Congressman Nadler's recent Op-Ed in the New York Times, "We Interrupt This Broadcast" is full of misinformation and verifiable incorrect assertions. Folks like former FCC Senior Counsel, Kenneth Carter, and Matthew Lasar over at ars technica have already taken the piece to task for reading like a spin project of the National Association of Broadcasters. Since I've had a bit more time to address Congressman Nadler's Op-Ed rather than just focus on the propaganda aspects of the piece, I thought I'd provide some primary sourcing to directly refute the main points of his article.

Congressman Nadler claims, "White spaces are the intervals between television channel frequencies to ensure that TV reception is not interrupted by other signals" -- ignoring the white spaces that exist in vast swaths of the country currently underserved by TV broadcasters that have nothing to do with preventing adjacent channel interference. Talk to folks living in rural America and ask them how many TV channels they get on their rabbit ears and compare that with the channels that anyone living in the top metro markets gets. Then do the math
-- are their more channels in New York City than in Greenup, Illinois? If yes, then you're left with an inconvenient truth -- one can clearly put more TV channels in rural areas without causing interference.

But even more than that -- the spacing between TV channels are meant to prevent interference of stations who were using the best analog equipment available (as of several decades ago) and broadcasting at tens of thousands of Watts of power.

Which begs the question, "Is it possible that the spectrum spacing needed to prevent interference by 30-year old technology operating at 50,000 Watts might be more than todays cutting edge digital technology operating at, say, 200 Milliwatts?" If you suspect that answer might be "yes" -- congratulation, not only are you correct, but my good friend, Physics, is here to back you up.

Congressman Nadler goes on to state, "The usefulness of these white spaces is about to be compromised by a proposal before the Federal Communications Commission by some of the nation’s largest technology companies. Microsoft, Google and others are asking permission to use white spaces — free of charge..."

This sin of omission is particularly egregious -- Google got involved years after public interest groups were working to open up the public airwaves to the general public. Don't believe me? Check for yourself -- point your browser to the FCC's Filed Comments search form: put "04-186" in as the proceeding number (box 1) and either "Google" in the "Filed on Behalf of" line (box 4) then click the "Retrieve Document List" button. What you'll see is every document pertaining to the FCC's white space proceedings filed by these organization.

For Google, it looks like their first involvement was in 2007. Microsoft, on the other hand, got involved in 2004 (the year the proceeding actually began).
But what about the "others" that Congressman Nadler so quickly mentions?
Probably some other major corporations, right?

One of them is the New America Foundation, which I work for -- a public interest think tank. But there's also the Media Access Project, a public interest law firm; Consumers' Union, who fight for consumers' rights and publish "Consumer Reports"; Educause, a national coalition of institutions of higher education; Common Cause, one of the nation's largest citizen advocacy organizations; the Office of Communication of the United Church of Christ, which works to "assure a just and equitable media that gives meaningful voice to diverse peoples, cultures and ideas"; the Consumer Federation of America, a consumers rights group with "a combined membership exceeding 50 million people"; the National Hispanic Media Coalition, which advocates for "media and telecommunications policies that benefit the Latino community; as well as dozens of additional community groups, non-profit organizations, and consumer rights coalitions. Why does Congressman Nadler marginalize this massive public interest coalition, ignore the years of work that these groups have put into supporting White Space Devices, and dismiss their existence as "others"?

And of course we want consumers to be able to access white space free of charge
-- this is exactly why the National Association of Broadcasters, wireless microphone manufacturers, and their allies don't want white space devices to exist. The reason why such a large coalition of public interest and consumer rights organizations support white space devices is because they'll save us money, spur innovation of myriad new consumer products, and (through that
competition) lower the costs of everything from broadband (and media) services to next-generation wireless microphones.

