Well Connected from The Center for Public Integrity

The 700 (MHz) Club

2012-08-07T14:04:05-04:00

On July 31, the Federal Communications Commission voted on rules that could radically change the type of Internet services and mobile devices available on cellular networks.

This issue has dominated the FCC's agenda throughout 2007, as lobbyists swarmed the agency in hopes of influencing an upcoming auction of airwaves that are ideal for high-speed wireless Internet service. In fact, in the first seven months of the year, lobbyists representing nearly 100 companies, trade associations, and other parties (think tanks and public-interest groups, for example) had nearly 600 meetings or phone conversations with agency officials on proceedings related to the January 2008 auction—far more than any other pending matter, according to an analysis by The Center for Public Integrity.

In the end, the FCC's much-anticipated decision proved to be a victory—at least in part—for Internet giant Google, which is pressing to extend its popular search, video, and mapping tools throughout the cellular industry. Such applications are often blocked by the major U.S. cellular carriers, which tightly control the kinds of devices and applications that customers may use on their networks.

Google, a relative newcomer to Washington, proved to be a formidable lobbying presence, the Center's analysis shows: From the start of the year through July 31—the day of the FCC's pivotal vote—representatives of the Silicon Valley behemoth met with or spoke by phone with commissioners, their staff members, or other agency employees about this matter at least 19 times. The firm's chief telecommunications lobbyist, Richard Whitt—a former attorney for MCI (now part of Verizon), who was hired in February and also lobbies on this issue for a handful of Google's allies—had at least 11 meetings or phone calls with the five commissioners.

But a number of Google's opponents devoted far more lobbying resources to this auction battle, the rules for which will ultimately govern billions of dollars' worth of public airwaves in the 700 MHz band—spectrum space to be vacated by broadcasters switching from analog to digital transmissions. For example, the major cellular carriers' lobbying arm, CTIA – The Wireless Association, met with or called FCC commissioners and other agency officials at least 43 times, while lobbyists for Verizon Wireless recorded 40 such contacts.

Under agency rules, a participant must file a notice of the session, which is officially called an ex parte presentation. The Center reviewed all 2007 ex parte records through July 31—a total of more than 5,000 filings.

Leading the lobbying pack on this fight for the airwaves was Frontline Wireless, a start-up that includes among its partners former FCC chairmen Reed Hundt (a Democrat) and Mark Fowler (a Republican), with at least 70 reported meetings or telephone calls. Indeed, the firm's political connections helped its lobbyists gain repeated access to the agency's inner sanctum: Hundt, Janice Obuchowski, who served as secretary of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration in the first Bush administration, and Jonathan Blake, an attorney with the powerhouse law firm of Covington & Burling, each participated in a dozen or more meetings with commissioners.

But despite having unique access, and despite winning on other issues, Frontline's lobbyists failed to persuade regulators to adopt a "wholesale" provision requiring a winning licensee to resell a portion of the airwaves to third-parties and competitors—a major point of contention in the lobbying debate.

Data analysis by Assistant Database Editor Ben Welsh, who developed a system to retrieve and sort ex parte documents filed electronically with the FCC. Stokely Baksh and Andrew MacRae also contributed to this report.

Most Active FCC Staff

These FCC staff members each logged 40 or more meetings and phone calls with outside interests on the spectrum-auction rules during the first seven months of 2007.

Most Active Lobbyists

These lobbyists and advocates each logged more than 25 meetings and phone calls with FCC staff members on spectrum-auction rules during the first seven months of 2007.

Ready, fire aim? Public broadband grants wait for no plan

2012-08-07T14:04:05-04:00

The government has created a $7.2 billion spending program aimed at providing access to broadband for Americans who have missed out on the benefits of the Internet revolution.

The government has also mandated the creation of a national broadband plan, which will provide recommendations on how to make sure that all Americans have access to high-speed Internet service.

In the real world, the plan would usually be completed before the money was doled out. But in Washington, that’s not always the case.

The deadline for applications for those seeking a grant from the broadband spending program was Aug. 14, 2009. The national broadband plan, which is under development at the Federal Communications Commission, isn’t due until Feb. 17, 2010.

The findings and recommendations in the FCC’s plan would no doubt have come in handy for those who sought funding under the broadband grant program — not to mention the government analysts whose job it is to decide who gets the money.

Both the grant program and the mandate for a broadband plan were in President Barack Obama’s $787 billion economic stimulus package.

The timing problem stems from the fact that the primary purpose of the stimulus plan was to pump as much money as possible, as quickly as possible, into the U.S. economy – or in the words of the president, to provide a “direct fiscal boost to help lift our nation.”

Rapid spending is rarely accompanied by careful planning, particularly when it comes to an issue as complex and unstudied as the nation’s access — or lack of access — to high-speed Internet service.

Access to advanced communications services such as broadband has been a national goal since Congress rewrote communications law in 1996. Since then, the Internet has gone from being a hobby for geeks and academics to an absolute necessity. So it is in the public interest to determine whether a “digital divide” exists between America’s rich and America’s poor.

But efforts by the FCC to determine how many Americans have access to broadband have been a running joke because the agency’s has not required from Internet providers detailed reports on where they provide access. The data problem has kept the government from identifying gaps in broadband coverage.

Until recently, the agency required only that broadband providers report their customer totals by state. The only other geographic determiner was a list of ZIP codes where providers had at least one customer. Democratic Commissioner Michael Copps described the zip code data as “stunningly meaningless.”

Responding to widespread derision and legislation pending in Congress, the FCC under previous Chairman Kevin Martin changed its ways in 2008.

Broadband providers are now required to report the total number of connections they have in each U.S. Census tract. The ideal population of a Census tract is 4,000, which works out to around 1,500 households, depending on where you live. So the new requirements should provide at least a ballpark estimate on what areas are missing out on broadband service.

The first batch of new and improved data was due to the agency by March 2, 2009. Presumably, this data would go a long way toward pointing out areas of the country that do not have broadband access. It would be particularly useful to those companies that applied for broadband grants — and seemingly useful as well in developing a national broadband plan.

The public interest group Free Press, which was instrumental in convincing the agency to improve its data-collecting practices, asked the agency to release at least some form of the data prior to the Aug. 14 grant application deadline, but their request was ignored.

The FCC response was in keeping with its historic, dogged determination to keep even the most innocuous broadband data out of public view.

