Expert Opinion

BroadbandCensus.com: Leading the Charge for Public and Transparent Data

WASHINGTON, September 21, 2009 – Broadband data is important for the future of our country – and public and transparent broadband data is even more important. Today, at this moment, the new Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission is making a speech in which he is highlighting the vital principle of public and transparent broadband data.

Published

14 years ago

September 21, 2009

Drew Clark

WASHINGTON, September 21, 2009 – Broadband data is important for the future of our country – and public and transparent broadband data is even more important.

Today, at this moment, new Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski is making a speech in which he is highlighting the vital principle of public and transparent broadband data.

For three years now, this principle has been the core belief animating my efforts as a journalist, and as the entrepreneur founding BroadbandCensus.com. Now, as we enter the fourth year since this saga began, it’s time to take stock and reflect on what BroadbandCensus.com has accomplished.

And with One Web Week having arrived, I’d like to lay out this history from a personal perspective. In this series of blog posts, I’m going to speak about what we’ve been through, who we have worked with to advance the principles of public and transparent broadband data, and what we ultimately aim to achieve at BroadbandCensus.com.

Part 1: The debate begins with the Freedom of Information Act lawsuit in 2006.
Part 2, on One Web Day: The founding of BroadbandCensus.com in the fall of 2007.
Part 3: The Broadband Census for America Conference in September 2008, and our work with the academic community to foster public and transparent broadband data-collection efforts.
Part 4: BroadbandCensus.com’s involvement with the National Broadband Plan in 2009.
The Final Part: The role BroadbandCensus.com and broadband users have to play in the creation of a robust and reliable National Broadband Data Warehouse.

The Beginnings: Why I Sued Kevin Martin’s Federal Communications Commission

BroadbandCensus.com was founded in October 2007 after I spent nearly a year and a half with the Center for Public Integrity, a non-profit investigative journalism organization based here in Washington. But the quest for public and transparent broadband data goes back further.

For more than 15 years, I have covered the politics of telecom, media and technology. Most of that was spent at the National Journal Group in Washington, a key source of inside information about policy and lobbying. My aim there, as it is now, was to ensure that all the facts are brought to the table, that divergent viewpoints are fairly represented, and that questions asked go to the center of the debate.

When it came to broadband, the looming questions were and still are: where do we have broadband in the United States, and who is offering it? What kind of service is promised, and are carriers delivering on those promises?

In 2006, issues of broadband policy lurked in the background of many major political and media controversies: Net neutrality, online piracy, media ownership and control, the build out of high-speed networks, both wired and wireless, and the role of Web 2.0 in government and society. Whatever the ultimate resolutions for each of these controversies, the first step was better broadband data.

At this time, I headed the Center for Public Integrity’s media and telecommunications project, “Well Connected.” We were expanding its focus on media ownership to the new source of media control: the nation’s broadband infrastructure.

The Federal Communications Commission had a database about the carriers that offer broadband by ZIP code. This database is created from the carriers filing the Form 477 with the FCC. The FCC publishes other databases of the locations of radio and television broadcasters, and of cable companies. We asked for a copy of the Form 477 database in August 2006. At that time, we cited the Freedom of Information Act.

An FCC staff member called me to discuss arrangements for getting our electronic copy. When I called the FCC staffer back, less than 45 minutes later, he told me that he had been instructed not to talk to me further. From that point on, only Kevin Martin’s lawyers would do the talking.

The FCC missed their 20-day deadline to timely respond to our FOIA letter. On September 25, 2006, the Center for Public Integrity filed suit in federal district court , seeking to enforce our FOIA request. We asked the district court to grant us access to the Form 477 database, with information about subscriber numbers redacted (if necessary). The end result would be a database with the names of the carriers that offer broadband on a ZIP code basis.

Even though the FCC has been collecting the Form 477 since 2000, and already has a database of all of this information, they have only ever released the number of providers within a ZIP code, and not the names of the providers. Even then, the agency only released the number if the number was four or more – out of an excessive concern for identifying carrier information.

