Our National Broadband Map Remains Largely Useless More Data Collected, But the Data's Still Wrong Tuesday Mar 06 2012 09:04 EDT In February of last year 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, 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. According to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration they've upgraded the map, noting that it now pulls from a database of nearly 20 million records. Data is collected from roughly 1,800 ISPs across the United States every six months. "The map has proven a valuable tool to a wide range of stakeholders, including consumers, researchers, policymakers, local planning officials and application developers," said the NTIA. "Broadband drives economic growth and innovation – including advances in health care, education and public safety – so data on America’s broadband capabilities is of increasing importance, especially as we work to close the digital divide." A quick look finds numerous markets where speeds are still over-stated (particularly for DSL) and phantom competitors pop up. Pricing, arguably the most important metric, still isn't represented. You can check out the map and let us know if it's getting anywhere closer to being a useful tool in terms of informing you exactly what's really available in your area. |
AMDUSER Premium Member join:2003-05-28 Earth, ARRIS CM8200 ARRIS SB6183
|
AMDUSER
Premium Member
2012-Mar-6 9:11 am
The map is still wrong !It says I can get 10-25 Meg from Verizon... [which is not the local phone provider- ] If it was available- I would sign up for FiOS... It also says I can get AT&T U-verse [internet] speeds as well... even AT&Ts own website shows otherwise.. only can get upto 3 Meg DSL.. | |
| | coldmoon Premium Member join:2002-02-04 Fulton, NY |
coldmoon
Premium Member
2012-Mar-6 9:25 am
Re: The map is still wrong !said by AMDUSER:It says I can get 10-25 Meg from Verizon... [which is not the local phone provider- ] If it was available- I would sign up for FiOS... It also says I can get AT&T U-verse [internet] speeds as well... even AT&Ts own website shows otherwise.. only can get upto 3 Meg DSL.. Same here with Verizon, AT&T, and Charter cable mystery services that do not exist and DSL speeds I only wish were available. What a useless POS this map was, is, and will probably continue to be... | |
| | zed260 Premium Member join:2011-11-11 Cleveland, TN Netgear R7000
|
to AMDUSER
said by AMDUSER:It says I can get 10-25 Meg from Verizon... [which is not the local phone provider- ] If it was available- I would sign up for FiOS... It also says I can get AT&T U-verse [internet] speeds as well... even AT&Ts own website shows otherwise.. only can get upto 3 Meg DSL.. on my house on wirline side its accurete (with the exception of at&t uverse listing 25 vs 18 speed)but on wirless side its totaly messed up there is no wirless here cell phones dont even hardly work much less wirless internet | |
|
pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty Premium Member join:2002-05-02 Mount Airy, MD
1 recommendation |
pnh102
Premium Member
2012-Mar-6 9:29 am
Same Old Same Old...I thought our government was broke or something like that... the first broadband map was a complete failure, so naturally... we're doubling down. | |
| | jester121 Premium Member join:2003-08-09 Lake Zurich, IL
1 recommendation |
Re: Same Old Same Old...Just like education, crime prevention, and all other government social programs, the effort failed because we didn't spend enough. It's all about intentions, never results. | |
|
Ubee E31U2V1 (Software) pfSense Netgear WNR3500L
|
Wrong in my area tooAll of my area is DOCSIS3 upgraded market of charters, and it does not show that(it only shows a few spots are DOCSIS3). Also, number of providers is incorrect, since we have ADSL everywhere by centurylink, and it does not show that at all. Once again, I ask why 300 million or more was wasted on this incomplete and incorrect map, when it could have been used to fix social security, or give all US citizens that filed tax returns a return bonus. it also fails to show the local phone-co-op that has a symmetrical 50mbps and a symmetrical 100mbps plan. | |
| |
Doesn't show CenturyLink FTTN or AT&T 3G+Still wrong as well in 68104 (Omaha, NE). | |
| plk Premium Member join:2002-04-20 united state
1 recommendation |
plk
Premium Member
2012-Mar-6 9:58 am
what a joke and tax payer ripoffLooking at some rural areas in Iowa shows miles of dsl availability where I know it isn't. It also shows speeds of 10-25 mbps where 1.5 is the max.
Ok..... so..... if they revamp the universal service free from broadband only deployment, excluded the areas where the IPS reports service. Then we will see more honesty | |
| plencnerb Premium Member join:2000-09-25 53403-1242 |
Not showing ComcastMap does not show that Comcast is available in my area (60110, Carpentersville, IL), and that is the ISP that I have! Its one thing to show providers that are not there, but to not show ones that are? And, its not like Comcast is new to this area. I know that it has been here for at least 5 years (maybe more). In fact, if I select "Wired Providers" nothing comes up! This map is a joke. --Brian | |
| |
anondude
Anon
2012-Mar-6 10:27 am
road data 10+ years oldWhere I live the road data in the map is at least 10 years old (my street is completely missing, and my house is almost 10 years old), so I have little doubt the rest of the data is equally stale/wrong... | |
| 60373562 (banned) join:2004-04-13 Glendale, AZ |
60373562 (banned)
Member
2012-Mar-6 11:56 am
What a pile of governmentThis has to be the largest waste of tax payer money ever spent that is related to broadband hueristics by the government to date. The map is ridiculously inaccurate.
