Why does the FCC keep using old
data? COMMENTARY | November 19, 2009
There aren?t many ?small? or ?very small? Internet service
providers. But you can?t tell that from data the broadband and
Internet regulators use to make decisions that benefit the big
telecoms.
Question: If you handed in a story about the current Internet,
wireless and broadband markets, using primary information from 1997,
would your editor fire you?
I just opened the FCC?s
recent net neutrality proceeding titled ?Commission Seeks
Public Input on Draft Rules to Preserve the Free and Open Internet.?
This proceeding is going to determine the final rules for ?net
neutrality.? Whether you care or don?t care about net neutrality,
you may find it odd that on page 78, there is a market analysis of
small wireless competitors and it is from the year 1997.
Or go to page 75 and see that the data on ?Internet Service
Providers? are from 2002. The FCC has added a caveat stating that
?the ISP industry has changed dramatically since 2002,? but it also
has this line: ?Consequently, we estimate that the majority of ISP
firms are small entities that may be affected by our action.?
The 1997 data have been used for the past decade in all FCC
phone company related proposed rulemakings. In addition, recent
rulings on almost all the other 36 small business markets listed in
the FCC?s Regulatory Flexibility Act section, some of which apply to
broadband, use data from 1996, 1999 and 2002. The result is to
dramatically harm small business competition in the American
communications industry, leading to less choice and poorer phone,
broadband, Internet and wireless services.
Julius Genachowski, chairman of the Federal Communications
Commission, testifying
before the House Energy and Commerce Committee in September, said
the FCC is going to be ?data-driven in its decision-making process,?
and that, ?as the nation?s expert agency on communications, the FCC
must have access to, and base its decisions on, data that are
robust, reliable, and relevant.?
Maybe the FCC?s chairman, the commissioners or the staff don?t
read their own proposed rulemakings.
The FCC doesn?t have to supply obsolete data. Current
information is available to it. The agency is in charge of wireless
spectrum licenses and transfers, so commissioners and staff have
up-to-date records of what has happened since 1997 to the small
wireless competitors. By doing a search on the Web, as I did, the
FCC could have found much later data from the Census Bureau and
Small Business Administration on Internet providers and all other
small business competitors.
The FCC is required by the ?Regulatory Flexibility Act? to
create an analysis, essentially an impact study, on how the Agency?s
regulations will affect small business competitors. Such an analysis
is in every FCC proceeding that creates a new rule. However, over
the last decade, instead of actually doing an analysis, the FCC has
taken boilerplate ? the 1997 data ? and thrown it into the back of
each rule making.
In addition, by statute the FCC, like all government agencies,
is compelled by the Data Quality Act to put out data based on the
criteria of quality, objectivity, utility and integrity.
If Genachowski is serious about fixing the data, all he has to
do is to have someone search the FCC archives or go to the Web and
examine the Small Business Administration?s data or Census
data.
In 2008 and again in 2009 my group, Teletruth, filed
complaints about the FCC?s use of decade-old wireless
data. We went to the actual spectrum auction information and tracked
the companies since 1997. We did all this using Web searches, as
well as the SEC?s EDGAR database and FCC materials. The FCC could
have done the same thing. This spectrum was supposed to be reserved
for ?very small business? entities and ?small business?
entities.
In that auction seven bidders won 31 licenses that qualified as
?very small business entities,? and one bidder won a license that
qualified as a ?small business entity.?
What we found was that four of the eight companies? licenses
were sold off by 2002 to large wireless companies, including
AT&T and T-Mobile; one company never made use of its license,
one company couldn?t be found, and two others are subsidized
non-profit co-operatives. Thus, small firms hardly exist as wireless
competitors.
It is clear from examining this one market that had the FCC
actually tracked what happened to the small business spectrum, it
would have found that the large companies could manipulate the
market and that the small business spectrum ended up being mostly a
way for the large firms to get billions of dollars in discounts. ( Click
here for a Teletruth analysis.)
And the ?Internet Service Provider? market information from
2002? The Census has
data through 2006 for the same category, and more
information about the market through 2009.
Had the FCC used the available data, it might not have created
laws that blocked these small businesses from offering competitive
Internet and broadband service on the phone networks. In fact, net
neutrality problems arose because the FCC closed the current
networks to competition. With competition, if a phone or cable
company blocks, degrades or harms service, a customer can just move
to another provider. The FCC?s lack of analysis and accurate data
harmed customers? choices in broadband and Internet; thus the FCC is
attempting to now create regulations so the remaining duopoly (phone
and cable) don?t harm competitors? when they offer Internet
service.
Imagine taking a class in economics and pulling out 12-year-old
data to discuss the current markets. That?s what the FCC has done in
the past. It set policies even while noting it didn?t have current
data. The data are available, it?s time for the FCC to use them, and
to acquire new data as needed.
|
|
Bruce Kushnick has been a telecom analyst for 25
years, and is currently the chairman of Teletruth, an
independent customer advocacy group focusing on broadband and
telecom issues, as well as executive director of New Networks
Institute, a market research firm. E-mail: bruce@newnetworks.com
|
|