In my capacity of consulting with the Benton Foundation, I have been doing work with Kate Williams, a professor of informatix at University of Illinois. Williams has been doing some (IMO) critical work around broadband sustainability. In particular, Kate has been studying the old Technologies Opportunity Program to determine which projects had lasting impact and which didn't — a rather important consideration for the new and improved BTOP program.

But what caught my attention recently is this very interesting map that Williams compiled based on the comments submitted to BTOP. It places the comments filed on a geographic map, with links to the actual comments themselves. The map includes the 58% of comments filed by the April 13, 2009 deadline which contained reliable information on the location of the commentor. The remaining 42% either gave no location or included location in an attachment which Williams considered insufficiently reliable to determine location.

Why do I find this interesting? Because it potentially provides a very interesting cross check on the state of broadband geographically, as well as who follows these proceedings. I have long lamented that the FCC (and other federal agencies) make so little use of the data they actually collect. At best, an agency may note submission by a class of commentors (e.g., broadcasters, MVPDs, ISPs) in the specific proceeding at issue. But no one tries to take the multiple data sets collected as comments in each proceeding, or in multiple proceedings, and tries to determine patterns and what they might suggest. williams grouping by geography is intriguing, and I cannot help but wonder what would happen if we applied a similar analysis to multiple FCC proceedings — including for comments generated by mass “comment engines” that have become common in some high profile proceedings. It would be very interesting to know, for example, if the people feeling passionate enough about media consolidation or network neutrality cluster geographically and, if so, do we see patterns of geographic interest which might tell us about the actual situation on the ground.

Of course the sampling from comments is not a pure scientific data set in that to comment, a commentor must (a) know about the proceeding, and (b) feel strongly enough to file comments. But the fact that the information has a particular set of biases does not render it meaningless, especially if one controls for this.

I hope researchers use Williams' map, both to analyze the BTOP comments and as a model going forward for analysis of other proceedings.

Stay tuned . . . .

Sometime back back, I noted the flap over the Arbitron Portable People Meter and the Petition by the Minority Media Telecommunications Council (MMTC) for the FCC to take action. The FCC put the Petition out on public notice last September, and has now issued a Notice of Inquiry on the matter.

As always, the questions are (a) why do we care about this? and (b) Even if we care, does the Commission have authority to do anything? In answering this last time, I observed: (a) we care because the entire economics of the radio industry are driven by ratings, and the FCC's own rules rely on Arbitron ratings for a number of purposes, and (b) the FCC can always investigate anything related to its areas of jurisdiction. At worst, it provides a good forum for debate and an opportunity to tell Congress “Yo! this is important, somebody needs to do something about this for these reasons.” these are pretty much the conclusions the FCC comes to in its Notice. After observing in footnote 1 that it has broad powers to investigate, the Commission frames the questions as:

This NOI investigates the impact of PPM methodology on the broadcast industry as well as whether the audience ratings data is sufficiently accurate and reliable to merit the Commission’s own reliance on it in its rules, policies and procedures.

I am hopeful that we see a good, robust debate here although I don't expect anything in the way of Earth-shattering revelations. There is an interesting problem of what information Arbitron will reveal about its processes, and whether the Commission will provide some assurances that it will keep proprietary information out of the public record. If it does, it makes it much harder for those who say the process is unfair to respond. But if it doesn't, it's analysis is going to be incomplete.

Mind you, it's not at all clear what authority the FCC has over Arbitron directly. But the FCC can take certain actions if it doesn't like what it sees, giving Arbitron incentive to play and try to resolve concerns. The FCC can declare Arbitron unreliable and no longer rely on it for regulatory determinations. That's not exactly the kind of publicity you want if you make your living based on the accuracy of your ratings system. Alternatively, if the FCC doesn't see anything wrong, it can always conclude that Arbitron remains acceptable for the FCC's purposes. That will be of enormous assistance to Arbitron in removing any cloud over its rating system.

Bottom line, the NOI is a smart move by the Copps FCC on multiple levels. It doesn't assert any authority, it doesn't prejudge, and it services an important Democratic constituency. Hopefully, Arbitron and its critics will use the FCC as a neutral forum to develop an mutually acceptable solution.

Stay tuned . . . .

Regular readers will not be surprised that I consider the release of the new Star Trek directed by JJ Abrams as infinitely more important than the usual subject matter of this blog. Unable to resist my true Trek nature, I will indulge myself in venting an unfavorable, spoiler-laden review below. For those who get the reference (and therefore have the level of “nerd cred” necessary to enjoy this), I can't help but thinking of this as “Crisis of Infinite Enterprises.”

I promise to get back to hardcore policy next time.

Spoilers below . . . [Read More!]

Verizon is selling 5 million access lines to Frontier. I expect the deal will go through — after all, a dominant carrier is getting smaller, there is no place where VZ and Frontier compete, etc., etc. What makes the deal interesting is what it tells us about the problem of relying on ILEC/Cable competition to drive broadband. Briefly, (a) we will be perpetually without fiber in a lot of places if we are going to wait for cable and ILECs to meet our needs; and (b) the real problem for is not just the high cost of deployment, but the need to show high rates of return to keep Wall St. happy. It is this latter that will keep telecom policy a very unhappy and complicated place unless we get out of our usual silos and start thinking about some holistic solutions.

More below . . . . [Read More!]