That’s like saying that the government will restrict the release of information it has about how many gas stations there are in your town if there are not four or more gas stations in town. In any case, the government won’t tell you the names of the gas stations, or where you can find them, so that you can buy gas. And most definitely, they won’t share the prices at which the gas stations sell gas.

“We filed suit against the FCC to obtain the data that the public and policy-makers need in order to get a complete and accurate picture of the current state of broadband,” I said at the time.

Broadband Providers Seek to Forestall Publication of Carrier-Level Broadband Data

I’ve recounted the story of the FOIA litigation at great length, in June 2007, in a story, “Center Spearheads Efforts to Disclose Broadband Data,” and in February 2009 in Ars Technica, “US broadband infrastructure investments need transparency.”

We were seeking something quite straightforward: the identities of broadband carriers that offer service within a particular geographic location. At the time, we were seeking ZIP code information, because that was the best information that the FCC had. I and many others have long recognized that ZIP codes are extremely problematic and coarse unit of measurement. And that is why it is extremely positive that, in July 2009, the NTIA declared that it needed broadband information by Census block.

But in 2006 and 2007, getting carrier-level broadband data by ZIP would have been a good first step. Then-Chairman Kevin Martin, of course, was never a fan of public disclosure. After his agency nixed any sort of collaboration or compromise in approaching our FOIA request, Martin sought to shore up support from industry. On December 15, 2006, the agency issued a “Public Notice to Service Providers Who Filed FCC Form 477s With The Commission And Sought Confidential Treatment Of The Information Submitted.”

AT&T and Verizon Communications, along with the Wireless Communications Association International, intervened in the lawsuit. Others filed as “friends of the court,” on the side of the FCC. The public notice and the interventions forced Judge Rosemary Collyer to recuse herself from the case, as she owned stock in AT&T. The case went to Judge Ellen Huvelle.

“As a non-profit publisher of investigative journalism committed to transparent and comprehensive reporting both in the U.S. and around the world, the Center for Public Integrity believes that making data about the names of the broadband provider on a ZIP code-by-ZIP code basis would allow consumers to ‘truth-check’ the FCC data,” I wrote at the time. “Adding citizen-provided information about the speed, quality and price of such connections would, in turn, create a robust collection of information further informing telecommunications-related public policy debates.”

In their defense, the carriers said that disclosure would cause them competitive harm – the legal standard for denying the disclosure of data under the Freedom of Information Act.

In our legal briefings, the Center noted “that all of the major communications companies – including cable, wireless and telecom players – already provide ZIP code lookup of service availability on their Web sites.” If the information was not available on web site, the information was readily available by calling up the carrier and asking if service was available at that address. Because such information was already readily-discoverable, aggregating the data on a single web site would not cause competitive harm, either.

Among those who intervened in the suit, some sincerely believed that disclosure would have caused them harm. Others litigated merely because of the possibility of a negative FOIA precedent. Whatever the case, Kevin Martin’s FCC certainly went all-out to defend restrictions on data.

In its legal briefings, the FCC argued that releasing the data would lead to competition in communications. “Disclosure could allow competitors to free ride on the efforts of the first new entrant to identify areas where competition is more likely to be successful,” the agency told the federal district court in Washington.

It was supremely ironic that that the FCC and the communications industry were fighting our efforts to obtain public and transparent broadband data at the same time that Congress and the FCC began to clamor for precisely that which we were seeking: better broadband data to address a range of policy concerns.

Together with my friend Scott Wallsten, then of the Progress and Freedom Foundation (later with Technology Policy Institute, and now at the FCC), the Center for Public Integrity organized a Conference on Broadband Statistics on June 28, 2007, at the National Academy of Science.

Scott and I gathered an assemblage of many people, including officials from Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, ConnectKentucky, plus leading academics and policy practitioners in the field, including experts from Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, Pew Internet and American Life Project, and the University of Texas at Austin, to consider precisely these questions. Audio from the June 2007 conference is available here; a transcript of the proceeding is available here.

