The FCC's New Broadband Availability Map is a Misleading Joke In February of 2011 the government released our first ever broadband map (available here) after spending roughly $300 million on the project. Our readers by and large were unimpressed at the time, noting the map didn't list prices, and often reported non-existent competitors and unavailable speeds in many markets. Many of these shortcomings are due to carriers, who have fought for the last decade to keep price comparison and deployment data out of the hands of consumers.

So while the intention was arguably good, the implementation wasn't--in part because ISPs don't really like having coverage, competition, and pricing issues highlighted and the FCC routinely lacks the courage to hold their feet to the fire. After being stuck in funding limbo for several years, Ajit Pai's FCC announced that they'd be relaunching the map as part of Pai's arguably hollow dedication to "closing the digital divide." "The new, cloud-based map will support more frequent data updates and display improvements at a far lower cost than the original mapping platform, which had not been updated in years," the FCC said in a statement. The agency also took to Twitter to claim the updated map "provides consumers, policymakers, and stakeholders a robust tool for closing the digital divide." »twitter.com/FCC/status/9 ··· 6208129

The problem: the new map (available here) appears to have all of the problems that plagued the original, and then some. And were somebody to actually use it to determine where broadband coverage gaps exist, they'd falsely walk away thinking there weren't any. The map still doesn't bother to list pricing data, since ISPs have lobbied ferociously to keep that data out of the hands of the public. After all, if the public could see how much limited competition impacts the price they pay for broadband, somebody in government might just be forced to actually stand up to telecom campaign contributors and actually do something about it. The map also tends to hallucinate competitive options and over-state speed availability. For example, I only have the option of one real broadband provider at my home address (Comcast). Yet the FCC's broadband availability map informs me I have more than seven broadband options. Two of which are counted twice (CenturyLink fiber, CenturyLink DSL) despite the fact that neither are actually available at any speed. And despite being a map that proclaims to measure "fixed broadband deployment," three of my available options are slow, over-priced and capped satellite broadband service. Four of the listed options don't even meet the FCC's own definition of broadband (25 Mbps down, 3 Mbps up). Were somebody to actually use the FCC's map to determine where broadband coverage gaps exist, they'd falsely walk away thinking there weren't any.

For good measure, the map appears to have also hallucinated fixed wireless broadband availability that isn't actually available in my neighborhood. For good measure, the map appears to have also hallucinated fixed wireless broadband availability that isn't actually available in my neighborhood. Of course if you've watched Pai manipulate facts and ignore the public as he rushes to give wet sloppy kisses for the industry he used to work for, none of this is probably surprising. Nor is it particularly surprising for an FCC that has actively worked to change measurement criteria to make the sector look more competitive. And if you've been paying attention you're probably not shocked to learn large ISPs like Comcast and AT&T routinely lobby to prevent more accurate mapping. Again, if you release data that clearly highlights the negative impact limited competition has on price, availability, and customer service, somebody might just get the crazy idea to actually do something about it -- and we certainly wouldn't want that. Head to the FCC's "new" map Head to the FCC's "new" map here and let us know in the comment section if it reflects reality in your neck of the woods.







News Jump California Defends Its Net Neutrality Law; AT&T's Traffic Up 20% Despite Data Traffic Actually Being Down; + more news Are The Comcast-Charter X1 Talks Dead In The Water?; AT&T May Offer Phone Plans With Ads For Discounts; + more news Europe's Top Court: Net Neutrality Rules Bar Zero Rating; ViacomCBS To Rebrand CBS All Access As Paramount+; + more news Verizon To Buy Reseller TracFone For $7B; 5G Not The Competitive Threat To Cable Many Thought It Would Be; + more news MS.Wants Records From AT&T On $300M Project; Google Fiber Outages In Austin, Houston, Other Texan Cities; + more news States With The Biggest Decreases In Speed; AT&T Hopes You'll Forget Its Fight Against Accurate Maps; + more news AT&T's CEO Has A Familiar $olution To US Broadband Woes; EarthLink Files Suit Against Charter; + more news 5G Doesn't Live Up To Hype, AT&T's 5G Slower Than Its 4G; Cord-Cutting Now In 37% of Broadband Households; + more news FCC Cited False Broadband Data Despite Warnings; ZTE, Huawei Replacement Cost Is $1.87B, But Only $1B Allocated; + more Cogeco Rejects Altice USA's Atlantic Broadband Bid; AT&T Is Astroturfing The FCC In Support Of Trump Attack; + more news ---------------------- this week last week most discussed

Most recommended from 47 comments



scott2020

join:2008-07-20

MO 17 recommendations scott2020 Member Trash Lucky me! I have 7 options!



