republican-creole
site Search:


 
   
story category
Avoiding A $300 Million Broadband Mapping Boondoggle
Consumer groups warn public about Connected Nation
by Karl Bode Wednesday 03-Jun-2009 tags: fcc · coverage · business · bandwidth · Politics · municipal
As we've frequently discussed, a broadband mapping organization by the name of Connected Nation stands to grab a huge chunk of the government's new $300 million budget set aside for broadband mapping. But consumer advocates believe the group is little more than a front organization for giant carriers like AT&T and Verizon -- tasked with over-inflating broadband penetration numbers to make carriers look good and keep government regulation at bay. The Wall Street Journal takes a look at the group, raising additional questions about their motivations and previous "successes" in getting States like Kentucky "95% wired" with broadband:

Connected Nation's operations in Kentucky launched in 2004, when Mr. Mefford, the son of a veteran Bell South lobbyist, founded Connect Kentucky to bring more broadband into rural parts of the state. When it began, about 60% of Kentucky had some sort of broadband Internet access, according to Connect Kentucky. Five years later, the group said, that figured had jumped to 95%.

Click for full size
Kentucky residents and local ISPs generally laugh hysterically at the 95% coverage claim, and insist that Connected Nation is simply putting on a very well-produced dog and pony show.

Consumer Advocates worry that the group's mapping efforts are derailing funding from existing State broadband mapping organizations who produce higher quality data that can be transparently accessed by consumers.

As per the industry's wishes, Connected Nation's maps also don't pinpoint the specifically available providers at each address. Interestingly, the NDA also notes that any data collected by Connected Nation remains the property of AT&T, and can be pulled or deleted at any time.

Given the Federal Government spent the last decade pretending broadband competitive and coverage issues didn't exist, you can understand how consumer advocates could be worried about the dangers Connected Nation poses to real reform should they truly go national with a huge budget of freshly-procured taxpayer dollars.

You can use Connected Nation as a litmus test for how seriously the new FCC is taking broadband reform. If you see Connected Nation handed the lion's share of the broadband mapping funds, it means it's business as usual in DC -- with phone and cable lobbyists having puppet-like control over regulators. If the government is serious about bringing competition to the sector while increasing deployment, they'll utilize objective, non-industry supported mapping organizations to craft quality data directly owned by (and accessible to) the taxpayer.

view: topics flat text 
Post a:

Juke Box
His Word Never Fails
Premium
join:2001-01-29
Proverbs 3
Reviews:
·WOW Internet and..
·Knology

There is no more money..

Given the Federal Government spent the last decade pretending broadband competitive and coverage issues didn't exist, you can imagine the dangers Connected Nation poses to real reform should they truly go national with a huge budget of freshly-procured taxpayer printed dollars.

There, fixed it for you.
--
If you are having half as much fun as I am, then I must be having twice the fun than you are. Do The Math!

en102
Canadian, eh?

join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA

Re: There is no more money..

Pretty much that, and the fact that the government just bought Generous Motors.
--
Canada = Hollywood North

ropeguru
Premium
join:2001-01-25
Mechanicsville, VA

Re: There is no more money..

said by en102:

Pretty much that, and the fact that the government just bought Generous Government Motors.
Fixed for you....
lesopp

join:2001-06-27
Land O Lakes, FL

Re: There is no more money..

I propose calling it the DMVC (Democrat's Motor Vehicle Collective)

kapil
The Kapil

join:2000-04-26
Chicago, IL

Now's your chance...

consumer advocates, left leaning pinko commies, hippies at al. If you cannot advance your agenda and stop bullshit astroturfing groups like Connected Nation in today's political climate full of populist sentiment and a very sympathetic administration and congress...it will never happen.

All hands on deck. It's now, or never.
--
»www.Digium.com

BF69
Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN

does anyone bother to check anything

Ok a year ago I would have agreed. ConenctTn maping was atrotious and very wrong. Checked it lately and very accurate. At least in my area. And yes I'm anal about this and I KNOW where broadband begins and ends in almost every corner in my county( kind of a hobby of sorts I suppose ). They even differentiate between cable/dsl and wireless and they don't count satellite. Which they shouldn't because it sucks and shouldn't count. So far I have yet to find an area that says it a carrier provides broadband in which the reality is they don't. So unless someone has bothered to do the legwork like me I think their opinions should be taken with HUGE grain of salt.
Sammer

join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA

Re: does anyone bother to check anything

For $300 million dollars the data should belong to the government and not AT&T!

BF69
Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN

Re: does anyone bother to check anything

said by Sammer:

For $300 million dollars the data should belong to the government and not AT&T!
The data belongs to everyone.

