'Data Driven' FCC Still Using Ancient Data? Science is hard. The FCC has long been an agency that has played fast and loose when it comes to using science and data to fuel its policy decisions. The agency for most of broadband's life cycle has been using outdated data, or inadequate data provided by industry lobbyists designed to make things look pretty and keep government out of their hair. With a new FCC and new boss Julius Genachowski, the agency has promised to be data driven. Yet Bruce Kushnick over at Harvard's Neiman Watchdog claims that in policy discussions, the agency's still using inadequate or old data -- sometimes more than a decade old -- to shape broadband and wireless policy.
|
 | | Government agency with ancient data Who woulda thunk it! | |
|
approval from:
Romney2012 
| Bruce K. means well, but is often wrong I actually went and read the NPRM. Bruce is pretty wrong here, and I hope it isn't on purpose to get links.
1) He says, "on page 78, there is a market analysis of small wireless competitors and it is from the year 1997."
Not true. Page 78 is a part of an "Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis" (RFA) that is required to be appended to any FCC proposed rulemaking procedure. It has little to do with the proposed rule, and its major purpose is to "possible significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities from the policies and rules proposed..."
On page 78, the RFA mentions the existence of a specific category of wireless providers called "Wireless Communications Services." All the RFA does is mention their existence, and the only reference to 1997 is that was the year these spectrum licenses were awarded.
2) His only other point is also in the RFA: "go to page 75 and see that the data on “Internet Service Providers” are from 2002." Bruce blames the FCC for using 2002 data, and says he should have used more recent data from the Census Bureau. But this 2002 data is from the Census Bureau, and is the most recent available on this specific question (they have 2007 data, but not on the number of ISPs). The FCC recognizes this defect, and then tries to correct for it, saying "The 2002 data cited above therefore may include entities that no longer provide Internet access service and may exclude entities that now provide broadband Internet access service. To ensure that this IRFA describes the universe of small entities that the proposals in the Notice may affect, we discuss in turn several different types of entities that may be providing broadband Internet access service."
I know Bruce means well, and has been on the side of the good guys for years. But simple mistakes like this is why no one in DC takes him seriously. | |
|  | | | Re: Bruce K. means well,-=--sorry, bruce is right. Excuse me, but there were no mistakes...
>1) He says, "on page 78, there is a market analysis of small >Not >true. Page 78 is a part of an "Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis" >(RFA) that is required to be appended to any FCC proposed >rulemaking procedure
I used the page numbers at the bottom of the word doc. ---
>On page 78, the RFA mentions the existence of a specific >category of wireless providers called "Wireless Communications >Services." All the RFA does is mention their existence, and the >only reference to 1997 is that was the year these spectrum >licenses were awarded.
That's right -- It is supposed to give market size and number of companies -- the only info is from 1997 -- listing 8 companies -- no market size, no followup on data.
>But this 2002 data is from the Census Bureau, and is the most >recent available on this specific question (they have 2007 >data, but not on the number of ISPs).
You didn't read our filings -- there's other data through 2006 -- example, this line is for data from 2005 for the EXACT same category.
»www.census.gov/epcd/susb/2005/us/US51.HTM
518111 Internet service providers 4,417
The FCC's staff didn't actually check SBA or Census -- and this same bad data is in every rulemaking ----
And when have I been wrong before????? Show me the data please?
>But simple mistakes like this is why no one in DC takes him >seriously.
Really. I guess last month the quote in "The Hill" didn't count?
»thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/···cc-hires
Maybe if I had the big pr budgets I would be taken as seriously as my critics... And I agree, they aren't listening as we have filed (with lawyers) about the FCC's flawed data since 2003 -- garbage in ---created bad policies -- garbage out...
Bruce Kushnick, | |
| | | | Re: Bruce K. means well, but is often wrong no one in DC takes him seriously. Yet people in DC telecom take hired lobbyists who complete distort science completely seriously. I think thou doth protest too much... | |
|
 MrMoodyFree range slavePremium
join:2002-09-03
Smithfield, NC | Government quote:
The FCC has long been an agency that has played fast and loose when it comes to using science and data to fuel its policy decisions.
And this is surprising or different from the rest of the government in what way?
--
Anthropogenic climate change has been debunked | |
| |  AVDRespice, Adspice, ProspicePremium
join:2003-02-06
Onion, NJ | Re: Government said by MrMoody: quote:
The FCC has long been an agency that has played fast and loose when it comes to using science and data to fuel its policy decisions.
And this is surprising or different from the rest of the government in what way? why let facts and logic get in the way of a good argument?
--
standard disclaimers apply. | |
|
| | Kushnick is distorting the data even more than the FCC Kushnick's claims are designed to support his agenda, not to reveal the truth. The truth is that there are more, not fewer, small and independent ISPs than are reported in the data that the FCC used. In fact, there are more than 4,000 WISPs (high speed wireless ISPs) in the US alone. (For a partial listing, in which only about 25% to 30% of the WISPs in the US are now participating, see »www.wispdirectory.com.)
Why does Kuschnick claim otherwise? Because his agenda is to impose heavier regulation -- which is a much easier sell if you claim that there is no competition.
By claiming that there are fewer independent ISPs than the FCC reports, rather than more, Kushnick is every bit as guilty as the FCC -- if not more so -- of distorting the data. | |
|
| |
|
|