I only have 1 - Charter. The others listed include AT&T (Twice) and I am not within their service area for ADSL. One is for a fixed wireless provider that doesn't service my home. Then DishNET, Viasat, and VSAT. Right across the street, it lists the local electric co-op fiber that isn't anywhere near here. yay!

Ut98Ex

join:2012-07-11

Georgetown, TX 15 recommendations Ut98Ex Member Not just the map... The FCC and the whole administration are like a bad stale joke.

TIGERON

join:2008-03-11

Boston, MA 14 recommendations TIGERON Member Pathetic even by pathetic standards. internet_man

join:2016-01-19 7 recommendations internet_man Member Which one do I choose? I've got AT&T on there twice (ADSL & Fiber) and 3 satellite providers to help pad the numbers. In reality I have AT&T VDSL2 (lumped into "Fiber"?) and barely at that. rradina

join:2000-08-08

Chesterfield, MO 920.3 39.3

·Charter

6 recommendations rradina Member My Options ≥ 25/3 Mbps but lists 5 options that don't meet that definition. It also lists the same provider and service twice. Not just ATT U-Verse and ATT DSL but literally ATT DSL twice! Broadband Technology

ADSL, Cable, Fiber, Fixed Wireless, Satellite, OtherSpeed

≥ 25/3 Mbps



Provider Tech Down(Mbps) Up (Mbps)

Charter Communications Cable 120 5

ViaSat, Inc. Satellite 25 3

dishNET Holding, LLC Satellite 15 2

Brown Dog Networks LLC Fixed Wireless 10 4

AT&T Inc. ADSL 6 1

AT&T Inc. ADSL 6 1

VSAT Systems, LLC Satellite 2 1.3 Bottom Line

I have one choice for broadband. I've never tried Satellite broadband but every CUSTOMER review I've read is horrible. Even if it was wonderful, 25/3 for $100/month ($70 for the first three months), is not competitive. Who would pay ~$40 more for far less than half the speed? (The local cable company is also increasing speeds to 200/10!) The data is reasonably correct but the options for my address don't make sense. The title saysbut lists 5 options that don't meet that definition. It also lists the same providertwice. Not just ATT U-Verse and ATT DSL but literally ATT DSL twice!I have one choice for broadband. I've never tried Satellite broadband but every CUSTOMER review I've read is horrible. Even if it was wonderful, 25/3 for $100/month ($70 for the first three months), is not competitive. Who would pay ~$40 more for far less than half the speed? (The local cable company is also increasing speeds to 200/10!) Jor4m

join:2017-04-04

Athens, OH 6 recommendations Jor4m Member Not true The list for my location is below and is completely false with Charter Communications only offering 1 way digital cable with no broadband offering to the block shown.



So their data shows my address as 'serviced', but couldn't be farther from the truth. The only offering here is Frontier 1.5Mbit DSL or even lower at 768k for some neighbors.



Provider Tech Down Up

**************************

Charter Communications Cable 50 5

ViaSat, Inc. Satellite 25 3

dishNET Holding, LLC Satellite 15 2

VSAT Systems, LLC Satellite 2 1.3 drumheller

join:2017-09-05

Erie, PA 6 recommendations drumheller Member The FCC's New Broadband Availability Map is a Misleading Joke Very accurate, 0 options! sims

join:2013-04-06 5 recommendations sims Member They are still counting satellite. According to the map at work I can only get >25/3 with satellite.

They don't even list the city FTTP.



At home they again say my only option is satellite ignoring the two WISPs that serve the area (not my house but the area).

Zenit

The system is the solution

Premium Member

join:2012-05-07

Purcellville, VA 5 recommendations Zenit Premium Member Better than the old one, barely, meh I checked in my area. The data seems to be correct, FiOS, DSL, Comcast shown in census blocks where it exists but not where it doesn’t. The problem is abstracting it by census block. Telecom coverage doesn’t follow that!



