May 09, 2006
The General Accounting Office has issued a report (pdf) on broadband deployment in the United States, that criticizes the FCC's determination of just how wired America is - and recommends improvements.
"For its zip-code level data, the FCC collects data based on where subscribers are served, not where providers have deployed broadband infrastructure," the report notes. "Although it is clear that the deployment of broadband networks is extensive, the data may not provide a highly accurate depiction of local broadband infrastructures for residential service, especially in rural areas."
This is what critics of FCC policy have been saying for some time. The FCC has taken a largely hands-off deregulatory approach to the industry, based on its own data suggesting everything is looking good. But if measurement of broadband coverage isn't accurate, obviously the question arises how effective policy can be.
In a recent Wall Street Journal editorial, FCC chief Kevin Martin praised his policies, stating that America "leads the world in the total number of broadband connections with 38 million subscribers," and that we were "well on our way to accomplishing the president's goal of universal, affordable access to broadband by 2007."
But even fellow FCC Commissioners have found fault with the FCC's penetration methodology. "Finding one high-speed subscriber in a zip code and counting it as service available throughout is not a credible way to proceed," stated Commissioner Copps in 2003. He similarly has taken issue with the FCC's classification of anything over 200kbps as "broadband". Regardless, little in the FCC's data collection and reporting methodology has changed.
"All of the statistics in the FCC report are "up and to the right" and thus look good," recently complained the Technology Security Officer at Harvard University - and frequent critic - Scott Bradner. "It's too bad that it actually does not tell us all that much about Internet service - Maybe someday we will find out, but maybe not from the FCC."
These FCC reports were required as part of the 1996 Telecom act. If they show penetration issues (to say oh, rural America) the FCC is expected to "take immediate action to accelerate deployment of such capability." Unfortunately, critics lament, FCC policy in recent years has been driven by political think-tank idealism and a hatred of all regulation - not impartial technological need.
The only way to prove such criticism inaccurate is by reforming the FCC's data collection mechanism. Only then can the agency illuminate coverage gaps and implement effective policy.
"For its zip-code level data, the FCC collects data based on where subscribers are served, not where providers have deployed broadband infrastructure," the report notes. "Although it is clear that the deployment of broadband networks is extensive, the data may not provide a highly accurate depiction of local broadband infrastructures for residential service, especially in rural areas."
This is what critics of FCC policy have been saying for some time. The FCC has taken a largely hands-off deregulatory approach to the industry, based on its own data suggesting everything is looking good. But if measurement of broadband coverage isn't accurate, obviously the question arises how effective policy can be.
In a recent Wall Street Journal editorial, FCC chief Kevin Martin praised his policies, stating that America "leads the world in the total number of broadband connections with 38 million subscribers," and that we were "well on our way to accomplishing the president's goal of universal, affordable access to broadband by 2007."
But even fellow FCC Commissioners have found fault with the FCC's penetration methodology. "Finding one high-speed subscriber in a zip code and counting it as service available throughout is not a credible way to proceed," stated Commissioner Copps in 2003. He similarly has taken issue with the FCC's classification of anything over 200kbps as "broadband". Regardless, little in the FCC's data collection and reporting methodology has changed.
"All of the statistics in the FCC report are "up and to the right" and thus look good," recently complained the Technology Security Officer at Harvard University - and frequent critic - Scott Bradner. "It's too bad that it actually does not tell us all that much about Internet service - Maybe someday we will find out, but maybe not from the FCC."
These FCC reports were required as part of the 1996 Telecom act. If they show penetration issues (to say oh, rural America) the FCC is expected to "take immediate action to accelerate deployment of such capability." Unfortunately, critics lament, FCC policy in recent years has been driven by political think-tank idealism and a hatred of all regulation - not impartial technological need.
The only way to prove such criticism inaccurate is by reforming the FCC's data collection mechanism. Only then can the agency illuminate coverage gaps and implement effective policy.