More recently, Wallsten’s appointment as the economics director of the FCC’s broadband task force has prompted some controversy. But Wallsten has always been supportive of my efforts – and those of others in the field – to push for greater disclosure of broadband data. See “What Disconnect?,” and “Hiding the Broadband Map.”

The Aftermath: Kevin Martin and Me

Unfortunately, the Center lost the lawsuit when Judge Huvelle ruled against the Center in August 2007, and again in October 2007 after a motion for reconsideration. I’ll talk briefly in Tuesday’s blog post about the founding of BroadbandCensus.com in the aftermath of this defeat, and on Wednesday about BroadbandCensus.com’s efforts, in 2008, to advance public and transparent broadband.

But it’s worth fast-forwarding to get to the end of the Kevin Martin story.

Martin’s tenure at the FCC was marked by his repeated jokes about how he led the FCC like the KGB. That would seem to be of a piece with denying Freedom of Information Act requests like the one I initiated.

Yet I never anticipated just how pointed his criticism of public and transparent broadband data could be. I had been invited to speak at the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners’ and the FCC’s joint conference on broadband deployment and data at the FCC, in San Jose, on November 6, 2008 – two days after the presidential election.

In my presentation, on the background to and requirements of the Broadband Data Improvement Act, I referred to the Center’s FOIA lawsuit, quoted in the section above, about how the FCC didn’t want disclosure of carrier data to lead to greater competition. Kevin Martin interrupted my presentation seven times! He disagreed with my characterization of the FCC’s position on broadband data.

“It was actually also because the carriers do not want it to be disclosed, and so it was not provided in a public way,” Martin first interjected. I disagreed with him, saying that “The FCC chose through its discretion over a period of time not to release information about carrier by carrier level.”

To which Martin replied, “I am not going to have an argument with you over it. I think we should move on…. This is not about FOIA litigation. No one is interested in that.”

I came back with, “I am just pointing out that the law does not need to be changed for the FCC to release this data.”

And that still isn’t the end of the story.

Two weeks later, on November 18, 2008, Kevin Martin was back in Washington for what appeared to be his final swan song: accepting an award at the Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal and Economic Public Policy Studies at the National Press Club. Martin gave his remarks, and was praised by the Phoenix Center. After chatting with journalists for a few minutes, we all went our separate ways.

Later, as I was walking over to the elevator to depart, I saw the elevator door closing on Kevin Martin and his long-time chief of staff, Dan Gonzalez.

Martin opened the doors by pushing the open button, and I walked in. Martin asked me what I had in my hands. It was a box with flyers, so I handed him a flyer from BroadbandCensus.com, and told him a bit about our next upcoming activity as the elevator went to the ground floor.

As we stepped into the lobby, I asked Martin if he had a nice trip back from the broadband data conference in San Jose.

He chuckled somewhat under his breath, and then said: “You may not believe this, but I think what you are doing is a good thing. I just can’t end up giving it to you.”

Up Next

BroadbandCensus.com: Starting the Ball Rolling on Crowdsourcing

Don't Miss

Lawrence Strickling on Broadband Applications: 'Incumbents Do Not Have a Veto!'

Drew Clark

Breakfast Media LLC CEO Drew Clark has led the Broadband Breakfast community since 2008. An early proponent of better broadband, better lives, he initially founded the Broadband Census crowdsourcing campaign for broadband data. As Editor and Publisher, Clark presides over the leading media company advocating for higher-capacity internet everywhere through topical, timely and intelligent coverage. Clark also served as head of the Partnership for a Connected Illinois, a state broadband initiative.

2 Comments

Expert Opinion

Ted Hearn: Is a Ban on Cable and Satellite ‘Junk Fees’ Rate Regulation?

The Federal Communications Commission says no.

Published

7 hours ago

November 29, 2023

Broadband Breakfast Staff

The author of this Expert Opinion is Ted Hearn, editor of Policyband

The Federal Communications Commission could have a legal problem on its hands, but agency lawyers seem to have crafted what appears to be an acceptable workaround: Don’t call a ban on certain cable and satellite TV billing fees rate regulation – call it consumer protection.

