Here is another message I sent yesterday but that, to the best of my knowledge, did not get to arrl-odv. Dave

-----Original Message----- From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 4:05 PM To: 'arrl-odv@arrl.org' Subject: Lying with statistics

On July 7 the FCC released its latest report on the availability of high-speed services for Internet access (attached). Reading it and comparing it to earlier reports, I noticed that "powerline delivery" was mentioned for the first time and that for no apparent reason it had been added to the line in which data for fiber previously had been been reported in an unambiguous fashion. So for the first time in 2004, BPL data supposedly was reported -- but in combination with fiber, even though the two media have practically nothing in common.

Responding to the Commission's invitation to email comments to the Wireline Competition Bureau staff, I did so -- which led to the following exchange. (I have rearranged the messages so they read from top to bottom.)

Dave K1ZZ

-----Original Message----- From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ [<mailto:dsumner@arrl.org>] Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 2:42 PM To: Suzanne Mendez; James Eisner Subject: RE: High-Speed Services for Internet Access, Status as of December 31, 2004

The report released last Thursday contains a wealth of interesting and useful information. However, I do not understand the logic of how some of the data has been aggregated. There is no technical similarity between fiber and powerline delivery that would justify lumping the two together in Tables 1-4 and Charts 1-8. If I understand Form 477 and the instructions for filing, information on broadband delivery via electric power lines is now collected separately. It should be reported separately and most definitely should NOT be combined with fiber, which was reported as a unique category through June 2004 (the numbers now shown for "fiber or powerline" for June 2004 and prior reports are identical to those shown in earlier reports for fiber alone).

I would like to be able to continue to determine the growth rate for fiber alone. By how much should I reduce the figure of 697,779 (as of 12/31/04) to eliminate the electric powerline connections?

Thank you for your assistance.

David Sumner

-----Original Message----- From: James Eisner [<mailto:James.Eisner@fcc.gov>] Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 8:34 AM To: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ Subject: RE: High-Speed Services for Internet Access, Status as of December 31, 2004

We aggregated the high-speed lines in the fiber and powerline category due to confidentiality concerns. Hopefully in future reports, we will be able to report fiber separately.

Jim Eisner

-----Original Message----- From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ [<mailto:dsumner@arrl.org>] Sent: Tue 7/12/2005 8:55 AM To: James Eisner Cc: Subject: RE: High-Speed Services for Internet Access, Status as of December 31, 2004

Jim, thank you for your prompt response.

I saw footnote 10 with respect to aggregating data for the individual states. Am I correct in assuming that the powerline segment is so small that its data must be aggregated nationally -- not just at state level -- with another, unrelated industry segment in order to not reveal individual company data? If so, why is it worth reporting on at all?

Is the answer to my original question zero?

Sincerely,

David Sumner

From: James Eisner [mailto:James.Eisner@fcc.gov] Sent: Sat 7/16/2005 1:15 AM To: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ Subject: RE: High-Speed Services for Internet Access, Status as of December 31, 2004 David,

I can' t provide information regarding the break-out between electric powerline and fiber due to confidentiality concerns.>

Jim Eisner

-----Original Message----- From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2005 10:15 AM To: James Eisner Subject: RE: High-Speed Services for Internet Access, Status as of December 31, 2004 Thank you for the confirmation.

Dave Sumner

...

<<hspd0705.pdf>>