Re: does anyone bother to check anything

The data does not belong to everyone according to ConnectedMN. I requested the map files for our county and was told that the data was proprietary and, due to agreements with the providers, was not available.

PhoenixDown
-- Wants FIOS
Premium
join:2003-06-08
Fresh Meadows, NY
kudos:1
Where do you go to check it?
--
~ Insert a Funny Sig Here ~

BF69
Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN

Re: does anyone bother to check anything

said by PhoenixDown:

Where do you go to check it?
Where do I go to check what specfically

PhoenixDown
-- Wants FIOS
Premium
join:2003-06-08
Fresh Meadows, NY
kudos:1

Re: does anyone bother to check anything

You were saying that you the availability noted on connected nations site was fairly accurate, I wanted to check a few places myself.
--
~ Insert a Funny Sig Here ~

BF69
Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN

Re: does anyone bother to check anything

said by PhoenixDown:

You were saying that you the availability noted on connected nations site was fairly accurate, I wanted to check a few places myself.
well I can only speak for ConenctedTn and only for my area. Well ConenctedTn has pretty detailed maps. So I get uplcose and then use Google maps to try to get addresses in the area in questions. I also use reverse look-up in whitepages.com to get all the addresses on a particular road and also phone numbers if they have them. And if I happen to be in an area I'm interested in make mental notes of addresses. I then go to the 2 ISPs in my area at&t and Charter and check to see if those addresses and phone numbers are in areas that have service.

Charter is a bit easier since you can check by both address and phone number. I also have a 3rd check by looking up channel listing for Charter by address. If you can't get Charter services at an address you won't get a channel list. Also if I enter an address/phone number that actually has service it will say there is already service at that address. You can't get any better conformation than that.

I feel I should be getting some of that $300 mil

en102
Canadian, eh?

join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA

95% can be real if... it determines what 95% coverage is.

quote:
Kentucky residents and local ISPs generally laugh hysterically at the 95% coverage claim, and insist that Connected Nation is simply putting on a very well-produced dog and pony show.
I suspect that they are doing the 'following':
95% (of those in cities of +100k residents),
not 95% of the land

Lies, lies, and .... statistics!
--
Canada = Hollywood North

BF69
Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN

Re: 95% can be real if... it determines what 95% coverage is.

said by en102:

quote:
Kentucky residents and local ISPs generally laugh hysterically at the 95% coverage claim, and insist that Connected Nation is simply putting on a very well-produced dog and pony show.
I suspect that they are doing the 'following':
95% (of those in cities of +100k residents),
not 95% of the land

Lies, lies, and .... statistics!
Well if an area is totally unihhabited is it REALLY necessary to have broadband there? Kentucky is very rual outside the "big" cities. In areas where there aren't any people I don't think ISPs should have to put in broadband to make a map look fuller.
Sammer

join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA

Re: 95% can be real if... it determines what 95% coverage is.

said by BF69:

Well if an area is totally unihhabited is it REALLY necessary to have broadband there? Kentucky is very rual outside the "big" cities. In areas where there aren't any people I don't think ISPs should have to put in broadband to make a map look fuller.
Any broadband mapping would have to include a reasonable definition of minimum population density such as XX/square mile.

BF69
Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN

Re: 95% can be real if... it determines what 95% coverage is.

said by Sammer:

said by BF69:

Well if an area is totally unihhabited is it REALLY necessary to have broadband there? Kentucky is very rual outside the "big" cities. In areas where there aren't any people I don't think ISPs should have to put in broadband to make a map look fuller.
Any broadband mapping would have to include a reasonable definition of minimum population density such as XX/square mile.
Is this detailed enough for you?

»ftp://ftp.connectedtn.org/CTPublic/Con···sity.jpg

marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:2

Re: 95% can be real if... it determines what 95% coverage is.

said by BF69:

Is this detailed enough for you?

»ftp://ftp.connectedtn.org/CTPublic/Con···sity.jpg
According to their metadata, that's just 2000 census info. Very out of date.
Here's something interesting though...
This is from their map server. Looks like ConnectTn is a lot more than ConnectTn.
iansltx

join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
·RoadRunner Cable
·Comcast
Easy solution: WiMAX. Before you tune me out, it'll cover long distances with the right antennas, and it'll fill all those peksy coverage holes. If a WiMAX tower gets overloaded due to lots of subscribers, you've found a place that might be economical to wire. Simple as that

BF69
Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN

Re: 95% can be real if... it determines what 95% coverage is.

said by iansltx:

Easy solution: WiMAX. Before you tune me out, it'll cover long distances with the right antennas, and it'll fill all those peksy coverage holes. If a WiMAX tower gets overloaded due to lots of subscribers, you've found a place that might be economical to wire. Simple as that
I'm not against WiMax it's just like BPL all I heard for year is how it's the next big thing then nothing ever happens. I remember reading in 2000 how by 2010 BPL was going to be a major player in broadband and how you were going to be able to get super cheap and fast interent from your electric company even if you lived in the boonies

Anon 51

@rr.com

Re: 95% can be real if... it determines what 95% coverage is.

