Teletruth News: July 6th, 2010.

·       Every FCC National Broadband Proceeding Is Still Using 8-13 Year Old Data.

·       Teletruth & New Networks Institute Files Largest “Omnibus” Data Quality Act Complaints Against All FCC Proceedings Since 2000. Requests FCC Suspend All Current Proceedings Until the Data Is Fixed.

·       Reporters, Congressmen, Concerned Citizens: Prove Us Wrong or Investigate Our Claims.

Links to Complaints:

Teletruth News: July 6th, 2010. Links to Complaints:
http://www.newnetworks.com/FCCDQA.htm

  • Every FCC National Broadband Proceeding Is Still Using 8-13 Year Old Data.
  • Teletruth & New Networks Institute Files Largest "Omnibus" Data Quality Act Complaints Against All FCC Proceedings Since 2000. Requests FCC Suspend All Current Proceedings Until the Data Is Fixed.
  • Reporters, Congressmen, Concerned Citizens: Prove Us Wrong or Investigate Our Claims.

SUMMARY:

Any fifth-grader would have asked - What happened to the seven winning "very small business" wireless spectrum bidders since 1997 in the paragraph below. It appears in almost all current FCC National Broadband
proceedings in 2010.

"Wireless Communications Services: This service can be used for fixed,
mobile, radiolocation, and digital audio broadcasting satellite uses. The
Commission established small business size standards for the wireless
communications services (WCS) auction. A "small business" is an entity with
average gross revenues of $40 million for each of the three preceding years,
and a 'very small business' is an entity with average gross revenues of $15
million for each of the three preceding years. The SBA has approved these
small business size standards. The Commission auctioned geographic area
licenses in the WCS service. In the auction, held in April 1997, there were
seven winning bidders that qualified as "very small business" entities, and
one that qualified as a 'small business' entity."

This paragraph has also been added to almost every rulemaking for over a decade. Had the FCC actually done the proper analysis with accurate data instead of using the 1997 statistics it would have found that the wireless spectrum auctions, specifically those for 'small' and 'very small businesses' had failed because AT&T, Verizon et al created "false fronts" to outbid everyone as 'very small companies', saving over $8 billion dollars in discounted spectrum. We note that the FCC is the agency in charge of spectrum licenses and has the data to update this marketplace analysis. (We filed a separate complaint over this issue as well.) Read:
http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Ask_this.view&askthisid=210

We have filed 3 separate complaints:
a) The FCC's failure to have accurate data in its small business impact studies (known as Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis) which is in an appendix in the back of every FCC National Broadband rulemaking.
b) The failure to investigate the past and current customer-funding/ investment in broadband.
c) The failure to accurately track and assess what customers are actually paying for their phone, broadband or Internet service, (based on actual bills).

In short, we have been filing complaints since 1994 because we found a systemic failure to use accurate data to assess the marketplace. This has harmed competition, customers as well as all telecommunications, broadband,
Internet and wireless policies, not to mention the economy.

Our conclusion: "Garbage In Equal Garbage Out". Without good data there has been and can not be the creation of good public policy.

Follow the Money: Customers Are the "Broadband Investors". The FCC refuses to examine the customer-funding of broadband, even as it proposes to raise rates 5 different ways, including adding new taxes --- all in the name of broadband.

FCC's proposed rate increases:
http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Background.view&backgroundid=461

Unfortunately, the FCC has never investigated all of the monies collected previously and currently in the name of broadband. Customers, not investors, have been and continue to be the primary funding source for broadband over the last 20 years in the form of customer overcharging. Example: New York State Department of Public Service raised local rates to fund broadband in June 2009. Since 2004, the State commission has raised Verizon's local rates 90%(based on actual New York phone bills).

"'We are always concerned about the impacts on ratepayers of any rate
increase, especially in times of economic stress,' said Commission Chairman
Garry Brown. 'Nevertheless, there are certain increases in Verizon's costs
that have to be recognized. This is especially important given the magnitude
of the company's capital investment program, including its massive
deployment of fiber optics in New York. We encourage Verizon to make
appropriate investments in New York, and these minor rate increases will
allow those investments to continue."

