Why Does The CDC Have Better Data On Mobile Penetration Than The FCC?

from the that's-what-we-call-regulatory-capture dept

Tue, May 19th 2009 9:52am — Mike Masnick

It's well known that the FCC has long had incredibly bogus data when it comes to broadband and mobile penetration in the US. In many cases, this is due to efforts from legacy providers who don't want accurate penetration info to get out there, because that might lead the government to realize how little actual competition there is in the market. Kevin Werbach points us to the fact that it appears that when people are interested in mobile phone penetration in the US, it's not the FCC who has the data, but the Center for Disease Control (CDC), who went out and collected their own damn data because it needed to know that data to make sure its phone surveys remained accurate. It's quite telling of the state of the FCC when it's the CDC that has better data about the industry the FCC regulates.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: cdc, fcc, wireless penetration

65 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Bettawrekonize, 19 May 2009 @ 10:04am

But we're just a bunch of conspiracy theorists. These corporations could never be influential enough to influence governmental agencies to distort data. roflol. Of course data is distorted and I think this is especially true when it comes to medicine.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bettawrekonize, 19 May 2009 @ 10:12am

BTW, I'm not really understanding your point here. I think the CDC is giving the currently used bandwidth in terms of cell phones (not broadband) but you're arguing that the FCC is the potential bandwidth vs actual bandwidth relationship?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2009 @ 10:12am

Of course the CDC has to know about broadband penetration. They have to track computer virus's don't they?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bettawrekonize, 19 May 2009 @ 10:12am

Or rather, the potential bandwidth vs actual bandwidth ratio.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bettawrekonize, 19 May 2009 @ 10:14am

err, you seem to be arguing that the FCC is distorting the actual bandwidth vs potential bandwidth ratio. Again, I don't really see how these CDC numbers support such a claim so much.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bettawrekonize, 19 May 2009 @ 10:16am

Because the CDC numbers aren't dealing with potential bandwidth they're dealing with actual bandwidth only within the scope of cell phones (not broadband).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bettawrekonize, 19 May 2009 @ 10:19am

By actual bandwidth I mean the actually used bandwidth. So, in the above inquiries, if I have a 1.5 Mb per second connection and I'm downloading a file (due to a slow server or whatever) only at 1 Mb / sec my potential bandwidth is 1.5 Mb/sec but my actual bandwidth is 1 Mb/sec. Just to clarify terminology here. Potential = maximum possible bandwidth. Actual = what's actually being used.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
:Lobo Santo, 19 May 2009 @ 10:21am

Re:
Talk to yourself much?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bettawrekonize, 19 May 2009 @ 10:23am

I'm just trying to understand what his point is. The FCC seems to be saying that a lack of competition is not a limiting factor to actual bandwidth (but that there are other limiting factors and more competition would not equal more bandwidth). While this maybe untrue I don't see how these specific CDC reports contradict the FCC's claims.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bettawrekonize, 19 May 2009 @ 10:29am

I guess he's not claiming that these CDC reports do contradict the FCC. My mistake.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DJ, 19 May 2009 @ 10:30am

Re:
Perhaps you should go find a bridge and some billy goats to bother...?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
:Lobo Santo, 19 May 2009 @ 10:33am

Re:
The point is accuracy.
The FCC - whose mandate is to track this stuff, is obviously doing a poor job of it. This is not news...
The CDC - in no way in overlapping fields with the FCC needed CORRECT statistical data concerning mobile phone/mobile broadband services (in relation to a variety of health concerns). As the FCC data was spurious/irrelevant/incomplete; they just went out and got their own.

I envy you--I've never had to overcome such incredible reading comprehension problems like those you seem to possess. Very brave, keep it up! Someday, it'll be easier.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DJ, 19 May 2009 @ 10:36am

Re: Re:
too bad he won't "wrekonize" the sarcasm...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
:Lobo Santo, 19 May 2009 @ 10:37am

Re: Re: Re:
I'm actually serious!
Obviously he's mentally deficient and attempting to better himself. The least we can do is try to show a little support in his brave, brave, special needs struggle.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bettawrekonize, 19 May 2009 @ 10:42am

"Obviously he's mentally deficient and attempting to better himself."

