The National Cable and Telecommunications Association argued in its comments Monday that the commission should reject the Berkman report, saying it is biased in favor of the author's personal views. "A comprehensive, objective study of the existing literature regarding broadband deployment and adoption in other countries is something that could be valuable to the commission as it develops the National Broadband Plan requested by Congress," NCTA said. "Unfortunately, the report prepared by the Berkman Center is neither comprehensive nor objective."

In comments filed late last week, George S. Ford, the chief economist for the Phoenix Center think tank, said the economic analysis does not support the Berkman study's chief findings and is "embarrassingly bad." He added, that the study "claims that 'open access' stimulates broadband consumption, but the correct interpretation of its own evidence is that unbundling reduces broadband consumption."

Perhaps your reporting would be helped by not just blindly quoting organizations like Phoenix Center.  The fact is, George Ford's own previous work supported open access policies.  Ford, while working for MCI, then the CLEC Z-Tel, and his work for the pre-2006 Phoenix Center, produced numerous studies supporting open access policy.  This was because Phoenix Center, the old AT&T (who was a major funder of Phoenix), MCI and Z-Tel were CLECs who benefited from open access policy.

It wasn't until the merger of SBC with the old AT&T, and the merger of Verizon with MCI that Ford and Phoenix Center changed its tune.  All of a sudden they started producing "studies" that concluded the exact opposite of all their old work.

This is all made plain on Phoenix's web site.  Ford's salary went from $32,000 in 2005 to $246,000 in 2006, all because Phoenix Center sold its credibility to the new AT&T and Verizon.

Reporters who cite Phoenix give them credibility they don't deserve.  Your readers should know the motivations behind those who are quoted.