In August 2006, The Center for Public Integrity requested the agency’s broadband data — such as it was — under the Freedom of Information Act. The suit sought the names of providers and the ZIP codes they served. The agency — joined by every major broadband provider and lobbying group –—managed to convince a federal court to reject the request.

Why so secret? Could it be that accurate information about the deployment of broadband assets by big providers might reveal some embarrassing facts?

We may never know.

However, Congress has also gotten into the act on broadband data. A law passed about four months after the FCC action, may at least get at the “where” of broadband availability if not the “who.”

The act, among other things, requires the FCC to compile a “list of geographical areas” that are not served by any provider of “advanced telecommunications capability” (i.e. broadband). It also requires the agency to use Census data to determine the population of those areas and the income of those who live there.

The size of the geographical area is not defined. The report is due to Congress on Feb. 3, 2010.

Center spearheads efforts to disclose broadband data

2012-08-07T14:04:05-04:00

The Center for Public Integrity's efforts to shed light on local Internet availability are having an impact in the legislative and regulatory debate over broadband.

For example, Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, last month introduced S. 1492, the Broadband Data Improvement Act. The bill would require the FCC to supplement the information it currently collects about broadband deployment with more localized data, including ZIP code plus four digits. It calls for the creation of online maps showing the availability of high-speed Internet services at the census-block level.

Date Filed	Descriptive Title
8/24/2006	FOIA requested by CPI
9/25/2006	Complaint by CPI
9/25/2006	CPI Corporate Disclosure
9/26/2006	Decision By Wireless Competition Bureau
10/2/2006	Proof of Service by CPI
10/2/2006	Exhibit 1 - Declaration of Service on U.S. Attorney
10/2/2006	Exhibit 2 - Service by Mail on Defendant FCC
10/2/2006	Exhibit 3 - Service by Mail on Attorney General
10/5/2006	Notice of Appearance for FCC
10/19/2006	Administrative Appeal by CPI
10/24/2006	Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Respond by FCC
10/24/2006	Proposed Order
10/26/2006	Order by Judge Collyer
11/30/2006	Motion for Extension of Time to Respond by FCC
11/30/2006	Proposed Order
12/1/2006	Order by Judge Collyer
1/8/2007	Motion for Summary Judgment by FCC
1/8/2007	Statement of Material Facts
1/8/2007	Declaration by Alan I. Feldman [added by corrected filing 1/9]
1/8/2007	Exhibit - CPI's FOIA Request
1/8/2007	Exhibit Decision by FCC
1/8/2007	Exhibit - CPI's Administrative Appeal
1/8/2007	Public Notice
1/8/2007	Form 477 and Instructions
1/8/2007	Decision on FOIA Request by ERS Group
1/8/2007	Proposed Order
1/8/2007	Unopposed Motion for Leave to File a Brief Amicus Curiae by CTIA-The Wireless Association
1/8/2007	Memorandum Supporting Motion
1/8/2007	Exhibit - Amicus Brief
1/8/2007	477 and Instructions
1/8/2007	Exhibit 2 - CPI's FOIA Request
1/8/2007	Exhibit Public Notice
1/8/2007	Proposed Order
1/8/2007	Motion to Intervene
1/8/2007	Proposed Order [as corrected 1/12]
1/8/2007	Proposed Answer to the Complaint
1/8/2007	Proposed Motion for Summary Judgment
1/8/2007	Proposed Statement of Material Facts
1/8/2007	Declaration by ATT
1/8/2007	Declaration by Verizon
1/8/2007	Exhibit 3 - Declaration by Kevin J. Albaugh
1/8/2007	Exhibit 4 - Declaration by Colin S. Stretch
1/8/2007	Proposed Order (for Summary Judgment)
1/8/2007	ATT Corporate Disclosure
1/8/2007	USTA Corporate Disclosure
1/8/2007	VerizonDisclosure
1/8/2007	Notice Of Appearance for ATT Inc VerizonUS Telecom Association
1/17/2007	Court Order Reassigning Case
1/8/2007	Motion to Intervene by Wireless Communications Association International
1/23/2007	Declaration of Marybeth M. Banks
1/23/2007	Declaration of Ralph Diaz
1/23/2007	Corporate Disclosure by WCAI
1/23/2007	Proposed Answer by WCAI
1/23/2007	Declaration of Terri B. Natoli
1/23/2007	Proposed Order by WCAI
1/23/2007	Notice of Appearance for WCAI
10/26/2006	Order by Judge Huvelle ORDER granting the Unopposed Motion of CTIA - The Wireless Association for Leave to File a Brief Amicus Curiae, granting the Unopposed Motion of AT&T Inc., Verizon, and the United States Telecom Association to Intervene, and granting the Motion of the Wireless Communications Association International to Intervene as a Defendant. The Clerk of the Court is directed to file and docket the Amicus Brief submitted by CTIA with its motion for leave to file, the Answer and Motion for Summary Judgment of Intervenor-Defendants AT&T Inc., Verizon, and the United States Telecom Association submitted with their motion to intervene, and the Answer of Defendant-Intervenor Wireless Communications Association International submitted with its motion to intervene. Counsel for the parties are directed to confer and jointly submit a proposed briefing schedule to the Court on or before February 5, 2007. Signed by Judge Ellen S. Huvelle on 1/25/2007.
10/28/2006	Motion for Leave to File a Brief Amicus Curiae by National Cable & Telecommunications Association
1/26/2007	Exhibit - Amicus Brief by NCTA
1/26/2007	Corporate Disclosure by NCTA
1/26/2007	Proposed Order by NCTA
1/26/2007	Order by Judge Huvelle ORDER granting the Unopposed Motion of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA) for Leave to File a Brief Amicus Curiae. The Clerk of the Court is directed to docket and file the proposed amicus brief submitted by the NCTA with its motion. Signed by Judge Ellen S. Huvelle on 1/26/2007.
2/5/2007	Consent Motion for Order to Set Briefing Schedule by Center for Public Integrity
2/5/2007	Proposed Order
2/6/2007	Order by Judge Huvelle ORDER granting plaintiff's Consent Motion for Scheduling Order. Defendant-intervenor Wireless Communications Association International shall file a motion for summary judgment on or before February 20, 2007. Plaintiff shall file an opposition to the motions for summary jugment and a cross-motion for summary judgment on or before March 27, 2007. Defendant shall file a reply and opposition to cross-motion on or before April 17, 2007. Defendant-intervenors and amici may file a reply and/or opposition to cross-motion on or before April 24, 2007. Plaintiff shall file a reply on or before May 15, 2007. Signed by Judge Ellen S. Huvelle on 2/5/2007.
2/20/2007	Motion for Summary Judgment by WCAI
2/20/2007	Memorandum of Points and Authorities by WCAI
2/20/2007	Proposed Order
2/20/2007	Proposed Order
3/27/2007	Consent Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply by CPI
3/27/2007	Proposed Order by CPI
3/27/2007	Order by Judge Huvelle ORDER granting plaintiff's Consent Motion for Enlargement of Time in Which to File Opposition and Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff shall file its opposition to the motions for summary judgment and a cross-motion for summary judgment on or before April 3, 2007. Defendant shall file a reply and opposition to cross-motion on or before April 24, 2007. Defendant-intervenors and amici may file a reply and/or opposition to cross motion on or before May 1, 2007. Plaintiff shall file a reply on or before May 22, 2007. Signed by Judge Ellen S. Huvelle on 3/27/2007.
4/3/2007	Cross Motion for Summary Judgment by CPI
4/3/2007	Statement of Facts by CPI
4/3/2007	Declaration of Brendan McGarry
4/3/2007	Exhibit 2 by CPI
4/3/2007	Proposed Order by CPI
4/24/2007	Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply by FCC
4/24/2007	Proposed Order by FCC
4/24/2007	Proposed Order by FCC
4/24/2007	Order by Judge Huvelle ORDER granting Defendant Federal Communications Commission's Unopposed Motion for Enlargement of Time. Defendant shall file its reply in support of motion for summary judgment and opposition to plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment on or before May 15, 2007. Defendant intervenors and amici shall file an opposition to plaintiff's cross-motion on or before May 22, 2007. Plaintiff shall file a reply on or before June 12, 2007. Signed by Judge Ellen S. Huvelle on 4/24/2007.
5/15/2007	Memorandum in opposition to Cross Motion for Summary Judgment by FCC
5/15/2007	Supplemental Declaration of Alan I. Feldman
5/15/2007	Proposed Order by FCC
5/22/2007	Memorandum in opposition to Cross Motion for Summary Judgment by AT&T, USTA and Verizon
5/22/2007	Response to Statement of Facts by AT&T, USTA and Verizon
5/22/2007	Proposed Order by AT&T, USTA and Verizon
5/22/2007	Memorandum in opposition to Cross Motion for Summary Judgment by WCAI
5/22/2007	Proposed Order by WCAI
6/12/20077	Reply to opposition to motion re Cross Motion for Summary Judgment by CPI
6/12/2007	Declaration of Clair Kaye
8/6/2007	Order by Judge Huvelle
8/14/2007	Response to Order of the Court by FCC
8/14/2007	Second Supplemental Declaration of Alan I. Feldman
8/14/2007	Response to Order of the Court by AT&T, USTA and Verizon
8/27/2007	Memorandum Opinion by Judge Huvelle
8/27/2007	Order by Judge Huvelle

The chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., released similar draft legislation in May. It would require the Commerce Department's National Telecommunications and Information Administration to create and publicize a nationwide map in which a broadband provider's service locations could be searched in detail.

The debate around this topic has led other government, non-profit and business-led efforts to take notice. The FCC is currently reconsidering its data-collection policies for broadband. Agencies including the NTIA and the Federal Trade Commission are also considering getting involved.

For almost a year, the Center for Public Integrity's "Well Connected" Project on telecommunications and media has been at the forefront of efforts to ensure that government information about broadband deployment is available to the public.

The "Well Connected" Project seeks public identification of where companies provide broadband service to enable citizens a more complete understanding of who they can turn to for high-speed access. The spread of broadband is important for economic development, for sharing knowledge, for entertainment and for civic participation.

Public disclosure would also allow Internet users to better gauge the accuracy of existing FCC statistics. And it would highlight the areas in which competitive broadband service is lacking – and why.

On September 25, 2006, the Center filed a lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act to obtain an FCC database about the companies that provide high-speed Internet, and the ZIP codes in which they offer service.

The Center wants to make data about these companies publicly available through Well Connected's Media Tracker, a free, Internet-based database of the television, radio, newspaper and cable companies that is searchable by ZIP code. Media Tracker was first released in 2003, and was updated and expanded in October 2006.

On June 12, the Center filed its final reply brief addressing the FCC's rebuttal arguments. The lawsuit, and other issues pertaining to broadband data, will be discussed at a June 28 conference at the National Academy of Sciences.

The June 28 event will run from 9:30 a.m. to noon. It is free and open to the public. It will bring together many of the industry and non-profit players in these discussions, including AT&T, Comcast, Verizon Communications and the Center for Public Integrity, as well as leading academics and experts from the non-profit world.

The Center's engagement in the broadband issue began last August, when the "Well Connected" Project was upgrading its Media Tracker.

Individuals using the Media Tracker can type in a ZIP code, or a city and state, and find the names of the companies that provide television, radio, cable and newspapers. The information about television, radio and cable companies comes from FCC data.

But because the FCC has refused to release the names of broadband providers, the Media Tracker does not currently include the names of those companies on a ZIP code-by-ZIP code basis. Instead, Media Tracker presents the number of providers that the FCC says offer service within that area.

The highest number of broadband providers within a ZIP code, according to the FCC, is 25. Three ZIP codes in mid-town Manhattan – 10001, 10011 and 10022 – have 25 such providers.

Less than 18 miles away, still within New York City, is ZIP code 11005, or Floral Park, Queens. This ZIP code has either one, two or three broadband providers, according to the FCC. In the semi-annual report that the FCC releases publicly, the agency declined to identify the exact number.

Desiring more detailed information about the names of the companies and the ZIP codes in which they offer service, the Center hand-delivered a FOIA request seeking the entire Form 477 database on August 24, 2006. In its request, the Center said it was "willing to negotiate to narrow the scope of this request."

The Form 477 database is named after the number of an FCC document. Twice annually since 2000, communications companies have been required to submit a form providing the agency with data about their broadband service.

In addition to ZIP codes, the FCC's Form 477 requires broadband and telephone companies to specify the number of customers and the types of broadband technology they provide in each ZIP code.