And you've never made a mistake. Please, Anonymous Coward, I've caught you contradict yourself several times already. People make mistakes. I just skimmed through it too quickly is all.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DJ, 19 May 2009 @ 10:44am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
touche (?)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bettawrekonize, 19 May 2009 @ 10:45am

But when you contradict yourself and look like an idiot I don't start calling you mentally deficient and such, I simply correct you. You caught me in an error, and unlike you I admit to my mistakes and corrected myself, and you still couldn't pass up the opportunity to dwell on my mistake and say something offensive.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Tgeigs, 19 May 2009 @ 10:47am

The point
I think maybe the point is simply this:

1. The CDC needs statistical data to make sure they're surveys are being accurately utilized
2. The FCC is responsible for gathering this data, and I assume would make it available to the CDC
3. The CDC wrinkled its nose and said, "Yeah...no thanks", then proceeded to get the data themselves

How damning is it of a government affiliated regulating commission that another govt. group don't recognize their data as being accurate or worth anything? And more importantly, if the govt. doesn't trust their own data, why should we?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bettawrekonize, 19 May 2009 @ 10:49am

Re:
and now I'm "Bettawrekonize" contradicting myself, too.
It's that easy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bettawrekonize, 19 May 2009 @ 10:50am

"and now I'm "Bettawrekonize" contradicting myself, too.
It's that easy."

In reading your contradictions I was aware of the possibility that someone could impersonate you. And no, it's NOT that easy. There is such a thing as a hostmask that does identify you, Mike has access to it and he can tell. If you know about the internet you'll know that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
kirillian (profile), 19 May 2009 @ 10:51am

Twitter
hey y'all...I know that we discuss Twitter here pretty much every day, but it's ok to make comments over 160 characters in length...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bettawrekonize, 19 May 2009 @ 10:52am

In other words, I calculated that it wasn't someone impersonating you (being aware of that possibility) but you yourself. Mostly because you didn't, in future conversations, deny your previous posts, but even if you did Mike could still identify the truth since he probably has access to everyone's hostmasks. So faking others probably won't last long.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bettawrekonize, 19 May 2009 @ 10:53am

and Mike even pointed out your clear contradictions (some of which I pointed out) and fallacies. Again, impersonating someone won't work against him since he has actual hostmasks. Nice try.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
:Lobo Santo, 19 May 2009 @ 10:56am

Re:
Ingrate!

Well buddy, that's the last time I stick up for a 'tard!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chronno S. Trigger, 19 May 2009 @ 10:57am

Re:
Just because it's really hard to read the posts like this:
There is a Reply to this comment link directly below the comment you would like to link to. I have no idea who you're replying to half the time.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DJ, 19 May 2009 @ 10:57am

Re:
Just FYI that was me.
AND I don't contradict myself
AND you're calling out Anonymous Coward for something that :Lobo Santo said.
AND yes, Mike can tell, but it's not displayed on the general thread, so YOU can't. My point is that the contradictions are typically done by trollers.
AND nobody likes it when people get upset when they're called on they're own shortcomings; CTFU
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bettawrekonize, 19 May 2009 @ 11:07am

It seems Lobo Santo = Anonymous coward.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bettawrekonize, 19 May 2009 @ 11:07am

"AND I don't contradict myself"

You never contradict yourself? That's a tall claim.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bettawrekonize, 19 May 2009 @ 11:08am

So you're mister perfect, you never make mistakes. If it sounds too good to be true ...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bettawrekonize, 19 May 2009 @ 11:12am

"AND nobody likes it when people get upset when they're called on they're own shortcomings"

I simply pointed out that there was no reason to resort to personal attacks for making a mistake. After all, it's clearly not like you've never contradicted yourself or made obvious fallacies. Correcting someone and resorting to personal attacks are not the same thing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Travis, 19 May 2009 @ 11:18am

Bettawrekonize...please take a deep breath and just think about what you want to say for about 30 seconds. Once the thoughts stop you can put together a single post instead of 9 or 10 in a row. It's really not that challenging.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bettawrekonize, 19 May 2009 @ 11:20am

"AND you're calling out Anonymous Coward for something that :Lobo Santo said."