It says I can get 25Mbps with T-Mobile... Really? What at max theoretical 4G speeds with all channels? Because I know a ton of TMo customers with 4G cards and they barely top out at 1.5Mbps. Same for Verizon. There is no Verizon A/DSL/FIOS here.
Not to mention 3 of the 6 listed companies no longer exist.
This reminds me of reading an internet archive cache, woefully outdated and lost to the ages. Whoever was responsible for this project should jump in front of a bus. | |
| | |
Re: What a pile of governmentsaid by 60373562:This has to be the largest waste of tax payer money ever spent that is related to broadband hueristics by the government to date. The map is ridiculously inaccurate.
It says I can get 25Mbps with T-Mobile... Really? What at max theoretical 4G speeds with all channels? Because I know a ton of TMo customers with 4G cards and they barely top out at 1.5Mbps. Same for Verizon. There is no Verizon A/DSL/FIOS here.
Not to mention 3 of the 6 listed companies no longer exist.
This reminds me of reading an internet archive cache, woefully outdated and lost to the ages. Whoever was responsible for this project should jump in front of a bus. They could have paid me $100,000 and I could have built a better website with more accurate information. | |
|
|
Same ol waste of our taxdollarsWell, they did actually remove satellite providers from the listed broadband options. Other than that, still inaccurate saying Verizon provides DSL to our area, and that comcast is servicing the area. The problem i see is what the State broadband initiatives have in Maryland. The reporting area is too large. For instance i live on a peninsula, but our Grid # includes areas on the other side of the river roughly 5 miles away. | |
| gunther_01 Premium Member join:2004-03-29 Saybrook, IL |
FCCThe information is gathered from form 477 that ISP's have to fill out. If the numbers are incorrect it's from one of 3 reasons.
1. The ISP listed their speeds wrong 2. The grouping in which the speed data is in may fall within a higher speed tier that you see, not what the form asks or the min speed - max speed i.e. speeds between 6-10mbps. Then listed as 10 for you to see 3. It's done by census block, not grids, zip codes or anything else.
The map is mostly useless as it now shows no wireless technologies. Which is a slap in the face to Cellular, satelitte, and WISP's. That data is easily shown, the FCC is omiting it on purpose to get people to think there is no broadband of any kind, and so congress critters look at the map and say we need to pipe tons of money in to ISP's to get some broadband "there". | |
| | 58940779 (banned) join:2012-03-06 Phoenix, AZ 1 edit |
58940779 (banned)
Member
2012-Mar-6 7:34 pm
Re: FCCThe ISP listed their speeds wrong | |
|
|
Uh, this!How does the national map compare to state maps? | |
| |
Evildad
Anon
2012-Mar-12 2:38 pm
Inaccurate is a polite descriptionIn my area it lists Verizon with 6-10Mbps, which sold all of its wire lines to Frontier, which is listed at 3-6Mbps. It doesn't mention the local cable company, Suddenlink, at all. Is this a broad(band) error that it doesn't list cable companies as broadband providers? Is the purpose of the map to browbeat the phone companies into expanding broadband? That seems to be the state initiative here, to get Frontier to extend broadband to more rural homes. | |
| |
contributerI am happy to say that I have contributed to this fine map, I think it was a great information grab for the Government. | |
| |
jdanon
Anon
2012-Mar-13 8:43 am
This map is way wrong in rural areasThis map and the PA map both broadly overstate high-speed access in the rural areas, although differently. The PA map shows cable across the road from me but not on my side of the road; the USA map shows cable on MY side of the road, but the closest cable serves to me is 2.5 miles away. They also don't take terrain into account - I barely get a voice signal on my cell phone at home because of the terrain, but the maps show I can get mobile wireless. The reality is that the best I can do here is satellite.
If this is what the governments use to estimate what percentage of people have access, they have to be way overestimating and that makes me think there will not be sufficient push to get the rest of us connected. | |
| PeteC2Got Mouse? MVM join:2002-01-20 Bristol, CT |
PeteC2
MVM
2012-Mar-14 11:19 am
I am usually the LAST to defend govt. spending but...In all fairness, most of the inaccuracy seen here is that they are simply recording the information provided to them by the various carriers...based on their claims. It is not as if there are armies of little govt. dweebs with a meter running around from zip code to zip code checking internet speeds...(kind of like the old "Can you hear me?" thing, eh?) Anyone shocked and amazed that the folks reporting the speed/availability of their internet service might be just a wee bit off? | |
| | |
Hmmmmm
Anon
2012-Mar-15 4:57 pm
Re: I am usually the LAST to defend govt. spending but...Dear Uncle Sam, Florence, NY does not have DSL, does not have a cable operator, does not have wireless. It has nothing. Why do you show that it does have it? Let me guess---13316 is Florence and 13316 is Camden. Maybe you were thinking of Camden! But why does the map show Florence.
Is it okay that I make a few mistakes on my taxes? | |
|
1 edit |
Broadband availability mapsMuch better for my zip code, 01378 than previous maps. Data is collected for MA by Mass Broadband Institute,a state agency, and they listened to reports that the ILEC doesn't offer anything and there is no cell coverage. The map lists satellite available and lists our municipally owned offering correctly. The link does not auto-direct and a link to wispdirectory would provide pricing and more details. Map is getting better. | |
|
| |
|
|