The FCC failed to respond to the Center's FOIA request within the required 20-day period (excluding weekends and holidays), allowing the Center to seek relief in the federal district court in Washington, D.C.

When the FCC finally responded, on September 26, 2006, the agency maintained that the release of the requested Form 477 data would cause "competitive harm" to broadband providers.

Hence the legal dispute between the Center and the FCC is about whether any of the information in the existing Form 477 database can be released without harming commercial interests.

The Center contends that much of the information in the database could be released without such harm. The FCC and industry players note that the database contains detailed subscriber counts by ZIP code. The release of detailed subscriber information would harm incumbents and new entrants, the FCC has argued. The agency also seeks to withhold the numbers of the ZIP codes in which a company offers service, again on the grounds of competitive harm.

"New entrants could be harmed if competitors learned of the number of lines and customers that they had in a particular market," Kirk Burgee, associate bureau chief of the FCC's Wireline Competition Bureau, said in the agency's September 26 rejection letter. "The Commission thus agreed to aggregate filed data in its published reports in a way that does not identify company-specific data."

The Center's core interest in the Form 477 database is and remains the names of the companies and the ZIP codes in which they offer services. Such data would yield important information – not competitively sensitive – about the true availability of broadband. In its June 12 filing, the Center argued that subscriber counts and technology types could easily be redacted from the database.

The submitted case is currently before Judge Ellen Huvelle, who is likely to rule within the next several months.

If the Center's FOIA lawsuit is successful, the project plans to include the names of each of these broadband companies in the Media Tracker alongside the names of those companies that provide television, radio, cable and newspapers.

In addition to providing information about the media and telecommunications that serve a particular area, the Media Tracker allows users to track the corporate earnings, the communications facilities and the political influence of these companies. The Media Tracker does this by monitoring the campaign contributions, lobbying expenditures and policy agendas of these companies.

Meanwhile, the Center's lawsuit was creating considerable interest in the industry and at the FCC. In a December 15 public notice, the agency notified "all filers who sought confidential treatment of their Form 477 information that the public release of this information is being sought."

Soon, the trade associations of all the major telecommunications industry players got involved the lawsuit, Center for Public Integrity v. Federal Communications Commission.

AT&T Inc., Verizon Communications, the U.S. Telecom Association (of which AT&T and Verizon are the biggest members) and the Wireless Communications Association International sought to formally intervene in the lawsuit.

Their involvement means that any settlement between the FCC and the Center for Public Integrity would require industry assent.

Intervention by the Bell companies also occasioned a recusal by Judge Rosemary Collyer, who had been assigned to the case, because the judge "owns stock in AT&T, said Collyer's law clerk, Kristin Dighe. Collyer's 2005 financial disclosure statement revealed that she owned $15,000 to $50,000 of stock in the company.

The case was reassigned to Judge Huvelle. Collyer is an appointee of President George W. Bush, and Huvelle is an appointee of President Bill Clinton.

The National Cable and Telecommunications Association and the wireless association CTIA, formerly the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association, sought to file "friend of the court" briefs on behalf of the FCC. The Center for Public Integrity did not object to the intervention, nor to the additional briefs.

Judge Huvelle established a briefing schedule throughout the spring. The FCC, and the interveners, sought to dismiss the case with their January 8 filings. The Center for Public Integrity in turn sought summary judgment in a cross-motion filed on April 3. The FCC replied on May 15, followed by the interveners' reply on May 22. The legal papers culminated in the Center's final reply on June 12.

In the nine months since the lawsuit was filed, the telecommunications policy landscape has been dramatically reconfigured by two major events: the collapse of the telecommunications overhaul legislation of 2006, and the Democratic takeover of Congress.

The death of the telecom bill – which foundered over concerns that broadband providers might create disincentives to competition on the Internet – was a major defeat for the Bell companies. AT&T, BellSouth (since merged with AT&T), Verizon and Qwest Communications International and their lobbying arm, the U.S. Telecom Association, had made passage of the bill a key legislative priority. It would have allowed the Bell companies to string cable television wires without having to get approval by local governments.

The bill, H.R. 5252 in the 109^th Congress, enjoyed bipartisan support and passed the House by a 321-101 vote. It died in the Senate after an amendment to require "network neutrality" – barring broadband providers from offering speedier Internet delivery for selected businesses – tied 11-11 in committee. The telecom bill had been driven by House Republican leaders, and its passage is not expected in Democratic-controlled chambers.

Instead, telecommunications-oriented legislators have shifted their attention to a different focus: is the U.S. lagging in broadband penetration? In global surveys by the International Telecommunications Union, an arm of the United Nations, the U.S. currently ranks number 15 in per-capita broadband usage. The U.S. currently ranks number 12 among the smaller group of developed countries that constitute the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

In its initial September 26 complaint, the Center highlighted President Bush's statement on April 26, 2004, that broadband deployment was a national priority :"I'm talking about broadband technology to every corner of our country by the year 2007 with competition shortly thereafter," he said.

Since 2004, legislators involved with telecommunications issues, particularly Democrats, have repeatedly returned to the U.S. drop in the ITU and OECD rankings. In the ITU ranking, the U.S. fell from 12^th in 2004 to 16^th in 2005, before rising to 15^th in 2006. Some criticize the Bush administration, and also FCC Chairman Kevin Martin, over what they see as the lack of a national broadband plan. Martin, who was appointed FCC commissioner by President Bush in 2001 and became agency chairman in 2005, has repeatedly said that broadband is his number-one priority.

"The reality is that America currently suffers from the lack of an overarching broadband plan, a low speed threshold, poor data and threats to the openness of the Internet," Rep. Ed Markey, Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, said at a hearing on March 14, 2007.

Markey immediately began to focus on the role that accurate data plays in such a policy. "An important step the commission could also soon take to advance our broadband goals would be to revamp its data collection and analysis," Markey said. "We simply need a better and more accurate picture of broadband service in America. This will help policymakers identify solutions and fine-tune remedies for overcoming obstacles in achieving our national goals."

Some FCC commissioners echoed this view. "Perhaps the first step in developing a national broadband strategy is to develop more granular broadband data to identify where the problems lie and how best to craft solutions," Commissioner Michael Copps, a Democrat, told Markey's subcommittee.

"We can start by improving our data collection to better ascertain our current problems and develop better responses," said Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein, also a Democrat.

