summary - social graph of evolving fcc lobbying
Post on 05-Jul-2015
598 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
The evolution of lobbying coalitions
Work in progress summary, 9/30/2009For more detail, see http://bit.ly/4mxfm8
Pierre de Vries, Economic Policy Research CenterUniversity of Washington, Seattle
Conclusions
1. Graph-theory clusters represent real-world alliances
2. Tracking the evolution of clusters can reveal shifts in alliances
3. Improving FCC data will improve public knowledge of lobbying activity
The Data
Metadata from FCC Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) database
Focused on an inter-carrier compensation proceeding, FCC docket 01-92
– 2,9015 filings, 756 unique filers
– Data from inception in April 2001 to December 2008
Considered sub-set where two or more entities file together
Filing entities (companies, associations, individuals) are nodes in a network; they’re linked when they make a filing together
– The more often they file together, the darker the line between them
– The number of times an entity filed is shown by the size of its node – this is a measure of investment/activity
– More influential nodes are pink, less influential are blue – nodes are influential if they link to other nodes that are themselves highly linked
Companies typically either always file solo, or always jointly
498
3924 25
8 10
152
Nu
mb
er o
f fi
ers
Percentage of filings made jointly
25 entities filed with others in 40%-60% of
cases, e.g. twtelecom, Pac-West
498 entities always filed alone, e.g.
BellSouth, NARUC
152 entities always filed with someone
else, e.g. Broadview, Maine PUC
Solo filers excluded from
co-filing analysis
All the filings 2001-2008
A Time Series
Looking at separate time periods shows how coalitions evolved
The source data set has day-by-day granularity; these snapshots are integrated over much longer periods
2001-2002
T-Mobile et al petition for
declaratory ruling
CLEC reply comments to
NPRM
2003-2004
IntercarrierCompensation
Forum, filed ICF Plan 5 Oct 2004
“Indep. Wireless Carriers”: T-Mobile, W Wireless, Dobson
“CMRS Petitioners”: T-Mobile, W Wireless, Nextel
CLECs’ “Cost-Based Intercarrier
Compensation Coalition” (CBICC)
2005 – summer 2006
Major CLECs – FNPRM comments & replies
Rural LECs and their associations
CLECs
CLECs, some eventually merging e.g.
Lightship, CTC, Conversent; and Xspedius & tw telecom
Fall 2006 – end 2007Missoula Plan Allies
Missoula Plan Opponents:
Mix of CLECs, ILECs and Indep. Wireless
Oregon Rural LECs, supporting Missoula
Plan
Jan – July 2008
The calm before the storm
Aug/Sep 2008
CLECs opposing Verizon’s September 12
proposal, incl. uniform rate
ILEC/IXC coalition: Ex parte advocating
federalizing VOIP, uniform
comp rate for all traffic
Oct 2008Five State regulatory
commissions objecting to “eleventh hour filings”
Mid-size rural LECs opposing flat rate comp, supporting status
quo OPASTCO/WTA Plan
Broadening CLEC coalition opposing change towards flat
rate
Small ILECs trying to slow down process
Nov/Dec 2008
Rural cellular – note they’re closer to the CLECs than the RLECs
Opposition to AT&T/IXC “self-help” from small
LEC and conf-call players
“Coalition for Rational Universal Service and Intercarrier Reform” –
urban & rural CLECs
Summary of Coalition Patterns
Rural LECs and their associations keep to themselves
Opponents are connected:
ILECs, CLECs, and cellular
Top 20 Impact Depends on Chosen Metric
Times Filed Number of Pages Joint FilingsConnectedness (Degree)
Influence (Eigenvector)
AT&T Intercarrier Comp. Forum XO NuVox Hypercube
Verizon NTCA NuVox Cavalier Cavalier
NTCA Verizon Cavalier XO iBasis
CTIA Qwest Comm. Broadview Broadview NuVox
Qwest Comm. AT&T Pac-West RCN tw telecom
Verizon Wireless NuVox OPASTCO Pac-West Covad
XO XO RCN One CompTel
NuVox Broadview One tw telecom RCN
Level 3 Cavalier WTA T-Mobile One
T-Mobile Pac-West US LEC CompTel XO
Cavalier Verizon Wireless T-Mobile NCTA 360networks
Pac-West RCN tw telecom US LEC NCTA
USTA Nextel Focal Alltel PAETEC
Core Comm. US LEC Cbeyond Cellular South U.S. TelePacific
Sprint NASUCA Alltel McLeodUSA Citynet
US LEC CTIA McLeodUSA Covad Broadview
ITTA Core Comm. Dobson Hypercube nTelos
CenturyTel tw telecom Xspedius PAETEC R&B
Broadview Sprint Nextel iBasis Cellular South
OPASTCO BellSouth Western Wireless U.S. TelePacific Alpheus
* Filers that appear in three or more columns are color coded
Value of the approach
Insiders can use graphs to identify:
– detailed trends at a glance
– potential collaborators or defectors, e.g. by looking for coalition members who are bridges between groups, or peripheral
Outsiders can grasp the overall structure of a proceeding without having to read the entire record
Communications and advocacy players can use:
– cluster evolution to find and show changes in coalitions
– network structure to guide understanding of search results
Implications for the Regulator
1. Poor quality of information input by filers impedes transparency
2. Require more information in metadata
3. Use standard web techniques to facilitate data input and retrieval
4. Improve systems for correcting errors
top related