On making public policy with publicly available data: The case of U.S. communications policymaking

Government Information Quarterly

Volumn 27, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 384-391

  Napoli, Philip M ^a   Karaganis, Joe ^b  

^a FORDHAM UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH COUNCIL   (United States)

Author keywords

Communications policy; Data access; Open government

Indexed keywords

EID: 77956180102     PISSN: 0740624X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.giq.2010.06.005     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Administrative Procedure Act (2000). 5 U.S.C. § 553.
2. Anderson M., Seltzer W. Federal statistical confidentiality and business data: Twentieth century challenges and continuing issues. Journal of Privacy and Confidentiality 2009, 1(1):7-52.
3. Broadband Data Improvement Act (2008). P.L. 110-385, 47 USC. 1301.
4. Burgee K.S. Letter from Kirk S. Burgee, Associate Bureau Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau, FCC, to Drew Clark, Sr. Fellow and Project Mgr., Center for Public Integrity 2006, September 26, Retrieved January 23, 2009, from http://www.publicintegrity.org/docs/FCCReplytoFOIA.pdf.
5. Center for Public Integrity v. FCC, 515 F.Supp.2d 167 (D.D.C. 2007).
6. Quadrennial Review-Review of the commissioner broadcast ownership rules and other rules adopted pursuant to section 202 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Formal Comments (accessible via FCC Electronic Comment Filing System).
7. Coglianese C., Zeckhauser R., Parson E. Seeking truth for power: Informational strategy and regulatory policymaking. Minnesota Law Review 2004, 89:277-341.
8. Cohen L., Hahn R.W. A solution to concerns over public access to scientific data. Science 1999, 285:535-536.
9. Cramer B.W. "The nation's broadband success story": The secrecy of FCC broadband infrastructure statistics. Hastings Communications and Entertainment Law Journal 2009, 31:339-368.
10. Data Access Act of 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681.
11. Data Quality Act of 2000, § 515, Pub. L. No. 106-554, 114 Stat. 2763.
12. Duwadi K., Roberts S., Wise A. Ownership structure and robustness of media: FCC media ownership study #2 2007, Retrieved January 23, 2010, from http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3470A3.pdf.
13. EchoStar Satellite v. FCC, 457 F.3d 31, 39 (D.C. Cir. 2006).
14. Local competition and broadband reporting, report and order, 15 F.C.C.R. 7717 2000, Federal Communications Commission.
15. 2002 Biennial Regulatory Review-Review of the Commission's broadcast ownership rules and other rules adopted pursuant to section 202 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Protective Order, 17 F.C.C.R. 22,178 2002, Federal Communications Commission.
16. Federal Communications Commission (2004). Broadcast Localism, Notice of Inquiry, 19 F.C.C.R. 12, 425.
17. Federal Communications Commission (2007). 2006 Quadrennial Review-Review of the Commission's Broadcast Ownership Rules and Other Rules Adopted Pursuant to Section 202 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Protective Order. Retrieved January 28, 2010, from http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3741A1.pdf.
18. A national broadband plan for our future, protective order 2009, Federal Communications Commission, Retrieved January 28, 2010, from http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2187A1_Rcd.pdf.
19. Federal Communications Commission (2010). Comment Sought on Free Press Request to Review Form 477 Data and Request for Protective Order. WC Docket No. 10-75.
20. Flamm K., Friedlander A., Horrigan J., Lehr W. Measuring broadband: Improving communications policymaking through better data collection. Report of a workshop co-sponsored by the Pew Internet & American Life Project 2007, November, The University of Texas at Austin, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
21. Ford G.S. Written statement of George S. Ford, Chief Economist, Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal & Economic Public Policy Studies, before the House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet 2007, May 17, Retrieved January 23, 2010, from http://archives.energycommerce.house.gov/cmte_mtgs/110-ti-hrg.051707.Ford-testimony.pdf.
22. Frieden R. Lies, damn lies and statistics: Developing a clearer assessment of market penetration and broadband competition in the United States. Virginia Journal of Law & Technology 2009, 14(2):100-125.
23. Heinrich C.J. Evidence-based policy and performance management: Challenges and prospects in two parallel movements. American Review of Public Administration 2007, 37:255-277.
24. Institute for Public Representation v. Federal Communications Commission (2007). Complaint, No. 07CV02092 (D.D.C. 2007), dismissed, 2007 WL 2900431 (D.D.C. July 9, 2008).
25. Institute for Public Representation v.Federal Communications Commission Intervener defendant BIA Financial Network Inc's memorandum of points and authorities in support of its motion for summary judgment 2008, United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
26. Jensen K.D. The reasonable government official test: A proposal for the treatment of factual information under the federal deliberative process privilege. Duke Law Journal 1999, 49(2):561-599.