"The FCC doesn't even have a good measure for which areas of the country have broadband," added Rep. Lois Capps, D-Calif. Questioning Martin, she asked: "Why hasn't the FCC done more to make sure it knows which areas need service? Does the fact that there is one broadband subscriber within an entire ZIP code mean that that ZIP code is being served?"

"No, it doesn't mean — the fact that one subscriber in an entire ZIP code being served doesn't mean that they're all being served," Martin replied. "And actually, I agree with many of the concerns and have when I was a commissioner spoken out about the concerns I have with the way we collect data on ZIP codes and the fact that the speed of only 200 kilobits being counted as broadband is insufficient with the technology changes."

The FCC currently defines broadband as service offering data speeds of at least 200 kilobits per second (kbps) in at least one direction.

Even as major telecommunications industry associations coalesced against the Center's FOIA lawsuit for the release of ZIP code-based broadband information, lobbyists for the major Bell companies began to focus on how more detailed information was needed about broadband availability.

In a technology conference panel discussion in San Jose, in February, AT&T Senior Vice President Jim Ciconni urged policymakers to obtain more information about deployment so as to develop a national broadband policy. "We don't have a national broadband policy, we have never had a broadband policy, and, given the importance of competitiveness, we should have one," Ciconni said at the Technology Policy Summit.

Verizon Communications Executive Vice President Tom Tauke did not agree on the need for a national policy per se. But Tauke did refer positively to ConnectKentucky, an effort to compile statistics about regional broadband deployment. The government could provide subsidies and loans for deploying broadband in rural areas that enjoy a lesser degree of broadband deployment, he said.

In fact, lawmakers on Capitol Hill have increasingly focused in on this Kentucky-based nonprofit project that says it has expanded broadband access to underserved areas in the state.

Through a partnership with broadband providers – Bell companies, independent telecommunications companies and cable operators – ConnectKentucky has obtained coverage information in order to identify gaps and demands in underserved areas. It has created a detailed map of such broadband availability, believed to be the first of its kind in the nation.

ConnectKentucky deals with commercial sensitivities by declining to disclose which companies provide broadband service within a particular geographic area, said Mark McElroy, senior vice president for communications and operations for ConnectKentucky. The non-profit group also offers Internet marketing advice to broadband providers.

McElroy and others affiliated with ConnectKentucky want to bring their project to the national stage. They have already incorporated Connected Nation as a new 501(c)(3) organization. "Broadband has become electricity of the 21st century," McElroy said. "We would support the power of the government to enable a local- and state-based response."

Officials from ConnectKentucky will also participate in the June 28 conference on broadband statistics at the National Academy of Sciences, along with officials from industry, the Center for Public Integrity and other non-profit groups and academics.

Broadband data legislation on Capitol Hill, as well as the industry-wide push for more detailed broadband mapping, have in turn spurred the FCC to consider revising its Form 477 collection data. In a "notice of proposed rulemaking" adopted on February 26, but released to the public on April 16, the FCC suggested a number of revisions to its data-collection policies.

It urged collecting more details about wireless broadband services and about voice-over-Internet-protocol services. It also asked whether the agency should add a second broadband speed tier threshold (above 200 kbps) and also whether it should collect pricing information. The current 200 kbps tier is regarded by many, including House subcommittee chairman Markey, as inadequate. Markey's draft legislation would specifically require the FCC to define broadband services as offering a download speed of not less than 2 megabits per second (Mbps), and an upload speed of not less than 1 Mbps.

Although the FCC's regulatory proposal does not take a concrete position on many of the questions it raised, it did express skepticism about the value of collecting data on a ZIP+4 level. Industry groups that have filed comments in the FCC proceedings have generally opposed the collection of information at a ZIP+4 level. Non-profit groups, including Free Press, which advocates for more media competition, generally support ZIP+4 data. One notable exception to the industry opposition was Time Warner. But Latham & Watkins attorney Matthew Brill, writing for the company, noted: "To the extent that the Commission requires reporting of customer counts by Zip Code or related information, it must continue to preserve the confidentiality of this data." Specifically citing the Center for Public Integrity's FOIA lawsuit, Time Warner added: "Maintaining strict confidentiality will be all the more vital if the Commission requires submission of customer counts and related information on an even more granular basis."

Finer broadband detail seems to be exactly what congressional leaders are seeking. Referring to America's position in international rankings, Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Inouye said, "With too many of our industrial counterparts ahead of us, we sorely need the kind of granular data that will inform our policies and propel us to the front of the broadband ranks."

"The first step in an improved broadband policy is ensuring that we have better data on which to build our efforts," Inouye said. "It is imperative that we get our broadband house in order and our communications policy right. But we cannot manage what we do not measure."

Irrespective of the position that Congress or the FCC takes on the addition ZIP+4 or census block data, the "Well Connected" Project seeks the release of the names of the providers in existing five-digit ZIP codes, on the ground that it would not cause them competitive harm. The Center has presented evidence of this claim in its June 12 filing.

In its original complaint filed September 26, 2006, the Center noted a May 2006 report by the Government Accountability Office. That report discussed "information [received from the FCC] on the companies providing broadband service in ZIP codes throughout the United States." The GAO had access to the entire FCC Form 477 database.

In the complaint, the Center wrote that "the GAO's analysis of this FCC Form 477 data allowed them to conclude that the median number of broadband providers within a ZIP code was two, rather than eight, as was found by the FCC's own analysis of its data."

As a non-profit publisher of investigative journalism committed to transparent and comprehensive reporting both in the U.S. and around the world, the Center for Public Integrity believes that making data about the names of the broadband provider on a ZIP code-by-ZIP code basis would allow consumers to "truth-check" the FCC data in a manner similar to that accomplished by the GAO. Adding citizen-provided information about the speed, quality and price of such connections would, in turn, create a robust collection of information further informing telecommunications-related public policy debates.

In its other legal filings on the matter, the Center has noted that all of the major communications companies – including cable, wireless and telecom players – already provide ZIP code lookup of service availability on their Web sites.

Further, the Center noted, the agency already provides similar information about the service locations of cable, television and radio companies without competitive harm.

The FCC and the interveners' arguments have focused primarily on the subscriber numbers in the Form 477. In its January 8 filing, the FCC highlighted the fact that the cover sheet of the Form 477 includes a box which telecommunications companies may check to indicate that they view the information as commercially sensitive. About 74 percent check that box, according to a declaration filed by Alan Feldman, acting chief of the Industry Analysis and Technology Division in the FCC's Wireline Competition Bureau.