Congressman Nadler follows this up with an entirely paradoxical two sentences, "These devices could disrupt the new digital TV signals that government and industry have spent so much time and money to promote. In my district, which includes New York’s theater district, performers use wireless microphones on these 'unused' frequencies, as do news crews conducting live interviews on the street." Pause for a moment to consider what the Congressman is saying -- these devices could cause disruption, but we've been using them for years. He follows this illogic up by claiming, "in rural areas, white spaces are often used for broadband access" -- where is he getting his information. The first 700MHz radios were only created this past fall -- Ubiquity claims to have built the first ones. As the press report clearly states, "No word on pricing or street date, mostly -- we suspect
-- due to the fact that the frequency it operates on has yet to be made available."

When Congressman Nadler states, "unlicensed devices, like wireless laptops and remote-controlled toys, operating in the white spaces will probably cause havoc to TV viewers, theater goers and sports fans" he must be betting on the fact that physics works differently in the equipment folks in his district use than for the rest of us. And then he descends into the FUD -- TVs will stop working, the low-income and elderly will be harmed, emergency services will be interrupted, productions of Cats destroyed, NFL quarterbacks sacked -- for those of us in the know, these claims are about as ridiculously as claiming that white space devices are going to cause meteor strikes and bubonic plague.

Congressman Nadler continues on his litany of misleading information stating, "last year, when the F.C.C. tested the 'sensing' mechanism of some of these unlicensed devices, none of them detected broadcast and wireless signals consistently enough to avoid interfering with them." Let's take a look at the actual data from the FCC's own report. If a picture's worth a thousand words, let me greatly shorten my article and show you two. The first, I'll call the "Nadler Worldview" -- it gives you half the picture (in this case, Figure 3-4, which is located on page 14 of this report).

As you can see, as long as blinker ourselves and only look at half the data, Nadler is correct... the problem arises when we look at the full picture. But, at -115 dBm, the prototype white space device worked perfectly, correctly sensing broadcasts 100% of the time:

Meanwhile, for those claiming that these technologies are infeasible, I'd recommend taking a look at the Darpa XG project which, among other goals, is "developing technology and system concepts for military radios to dynamically access spectrum in order to establish and maintain communications...access 10 times more spectrum with near-zero setup time; simplify RF spectrum planning, management and coordination; and automatically de-conflict operational spectrum usage. XG technology assesses the spectrum environment and dynamically uses spectrum across frequency, space and time." You might also want to read the Darpa XG press release from 2006 where successful field-testing of the technologies were conducted. For those that would like to get down into the weeds, here's a link to a declassified overview of the Darpa XG project. I would like to see these technologies developed for civilian use. Given the previously successful testing of XG radios, assuming physics doesn't differ, it's clear that white space device technology is feasible for civilian use as well.

You don't hit a man while he's down, so I'm not going to end my post by going after Congressman Nadler, but rather with an offer of help. Personally, I think the Congressman has been had -- either by industry folks who sold him a bill of goods or advisors who didn't do adequate due diligence. In fact, a whole lot of folks have been had -- the NAB and its allies are spending millions of dollars to create fear, uncertainty, and doubt about white space devices (and a few million buys a good amount of confusion).

So my offer is this: Congressman Nadler, give me a call, I'm more than happy to sit down with you and your staff, walk you through any questions or concerns you might have, and get you primary sourcing so you can check my assertions for yourself. I've been speaking with a number of Broadway theater groups and found they they two have been sold the same bill of goods -- I'd like to take the time to clear the air, cut through the FUD, and get you the information you need.

In addition, anyone who wants to learn more can download New America Foundation's Policy Backgrounder: Unlicensed White Space Devices and Myth of Interference that I co-authored with my colleague, Michael Calabrese (executive summary is online here).

Here's a piece of PR masterwork from the folks at Verizon. For those who have been following the Open Platform debate (an initiative to require an open platform for interconnection of any devices/applications on a small piece of the upcoming 700MHz band that's going to be auctioned in January), you know that Verizon has been 100% against the idea. Verizon has been so entirely against the idea that they contacted the Chairman of the FCC asking that he kill it while, at the same time, they sued the FCC to prevent open platform requirements from going through.

Verizon, in a nutshell, hates the idea of an open platform for the interconnection of devices and applications -- to the point that the FCC Chairman called me and Harold Feld into his office to attempt to get the Public Interest Spectrum Coalition to back off on our open platform demands.