At its Dec. 13 open meeting, FCC Chair Jessica Rosenworcel is planning to launch a rulemaking designed to bar cable and satellite TV providers from collecting early termination fees and billing cycle fees – even though the agency receives just hundreds of informal complaints about these fees annually. The U.S. has 53.3 million cable and satellite TV subscribers combined, down 15.7 million since January 2021.

Although the FCC says a ban on these fees has nothing to do with rate regulation, the agency is likely to face strong rebuttal on this point – if not from NCTAitv, the trade association for large cable TV operators, then at least from Charter Communications. Charter invoked impermissible rate regulation in its court fight against a billing cycle fee ban adopted by the state of Maine in 2020 that remains in effect.

In seeking U.S. Supreme Court review of its loss below, Charter was emphatic that Maine’s billing cycle fee statute embraced prohibited price regulation by requiring partial-month refunds.

“Maine’s law … caps Charter’s rates during the final month of service and precludes Charter from charging either for the full month, or a daily rate higher than its standard monthly rate. That is rate regulation, pure and simple,” Charter said last year in a brief with the high court. The Supreme Court declined to take the case, handing victory to Maine.

An early termination fee is collected when a customer cancels service prior to the expiration of an existing service contract, which can run as long as 24 months. A billing cycle fee involves denial of pro rata refunds when customers cancel before the end of the month. Echoing President Biden, Rosenworcel blasted ETFs and BCFs as “junk fees” that penalize consumers and impede competition.

If all goes according to plan, the FCC will adopt new junk fees rules in 2024. The FCC has floated an exemption for small or rural cable TV operators, but it put the onus on these entities to justify any special treatment.

The FCC’s crackdown on ETFs and BCFs would run counter to the agency’s bipartisan light-touch approach to cable TV regulation that began more than two decades ago. By law, the FCC in 1999 had to cease regulating the price of cable’s expanded basic tier, a service level which typically includes ESPN, C-SPAN, CNBC, and Fox News.

In 2015, the FCC stripped away the last layer of cable rate regulation. The agency, led at that time by Chairman Tom Wheeler, an Obama appointee, held that every cable operator in the country was subject to “effective competition.” That prevented local governments from continuing to regulate cable’s basic tier – the traditional home of local TV stations and public access channels. Rosenworcel, then an FCC Commissioner, voted against the Wheeler plan as going too far.

Rosenworcel is evidently not planning on letting the agency’s long legacy of cable deregulation to prevent her from pivoting in the opposite direction.

Sprinkled throughout the FCC’s junk fees ban proposal are references to recent court cases holding that BCFs are not rate regulation preempted by federal law, but rather consumer protection measures that states are permitted to adopt and enforce. The FCC said the logic used by the courts in upholding state BCFs applies just as well to a would-be ETF ban.

The FCC said its authority to ban ETFs and BCFs on cable is contained in the 1992 Cable Act, saying it provides for the agency to protect “consumers against … poor customer service” and “establish standards by which cable operators may fulfill their customer service requirements.”

Whether past FCC cable deregulation steps would prevent a junk fees ban, the FCC concluded: “The applicability of ETF and BCF regulations are not affected by the existence of effective competition in a community.”

DBS providers Dish and DirecTV will probably have an easier time than cable in getting a junk fees ban struck down in court.

Since their arrival in the mid-1990s, Dish and DirectTV have never been price regulated at the state or federal level or subject to any form of cable-like specific customer service obligations adopted by the FCC.

Still, the FCC is confident regarding its power to act, asserting that it retains “exclusive jurisdiction to regulate the provision of direct-to-home satellite services” and authority to impose “public interest or other requirements for providing video programming” on DBS.

In a final rationale left undeveloped, the FCC said a junk fees ban exemption for Dish and DirecTV would be inappropriate because it would allow the DBS providers to gain “a competitive advantage over their competitors through the use of ETFs and BCFs.”

The FCC failed to explain how DBS reliance on junk fees deemed unlawful for cable could be an effective tool at keeping customers or attracting new ones while Dish and DirecTV bled nearly 700,000 subscribers in the most recent quarter.

