| NTIA Map: 10M Homes Lost Cable Modem Availability? |
| Friday, 25 February 2011 03:09 |
 92% of homes in the U.S. could get cable modems in 2007 according to the NCTA cable association and dozens of official documents. Ten million lost their connectivity by 2010, the $100M NTIA Broadband Map proclaims, finding only 82.3% of U.S. homes can get cable modems. No one has been going around the country yanking out cable connections or bombing CMTS's; one of these figures has to be wrong. Almost certainly, the Broadband Map data is seriously wrong. When Columbia University prepared data for the National Broadband Plan, they checked the NCTA methodology closely with the original source, the SNL Kagan analyst firm. Kagan had data directly from all the large carriers that serve the vast majority of the U.S. and made conservative estimates of the small carriers they didn't have firm data.
Separately, I checked the NCTA/Kagan figures against the financial filings of the major carriers with the SEC. Public companies rarely lie in their 10K filings about easily checked facts like this. It's not merely illegal, but no one on Wall Street would ever believe their numbers if they were caught.
Comcast and Time Warner, nearly two-thirds of the country, both offer modems to 99+% of the homes they pass. All the other big companies are similar except for Charter, which was going through bankruptcy. The 92% figure was consistent. I had separate figures carefully put together by New York State I reviewed with the staff who compiled them. They showed nearly complete coverage of the state.
The FCC data is less precise because they don't study areas without any cable coverage. Where there is coverage - probably 96% of the U.S. - all but 4% could get cable modems. I have other datapoints that suggest the 92% is accurate.
The California Cable Association has data from public sources as well as from their members. They report cable passes almost every home in the state and 98% of those can get cable modems. I bet the NTIA figure of 83% is far off.
That checking does not guarantee that the NCTA/Kagan figure is correct and the NTIA figure is an error, but it's pretty convincing. Strickling and Neville of NTIA know the 92% figure and presumably when they noticed the discrepancy checked closely.
Mapping the unserved was the main goal of a $100M program. I hope they didn't make a huge error.
I also sent in the freedom of information act request below. Typical bureaucratic response to FOIA is to give a runaround as long as possible and then suggest a research and copying fee that's far more than an outfit like mine could pay. I hope they are more responsive.
Folks
I am reporting on the data for the broadband map. Reputable sources, including NCTA and Columbia University CITI, have reported that only 8% of U.S. homes cannot get cable modems. The broadband map claims the figure is 18%, more than twice as high.
I'm requesting all memoranda about the accuracy of this figure, any emails to and from Anne Neville and Larry Strickling on the accuracy of the map data and minutes of meetings held by the agency which discussed the accuracy of the data. I also request any other documents that shed light on the accuracy of the data and the procedures used to confirm the accuracy.
In particular, I request all information relative to actions taken by NTIA after the preliminary finding that the cable modem coverage was about 82% while, as Ms. Neville and Mr. Strickling know, reliable sources placed the figure around 92%. I cannot believe that when they discovered the issue they did not very carefully review the data for possible errors.
The accuracy of the broadband data is a matter of intense public concern and has been reporting by dozens of reputable news outlets. $billions of policy decisions including lifeline subsidies and USF funding are being made based on the data. I therefore request that this petition be answered as soon as possible and not be delayed.
In order to keep the cost down, I will be happy to come to your offices and examine the documents to save a copying fee. In addition, I believe there are numerous grounds that allow you to waive the fee and that this request is in the public interest and deserves such a waiver.
Please do get back to me quickly with how this information can expeditiously be made public.
db
|