, if you have an unresolved problem that the cable company won't do anything about, go to your next cable advisory board meeting; they'll be glad to help. Your cable company will get on the ball because they don't want to lose that contract.

That being said, most cities have a natural monopoly with respect to cable. Most cities only have 1 provider because a second provider would take a loss if they put in the infrastructure. Think of it this way: would you like to be the only widget salesman in the area or would you like to compete with lots of widget salesmen?

Don't take my word for it. Go to your next city council meeting and find out what one would have to do to offer alternative cable service in your area.

USA 3rd tier country - baby bells, RIAA, MPAA

[harvey the nerd]

I blame RIAA, it members, MPAA, Disney as much for the collapse of WorldCom (all that *dark* fiber) and the re-emergence of the "baby" Bells and the other roads hogs. Some baby Bells, etc made state level agreements ~10 years ago that should have put them more on track for capacity and last mile if they had not reneged on the provisions of such agreements.
Yes, like Clinton, the third George's reign has helped make the world, er, country safe for our brand of state capitalism.

Why measure GDP etc too?

[EmbeddedJanitor]

Some of this is pure ego-rubbing (We've got the biggest cars, aircraft carriers,...), but I suspect this is mostly used for lobbying purposes and used as "evidence" to underline some irrational argument.

Our kids are falling behind in math. Well, what do you expect if there is such low broadband? Lets start "No kid left on dial up"!

If US had huge broadband uptake, it would be bandied about to show that current policies are working.

The facts are unimportant. They are just anchors for the spin.

Re:FCC should know its place

[TubeSteak]

The FCC ... was originally created to govern communication frequency allocation, and that's where it should stay. It should not be acting like an unofficial censorship bureau

Their job is to regulate the spectrum in the public's interest. If the public complains about [sex/language/violence/other] on the public spectrum, then isn't it the FCC's job to regulate [X]?

I assert that "no regulation" isn't a viable option, so what's the alternative? Non-government regulation? How is a non-government organization accountable to the people?

What's your alternative?

Re:FCC should know its place

[MaceyHW]

Only on /. would this comment be regarded as 'insightful' in a discussion of the methodologies of determining broadband penetration.

They need to stop dumbing down US broadband

[Anonymous Coward]

US broadband speeds, directional balance, and legal definitions have been dumbed down to serve the interests of the incumbent telecom and cable providers and the entertainment industry.

DSL and cable's directionally unbalanced bandwidths are legacy broadband and are technologically obsolescent. Real broadband is bi-directional and starts at about 1 GB to the home. That's what fiber is capable of providing and is what other countries are getting or building toward. A 1 GB fiber can provide telephone, Internet, and cable TV on a single connection, and should cost no more than about $50 a month for all three combined.

In such a system, any subscriber can become a content originator. To prevent discrimination, providers of content, applications, snd services should be legally separated from providers of bandwidth.

This dumbing down has a serious negative impact on US competitiveness. Innovators with real broadband can conceive of applications that US innovators wouldn't imagine because of dumbed-down broadband.

Congress and the FCC still think that broadband starts at 200 KB and that broadband is reasonably provided as a means of delivering proprietary content. They need to get up to date.

That's all well and good ...

[ScrewMaster]

FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition

But I wish they'd admit to some more of their mistakes, and then do something about them. This one isn't even one of the most damning.

Re:Excuse my ignorance...

[DeepHurtn!]

How can sound communication policy be formed without adequate information?

FCC wrong on many things

[lrunger]

Not only is their methodology on zip codes flawed but their whole definition of what is "high speed" is way off. The FCC needs to update its definition. The minimum high speed should be is 2 MPPS upstream and 1 MBPS downstream. For other countries that would still be slow but we need to start somewhere. Even when we pay for higher speeds there is no consumer protection that requires providers to give you what you pay for. The only way for these issues to be addressed is a serious public policy encouraging real high speed broadband, affordable for every American. It is not going to happen by itself. Other countries (like Japan) have 100 MBPS for the same as we are paying. We need to take steps now. There is some good information on the state of American broadband and proposals for change on http://www.speedmatters.org./ [www.speedmatters.org]

Re:Nielsen puts our internet penetration at 6th

[Paulrothrock]

This is a ridiculous statement. First, what does Nielsen consider "broadband." Under current US regulations, anything with 256kbps down is "broadband," but that's almost unusable for anything other than faster web surfing or email. Video on demand and VoIP are unusable on such a system.

Second, our fastest residential broadband in the US is the minimum speeds for most of the rest of the world. For what I'm paying to Comcast right now for 6 Mbps down and 768 kbps up I could get a symmetrical 10Mbit connection in most other industrialized countries. So even if we're 6th in "broadband" penetration, we're still falling behind the rest of the world. (Though for a country who seems to enjoy an infant mortality rate on par with Botswana, falling behind the rest of the world might be seen as a compliment.)

Third, you can't rely on people going "to work" to get broadband. If people don't have broadband at home, what makes you think they'd have broadband at work? What makes you think they even sit in front of a computer at work? I'd imagine most of the places that don't have broadband at homes are rural areas, not upscale suburbs full of white collar folks.

Finally, folks on Slashdot care about these issues for a bunch of reasons. Most of us are technophiles. We want fast, reliable connections and the current system isn't giving them to us. Most of us also work in IT fields, so our livelihoods are dependent on people using the Internet and broadband. Most of us also see technologies around the corner, such as IPTV and VoIP, that will only become widespread once we meet a certain level of broadband speed and penetration, as well as changes in how the government handles things like patents and copyright issues. We want those technologies, so we're pushing for accurate metrics of true broadband penetration so that companies can make better decisions.