Maybe FCC lawyers don’t have it all figured out after all.

Ted Hearn is the Editor of Policyband, a new website dedicated to comprehensive coverage of the broadband communications market. A former communications executive and reporter for newsletters and trade journals, Hearn has decades of experience with traditional video and broadband industry trends, regulatory developments, technology advancements, and market dynamics. This piece is exclusive to Broadband Breakfast.

Broadband Breakfast accepts commentary from informed observers of the broadband scene. Please send pieces to commentary@breakfast.media. The views expressed in Expert Opinion pieces do not necessarily reflect the views of Broadband Breakfast and Breakfast Media LLC.

Expert Opinion

Kate Forscey: National Security and Global Success Depend Upon Prioritizing Telecom Funding

The Affordable Connectivity Program and the Rip-and-Replace program are both central funding needs for the industry.

Published

1 week ago

November 21, 2023

Broadband Breakfast Staff

The author of this Expert Opinion is Kate Forscey, contributing fellow for the Digital Progress Institute

With the government now funded into the new year, it’s time for Congress to take another look at its broader priorities, especially when it comes to the race with China for dominance in next-generation technologies. Whether it’s AI or cloud computing or virtual reality, if the United States is to remain competitive, we need to make secure and effective communications a priority. This means finally connecting all Americans to high-speed broadband and ensuring that our connectivity cannot be undermined by foreign adversaries.

Two popular programs are central to this goal: the Affordable Connectivity Program and the Rip-and-Replace program. Both of these programs have tremendous bipartisan, bicameral support; but both have been underfunded and now risk dying on the vine. Congress has the opportunity to fully fund these programs if it has the will to do so.

Let’s break it down.

The Affordable Connectivity Program provides low-income American families and veterans with discounts on Internet service and connectivity equipment, including higher discounts for those living on Tribal lands. With affordable broadband, more Americans can get online and be a part of the digital economy.

The ACP has been wildly successful, connecting over 21 million households to essential broadband they could otherwise not afford. And it continues to garner widespread support, with the vast majority of voters (78%) calling for its extension, including 64% of Republicans, 70% of Independents, and 95% of Democrats.

Congress provided the ACP with $14.2 billion in 2021—but funding is now running low and is projected to be fully exhausted by spring 2024. Governors, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, public interest groups, and Internet service providers are all raising the alarm about its imminent depletion. That’s why the Biden Administration in October called on Congress to replenish the program’s coffers with an additional $6 billion.

A good start, but not the whole story. Our foreign adversaries are well known for their espionage, and while a spy balloon might get the attention, a far more insidious problem lurks in our communications networks: equipment designed and produced by Chinese suppliers Huawei and ZTE. A bipartisan Congress passed the Secure and Trusted Networks Act to eradicate national security threats such as these, but sufficient funding for the Rip and Replace program has never materialized.

Again, the Biden Administration has stepped up and identified a need for $3.1 billion to fully fund the program as a “key national security priority” in its emergency supplemental funding request. It’s a narrative we can all get on-board with: that broadband falls under the umbrella of national security as a whole. American consumers and institutions both benefit from American-built networks and increased protection at home. But communications providers can’t live up to these needs on their own.

As it stands, the responsibility to get affordable, secure connectivity programs across the finish line rests with Congress. Even with a consensus of support for these two programs, the devil is in the details of how to make the price tags palatable to enough policymakers on Capitol Hill. The key is ensuring that any changes preserve the widespread efficacy of the program that has made it popular so far.

For example, Congress could cut the cost of the ACP by limiting the additional Tribal funding to rural Tribal lands. Any such change should be grounded in an evaluation of existing need in urban areas, but could be an opportunity to ensure funds are being directed to areas of greatest need. And Congress should consider indexing the ACP to inflation. The high inflation of recent years has wreaked havoc on the budgets of consumers—and inflation-proofing the program would ensure that broadband remains affordable for all Americans even should inflation come back.