We estimate that customers have already been overcharged about $320 billion - about $3000.00 per household --- for fiber-optic based, 45mbps services (in both directions) that were never deployed. There is an entire library of documentation pertaining to the deregulation of state laws to give AT&T, Verizon and Qwest billions per state to upgrade the Public Switched Telephone Networks.

And yet, since the FCC has never tracked any of this information, even though we've been filing about this since 1999, the current plan is to give the companies that are overcharging customers more money.

Phone Bills vs New Taxes and Rate Increases: The FCC Should Not Be Adding to Already Existing Overcharging of Customers.

When it comes to phone, broadband, Internet or wireless charges, the FCC does not have a clue about the actual costs of service customers are currently paying. The FCC, however, is now planning on creating 2 new taxes,
a "Connect America Fund" (named after the astroturf group "Connected Nation") and a "mobility" tax, as well as increasing the "FCC Line Charge" a fee that is direct revenue to the phone companies and does not go to fund
the FCC as is the common belief.

We have filed complaints about the FCC's failure to have accurate data multiple times, starting in 1994 when we outlined that the FCC was not (and is still not) using or collecting actual phone bills. The FCC's phone charges data are essentially made-up industry information with no basis in reality.

Worse, the FCC has never investigated our claims that low and mid-volume users, the majority of customers, are ignored when the FCC's data is presented. For example, in one complaint we outlined how the FCC was claiming that the average cost for a long distance or wireless 1 minute call was $.06 cents.

Yet, the FCC's per-minute research leaves out all of the associated charges with service including plan fees, minimum usage fees, additional and questionable (made up) regulatory fees, not to mention the taxes and
surcharges. Date from our surveys revealed that low and mid-volume long distance customers can pay $.50-$1.00 a minute, while low volume wireless customers can pay $3.00 or more a minute.

And since the FCC doesn't use actual bills it also doesn't have accurate data on everything from actual installation fees or even the cost of 'inside wire maintenance' charges. Yet, the FCC is proposing raising local rates, adding a new tax, among other direct costs to customers.

There Have Been No Audits Or Investigations, Nor Does the FCC Have Any Accurate Data on the Following:

  • The monies AT&T, Verizon, Qwest et al collected under deregulation in the name of broadband on a state level or by the FCC in any capacity.
  • State broadband commitments; the changes in state laws that gave the phone companies billions to upgrade the networks.
  • The outcomes of these commitments, especially when schools, libraries and hospitals were supposed to be upgraded.
  • The outcomes of these commitments, especially when homes and offices were supposed to be upgraded.
  • The monies collected from customers on phone bills in the name of broadband.
  • The profits of any company that receives the Universal Service Funding, even though the companies that are receiving this funding have annual reports with exceptionally high profit margins -EBITDAs.
  • The profit margins on specific mandatory services, including the FCC Line Charge, which the FCC is now discussing to raise.
  • Actual phone, cable, broadband and Internet and even wireless charges customers actually pay, as told by actual bills.
  • The costs-per-minute of wireless and long distance services broken out into 'low', 'medium' and 'high-volume' customers.
  • Data used in the Regulatory Flexibility Act analyses pertaining to the current marketplace and small business competitors.

NOTE: Each complaint has it's own list of issues.

Regardless of the FCC's hype that it cares about the quality, integrity and objectivity of the data, the truth is that if the FCC handed in their data in a 5th grade class, the teacher would fail the student. Bad data certainly has not and can not create accurate public policies.

This is not about the past. This is about the fact that the FCC's data in 2010 is continues to be a toxic-data-waste-dump.

So ---Prove Us Wrong or Investigate Our Claims: We again challenge the press,Congress, concerned citizens and even the FCC to take action.

To read the complete complaints and comments.
http://www.newnetworks.com/FCCDQA.htm