Fast Net News, DSL Prime, DOCSIS Report

• David Young and Link Hoewing, Verizon lobbyists, understand the technical issues better than anyone else in D.C. who regularly speaks to reporters. Like their bosses Tom Tauke and Eric Rabe, they almost never lie, a policy that gives Verizon's lobbying team far more credibility than others. Verizon hires folks smart and informed enough to make their points without falsehoods. It's not their job to give you the whole story, of course. Ray Gifford of the Progress and Freedom Foundation is by far the best informed conservative on Internet issues. D.C. policy debates are poorer since he returned to private practice in Denver. (September 2009 Removed Ken Ferree. His ethics remain exemplary, but his judgments on issues disappoint me.) Scott Wallsten has moved from PFF to iGrowthGlobal, and is a serious economist. (Now at the FCC)

Some folks more likely to agree with me include:

• Investor: Jessica Zufulo and Blair Levin, both friends, are by far the outstanding "investment analysts" in D.C., and typically the best informed sources willing to speak publicly. Blair was chief of staff for Reed Hundt at the FCC, and Zufulo represented the state regulators. They've earned the respect of almost all the people making policy, and have unmatched access to information. Sept 2009: Blair's runing the broadband plan, Jessica is senior at the Rural Utilities Service. There's no one who has adequately replaced them for investors and as (relatively) objective observers.
• Wireless Sept 2009. Mike Calabrese and Sascha Meinrath are doing good work on wireless at the New America Foundation. Michael Marcus is a a strong engineer. March 2008 J.H. Snider has left the New America Foundation to form iSolon.org, dedicated to democratic reform including "Citizen Assemblies." He'll continue telecom work as an affiliate of Columbia's CITI. Jim has done important work on opening wireless to new providers (DTV transition, white spaces) and consumer's choice of devices (wireless Carterfone.) If only the FCC would listen more. The majority commissioners still haven't figured out that smart radios make nearly all their wireless policies technologically obsolete. Harold Feld is perhaps the most quotable of the "public interest advocates;" his blog, Tales of the Sausage Factory, can be very spirited. Feld had the best informed commentary on the 700 megahertz auctions. Sept 2009 Harold, who is my sisiter-in-law's brother-in-law, has deepened and stregthened his reporting, which is often outstanding.
• Wireline: Sept 2009 Young and Hoewing are in D.C. and know the technology. I don't know anyone in D.C. who is well informed about wireline and doesn't have a strong bias. There are almost no jobs in D.C. except in advocacy organizations. Particularly misleading are a dozen folks who claim to be independent and/or non-profit, but are corporate supported and very weak. Taking corporate money doesn't make you a poor source - I deliberately put Verizon and PFF folks up top. But most of the vocal ones in D.C. are simply uninformed and wouldn't be in the game unless the companies provide them funding in the $millions.

Reporters should never hesitate to ask FCC Commissioners for opinion directly. Most Commissioners and senior staff believe, rightly or wrongly, that the press ignores them. Both Republicans and Democrats have been helpful to me and other reporters. I haven't listed FCC and Congressional staffers here, because most are reluctant to speak on the record. Similarly, many of the best people (R.P.) aren't on the list because their job prevents them from freely talking with reporters.

My follow-up article will be unreliable sources, which I'm fact checking more carefully. For now, a few types to distrust:

• The FCC or anyone else who takes seriously a 200 Kbps definition of broadband.
  
  
• Anyone who defends a bandwidth cap below about 150 gigabytes per month, except where bandwidth costs are unusually high or the service selling for under about $20. (India, South Africa, possibly the U.K.) Ask me for the numbers if you don't get it.
  
  
• Lawyers who haven't taken the time to learn what's actually going on in the network and get things wrong. Lawyers and other non-engineers can learn enough to understand the issues, but many don't. Robert Pepper is a great example of what's possible. His doctorate is on political science, I believe, but he learned enough to hold his own in a room filled with MIT engineering professors and their peers.
  
  
• Second rate scholars and analysts whose primary sources are each other and telco lobbyists. There's a band of two dozen in D.C., most earning their living from the bells, who repeat each other's nonsense so many times policymakers sometimes believe it's true. Bell and Bell-funded commentators are on the reliable list above, proving taking money from corporations does not necessarily prevent honest opinions. But check three times if someone is often paid by these guys.
• (Sept 2009 added) The academics who use theoretical models that don't apply to the real world problems. In particular, many economists assume we have strong competition because that's what they've been trained to study. Their comments become irrelevant when competition is weak: wireline, highspeed broadband, most rural areas. I call them "Martians," because their comments don't apply to problems on this planet. They are like engineers who ignore friction on rocket re-entry.