{"id":29971,"date":"2023-01-13T15:51:51","date_gmt":"2023-01-13T15:51:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mailinvest.blog\/index.php\/2023\/01\/13\/senators-say-the-fccs-new-maps-still-suck-overstate-coverage\/"},"modified":"2023-01-13T15:51:51","modified_gmt":"2023-01-13T15:51:51","slug":"senators-say-the-fccs-new-maps-still-suck-overstate-coverage","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mailinvest.blog\/index.php\/2023\/01\/13\/senators-say-the-fccs-new-maps-still-suck-overstate-coverage\/","title":{"rendered":"Senators Say The FCC\u2019s New Maps Still Suck, Overstate Coverage"},"content":{"rendered":"

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

\n

from the maps-to-nowhere<\/i> dept<\/h3>\n

We\u2019ve noted more than a few times<\/a> that U.S. taxpayers have spent nearly $400 million on mapping U.S. broadband, yet the FCC still<\/strong> somehow routinely produces maps that greatly overstate broadband coverage, and greatly understate the obvious impact of monopolization and stunted broadband competition. <\/p>\n

All U.S. broadband policy is then based on data that doesn\u2019t reflect reality, and it shows.<\/p>\n

The FCC\u2019s original broadband maps cost around $350 million, and were blasted for years<\/a> for hallucinating broadband coverage, speeds, and competitors. Those maps suffered from numerous methodical errors (like the FCC determining a census block \u201cserved\u201d with broadband if ISPs claims they could service just one home in that block) that resulted in data that didn\u2019t reflect reality. <\/p>\n

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 last November. I\u2019ve been getting an earful from state broadband leaders about how these new maps still dramatically overstate coverage, rely on ISP claims of \u201cadvertised speeds,\u201d and once again don\u2019t reflect reality. <\/p>\n

Senators hopeful to nab some of the massive $50+ billion in broadband subsidies made possible by the infrastructure bill aren\u2019t particularly happy about it. Senators Jacky Rosen of Vermont and Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada\u00a0have written a letter to the FCC (hat tip, Ars Technica<\/a>) stating concerns about the new maps:<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cDespite a clear mandate from Congress, the draft maps are deeply flawed. As Senators representing Nevada, we are seriously concerned about the Nevada map\u2019s accuracy and potential negative impacts on broadband infrastructure funding for our state,\u201d wrote the lawmakers.<\/em><\/p>\n

\u201cThese clear discrepancies may result in our state losing millions of dollars in federal funding through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law that are critical to ensuring we are providing essential broadband service to Nevadans, as well as limiting the areas OSIT can invest federal dollars,\u201d the lawmakers continued.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

In Vermont, 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\u00a0just 3 percent<\/strong>\u00a0of state residents lack access to broadband, a huge disparity.\u00a0You can\u2019t fix what you can\u2019t measure, and the FCC still can\u2019t measure broadband gaps and muted competition. <\/p>\n

For what it\u2019s worth, the new maps demanded by Congress are<\/strong> an improvement. They rely more heavily on crowdsourced data, they discard the FCC\u2019s flawed census block methodology, they require that the FCC is slightly more aggressive in terms of ensuring ISPs are providing accurate data, and they include a new system for third parties to challenge data that isn\u2019t accurate. <\/p>\n

But states tell me they find the challenge process to be a bit of a mess. Most states also say they aren\u2019t going to be able to meet this month\u2019s cut off challenge deadline before billions subsidies start flowing. They also say the system favors entrenched monopolies (with much fatter budgets and time to navigate bureaucracy), something the letter also rather vaguely hints at:<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cIn addition, our State Broadband Office has concerns with the current challenge process, through which states can challenge the draft maps, as it is based on assumptions that put the onus on consumers to proactively engage with providers, rather than practical access to high-speed internet for consumers or technological realities.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

It\u2019s worth noting that the new maps, just like the old maps, also omit pricing data, despite the fact that affordability is the key obstacle to access<\/a>, especially in marginalized communities. <\/p>\n

Telecom giants have spent decades lobbying against better maps<\/a> lest the press, public, and policymakers finally realized the sector has been broken by monopolists, resulting in somebody in power getting the crazy idea of actually trying to fix it. <\/p>\n

All told, it\u2019s absolutely wild that it\u2019s 2023 and the U.S. government still can\u2019t accurately tell you where broadband is or isn\u2019t available after spending $400 million on the problem. That\u2019s a direct reflection of our regulators, who, regardless of party, still somehow can\u2019t even manage to publicly acknowledge that monopolization, and limited competition, is the root of the sector\u2019s problems.<\/p>\n

\nFiled Under: broadband<\/a>, broadband maps<\/a>, digital divide<\/a>, fcc<\/a>, gigabit<\/a>, high speed internet<\/a>, telecom<\/a>
\n
Companies: costquest<\/a>\n<\/p>\n<\/div>\n