[IP] FCC's continuing deceptions... a point of view
Begin forwarded message:
From: Frank Muto <info@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: July 20, 2005 11:35:29 AM EDT
To: CYBERTELECOM-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: FCC's continuing deceptions... a point of view
Reply-To: Telecom Regulation & the Internet <CYBERTELECOM-
L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
NETWORK WORLD NEWSLETTER: GIBBS & BRADNER
07/19/05
Today's focus: Continuing deceptions
By Scott Bradner
The FCC just released the fifth annual report on the status of "High-
Speed
Services for Internet Access" in the U.S. and its possessions (
<http://www.networkworld.com/nlgibrad3411> ). Like its predecessors,
this
report is fundamentally misleading on a number of fronts.
The FCC produced this report and its predecessors because Section 706
of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 ( <http://www.fcc.gov/telecom.html> )
directed the FCC to regularly "initiate a notice of inquiry
concerning the
availability of advanced telecommunications capability to all
Americans" and
from the results of the inquiry determine "whether advanced
telecommunications capability is being deployed to all Americans in a
reasonable and timely fashion."
If the answer is ever no, the FCC is required to "take immediate
action to
accelerate deployment of such capability." The Act defined "advanced
telecommunications capability" as "high-speed, switched, broadband
telecommunications capability that enables users to originate and
receive
high-quality voice, data, graphics, and video telecommunications
using any
technology."
I have no idea what Congress in all of its technical prowess thought
it was
talking about when it mentioned high-speed broadband in the Telecom
Act but
all the network people that I know would not consider any service of
less
than 1M bit/sec as a "high-speed, switched, broadband telecommunications
capability."
In the first of its reports (<http://www.fcc.gov/broadband/
706.html> ) the
FCC used the term "broadband," but it arbitrarily defined this as a
service
supporting at least 200K bit/sec in both directions.
Maybe because it became clear that few observers agreed with its use
of the
term broadband to mean such a slow service, and maybe because the
numbers
were not going to be all that impressive, the FCC has now dropped the
term
and substituted "high-speed," which it defines as at least 200K bit/
sec, but
it only has to be in one direction -thereby halving its already low
requirement. This is misleading at best.
It seems like the FCC has been able to confuse (deceive?) some in the
press
who touted the growth in broadband usage based on the FCC report. It
also
seems to have confused the FCC chairman, who published an editorial
in the
July 7Wall Street Journaltouting the growth of broadband deployment
in the
U.S.
Maybe no one told him that the FCC's own survey just reported on high-
speed,
not broadband, access.
As I mentioned two years ago, which was the last time I looked at one of
these reports, ("Reading into the FCC's 'Net access stats,"
<http://www.networkworld.com/columnists/2003/0623bradner.html>),
there are a
lot of other problems with the FCC's approach.
For example, its very misleading assumption that a single subscriber to
high-speed services in a ZIP code can tell you anything about the actual
availability of high-speed (never mind actual broadband) service to
people
living in that ZIP code.
All of the statistics in the FCC report are "up and to the right" and
thus
look good. It's too bad that it actually does not tell us all that much
about Internet service that can actually be used for "high-quality
voice,
data, graphics, and video telecommunications." Maybe someday we will
find
out but maybe not from the FCC.
Disclaimer: Most of Harvard's stats are also up and to the right, but
I've
seen no university opinion on the FCC's use of such stats so the
above is my
own rant.
Bradner is a consultant with Harvard University's University Information
Systems. He can be reached at <mailto:sob@xxxxxxxxx>.
_______________________________________________________________
To contact: Scott Bradner
Bradner is a consultant with Harvard University's University Information
Systems. He can be reached at <mailto:sob@xxxxxxxxx>
Frank Muto
Co-founder - Washington Bureau for ISP Advocacy - WBIA
Telecom Summit Ad Hoc Committee
http://gigabytemarch.blog.com/ www.wbia.us
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/