{"id":27271,"date":"2023-01-03T15:31:04","date_gmt":"2023-01-03T15:31:04","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mailinvest.blog\/index.php\/2023\/01\/03\/fccs-attempt-to-finally-map-broadband-continues-to-be-a-hot-mess\/"},"modified":"2023-01-03T15:31:04","modified_gmt":"2023-01-03T15:31:04","slug":"fccs-attempt-to-finally-map-broadband-continues-to-be-a-hot-mess","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mailinvest.blog\/index.php\/2023\/01\/03\/fccs-attempt-to-finally-map-broadband-continues-to-be-a-hot-mess\/","title":{"rendered":"FCC\u2019s Attempt To Finally Map Broadband Continues To Be A Hot Mess"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/a>\n
<\/p>\n

\n

from the too-many-cooks<\/i> dept<\/h3>\n

We\u2019ve\u00a0noted for decades<\/a>\u00a0how, despite all the political lip service paid toward \u201cbridging the digital divide,\u201d the U.S.\u00a0doesn\u2019t actually have any idea where broadband is or isn\u2019t available. The FCC\u2019s past broadband maps, which cost $350 million to develop, have long been accused of all but hallucinating competitors, making up available speeds, and excluding a key metric of competitiveness: price.<\/p>\n

You only need to spend a few minutes plugging your address into the FCC\u2019s\u00a0old map<\/a>\u00a0to notice how the agency comically overstates broadband competition and available speeds. After being mandated by Congress in 2020 by the Broadband DATA Act, the FCC struck a new, $44 million contract with a company named Costquest to develop\u00a0a new map<\/a>, just unveiled for the first time in November.<\/p>\n

The new map has a useful feature: it lets third parties challenge the FCC data. And with more than $42 billion in federal subsidies on the lines, states are challenging the FCC\u2019s data in droves. Colorado, New York, and Vermont have all filed complaints<\/a> stating that the FCC\u2019s data misrepresents, or just entirely omits, data at hundreds of thousands of locations. <\/p>\n

In Vermont, for example, state officials say their own data indicates that a whopping 18.6 percent of state residents still lack access to any broadband whatsoever. The FCC\u2019s new and updated broadband map claims that just 3 percent<\/strong> of state residents lack access to broadband, a huge disparity. Much of it caused by the FCC overstating the availability of wireless broadband access<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cFrom our initial analysis, we feel that wireless coverage in particular is vastly overstated,\u201d says Rob Fish, deputy director at the VCBB, in part because it doesn\u2019t take into account mountains, trees, and other obstructions that block transmission in many locations. He also says the board is checking the map\u2019s claim that many people with slow DSL internet are receiving 25\/3 Mbps speeds. The map also shows coverage in locations where ISPs don\u2019t currently offer high-speed service but say they will soon. In many of those neighborhoods, he says, \u201cevidence being gathered on the ground may suggest a different story.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

After releasing its biggest mapping update in agency history last November, the FCC only gave states until January 13, 2023<\/strong> to challenge the data. That\u2019s clearly proving to be not enough time to get it right, and the Senate Commerce Committee has written the FCC asking it to extend the challenge deadline an additional 60 days<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

The legislators cited some examples where the FCC maps don\u2019t jive with a Microsoft analysis of where broadband is and isn\u2019t, and are clearly troubled by the disparity. For example, they say, in Washington state, 60% of the residences and businesses in one town on Tribal lands were missing from the FCC map<\/strong>, while in Mississippi, the state broadband office says a \u201ctremendous amount\u201d of addresses were missing in \u201chigh-growth\u201d areas.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Frustrated by decades of FCC apathy and incompetence, many states spent millions of dollars to map broadband access themselves. And many state leaders have told me<\/a> the FCC hasn\u2019t really been making full use of that data. Some states, like Texas, say their arrangements with their own mapping companies have created additional roadblocks<\/a> in working with the FCC\u2019s chosen vendor, Costquest. <\/p>\n

Keep in mind this is all occurring while incumbent monopolies do everything in their power to ensure that the coming historic wave of broadband funding created by the Biden infrastructure bill goes into their pockets, and not to creative competitive alternatives. This has involved lobbying for restrictive new state laws<\/a>, or filing costly, onerous challenges<\/a> against anybody who applies for a broadband grant. <\/p>\n

(One small aside: it remains amazing to watch Republican lawmakers, who lament all government spending as \u201csocialism,\u201d trip over themselves to grab federal telecom subsidies only created by an infrastructure bill they voted against. Then pretend they came up with the plan). <\/p>\n

To be clear, this is all a significant improvement from our previous mess. The FCC\u2019s at least embracing a greater variety of crowdsourced and third-party data. And Congress forced the agency to eliminate a hugely problematic FCC methodology that declared an entire census block \u201cserved\u201d with broadband if a regional monopoly claimed<\/strong> it could deliver broadband to just one<\/strong> home in that block. <\/p>\n

So we\u2019re seeing progress, but it\u2019s still a convoluted process, and incumbent monopolies, as usual, are going to have a disproportionate impact on where money winds up. The majority of this incoming money is already being gobbled up by cable giants like Comcast<\/a>, leaving a growing roster of creative cooperatives, municipalities, and utilities (many eagerly expanding access to locations those monopolies have refused to serve) out of luck.<\/p>\n

While improvements have been made, every step of this process still tends to favor entrenched monopolies. They\u2019re still being allowed to overstate coverage, conflate advertised<\/strong> speeds with available speeds, avoid even mentioning pricing data, and file costly grant challenges against the growing number of municipalities, cooperatives, and city-owned utilities<\/a> disrupting their dominance. <\/p>\n

While any progress is great, it\u2019s important to remember that decades of important federal telecom policy was based on terrible data. And it remains fairly stunning that we\u2019ve spent an estimated $400 million on mapping broadband and we\u2019re still making these kinds of mistakes in 2022, decades after broadband became not just mainstream, but an essential utility. <\/p>\n

\nFiled Under: bead funding<\/a>, broadband<\/a>, broadband mapping<\/a>, broadband maps<\/a>, competition<\/a>, digital divide<\/a>, fcc<\/a>, fiber<\/a>, gigabit<\/a>, high speed internet<\/a>, infrastructure bill<\/a>, subsidies<\/a>, telecom<\/a>
\n<\/p>\n<\/div>\n