If it's not anonymous coward then I apologize to him. Lobno Santo shouldn't impersonate you here

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090518/0211554920.shtml

"AND yes, Mike can tell, but it's not displayed on the general thread, so YOU can't. My point is that the contradictions are typically done by trollers."

Well, either you're the same person or you're impersonating him. Either way you're the troll impersonating others.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bettawrekonize, 19 May 2009 @ 11:21am

"Bettawrekonize...please take a deep breath and just think about what you want to say for about 30 seconds. Once the thoughts stop you can put together a single post instead of 9 or 10 in a row. It's really not that challenging."

I'm not used to this structure, still need more getting used to. I'm used to being able to edit my posts for mistakes later on. Thanks for the advice though.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DJ, 19 May 2009 @ 11:21am

Re:
and apple = orange, too?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The infamous Joe, 19 May 2009 @ 11:24am

Re:
"Anonymous Coward" is the name you are assigned when you don't give a name. Try it, it's fun!

The point is, it's not the same guy/gal posting everytime. I know it gets confusing. I just assume every AC is a different person.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2009 @ 11:29am

"Anonymous Coward" is the name you are assigned when you don't give a name. Try it, it's fun!"

This is Bettawrekonize. Testing, testing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DJ, 19 May 2009 @ 11:30am

Re:
Bettawrekonize, also please take a moment to

NOTICE WHO'S MAKING THE POSTS!

In this thread alone there have been DJ(myself), Anonymous Coward, :Lobo Santo, Travis, kirillian, Chrono S. Trigger, Tgeigs and yourself. We are NOT all the same person. If you don't like what someone says, please respond to THAT person, and do not attribute to him/her what someone ELSE has said.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bettawrekonize, 19 May 2009 @ 11:30am

"Anonymous Coward" is the name you are assigned when you don't give a name. Try it, it's fun!"

Thanks so much for pointing that out to me. That's nice to know.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DJ, 19 May 2009 @ 11:31am

Re:
No, I impersonated YOU, for one post, simply to prove a point; that point was lost, which means the failure was mine.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2009 @ 11:32am

Re: Re:
Ok, If I click that and the box shows up, how do I link it back to what it's replying to? Is there a good way to see who a post is replying to? All it says is RE: often times, doesn't specify exactly what post.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DJ, 19 May 2009 @ 11:33am

Re:
Indeed. I, too, did not know that. Terribly amusing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bettawrekonize, 19 May 2009 @ 11:36am

So I just don't see the good it does to hit the reply to this comment link since all it says is RE: and I don't see how it specifies who it's replying to where.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DJ, 19 May 2009 @ 11:36am

Re:
Also, if you want to reply to what someone says, DON'T scroll to the bottom and add a new comment.

just click "reply to this comment"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bettawrekonize, 19 May 2009 @ 11:37am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ow. My butt hurts.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
:Lobo Santo, 19 May 2009 @ 11:38am

Re: Re:
Thank you for getting my name right. :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Tgeigs, 19 May 2009 @ 11:39am

Re: Re:
"We are NOT all the same person"

True, but I'm sort of like God, Bhuddah, or Ron Jeremy: There's a little bit of me in everyone.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DJ, 19 May 2009 @ 11:45am

Re:
scroll up to the bottom of Mike's original post. There are two links there. One says Flattened, the other says Threaded. Click on Threaded and you'll see what good the reply link does.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2009 @ 11:47am

Re: Re:
Thanks so much. Now it makes a lot more sense for me to use the reply key and it makes it easier for me to do so and follow up on it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Derek Kerton, 19 May 2009 @ 11:48am

Re: Re: Re:
"Ok, If I click that and the box shows up, how do I link it back to what it's replying to? Is there a good way to see who a post is replying to? All it says is RE: often times, doesn't specify exactly what post."

