The quality of data used by the FCC to predict broadband trends and make widely impacting decisions is under scrutiny by critics and FCC commissioners alike. A report released by the FCC last month indicated that rates for basic cable packages soared 8.2%, ($40.11 a month on average), while the cost of living was up 1.5%.

FCC Commissioners Copps and Adelstein (links to statements in Word format) at the time claimed the FCC's report on the industry offered much less information than in years past, impacting their decision making abilities.

Gene Kimmelman of the Consumer's Union agreed, claiming that the FCC was simply "refusing to gather data that illustrates more thoroughly how cable is entrenching its monopoly." Much of the data provided by cable companies isn't audited, and figures in recent reports have been taken at face value, without much concern for accuracy.

The question of accurate FCC data is being raised again this week, after the FCC's Wireline Competition Bureau released findings that were questioned by Commissioner Michael Copps, who again disputed how the FCC was proceeding with data analysis.

Copps took particular issue with the way the report calculates geographical development, noting that ISP's need only have one single connection enabled in a zip-code in order for that zip code to be considered "serviced" by that ISP.

That measuring stick was used in a June report that claimed that broadband was now available in 88 percent of the nation's zip codes. "We must dig deeper," Copps says of the methodology used. "Finding one high-speed subscriber in a zip code and counting it as service available throughout is not a credible way to proceed."

Copps also takes issue with the WCB's definition of 200Kbps (downstream) as a broadband connection. "I mentioned the 200-kilobit figure that we use to someone the other day, and the response I got was: 'How 1997,'" Copps noted at the WCB's presentation to the FCC on Wednesday.

Michael Powell isn't terribly concerned. "Better data is needed," Powell admits. "But the data we have is still valuable." Who most benefits from the "value" of that data is the billion dollar question.