In its April 8 filing, the Center countered with a section-by-section analysis of the Form 477. Each section should be evaluated and released to the public unless the data sought under the Freedom of Information Act request would cause competitive harm. The Center suggested that the subscriber totals could be grouped into ranges of subscribers to avoid competitive harm. The FCC's May 15 reply said that releasing subscriber numbers in ranges would cause as much competitive harm as the exact total. It also said that the release of ZIP code numbers would cause competitive harm because that section of the form included the technology types of the broadband services offered by each company on a ZIP code-by-ZIP code basis. The Center's June 12 filing said that redaction of technology type was feasible, and that ZIP code information with technology type redacted was clearly subject to release under FOIA.

As the debate over broadband statistics and mapping continues on a variety of fronts, others in business and government also want to take broadband mapping a step further by adding information about Internet connection speeds or local broadband pricing. In addition to ConnectKentucky, a variety of other efforts are underway seeking data about broadband services and speeds by location. These include the online publication DSLReports.com and a pilot program at Virginia Tech University.

The National Telecommunications Information Agency is also encouraging consumer- and business-reporting of broadband speeds and availability. The Federal Trade Commission is considering measures to monitor broadband providers' claims about consumers' connection speeds.

NTIA Administrator and Assistant Secretary of Commerce John Kneuer downplayed the rankings of the ITU and the OECD. At a June telecommunications industry conference in Washington, Kneuer said that international statistics don't take into account tens of thousands of government employees using broadband in Washington.

But Kneuer also said that the Bush administration has been trying to encourage more consumer reporting, or a "bottom-up" approach that would allow them to gauge speed and location without infringing on commercial interests. "Part of the challenge is [that] coverage data is viewed as business proprietary information by the carriers. Getting them to publish that has been a challenge."

Reporters Stokely Baksh and Brendan McGarry contributed to this report.

As FCC Chair Martin resigns, he leaves controversial legacy

2012-08-07T14:04:05-04:00

Among the legions of predictable, starched-shirt regulators that populate Washington, outgoing Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin has been a conundrum.

Martin, who announced this week he will step down from the commission on inauguration day, is a self-described free-market Republican. Yet he has nevertheless used his considerable power to push consumer-friendly policies that angered cable television companies, like "a la carte" pricing that would allow customers to select and pay only for the channels they really want. In addition, he pried open wireless networks, protected Internet users from unequal treatment by service providers, and paved the way for a new generation of wireless Internet devices.

But Martin has also toed the deregulatory GOP line by backing major corporate mergers, removing regulations on giant telecommunications companies, and enforcing strict limits on racy content on television.

While those positions may seem contradictory, telecommunications veterans say there is a common thread — he has fought consistently to open markets to new competitors. That may be the most important legacy of Martin's almost four years as chairman. Whether anyone remembers it, though, is another question.

What will be remembered is Martin's controversial bedside manner. A congressional report depicts Martin as running the FCC in a Machiavellian fashion, fostering a climate of "deception and distrust." The report blasted the chairman for creating a "climate of fear" at the agency and withholding information from other commissioners and staff to further his agenda. In his almost four years at the helm, in fact, the chairman managed to aggravate a remarkable cross-section of politicians, consumer advocates, industry lobbyists, and agency employees.

"People," said Martin, "have a tendency to remember all the things they are mad at you about."

The FCC chairman traditionally leaves the commission when a new president takes power. Martin announced he would resign at his final meeting Thursday, and allowed his young son Luke, 3, to bang the gavel for him.

Martin's successor, according to people briefed by the Obama transition team, will be Julius Genachowski, a technology entrepreneur and former Harvard classmate of Obama's. Genachowski's first order of business will be overseeing the transition of the nation's broadcasters to digital broadcasting on February 17. President-elect Obama wants to delay the switch.

Martin will take a position at the Aspen Institute, a nonprofit leadership training organization and think tank that has become popular place to work for former FCC chairmen, such as Michael Powell and William Kennard.

Contrary from the Beginning

Martin's contentious tenure has been full of surprises. His habit of occasionally siding with the two Democrats against his fellow Republicans on the five-member commission could hardly have been predicted, given his mainstream GOP background. The 42-year-old North Carolina native came to the commission with both political connections and hands-on experience in the arcane world of telecommunications regulation.

He is former deputy general counsel for the 2000 George W. Bush campaign and also served as legal adviser for former Republican FCC commissioner Harold Furchtgott-Roth.

Bush named Martin to the commission in 2001. In 2003, Martin gave a glimpse of his partisan independence in a highly publicized vote regarding local telephone competition. Martin sided with the two commission Democrats against a proposal by then-Republican chairman Michael Powell to partially deregulate dominant local telephone carriers. It was a stinging defeat for Powell and his supporters. Yet in the same proceeding, Martin also supported less regulation of Internet services.

Martin would succeed Powell as chairman in March 2005.

A la Carte and the Cable Crusade

Not long after taking over as chairman, Martin began pushing the cable companies to sell channels on an "a la carte" basis. Cable systems normally sell their service to customers in tiers, or program packages, at a flat rate. Each tier includes a substantial group of channels. It is a carefully calibrated arrangement between operators and programmers that has generated steady profits for decades. Martin wants cable companies to sell programming on a per-channel basis, arguing that under the current system, viewers are stuck paying for channels they do not want and may not want their children to see. But the cable companies are vigorously opposed to a la carte.

Under Powell, the FCC released a study that said a la carte pricing would raise prices for the average customer. Under Martin, a second report was released, refuting the previous study. This one said there would be "substantial consumer benefits" in an a la carte world.

"We've seen decreases in wireless prices, long distance calls, local calls, and international calls," Martin said. "If you look at broadband prices, with competition primarily cable and telephone, you've actually seen dramatic price declines in broadband services since 2001."

But cable prices have "skyrocketed" in the past decade, he said. "Consumers are also forced to purchase bigger and bigger bundles of channels, regardless of which ones they may actually want."

Martin's claims about prices are "distorted, disingenuous, and no longer relevant" in a market where voice, video, and Internet services are bundled together, said Brian Dietz, a spokesman for the National Cable and Telecommunications Association. When considering all services, prices have actually dropped, he said.

Despite Martin's efforts and some support on Capitol Hill, a la carte pricing never became a reality during his tenure.

