When our Staff Workshops started, some critics immediately concluded that the nature of the participants demonstrated that the FCC just listens to communications industry giants. If we're going to be criticized now (which we undoubtedly will be) the numbers suggest we may be in danger of the critique that we haven't heard from enough industry giants. So far, academics have comprised over 13 percent of all participants at the workshops, followed by consumer and public interest groups (9.3%). The largest industry group was equipment makers, comprising a little over 8% of the participants, followed by alternative wireless services at nearly 6 %.
This past week, we had our first field hearings, with more coming. They will certainly tip the scales again - toward the public.
Our goal for these workshops and hearings was to gather new data and fresh insights so we could break out of Beltway policy stalemates. I think we are doing that. But we recognize that all the workshops, field hearings and other efforts to gather input will only pay off if we can put together a coherent, comprehensive program to address the concerns Congress discussed in the authorizing legislation. That is not easy, as it requires doing more on limited resources; always difficult math. So while the numbers from our workshops suggest the way we are approaching things, the numbers that we really have to stay focused on are those about broadband deployment and adoption.
Participant Type | Number Represented | Percentage Represented | |
Academic | 31 | 13.14% | |
Consumer & Public Interest | 22 | 9.32% | |
Equipment | 20 | 8.47% | |
Other* | 17 | 7.20% | |
Minority | 15 | 6.36% | |
Alt wireless | 14 | 5.93% | |
Government - Federal | 13 | 5.51% | |
Government - Local | 14 | 5.93% | |
Think Tanks | 13 | 5.51% | |
Wireless | 12 | 5.08% | |
ILEC | 10 | 4.24% | |
Web | 9 | 3.81% | |
Government - State | 8 | 3.39% | |
Content | 7 | 2.97% | |
Disabilities | 7 | 2.97% | |
Cable | 6 | 2.54% | |
Fiber | 6 | 2.54% | |
CLEC | 3 | 1.27% | |
Finance | 3 | 1.27% | |
Government - International | 3 | 1.27% | |
Satellite | 3 | 1.27% | |
Total Represented | 236 |
*Other - Consists of multiple, publishing, other, retail, legal & health care categories
BUT… the problem is that when you categorize the participants this way, you may not be identifying all the "sock puppets" and "astroturfers" that ostensibly represent one group, but are actually representing another "hidden" interest. Particularly in the case of academics, computer & public interest, minority, think tanks, and disability representatives, you should be very suspicious if the seem to be parroting the positions of the big phone and cable companies. There have been numerous examples of phone companies hiring a firm that specializes in managing public opinion, which then co-opts various interest groups to promote their clients' messages. Often is a non-obvious "quid pro quo" involved - for example, a group that represents minority interests advocates for a particular industry's position, and then one of the participants it that industry donates a new community center (or some other large donation in kind) to that group in some major city. Or, an academic may speak for a particular industry's interests, then later have a research project funded (directly on indirectly) by that industry. This is not just coincidence, but it's also something you won't know about unless you ask all participants to fully disclose to any contacts they've had with communication industry giants, and in particular to disclose whether they've been offered or promised any benefit or compensation (for themselves or the organization they represent) if they promote or advocate for someone else's interests or position. Please do not pretend this doesn't happen, and please be very suspicious of those who seem to be advocating for the communications industry giants when they have no apparent reason to do so.
Again, these numbers you show are completely misleading because 1) You'd expect the workshops on disabilities issues or other such special areas to include those types of speakers. 2) You've not accounted for the fact that the "think tank" speakers are all supported by the incumbents -- they are their paid proxies, something you failed to make them disclose during the panels.
If you just restrict the list to the hearings on the big regulatory issues the FCC will handle, it is almost overwhelmingly dominated by industry. Further, go back and look at the announcement of initial hearings -- before you became sensitive to this critique -- no public interest at all. Finally, the content hearing recently held indicates that this FCC is sympathetic to Hollywood the way the last FCC was sympathetic to the phone companies. No matter what spin you put on it, we the people see the reality. We see that you hire vocal anti-net neutrality and anti-open access economist Scott Wallsten to handle your economics work, and we know exactly what is going on behind the curtain. Same old same old.Wow, this is a pretty weak defense. Even by the numbers you supply, things don't look so good.
Thanks Mr. Levin for putting together some very diverse workshops. I for one think that companies should dominate these proceedings. They built the Internet with their own money, and should be free to operate how they see fit. Hopefully you can talk Julius Genachowski out of his "net neutrality" idea. Net neutrality is the fairness doctrine for the Internet, and the FCC has no right to stifle the free speech rights of the corporations who built the Internet.
Your data would be more persuasive if you actually showed how you classified each witness. Some of the "consumer and public interest" witnesses actually take money from Google, so they belong under the content category.
Everyone who was paying attention knows these hearings -- the important ones about policy -- were industry love-fests. You may have managed to fool reporters today with this blog post, but you didn't fool the people. We know better, and will not relent until your supposed "public process" is something more than a slogan.
Kevin Martin used to have lengthy periods for 2 minute public comments at his hearings. Your hearings? No, none -- just questions written on cards, that might get asked by a moderator. Sounds a bit phony to me.