So some blocks say “FiOS, Comcast, DSL, WISPs” but within that block the coverage isn’t homogenous. FiOS could be at 1 property in that block and it lights up the whole block as having service!



My census block is 100% correct for the first time since they started mapping, so that’s a start.



So the map overall is still trash, only useful for a very high level abstraction of “is there service”. You wouldn’t want to use it as a guide when buying real estate beyond general area.



They could fix this mapping tool and make it great if they actually revealed the real coverage of the technologies. The providers have these maps. Comcast and Verizon provided them to my county. There is no reason other than hiding the truth or preventing competition to guard those maps like state secrets. smitmor

join:2004-04-10

Springhill, LA 4 recommendations smitmor Member Not even close I ran local addresses that I know for a fact can't even get 512k DSL and it said CenturyLink 80 Meg was available.

EliteData

EliteData

Premium Member

join:2003-07-06

Hampton Bays, NY 4 recommendations EliteData Premium Member useless has not been updated in four years.

useless. margegenever

join:2010-08-19

USA 2 recommendations margegenever Member Magic Wow, the map says that I have an amazing choice! Disregarding satellite, I can choose between 940Mbs from Verizon and 200Mbs from Comcast - neither of which provides any service at my address. I also have 2 WISP providers, of which only one provides service for 3Mbs for $99/month (- my single, if lame, option.) How can this map be 'fake news' when I live only 40 miles from the White House in Loudoun county Virginia?



Wait...I think I see a unicorn grazing in my yard. ChrisDG74

join:2010-05-27

Cincinnati, OH 2 recommendations ChrisDG74 Member I call bovine feces. Yeah, it shows 10 broadband choices for me, yet only ONE is over 6Mb down(Charter). And I'm not in the boonies either. Major, affluent suburb in Ohio. Also, while the data is from 2014, the only thing incorrect is the starting speeds for Charter. Still listed as 100/10, when it's now 200/10. firedrakes

join:2009-01-29

Arcadia, FL 2 recommendations firedrakes Member it shows i have tons of choice oh wait i dont the only one i have is shitty centurylink.

Dominokat

"Hi"

Premium Member

join:2002-08-06

Boothbay, ME 2 recommendations Dominokat Premium Member Surprisingly it is right At least for my location. boredsysadm

join:2012-01-11 ·Optimum Online

2 recommendations boredsysadm Member Pathetic farse They have clearly indicated that 25/3 (you could pretend to change it) is low pass filter for the results list, yet it's completely and shamelessly ignored

My "broadband" options include 1 mbps sat provider and 5mbps VZW ADSL (I call boolshit on 5mbps down, yet to see regular ADSL go above 3mbps (yes, I am aware of VDSL speeds and bonded lines, but regular adsl to go to 5mbps down, you have to practically live in VZW's plant)

Anon0470b

@mchsi.com 2 recommendations Anon0470b Anon The local map is just as misleading as feared... I just looked up my own neighborhood, which is an older one with older wired telephone lines below ground but still inside city limits. The FCC only lists four options, one fixed wireless - repackaged cell data I'd guess, and 3 satellite vendors. That's all. The heat map is set to 2 providers meeting broadband criteria. The fixed wireless and one of the sat providers. This map is entirely misleading, and literally useless for consumers in my general area. This is nothing more than a propaganda tool and only useful as such.



I have cable ISP through MediaCom 100/10 service (1TB cap), and it's the only viable service out here. Satellite and wireless connections are only good for "all else fails" for e'mail. Century Link offers DSL service, in theory. But the reality is it's non-workable because the POTS in this neighborhood is decades old. Even with new wiring between the house and the street breakout box you can't get more than 768k that drops every five minutes, not to mention the voice service is noisy from lack of upkeep. We use cell phones for voice.



I'm beyond unimpressed. This proves how much you can outright lie by telling only part of the truth, and why people hate politicians. Good job, FCC, your Masters will be proud!

typhoon87

join:2007-03-05

Buffalo, NY 2 recommendations typhoon87 Member What a mess Here is an interesting peice of information from the about page



"list of broadband speeds (at least 200 kbps, at least 10 Mbps downstream / 1 Mbps upstream, at least 25/3, at least 100/10 or at least 250/25)"



the minimum speed is 200kbs probably to make sure satellite can cover some thing like 98% of the country even though with the low speed and likely moderate to high latency it would one minute step above unusable.