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.'"

Other countries probably do the same thing

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure that in other places they count it the same way... or perhaps even worse.

Money money money

[spaceyhackerlady]

I'm always amazed at just how much broadband costs in the U.S. No wonder the FCC thinks nobody wants it!

I get ADSL from the phone company for $CDN 34.95 a month. They sent me a new DSL modem that's supposed to go twice as fast (the usual residential ADSL offering is 1.5 MBPS), but I haven't found any sites with big enough pipes to see the difference. I'm close enough to the central office to go a lot faster if I wanted to pay for it.

I have family who live out in the country. Until recently they suffered through 56k dialup that rarely connected above 28.8. Now they have satellite broadband, and pay about what I do, per person (my Mum and my sister share a connection).

...laura, well-connected Canadian Linux and Mac user

Re:Isn't the Zip code unusually large

[amRadioHed]

No I think you are missing the point. The problem is that zip codes alone are too big. Someone one one side of a zip code may have access to DSL while someone on the other side may not have any broadband access. They are currently assuming that if anyone in a zip code has broadband access everyone does. I imagine the number of entire areas without any broadband is far far less than the number of zip code areas that just have spotty coverage.

Also this is just as problematic when gaging competition. Just because the people on the west side of a region have one ISP and the people on the east side have another ISP doesn't mean there is competition.

The smaller zip codes would certainly take care of both these problems since these zip+4's in rural areas that only consist of a house or two will be much more likely to actually reflect whether or not these people have broadband.

Re:Isn't the Zip code unusually large

[Rukie]

I'm living in an area where there is intermittent access. There are two broadband corporations here, RoadRunner, and Charter. Neither of which encroach in each others territory, so both of them FORCE you to buy their entire package for broadband internet. With basic cable, phone (had vonage, but 5 bucks cheaper with charter), and internet, the bill is about 100 bucks a month. Its ridiculous. There is NO competition ANYWHERE near here, because the providers stay out of each others territories. Its like a frickin Monopolistic agreement.

Re:FCC should know its place

[SonicSpike]

The FCC is a bit sticky because really it isn't authorized to exist in Article I Section 8 of the US Constitution. Legally all RF spectrum management should be reserved to the States. However I do realize that would create utter chaos, and I might could see how RF spectrum management might be able to be stretched to fit the "interstate commerce clause".

Nevertheless, the ONLY function of the FCC would be spectrum management. And by this I mean deciding what services are on what freqs etc ensuring the local radio station doesn't trample aviation or military communications etc. The FCC should NOT be involved in any content decisions, telcom decisions, land-line anything, or anything that is not directly involved with the RF spectrum.

Re:Don't forget

[petermgreen]

That being said, most cities have a natural monopoly with respect to cable.
Last mile communications infrastructure is a natural monopoly.

The only reason many places (and this is hardly specific to the USA) have a duopoloy rather than a monopoly on last mile communications infrastruture is because of a combination of government regulation and the fact that in the pre-digital era TV had very different wiring needs from telephone.

The soloution is obvious but hard to force through with lots of lobbyists arround. The provision of last mile communication service needs to be decoupled from the provision of content service and long distance communication service. The provision of last mile service should be done by either government (preferablly as local governement as possible) or a highly regulated buisness. Provision of content and long distance communications service should be a competitive market.

Re:Not so simple

[hazydave]

I spoke with one of the "fixer" guys Verizon sends out when their first repair guy can't solve your problem; he's done all kinds of DSL installations. The DSL board set can live in any local node, it doesn't have to be at the central office... he knew the precise board set and software revision for the local node that's less than 1000ft from my driveway, and promised that Verizon would NEVER support DSL there. Period. Thus, the 0.97m 2-way satellite dish on my roof, and a hefty internet bill.

See, the telcos view DSL as a necessary evil today, but want to invest in it as little as possible. They're spending the crazy money on FIOS, which is the only way they stay competitive with the cablecos in delivering voice, internet, and TV. Naturally, of course, they're rolling out FIOS in areas already well served by DSL and Cable... I have a few buddies in the West Chester/Exton PA area who are getting FIOS-TV, 15Mb/s downlinks, etc.... must be nice. But if you're in a non-coverage area, don't hold you breath for DSL expansion.