So what's this news really about? Basically, Verizon wants to be able to charge customers (at a price and rate still to be set) to access the services and applications they want on the devices they own. Verizon is, attempting to turn the applications you have bought and paid for (or downloaded for free if you're using free open source software) into commodity so that they can charge you a second time to access them via the Verizon network. In essence, Verizon is adding a corporate tax that goes straight into their coffers for the so-called "privilege" to run the services and applications you want, on the devices you've already bought and paid for. On a digital communications network, data is data is data -- the network doesn't care if the packet is voice, video, text, or any other media -- an open platform should require that data is treated the same way as it is on a DSL line. The idea that Verizon would be able to differentiate among services (and charge users a second time to access an "open platform") is ridiculous. Yet without some sort of rule to stop this form of corporate malfeasance, it's unlikely that we'll ever see cellular DSL-esque services from Verizon.

However this plays out, it's quite likely that Verizon will now be going after the C-band in the January 2008 spectrum auction. Between this and the Android announcement by Google, we could see a fairly interesting bidding war between the two.

From money.cnn.com

Verizon Wireless to Introduce 'Any Apps, Any Device' Option for Customers in 2008

New Open Development Initiative Will Accelerate Innovation and Growth

November 27, 2007: 07:30 AM EST

BASKING RIDGE, N.J., Nov. 27 /PRNewswire/ -- Verizon Wireless today announced that it will provide customers the option to use, on its nationwide wireless network, wireless devices, software and applications not offered by the company. Verizon Wireless plans to have this new choice available to customers throughout the country by the end of 2008.

Read more...

From Harold Feld -- lots of amazingly useful info on the pending 700MHz fiasco/proceedings:

Ya know, I had real hopes that, barring a Petition for Reconsideration or two, I was pretty much done with the 700 MHz auction. Sure, Verizon filed a lawsuit with the DC Circuit, but at least we could sit back and stop worrying about the FCC stuff. And besides, the lawsuit didn't really have much of a chance anyway. So, after a grueling 6 months or so, I thought I could finally relax and turn to something new, like kicking the bejeezus out of the cable monopoly.

Hah.

As recent reports indicate, Verizon has apparently pressed the FCC to “clarify” the C Block conditions. I say “apparently” because Verizon has not actually filed a request for any sort of clarification, reconsideration, or declaratory ruling. Indeed, to my considerable annoyance, it took a modest reprimand from the Wireless Bureau and Martin's staff for Verizon to actually put something in the record vaguely resembling a description of what Verizon's most senior lobbyists actually discussed with the Chairman and his staff. Verizon, meanwhile, vigorously denies they ever asked for reconsideration (and, separately, that it finds the accusation that it violated the ex parte shocking and deeply offensive).

I've been mired in a pitched battle between the public interest (to allow the general public to use unlicensed devices on unused TV frequencies) and the National Association of Broadcasters and various massive corporations (who have launched a FUD campaign of epic proportions here in the nation's capital). Just today I learned that NAB and its allies have taken out full-page adds in various press going out to congressional offices claiming that these technologies will destroy TV as we know it. If this claim sounds familiar, it's because it was the same claim used to fight low power FM radio -- a claim that has since been proven to have been a lie.

Here's the latest:

Today the New America Foundation, Media Access Project and leading spectrum engineers filed Reply Comments at the FCC (Docket 04-186) with further evidence demonstrating the feasibility of "smart radio" technology that allows low-power broadband devices to detect and utilize vacant TV channels without causing harmful interference to TV viewers. The FCC is currently completing a rulemaking that could open unused TV band "white space" for unlicensed access.

Broadcasters and wireless microphone makers, which currently utilize less than half of the frequencies reserved exclusively for their industries, have tried to distort a recent FCC report that tested initial prototype devices submitted by Philips Electronics and Microsoft. Today's filing adds both new measurements and a critique of the broadcaster/microphone lobby claims.