Anti-Cable or Pro-Bell?

In the modern telecommunications era, what's bad for cable is often good for traditional telecommunications companies, such as Verizon Communications Inc. and AT&T Inc. The two industries compete directly. Cable companies are offering phone service while phone companies are offering television service, and each side is looking for any edge it can get.

Some in the cable industry say Martin has favored the traditional telecom giants over cable companies. In late 2006, Martin worked hard to push through AT&T's buyout of BellSouth Corp., the largest telecommunications merger in history. The deal faced heavy opposition from consumer groups and smaller telephone companies who feared the re-emergence of the old Ma Bell monopoly.

Around the same time, Martin also pushed through a proposal that would help Verizon and AT&T provide television service in local markets more quickly. Democrats opposed the move as did community advocates. Cable companies sign agreements with local governments to provide service. The new FCC rules would strip away some of the bargaining power of small communities who want cable operators to provide public access channels, city lawyers said.

He kept up the pressure on cable throughout his tenure. Martin re-established a national subscribership cap on cable companies. No single operator is allowed to reach more than 30 percent of pay-television households nationwide. The rule prevents the largest cable companies, like Comcast Corp., from growing much larger.

Martin also attempted — ultimately unsuccessfully — to push through a report that showed the industry had achieved a saturation level nationally that would trigger a clause in federal law allowing for more government regulation. And he granted requests from AT&T and Verizon to shed certain regulatory requirements. For example, the FCC allowed AT&T relief from certain accounting reporting rules.

Martin denies that he favors AT&T and Verizon over the cable industry. "I've actually moved on just as many orders trying to facilitate and open up the voice market to cable competition as we have video markets to video competition for the telephone companies," he said.

Open Access

Among the FCC's most important tasks is allocating radio frequencies to cell phone companies and other commercial users. In 2008, an extremely valuable portion of this radio spectrum, to be vacated by television broadcasters, was auctioned. But rather than simply sell off the spectrum to the highest bidders, Martin applied restrictions on how some of it could be used.

For instance, he applied a so-called "open access" provision, meaning the winner of one large block of the spectrum was required to allow customers to use any kind of device or software they want, as long as it did not endanger the network. Until the FCC action, the cell phone industry in the United States was a closed system. Customers were stuck using phones and software applications provided by service providers.

Martin prevailed, joined by the two commission Democrats and Republican commissioner Deborah Taylor Tate.

For a Republican like Martin to have gone down that road, said telecommunications analyst Jessica Zufolo of Medley Global Advisors, was "unprecedented." The wireless industry opposed the rules, and ended up filing a suit in federal court seeking to get them tossed out. The suit was dropped in November.

Meanwhile, AT&T and Verizon ended up winning about 80 percent of the spectrum, which raised more questions — this time about whether the wireless industry is competitive enough.

Media Ownership and Network Neutrality

But allocating radio spectrum was hardly the only bruising battle in which Martin engaged. To the surprise of many, in 2007 the chairman also tackled a rewrite of rules restricting media ownership — a sort of third rail of FCC politics.

After months of hearings staged across the country, Martin proposed the loosening of a single rule — the ban on newspapers owning television and broadcast stations in the largest markets. It was a modest move compared to the massive deregulation that was approved in 2003, a decision that was later largely invalidated in federal court.

In this case, Martin was joined by his two Republican colleagues in a 3-2 vote. Democratic commissioner Michael Copps said it was a decision that would "make George Orwell proud."

Not long after, however, Martin found himself friends with the Democratic commissioners again. Comcast, the nation's largest cable company and a major provider of high-speed Internet service, was accused of blocking "peer-to-peer" traffic on its network. Peer-to-peer software is often used to upload very large video files. Comcast's action was in violation of the agency's policy statement on "network neutrality," Martin said.

In a highly publicized vote, Martin joined with the two Democrats in finding the company guilty, though no fine was issued. Comcast, which maintained that the policy statement was not enforceable, said that it had merely delayed traffic from users who pump a disproportionately high amount of data through the network, to the detriment of other customers. Comcast sued, and the case is ongoing.

There is some disagreement about the lasting significance of the FCC action — but the bottom line, most agree, is that a precedent was set allowing the agency to intervene when it determines Internet providers are operating networks in a discriminatory fashion.

Profanity Debate Hits High Court

The decision in the Comcast court case is highly anticipated, but it is not the most high-profile FCC policy under judicial review.

A federal appeals court in June 2007 invalidated the agency's policy on what constitutes indecent speech on the airwaves. Martin and the agency sought a review by the Supreme Court, which has taken the case. It will be the high court's first review of broadcast indecency in more than 30 years, and it could rule as early as March.

The issue is over so-called "fleeting expletives." The court is being asked to evaluate the agency's position that the "F-word" and the "S-word" are inherently indecent and deserving of sanction in virtually any context. Broadcasters say the agency's interpretation of what constitutes indecent content has been inconsistent and unconstitutional, and has chilled speech.

Martin has been a social conservative on broadcast speech issues. He has also complained about violent content on television as well as advertising he claims has contributed to an obesity epidemic among the nation's children.

"I come from a very family-oriented background. I'm concerned about the impact the media has on our children," he said. "We must have limits that distinguish what is appropriate from what is not appropriate in mainstream media where children are likely to be watching television."

The Investigation

While many of the debates during Martin's tenure involved substantive disagreements, it was the chairman's style, above all, that got him into trouble. It all seemed to come to a head at a November 2007 meeting, when he tried to present a statistical report demonstrating that the cable television industry had surpassed a subscription saturation threshold that might trigger additional government regulation.

In a highly rancorous meeting, he was accused of selective use of data, and after other commissioners cried foul, he withdrew the report.

That meeting, in addition to other complaints about how Martin ran the commission, sparked a bipartisan investigation by the House Energy and Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.

Investigators spent nearly a year looking into Martin's regime, reviewing 95 boxes of documents and conducting 73 interviews of former FCC employees. No hearings were conducted, nor was there a vote on the report. Republicans opted not to join in the ultimate findings. The report, released in December, was scathing.

Singling out the a la carte and cable subscribership issues specifically, the report pointed to instances in which the chairman "manipulated, withheld, or suppressed data, reports, and other information." Investigators said Martin possessed a "heavy handed, opaque, and non-collegial management style" that had "created distrust, suspicion, and turmoil among the five current commissioners."