I've been following the adventures of CellAntenna, the company that wants to sell cellphone jamming devices in the U.S., for awhile now. As lots of folks would love to jam cell phones — from hotels that hate losing the revenue from charging for use of their phones to theater venues that want customers to enjoy the show to schools trying to tamp down on texting in class — you would think there would be lots of these jammers on the market. The problem, of course, is that Section 333 of the Communications Act (47 U.S.C. 333) makes cell phone jamming illegal. Just in case anyone missed this rather straightforward statutory prohibition, the FCC officially clarified that Section 333 means “no cell phone jammers” in 2005.

Enter CellAnntenna, determined to sell cell phone jammers legally. If you are going to develop a legal on something illegal, you either need something real clever (like magic cellphone blocking nanopaint), or a strategy for changing the law coupled with the sort of stubbornness that does not mind slamming into a brick wall 99 times because you might dent it on the hundreth time. CellAntenna has apparently followed this later strategy — and may be making some headway.

CellAntenna initially tried to get courts to declare Section 333 unconstitutional. So far as I can tell, that's going nowhere. Next, and far more successfully, CellAntenna has recruited prisons to push the idea that only cellphone jammers can resolve the problem that prison security sucks rocks. This has prompted a bill to create a “prison waiver” exception to Section 333 (House version here) and a raft of credulous stories like this one that prefer to ask “isn't it awful that we can't jam cell phones” rather than ask “what the $#@! do you mean we can't secure our 'maximum security' prisons?”

I explore the issues, and why I think creating an exception to Sec. 333 would be a big mistake, below . . . . [Read More!]

There's an old saying that goes “when it rains, can't fix the roof; when it don't rain, the roof don't need fixin.'” That rather sums up most efforts at government reform. When you're out of power, you can't really do anything about it. When you're in power, it turns out things don't really need fixing. So no shocker that Joe Barton (R-TX), ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, joined by Mr. Cliff Stearns (R-FL), ranking member of the Telecom Subcommittee, have decided to introduce an FCC reform bill now that (a) Democrats control Congress, and (b) Democrats control the FCC. You can find the press release here and the full bill text here.

If political expediency were a mortal sin, however, nothing would ever get done. So it is not enough to simply note that politicians of either party are more apt to want reform when they are on the outside. It is important to examine the bill in its own right. Given that a lot of folks in both parties and in the public interest community would like to see some longstanding issues corrected, and I have opined on the matter myself from time to time, it's important to consider whether the Barton-Stearns bill makes a good start and a basis for going forward. Remember, we want functional government. If out of power Rs are now in the mood to address real issues and get substantive stuff done, the thing to do is make it easy for them to work together with Ds. Perhaps it will become a habit. OTOH, as Ds have learned over the last several month, agreement for the sake of agreement is not worth doing.

My personal feeling after a quick read is that this bill is not a bad place to start on some long-standing procedural gripes, but that there are a couple of things that worry me.

Details below . . . . [Read More!]

One might think from the press coverage that all spectrum auctions are multi-billion dollar affairs like the AWS-1 Auction in '06 or the 700 MHz Auction in '08. But these auctions are the exception rather than the rule. More typical are the steady stream of small auctions like Auction 78, which auctioned remaining licenses in the AWS-1 band.

Which brings us to the Wireless Bureau's Public Notice of the Broadband Radio Service (BRS) auction. Some of us have followed the adventures of the 2.5 GHz band back when it was “Wireless Cable” and the non-commercial licensees used it to offer closed circuit television for what we now call distance learning. These days of course, we know this as the “Broadband Radio Service” (BRS) and the “Educational Broadband Radio Service” (EBRS), and we care about the 2.5 GHz band as the home of Clearwire and the great hope of WiMax.

You might think that the “WiMax” auction would be a big deal — but only if you don't know the band, its history, and the inventory up for auction. If you know that, you know why this auction is likely to prove as boring but ploddingly necessary as a run for office supplies.

So why do I consider this worth blogging about, other than my sentimental fondness for the band and my general obsession about things spectrum? Because (a) my cause celebre, anonymous bidding, faces its first post-700 MHz challenge, and (b) 2.5 GHz is the home of the major WiMax plays, and what happens in the auction has the potential to shape the field going forward and influence whether deployment goes more smoothly or gets all bollixed up.

More detail below . . . . [Read More!]

While I was sorry to see the Business Section drop out of the Washington Post, I am glad if that contributed to this piece by Cecilia Kang getting on the front page.

[Read More!]

I haven't been posting much and will continue to be busy for the next while, owing to Passover and bunch of other things. But I had to give a brief post of congratulations to Gene Kimmelman on his appointment to the Department of Justice as Chief Counsel for Competition Policy and Intergovernmental Relations. Gene has been a tireless advocate for consumer protection and pro-competitive policies as the head of Consumers Unions Washington office. His addition to the DoJ in this critical office is good news for those who want to see policies that genuinely promote competition rather than deregulation for its own sake.

Stay tuned . . . .

Reposting a recent blog entry of mine from the Public Knowledge blog. As Time Warner expands out its usage cap pilot from Beaumont, TX to somewhat more populated and user-intensive communities, users are starting to notice and complain. Hopefully, with the FCC getting the ball rolling on the National Broadband Plan mandated by the broadband stimulus package, we will start to probe into the whole bandwidth cap issue a little more deeply.

More below . . . . [Read More!]