"There is no longer any doubt about the feasibility of mobile, low-power devices to detect-and-avoid channels occupied by licensed TV channels or wireless microphone systems," said Michael Calabrese, director of New America's Wireless Future Program. "The remaining challenge for the FCC is to define explicit operating rules to govern device certification, so that America's high-tech industries can embark on the R&D necessary to bring compliant consumer devices to market."

The Reply Comments include the following major points:

* Measurements at the University of Kansas spectrum labs shows that both DTV channels and low-power broadband devices can operate in three consecutive channels with no harmful interference.

* Since the vast majority of wireless microphones are themselves unlicensed devices - and have been using vacant TV channels illegally, yet without complaints of interference - the FCC should offer them no further protection than NAF et al.'s proposal to allow sports, theater, concert and other venues to bar, or require patrons to turn off, mobile broadband devices during their events.

* Although the FCC labs found that White Space devices can operate as close as 2 meters from a DTV without causing interference, the Commission should follow the approach it has used for personal computers and other unlicensed emissions - and assume that at distances less than 10-to-20 meters, consumers can take self-help to remedy interference from a mobile device.

* The broadcast lobby (MSTV/NAB) submitted interference measurements, concerning the ability of devices to detect weak TV signals, that are clearly unreliable and erroneous.

* The Commission should reject the overly conservative detection threshold for weak TV signals proposed by the high-technology White Spaces Coalition (Microsoft, Philips, Dell, Google, et al.) since prohibiting the access to channels with signals from distant TV markets would protect few viewers, but deprive all Americans of broadband services.

Today's filing builds on NAF et al.'s initial Comments, filed August 15, on the FCC/OET Report.

New America's Wireless Future Program develops and advocates policy proposals aimed at achieving universal and affordable wireless broadband access, expanding public access to the airwaves and updating our nation's communications infrastructure in the digital era. For more information, visit www.spectrumpolicy.org.

Telecom incumbents are trying to change the Internet -- and they've spent millions of dollars over the past couple months to buy Thursday's US House of Representatives vote on the COPE Act. These corporations are fighting for legal cover to discriminate against content they don't like, and their plan took a big step forward Thursday evening with this most recent vote. Congressional leaders refused to allow a vote in support of Network Neutrality, disallowing the Sensenbrenner amendment from coming to a floor vote. Here's the post-vote synopsis -- the next step is to contact your Senators and prevent this fundamental change to the Internet from going through:

June 8, 2006
Contact:

Jeannine Kenney
(202) 238-9249
Ben Scott
(202) 265-1490

House Ignores Public, Sells Out the Internet through Passage of COPE Act

Net Neutrality Advocates Look to Senate to Save Internet Freedom

WASHINGTON (June 8, 2006) - Today the US House passed the Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act (COPE) without meaningful network neutrality provisions promoted by the diverse, right-left www.savetheinternet.com coalition of public interest and business groups. The 152 to 269 vote coincides with a massive lobbying effort by telephone companies to enter the national television market and prevent preservation of network neutrality requirements. "Special interest advocates from telephone and cable companies have flooded the Congress with misinformation delivered by an army of lobbyists to undermine decades-long federal practice of prohibiting network owners from discriminating against competitors to shut out competition. Unless the Senate steps in, today's vote marks the beginning of the end of the Internet as an engine of new competition, entrepreneurship and innovation." said Consumers Union Senior Policy Analyst, Jeannine Kenney. "The American public favors an open and neutral Internet and does not want gatekeepers taxing innovation and throttling the free market," said Ben Scott, Policy Director for Free Press. "The House has seriously undermined access to information and democratic communication. Despite the revisionist history propagated by the telcos and their lobbyists, until last year, the Internet had always been a neutral network. It is the central reason for its overwhelming success. This issue is not about whether or not the government will regulate the Internet. It's about whether consumers or cable and phone companies will decide what services and content are available on the Net." The grass-roots coalition backing network neutrality includes more than 700 groups, 5,000 bloggers and 800,000 individuals who have rallied in support of net neutrality at . The coalition is left and right, public and private, commercial and noncommercial. Supporters of net neutrality include the Christian Coalition of America, MoveOn.org, National Religious Broadcasters, the Service Employees International Union, the American Library Association, AARP, ACLU, and every major consumer group in the nation. It includes the founders of the Internet and hundreds of companies that do business online. This is not Google vs. AT&T," said Mark Cooper, Director of Research at Consumers Federation of America. "CFA has been battling to keep the phone companies from putting tollbooths on the Internet since the early 1980's, but now every business and every consumer that uses the Internet has a dog in the fight for Internet Freedom. This coalition will continue to grow, millions of Americans will add their voices, and Congress will not escape the roar of public opinion until Congress passes enforceable net neutrality." The battle for Net Neutrality - or Internet Freedom - now moves to the Senate, where there is significantly stronger bipartisan support. Senators Snowe (R-ME) and Dorgan (D-ND) have introduced the "Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2006" that enjoys the strong support the SaveTheInternet coalition.