Or you could put up another radio. This would create a self-healing mesh, with overlapping coverage. No overload..
It would just roll over to the next available, less busy radio. They have built a system like this in Palm Desert, California. Works VERY well.!
iansltx

join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2

Re: 95% can be real if... it determines what 95% coverage is.

What tehcnology are they using? How big of an area are they covering? Most rural wireless has to have antennas pointed at subscribers and vice versa, to the nondirectional nature of a mesh doesnt make as much sense.
iansltx

join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
·RoadRunner Cable
·Comcast
Key difference: BPL causes lots of interference. WiMAX has its own spectrum.

Also, BPL *does* work, provided you can get cheap bandwidh to the substation etc. Which probably isn't doable out in the sticks anyway. Though if you look through the DSLR forums you'll see a few successful BPL customers through DirecTV...or was it Dish...speeds were 1.5 Mbps both ways.

Though WiMAX can deliver more, comparable to a DOCSIS 1.1 cable system. Doesn't sound like much to in-town people but great for out-of-towners.
me1212

join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO

Re: 95% can be real if... it determines what 95% coverage is.

It was directv.

What kinda speeds can 1.1 do?
iansltx

join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
·RoadRunner Cable
·Comcast

Re: 95% can be real if... it determines what 95% coverage is.

38 Mbps down, 10 up, per node. Though WiMAX, at its top modulation on 10MHz channels (doable but not in all circumstances) is 35 and 4 if memory serves. 5MHz channels, which may be more common, are half that of course but as you can see with ClearWire 6 Mbps down and 1 Mbps up is very doable.
me1212

join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO

Re: 95% can be real if... it determines what 95% coverage is.

Cool. A 6/1 wireless would be better IMHO than a 5/less than 1 DSL.
Sammer

join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA
said by iansltx:

Easy solution: WiMAX.
It's a solution but it's not necessarily easy. There seems to be the mistaken belief that WiMAX was developed for rural areas. It was originally developed (just like LTE) for metro areas. It has been found that it (Revision E) works reasonably well in some rural areas but those towers, equipment and radio spectrum are not inexpensive. Once those towers are both in place and paid for it becomes a relatively inexpensive "last mile" solution.
iansltx

join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
·RoadRunner Cable
·Comcast

Re: 95% can be real if... it determines what 95% coverage is.

WiMAX is not as inexpensive as, say, Motorola Canopy on the tower end ($12k for a second order diversity system plus antennas versus several thousand for Canopy versus less for other systems). However the subscriber units aren't all that bad; $350 or so for something that, with an antenna, can do well in rural areas, if you know where to look.

PhoenixDown
-- Wants FIOS
Premium
join:2003-06-08
Fresh Meadows, NY
kudos:1

This needs to be done by the census bureau.

I believe they have the right mix of expertise and resources to get the job done in an unbiased manner.
--
~ Insert a Funny Sig Here ~
i2Fuzzy

join:2009-02-25
Keller, TX

Re: This needs to be done by the census bureau.

said by PhoenixDown:

I believe they have the right mix of expertise and resources to get the job done in an unbiased manner.
The census bureau? When was the last time the federal government had the expertise to get any job done well?
--
Ali Fazel
i2Telecom Representative

PhoenixDown
-- Wants FIOS
Premium
join:2003-06-08
Fresh Meadows, NY
kudos:1

Re: This needs to be done by the census bureau.

99% of the time, I would agree with that statement but I think the census bureau is alright.
--
~ Insert a Funny Sig Here ~

See 6 replies to this post

Linklist
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5

Objective, non-industry supported mapping organizations

»Avoiding A $300 Million Broadband Mapping Boondoggle
objective, non-industry supported mapping organizations
That phrase is not necessarily true. Non-industry organizations are no more objective by definition than industry organizations. They have their own agendas as well and those agendas aren't necessarily any more in the public interest than industry ones.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
nasadude

join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS

Re: Objective, non-industry supported mapping organizations

industry data would be excellent if:

a) it was transparent and could be verified by anyone

b) they didn't insist nobody else could do anything with it without their permission

the problem right now is they claim "it's proprietary, so we can't let you see the raw data" and they insist on complete control of the use, even if govt $$ paid for "collecting" it.

screavic4
Premium
join:2006-08-11
Paron, AR
kudos:1

Either Way...

