Welcome to BroadbandCensus.com

I realize that “Connected Nation” is, in some respects, a competitor of your broadband mapping effort — but this is no reason to cast aspersions upon it.

There’s a good reason why ISPs — especially small, rural, and competitive ISPs — do not want precise maps of their coverage areas published: it enables anticompetitive tactics. Given detailed information about competitors’ coverage areas and sites (especially wireless ISPs’ towers), large incumbent carriers can precisely target anticompetitive tactics (e.g. predatory pricing, long term “lock in” contracts, etc.) at the areas which competitors serve, while not losing money on other areas. And since our country’s current broadband policy does nothing to aid these competitors in any way, they’re vulnerable. Want a duopoly? Gather competitive intelligence, at government expense, for the big guys — who will use it to wipe out all competitors. On the other hand, if you want users to have a choice of providers, or to foster the deployment of broadband to unserved or underserved areas, you’ll advocate exactly what “Connected Nation” does: map the general coverage areas but aggregate the information so that it cannot be used to harm competition. It just makes sense.

Brett, thanks for commenting on this subject on BroadbandCensus.com, as you also did on Public Knowledge web site.

Readers should know that these are issues that you and I have talked about for more than two years. For reference, read http://broadbandcensus.com/?p=352.

In my view, it simply does not pass the laugh test for someone to say, as the carriers do, that disclosing the ZIP codes, or ZIP+4 codes, in which a particular competitor operators puts the carrier into a position of competitive harm. Another good background piece on this was published last week in The New York Times: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/11/why-spend-350-million-to-map-broadband/

Zip codes? Probably not — especially in rural areas. But remember: Zip+4 codes can cover an area as small as a single floor of an apartment building. (I am part owner of an apartment building that has four Zip+4 codes.) This could, indeed, put a small, competitive ISP into a position of competitive harm. Fellow WISPs report that when they expand into a new area the incumbent telephone monopoly follows, as soon as it finds out, with remote DSL terminals and begins offering “loss leader” deals. And I’ve seen my own wireless sites targeted for illegal interference by less-than-savory wireless competitors. And this is without the benefit of having the government gather competitive intelligence and cataloging it for them. Drew, you seem to have your heart in the right place but are not working day to day in this hypercompetitive business. If you did, you would see the threat.

P.S. — Since your site is called “BroadbandCensus.com,” you should be well aware that the very same issues exist as do in a “real” census.

In a real census, people will not report accurate information (or any information at all!) if they believe that personal information will be published… or even warehoused and possibly be released at any time in the near future. Even when the government does make assurances that data will be released only in aggregated form, many people belonging to certain groups — such as Hispanics (including those with legal residence and/or citizenship) and more recently Muslims — believe that the risk is too great that the data will get out or be abused, and do not report.

Now, think about what it might be like for a small businessperson, in a line of business where anticompetitive tactics are rampant and government protection of competitors is nil, to be asked to participate in a “census” where detailed data about his or her would be published, not anonymized, and not aggregated. This person’s livelihood and personal fortune are at stake here, in a way that you could not imagine unless you yourself had “skin in the game.”

Censuses only work at all when they promise a degree of anonymity. Drew, I admire your efforts to assess where broadband is available and where it is not. However, you must respect the hard working people who are out there actually doing it, who are worried every day that some huge megacorporation will find a way to squash them or “cut off their air supply” (as a Microsoft exec once famously put it). Every day, I work incredibly hard, against incredible odds, to keep this business running and to fulfill my personal mission to make broadband available to as many unserved areas as I possibly can. And every day, I see people “inside the Beltway” who claim that they are in favor of universal broadband deployment but who are actually pursuing agendas that would hurt, rather than help, this mission. How about you?