Representative Joe Barton, discussing the recent vote to allow content discrimination on the Internet: "You will not see a second-tier Internet. These companies are going to spend billions of dollars and offer new choices in markets where there is one cable company." -- one has to wonder, has Barton drunk so deeply of the telecom incumbent cool-aid that he's left his reason behind? Talk to just about anyone living just about anywhere that doesn't have provider competition and they'll tell you that their service options are insanely limited, the pricing exorbitant, and the quality sub-standard.

From DrewClark.com

The House passed the telecommunications legislation of Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, just past 10 p.m. on Thursday. The final vote tally on the bill was 321-101. Among Republicans, 215 supported it, with only 8 opposed. A majority of Democrats, 108 versus 92, voted for passage. The one independent voted no. Earlier in the evening, an amendment seeking to strengthen the Barton bill's "network neutrality" provisions failed 269-152, on an amendment offered by Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass.
Normally when major legislation is being passed by Congress, even late in the evening or early in the morning, there is a crowd of reporters following the event. Not so last night. Shortly after the members left the floor for the evening, I caught up with Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Barton in the speakers' gallery. Barton was ready for a crowd, but since I was the only one there, here is our exclusive interview.
DREW CLARK: How do you feel at this moment?
JOE BARTON: Stunned and absolutely ecstatic. I think this sends a very strong signal to the country and the Senate that the county is ready for a broadband policy that promotes competition, good jobs for American workers, and new services for consumers.
CLARK: What about the vote on network neutrality?
BARTON: On that vote, we almost ended with a two-thirds vote against Markey. The premise of the Markey amendment is just flawed. If you had passed Markey, even if you go by his own analogy you would have forced the [auto] dealer to sell both cars at the same price. [He was referring to Markey's argument that both a Ferrari and a cheaper car could travel the same speed on the highway.] We want to empower the consumer to make choices from a broad array of services. The consumer will regulate the choice, not the regulator.
CLARK: Are you at all afraid that without neutrality rules, we are letting the genie out of the bottle and creating a second-tier Internet?
BARTON: That is a bogus argument. You will not see a second-tier Internet. These companies are going to spend billions of dollars and offer new choices in markets where there is one cable company.
At this point, Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., walks into the Speaker's Gallery. I ask Barton about the prospects for the bill in the Senate, and he points to Upton, the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet.
FRED UPTON: It is my understanding that the Senate Commerce Committee is likely to mark up their bill this month and be on the floor in July. We have established a very good relationship with [Alaska Republican and Senate Commerce Committee Chairman] Stevens and his members: [John] Sununu, [Sam] Brownback and others, in addition to Stevens, through work on digital television, decency legislation, we have [bridged] any breaches that might have existed.
CLARK: What about the Universal Service Fund? There is a considerable difference with Stevens on that.
BARTON: We will work with Sen. Stevens, and we will find a compromise that satisfies most of the parties. I fundamentally disagree that we should saddle a new service with a fee that in the Internet era makes no sense. Why put a fee that was based on a monopoly service? With wireless and the Internet, you don't need that model. We can give them the functionality of the Universal Service Fund without given them regulation.
[At this point, Ed Markey walks close to our circle, greets Barton, but gets ready to leave.]
ED MARKEY: I agreed with everything he says, [referring to Barton. But I assume Markey is joking.]
CLARK, to Baron: How is your relationship with FCC Chairman Kevin Martin?
BARTON: I have a cordial personal and professional relationship with the Chairman and the other commissioners.
CLARK: [I ask him about the pointed letter he sent to Martin on Wednesday over the issue of cable operators being required to carry broadcasters' digital multicasts.]
BARTON: Multicast must-carry is another example; there is no reason in a broadband Internet competition model to impose regulatory [rules] based on some sort of constrained capacity. You don't need must-carry [when technologies] have no capacity constraints whatsoever.