Martin called the report "old-style politics" and said many of the specific criticisms were about problems that occurred prior to his chairmanship. And Martin said he did not handle information any differently than it had been handled under previous chairmen at the agency.

But current and previous FCC staffers say Martin could be maddening to deal with. He seemed to plot a course of action and stick to it regardless of the introduction of any new facts, they contended. "In government it's important how you go about your decision making," said one FCC official who asked not to be named because he is not authorized to speak to the press. "It's not fixed from the very beginning." With Martin, "not only was it fixed, he had a position on essentially everything, and he linked everything together in order to maximize leverage."

Martin disputes this, pointing to the wireless auction as an example. He was initially opposed to the open-access requirement, he said, but after hearing from consumer groups and others, he changed his mind.

Last Flurry Falls Short

Martin seemed mostly undeterred by the congressional report. In fact, he was determined to go out with a flourish as FCC chief by pushing through plans to vastly expand access to high-speed Internet service.

One initiative — to use the frequencies that exist between television channels for new wireless devices to connect to the Internet — was successful, despite relentless opposition from the broadcast lobby.

Martin also made some progress reforming the Universal Service Fund — a giant pot of money paid into by phone subscribers to subsidize phone service in rural areas. Martin wanted to reform the fund and use it to provide Internet service in those areas. In the end, he was able to get the commission to cap the growth in one part of it and convince the agency to look into comprehensive reforms.

Martin was unable, however, to secure support from either party for his boldest broadband initiative. He wanted to auction off a swath of airwaves and require a portion be used to provide free wireless broadband access to most of the population. But with time running out, President Bush's Commerce Department and incoming chairmen of both House and Senate committees that oversee the FCC recommended that he not pursue the plan.

Legacy of Openness

Looking back, Martin says he is most proud of his efforts to provide wireless broadband access to consumers and crack open those networks to competing devices and applications. His philosophy, he said, has been that "we'll rely upon the markets to determine competition to a large extent, but we must be willing to step in when the market cannot fix itself."

Even some of Martin's fiercest critics say he has followed through on those commitments.

"For a deregulator, he was amazingly pro-consumer in his interventions," said Gene Kimmelman, vice president of international affairs for Consumers Union. "Surprisingly pro-consumer. Nobody thought he was going to be like this."

As for the controversies, Martin remains philosophical.

"I am willing to push the fact that we need to make decisions. I am willing to make very hard decisions," he said. "And in the past, some commissioners haven't wanted to make the difficult decisions."

John Dunbar is a senior fellow at the Center for Public Integrity.

In political contributions, Zell leans right and wife leans left

2012-08-07T14:04:05-04:00

Samuel Zell, real estate mogul, billionaire and the prospective new owner of the Tribune Co., has given more than $100,000 in political contributions since the 1998 election cycle, most of it supporting Republican causes according to an analysis of Federal Election Commission records by the Center for Public Integrity.

His wife Helen, however, stands on the other side of the political divide, giving almost entirely to Democrats and abortion rights groups. Together, the Zells give generously to candidates from both political parties.

Samuel Zell, 65, a native Chicagoan who built his fortune in real estate, landed an $8.2 billion private bid for the Tribune Co., one of the country's top media companies whose holdings include leading daily newspapers such as The Los Angeles Times, The Chicago Tribune, and The (Baltimore) Sun, 23 television stations and the cable Superstation WGN. Tribune Co. announced the deal on Monday.

The Center's Media Tracker offers users a complete list of Tribune media properties, as well as political contributions by the company and its employees.

Zell is one of the 400 richest Americans, with an estimated net worth of $4.5 billion, according to Forbes.com.

He has contributed $107,700 to federal campaigns, parties and political action committees since the 1998 election cycle. Nearly 70 percent of the $84,200 he gave in direct contributions to candidates went to Republicans. He doled out $20,000 in a series of contributions — his biggest total to a single recipient — to the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts, Inc. Political Action Committee, which represents publicly traded real estate companies worldwide.

But despite favoring Republicans and professional interests, Zell has given money to prominent members of both political parties. For example, he has contributed to presidential candidates George W. Bush ($3,000) and Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., ($2,000), former House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., ($500), and current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., ($1,000), as well as former House Majority Leader Tom Delay, R-Texas ($1,000) and Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., ($4,000).

A month before the 2004 presidential election, Zell gave $10,000 to the Progress for America Voter Fund, a "527" organization linked to the Bush administration that was charged with violating campaign finance laws.

In the final three weeks of the election, the fund spent $16.7 million on broadcast advertising alone — more than twice the total for all the Democratic 527s combined. (Read the Center's article on the campaign advertising blitz.)

The fund was co-founded by Tony Feather, who headed the 2000 Bush-Cheney campaign and is associated with Bush strategist Karl Rove. (Read the Center's profile of Feather and his consulting firm.)

In February, the fund agreed to pay $750,000 to settle charges that it failed to register and file disclosure reports as a political action committee, in what was the third-largest civil penalty in the FEC's history.

Zell has contributed to candidates now running for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination, including:

Sen. John McCain: $1,000 in 1999 and $1,000 in 2006 to his PAC, Straight Talk America;
Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney: $2,000 in his failed 1994 Senate campaign, according to records maintained by the Center for Responsive Politics;
Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani: $1,000 in 2000 to his presidential exploratory committee.

Zell also has supported Republicans who, in previous elections, squared off against contenders for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination. They include:

Illinois millionaire Jack Ryan: $4,000 in his 2004 Senate race against Barack Obama;
Former Rep. Rick Lazio: $1,000 in his 2000 Senate race against Hillary Clinton.

Yet Zell's wife has had a very different pattern of giving.

Helen Zell has given more than $50,000 in political contributions under her own name. Except for $3,000 to her home-district congressman, Jerry Weller, R-Ill., (whom her husband heavily supports), all of her contributions have ended up in the hands of Democrats and abortion-rights groups.

She was an early supporter of Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., investing $12,000 in his 2004 Senate campaign before his speech at the Democratic National Convention in Boston that catapulted him to political fame. Her financial support for Obama helped fuel his Democratic primary win over Blair Hull and totals $17,700 through June 2006.

Zell also has contributed to Hillary Clinton, the Democratic National Committee and abortion rights political action committees, including Voters For Choice/Friends of Family Planning and NARAL Pro-Choice America PAC.