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