In 2005, when hearings about the AT&T/SBC merger were taking place. Many consumer groups stated that the merger would all but guarantee higher prices for end users. Time and again, we stated that telecommunications history is rife with examples of mergers lead directly to higher prices for basic services as competition lessens. Thus, it was amazing to me that politicians bought the inane arguments of paid telecom lobbyists that this wasn't the case and allowed the AT&T/SBC merger to go through. The merger happened less than a year ago (seven month, in fact) and now AT&T has announced that it's raising basic phone rates for their customers -- fulfilling exactly what opponents of the merger warned against and showing just how misleading pro-merger representatives were. More info below:

AT&T GETS MORE FOR LESS
[SOURCE: San Francisco Chronicle, AUTHOR: David Lazarus]

In March 2005, then-SBC's chief exec, Ed Whitacre, testified in Congress that his company's then-pending $16 billion acquisition of AT&T would have no adverse effect on consumers. He was asked by Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) if he would pledge not to raise residential phone rates once the merger goes through. According to reports of the hearing, Whitacre assured the congressman that the deal would "have no impact on the consumer marketplace." Rep Markey persisted. If that's the case, he said, would Whitacre publicly pledge that rates won't go up? "I can't pledge that forever, but don't see anything that would impact that in the foreseeable future," Whitacre replied. "How long is the foreseeable future?" Rep Markey asked. "can't make a pledge for any specific length of time," Whitacre answered. "I can't give you a specific number of days or years. I really don't foresee it." Less than seven months after the SBC-AT&T merger was finalized in November, rates are now going up in the form of higher minimum usage fees. If you're an AT&T long-distance customer and you don't make a lot of calls, there's a good chance your monthly bill will be going up as a result of these new "minimum usage" fees. AT&T says on its Web site that long-distance customers "enjoy great rates usually with a small or no monthly plan fee." It says it needs to charge (or in some cases increase) monthly minimum usage fees "in order to keep these rates low and still recover our costs of providing basic service." Industry analysts and consumer advocates say this just doesn't ring true. "Carrier costs are not going up to provide long-distance service," said Lisa Pierce, a vice president at Forrester Research who specializes in telecom issues. "If anything, the cost has been coming down."

See also: AT&T/Bell South to Public: We Don't Have to Pay Attention to the Public Interest, Just the Corporate Bottom Line

A new coalition of megacorporations are funding a new misleading TV advertisement against Network Neutrality. This time it's a TV consortium (probably worried about people being able to get TV via the Internet, or, worse yet, pay for only the channels you actually want to watch). I've received several e-mails with bits and pieces of info, but have yet to track down info on who's responsible for the advertising campaign, or what the actual content of the advert is.

If you have any info, please drop me a line:

sascha@saschameinrath.com

[UPDATE1] Meanwhile, the AT&T sponsored astroturf group TV4US has begun calling residents across the United States to scare them into fighting against network neutrality. More info on this newest astroturf push-polling here.

The TV4US Coalition presents itself as, "advocating on behalf of American customers who deserve new choices, better service and lower costs in their television service." But, in actuality, its the same coalition of funders that were exposed to be behind HandsOffTheInternet.com -- to the point where they're registering their domains in the exact same way, and hiding information in the whois database behind the following:

registrant-lastname: Private Registration
admin-c-lastname: Private Registration
tech-c-lastname: Private Registration
bill-c-lastname: Private Registration

Clearly another attempt at misinforming the general populace and hiding the actual sponsors for yet another astroturf "non-profit."