Either way it goes, mapping I understand is a start to an understanding of where HSI is NOT. I am just disappointed that the majority of this countries attitude towards high speed internet is that it is a luxury. I understand that it isn't a requirement for residential but they also have to understand that dial up is horrible in these rural areas where you are lucky to obtain a 28.8 kbps connection.

Am I happy with what I got (Alltel Axess), I'm happy I got something better than dialup but where I live this is far from true broadband. Considering my latency, upload times, and the lack to hardly do anything at all with really low caps (5GB) probably pretty soon considering the merger.

I made a choice to live in the country and I understand that there are certain sacrifices that people make to live away from the city. So don't say "Move and everything will be fine" but living on a fixed income of disability and my wife's income it's hard to "consider" the costs of living in the city considering we would have already lost our house if we did live in the city.

I dunno, just disappointed that we have taken this long to recognize how far behind we are in technology. Considering some of Japan already has 1Gbps broadband and other countries are getting large deployments of Wireless broadband considering they don't have alot of the red tape that we do. (I know it's there to protect us, but some get's out of hand thanks to lobbyist).

Start bashing... NOW

pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

1 edit

Data Already Exists

These data already exist. They come straight from the Internet Providers themselves.

»Wrong

Instead of wasting $300 million in trying to figure out what the ISPs already know, perhaps those who do want this map can hire some people to type in every address in the USA into these websites and construct their own map on their own dime instead.
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012!
qworster

join:2001-11-25
Bryn Mawr, PA
Reviews:
·Comcast
·Verizon FiOS
·MSN

1 edit

Connected RIPOFF!

Before the Government spends a penny of taxpayer money on finding out where broadband is and isn't, they should ask themselves Why the USA has the slowest broadband at the most expensive prices of all the first world countries.

The answer (as most of us know) is simple: GREED!

In the USA, we have fewer choices then in any other major country. Yes, we have more broadband users then others, but that's simply because we have more people then others.

It seems to me that by changing a few regulations, especially by changing the Bush Administration's interpretation of the 1996 Communications Act where it relates to 'last mile' sharing of the telco and cable infrastructure (which I remind you the telcos and cablecos both AGREED TO SHARE and GET PAID FOR SHARING) that the number of broadband options in many areas could double overnight, After all, we all know that competition LOWERS PRICES and INCREASES quality, while monopolies do the opposite!

It's about time that everyone agree the Internet isn't a frill any more. It's an absolute NECESSITY for most Americans-and as such should be regulated as a public utility.

Rob
In Deo speramus.
Premium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
kudos:3

Re: Connected RIPOFF!

said by qworster:

Before the Government spends a penny of taxpayer money on finding out where broadband is and isn't, they should ask themselves Why the USA has the slowest broadband at the most expensive prices of all the first world countries.

The answer (as most of us know) is simple: GREED!

In the USA, we have fewer choices then in any other major country. Yes, we have more broadband users then others, but that's simply because we have more people then others.

It seems to me that by changing a few regulations, especially by changing the Bush Administration's interpretation of the 1996 Communications Act where it relates to 'last mile' sharing of the telco and cable infrastructure (which I remind you the telcos and cablecos both AGREED TO SHARE and GET PAID FOR SHARING) that the number of broadband options in many areas could double overnight, After all, we all know that competition LOWERS PRICES and INCREASES quality, while monopolies do the opposite!

It's about time that everyone agree the Internet isn't a frill any more. It's an absolute NECESSITY for most Americans-and as such should be regulated as a public utility.
Canada's Broadband is behind ours.
--
CheckSite.us | YourIP.us | Reverseip.us
tmc8080

join:2004-04-24
Brooklyn, NY
Reviews:
·ooma
·Optimum Online
·Verizon FiOS

what a rip(off)

First of all Verizon shouldn't get a rusty red or black cent IF they are allowed to jettison the supposed BAD Return on Investment geographies. That's the whole point.. they keep the good areas, but get no money. No matter how big their lobbying budget goes.. they get NOTHING from the government.

As for AT&T, well.. first of all... I'd break AT&T's freshly minted merger with Bell South into a million little pieces. Then give most of the money to Bell South, under NEW MANAGEMENT to 1-up the sloppy U-Verse product AT&T is delivering.. one ADSL2+ remote terminal at a time. We can't forget about qwest.. we need to spare a few million for wiring communites adjacent to current fiber deployments in their footprint.

Saturday, 18-May 23:35:29 Terms of Use & Privacy | feedback | contact | Hosting by nac.net - DSL,Hosting & Co-lo
over 13.5 years online © 1999-2013 dslreports.com.