As for Rip-and-Replace, those of us urging for more funds could concede putting safeguards in place to ensure the money is being used for its intended purpose – the kind of compromise needed to get such policies across the finish line

These are just some ideas as we head into the final funding fight. Not everyone is going to be on the same page on what is and isn’t working best, but shared success starts by recognizing that we all have the same endgame. Congress must ensure that adequate funding for the ACP and Rip and Replace program are included in any year-end spending package. We have an all-too-rare opportunity to win the race for high-tech dominance—we just need to provide the resources.

Kate Forscey is a contributing fellow for the Digital Progress Institute and principal and founder of KRF Strategies LLC. She has served as senior technology policy advisor for Congresswoman Anna G. Eshoo and policy counsel at Public Knowledge. This piece is exclusive to Broadband Breakfast.

Expert Opinion

Ryan Johnston: What Happens to BEAD Without the Affordable Connectivity Program?

We’d be building broadband to no one without the ACP. The ACP extends every BEAD dollar further.

Published

2 weeks ago

November 15, 2023

Broadband Breakfast Staff

The author of this Expert Opinion is Ryan Johnston, senior policy counsel at Next Century Cities

Congress dedicated more than $42 billion to help states and companies build out broadband networks to all Americans. This program, called the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment Program, marked a crucial step towards bridging the digital divide in our nation. But this program will fail if Congress doesn’t renew the Affordable Connectivity Program that states are relying on to connect low-income Americans.

Bipartisan legislation from Congress made it clear that states needed to offer a low-cost broadband plan to residents to qualify for BEAD funding. For the uninitiated, the ACP is a $30-a-month subsidy that an eligible consumer can use towards any broadband plan a participating service provider offers.

In fact, many providers have started offering broadband plans at a $30 price point so the effective cost of broadband to the consumer is zero. Using ACP is an easy way for ISPs to meet the affordability requirement, a “short-hand” of sorts for them to offer affordable plans using an existing — and successful — model.

However, the ACP is expected to exhaust its funding in the first half of next year, leaving a potentially disastrous scenario for families who may have little savings or discretionary income. Ultimately allowing the ACP to end leaves a crucial question unanswered: what good are networks if people cannot afford to connect to them?

During a congressional oversight hearing in May, National Telecommunications and Information Agency Administrator Alan Davidson explained to Members of Congress that the BEAD program will be negatively impacted if continued funding for the ACP is not found. He emphasized that for low-income rural Americans, the ACP is the lifeline ensuring they can afford to access the internet. Without it, some providers may hesitate to deploy in rural areas over fear that the investment will be sustainable. Subscribership concerns may prove to be a limiting factor on which rural areas are served.

The ACP extends every BEAD dollar further. A study conducted by Common Sense Media found that the ACP could reduce the BEAD subsidy needed to incentivize providers to build in rural areas by up to 25% per year. According to the study, ACP reduces the per-household subsidy required to incentivize ISP investment by $500. Simply put, ACP improves the economic case because it 1) effectively lowers the cost of service, 2) creates a customer base with less churn, and 3) makes subscribers easier to acquire because of the massive public and private investment in raising awareness for the program.

But if the ACP is allowed to end, the federal government could end up overspending on every broadband deployment made through BEAD. This ultimately means BEAD networks will fail to connect millions of Americans.

The ACP is more than a simple affordability program; for over 21 million households; it’s a gateway to our ever-increasing digital society. Without it, millions of Americans will be unable to see doctors, visit with family, shop, and engage with their communities online. At the same time, the ACP plays a significant role in future infrastructure deployment. Allowing the ACP to end all but ensures that millions will be disconnected and future funding dollars won’t go the distance to close the digital divide.

Ryan Johnston is senior policy counsel at Next Century Cities. He is responsible for NCC’s federal policy portfolio, building and maintaining relationships with Federal Commissions Commission officials, members of Congress and staff, and public interest allies. Working with various federal agencies, Ryan submits filings on behalf of NCC members on technology and telecommunications related issues that impact the digital divide such as broadband data mapping, benchmark speeds, spectrum policy, content moderation, privacy, and others. This piece is exclusive to Broadband Breakfast.