[UPDATE2] I've also learned that just one day of advertising by this industry coalition in Washington, DC newspapers cost roughly $400,000. Obviously, the cost of the millions of dollars being spent by AT&T, BellSouth, et al. will be paid for by customers' -- begging the question, "Why are customers being forced to pay for misinformation campaigns that harm their own best interests?"

HandsofftheInternet.com is yet another prime example of astroturf in action. I can only suspect that telecom incumbents pay some sort of professional PR group to create websites like this specifically to misinform and mislead the public. So I decided to start an investigation to figure out who HandsOff actually was. Here's what I've found:

Looking at the footer on HandsOff, but that didn't provide any information on who was actually running the site. The "about us" section just said things like "Hands Off The Internet is a nationwide coalition of Internet users." Which begs the question, "Who are the members of this 'national coalition of Internet users?"

This lead me to take a look at the "Membership Organizations" section -- and low and behold, membership organizations included:

AT&T
Bell South
Cingular Communications
The National Association of Manufacturer
and a host of industry front groups

Now, this is rather enlightening, and I probably could have stopped there. But what happens if you delve deeper?

Read more...

Back in August of 2005 many of us were already decrying the FCC's Broadband penetration rate figures -- Free Press had issued this report, which, in my own words, offered "a devastating critique of the FCC's findings." Now the Congressional General Accounting Office (GAO) has weighed in with its own 70-page report, coming to much the same conclusion, but soft-pedaling its significance.

Tucked into the end of the report are some pretty damning statistics regarding broadband deployment characteristics in the United States. The GAO found that income (especially), race, and education levels all had significant correlations with broadband adoption rates -- adding credence to the many red-lining concerns raised from countless quarters over the years. Meanwhile, Internet taxation was found to have no significant effect on broadband deployment.

From the Baller Herbst List:

GAO says FCC's method of reporting broadband deployment is questionable and significant rural gaps exist: "For its zip-code level data, the FCC collects data based on where subscribers are served, not where providers have deployed broadband infrastructure. 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"

To me, here's the most telling problem:

Read more...

If you recall, back in February 2005, I'd uncovered that telecom incumbents had spent over $300,000 to defeat local referenda allowing municipal broadband. By comparison, local pro-muni grassroots organizers spent a grand total of $4,325 to support their position. Anyone can tell you, being outspent roughly 70 to 1 places you at a serious disadvantage -- but these odd are downright rosy compared with the amount of funding that was recently poured into local Iowa elections to defeat muni-broadband referenda. Check out these stats:

Mediacom Communications Corporation...
• Gave $805,000 in cash to the anti-muni campaign.
• Donated 16,366 commercials on 25 cable television networks [yes, 16,366 commercials on 25 cable television networks -- take a moment to let that sink in].
• The campaign spent $921,870 on consultants, opinion polls, telemarketing, direct mail pieces and media production and advertising.

Qwest Communications Incorporated, on the other hand, "spent $94,494 to oppose the city-owned telecommunications systems."

All of this for 26 towns, villages, and cities -- a tiny geographic area of Iowa.

Perhaps this'll help bring this into perspective -- the math works out to roughly "$4.75 for every man, woman and child in those mostly small towns. By comparison, Rep. Jim Nussle spent $3.34 for every man, woman and child in Iowa’s 1st Congressional District to win reelection last year." That's right, per capita spending was greater to defeat municipal broadband than to elect the area's congressional representative.

The best synopsis of the problem I've read was stated by Scott Sackville of Hampton, Iowa, "'The sheer number of dollars being pumped into Hampton, Iowa, you wonder where the money's coming from,' he said. 'It's coming from our telephone and cable rates. If they'd put that back into services and running their businesses, then they wouldn't have anything to worry about.'"

With these huge expenditures being spent by telecommunications giants to defeat local referenda, it begs the question, "If their services and prices are so great, why are the telecom incumbents so scared?"