See "Your Preferences" at the top right of this page. Select Threaded View.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DJ, 19 May 2009 @ 11:49am

Re: Re: Re:
you can also check the "save me a cookie" box and you won't have to type in your info EVERY TIME.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
korrosive, 19 May 2009 @ 11:50am

OMG
This whole thing has F'ed up the whole discussion. I even forgot what the hell we were talking about. I wish something could be done, but I guess it's Freedom of Speech to get tutoring on how to use a site :(
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Derek Kerton, 19 May 2009 @ 11:52am

Advice For All Commenters
"So I just don't see the good it does to hit the reply to this comment link since all it says is RE: and I don't see how it specifies who it's replying to where."

Go to top right of this page. Your Preferences. Select Threaded view.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DJ, 19 May 2009 @ 11:54am

Re: OMG
LMAO. There've been more posts to this article than any I've seen since I found the site (just over a month). Of course, this falls snuggly into the SNAFU niche.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Korrosive, 19 May 2009 @ 11:58am

Re: Advice For All Commenters
Since this post is already derailed, I'll just continue adding fuel to the ire :)

The only ill side effect I see with threaded view is in order to find the latest comments, one has to scroll up and down checking each thread. With flattened view I simply skip to the bottom to see the latest posted comments.

Any insight??
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased), 19 May 2009 @ 11:59am

Sad
I guess the troll won this time.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bettawrekonize, 19 May 2009 @ 12:14pm

Re: Re: Advice For All Commenters
Perhaps a scrollbar to the left (or right) that lists all the post subjects in chronological order. You click the subject and it scrolls you to it automatically and puts a box around that specific comment.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bettawrekonize, 19 May 2009 @ 12:36pm

Re: Re: Advice For All Commenters
Better yet, a menu bar fixed to the top of the screen that lists everything in order. You normally see it in threaded view but when you want to see the topics in chronological order you hit the menu bar and scroll through the tops and click and it takes you to a specific place.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Derrick Hinkle, 19 May 2009 @ 12:36pm

Re: Re: Re: Advice For All Commenters
Bettawrekonize, seriously, this isn't twitter. Make your freaking point and stfu and gtfo my Internets. Techdirt is a great website, but you don't need to post 30 times in a single story either. Every post you've made is totally irrelevant to the story so far.

As to the story, that's hilarious. Did the CDC contract out the work though? Also, isn't there some sort of accountability on the FCC to have accurate data?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2009 @ 12:36pm

Re: Re: Re: Advice For All Commenters
scroll through the topics *
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2009 @ 12:43pm

Re: Re: Advice For All Commenters
In thread view there should be a link at the bottom of each post with a next link and a previous link. You click on next and it brings you to the next post in chronology. You click on previous and it brings you to the previous. That way you won't have to scroll.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Killer_Tofu (profile), 19 May 2009 @ 1:10pm

Comments
I am commenting about the comments.
Next time Wreckage-ize, please think before posting. That way you won't need a ton of posts to make one or two or less than one point. One post would have done.

And I am always happy to see Lobo Santo and TGiegs post. You guys have the most amusing serious posts in general. =)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bettawrekonize, 19 May 2009 @ 3:12pm

Re:
"They have to track computer virus's don't they?"

Just like it's the department of Homeland security's job to track medical issues like the Swine Flu.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TB5-Y08qbjo

Pretty soon it will be the FDA's job to track astrophysics.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2009 @ 3:17pm

Re:
It seems like this whole overlapping roles issue really started getting worse after 9/11. Different governmental agencies pointed fingers at each other saying, "no, that's the CIA's job, No it's the FBI's job, etc.." and they all complained that there was a lack of communication and overlap. So they went about trying to "fix" it. At this rate it won't be long before you have NASA regulating food and drugs and the FDA regulating banks.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 May 2009 @ 10:21am

The people in charge of the FCC should get fired for not doing their job.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Almost Anonymous, 20 May 2009 @ 11:26am

Could it be?
Hate to derail a thread, but since this one has been so thoroughly derailed already, what the heck?

I got the feeling that I was watching an Artificial Intelligence (AI) evolve as I read through all the 'Bettawrekonize' stuff above...
[ link to this | view in thread ]