27. Knight Commission on the information needs of communities in a democracy Informing communities: sustaining democracy in the digital age 2009, Aspen Institute, Washington, DC.
28. Lipton J. Balancing private rights and public policies: Reconceptualizing property in databases. Berkeley Technology Law Journal 2003, 18:774-852.
29. Lyndon M.L. Information economics and chemical toxicity: Designing laws to produce and use data. Michigan Law Review 1989, 87(7):1795-1861.
30. Napoli P.M. The paradoxes of media policy analysis: Implications for public interest media regulation. Administrative Law Review 2008, 60(4):801-812.
31. Napoli P.M., Karaganis J. Toward a federal data agenda for communications policymaking. CommLaw Conspectus 2008, 16(1):53-96.
32. Napoli P.M., Seaton M. Necessary knowledge for communications policymaking: Information asymmetries and commercial data access and usage in the policymaking process. Federal Communications Law Journal 2007, 59(2):295-330.
33. Establishment of an improved model for predicting the broadcast television field strength received at individual locations 2000, February 22, National Association of Broadcasters and Association for Maximum Service Television, Engineering Statement in Support of Comments, ET Docket No. 00-11.
34. National Parks and Conservation Association v. Morton, 498 F.2d 765 (D.C. Cir. 1974).
35. National Research Council Expanding access to research data: Reconciling risks and opportunities 2005, National Academies Press, Washington, DC.
36. Nelkin D. Scientific knowledge, public policy, and democracy: A review essay. Science Communication 1979, 1:106-122.
37. Open government: A progress report to the American people (2009, December). Retrieved January 23, 2010, from http://www.whitehouse.gov/open.
38. Perko, M.S. (2007, January 4). Letter from Michael S. Perko, Chief, Office of Communications & Industry Information, FCC, to Marvin Ammori, Institute for Public Representation, Georgetown University Law Center (on file with authors).
39. Raul A.C., Dwyer J.W. Science in the regulatory process: "Regulatory Daubert": A proposal to enhance judicial review of agency science by incorporating Daubert principles into administrative law. Law and Contemporary Problems 2003, 66:7-44.
40. Robinson D., Yu H., Zeller W.P., Felton E.W. Government data and the invisible hand. Yale Journal on Law & Technology 2008/2009, 11:160-175.
41. Sanderson I. Evaluation, policy learning and evidence-based policy making. Public Administration 2002, 80(1):1-22.
42. Sandoval, C.J.K. (in press). Minority commercial radio ownership in 2009: FCC licensing and consolidation policies, entry windows, and the nexus between ownership, diversity, and service in the public interest. In P.M. Napoli & M. Aslama (Eds.), Communications research in action: Scholar-activist collaborations for a democratic public sphere. New York: Fordham University Press.
43. Small Market Broadcasters Coalition (2006, December 7). 2006 Quadrennial Review-Review of the Commissioner Broadcast Ownership Rules and Other Rules Adopted Pursuant to Section 202 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Coalition Request for Underlying Data (accessible via FCC Electronic Comment Filing System).
44. Turner D. In the matter of inquiry concerning the deployment of advanced telecommunications capability to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion, and possible steps to accelerate such deployment pursuant to Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, as amended by the Broadband Data Improvement Act 2009, September 4, Comments of Free Press. Retrieved January 25, 2010, from http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020037663.
45. Broadband deployment is extensive throughout the United States, but it is difficult to assess the extent of deployment gaps in rural areas 2006, U.S. Government Accountability Office, Retrieved January 23, 2010, from http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06426.pdf.
46. Current broadband measures have limitations, and new measures are promising but need improvement 2009, U.S. Government Accountability Office, Retrieved January 23, 2010, from http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1049.pdf.
47. U.S.House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce, hearing on broadband mapping 2007, May 17, Retrieved November 16, 2007, from http://energycommerce.house.gov/cmte_mtgs/110-ti-hrg.051707.Broadband.mapping.shtml.
48. Wagner, W.E. (2009). Administrative law, filter failure, and information capture. Unpublished working paper. Retrieved January 14, 2010, from http://works.bepress.com/wendy_wagner/1.
49. Wagner W., Michaels D. Equal treatment for regulatory science: Extending the controls governing the quality of public research to private research. American Journal of Law & Medicine 2004, 30:119-154.
50. Warren E. The market for data: The changing role of social sciences in shaping the law. Wisconsin Law Review 2002, 2002:1-43.
51. Wolken J.C. Just the facts, ma'am: A case for uniform federal regulation of information databases in the new information age. Syracuse Law Review 1998, 48:1263-1305.