dslreports logo
Poking Holes In Connected Nation
Broadband mapping group could actually harm rural broadband

Last year consumer advocacy firm Public Knowledge issued an interesting but under read article criticizing the legitimacy of a broadband mapping organization dubbed Connected Nation. According to smaller ISPs familiar with the group, Connected Nation is little more than a dog and pony show concocted by the nation's largest carriers, taking money from the States for broadband mapping, in turn providing them with rosy reports that make state legislators feel good about their investments.

Public Knowledge suggests that Connected Nation's real function is to pre-empt more serious efforts to map broadband State by State. The group paints over broadband shortcomings by insisting that thanks to them, States like Kentucky have nearly 100% broadband coverage (something state residents will tell you is completely absurd). With a board of directors stocked with executives from the largest operators, the organization never demands particularly comprehensive data from the carriers themselves. That's just the way many carriers like it, given that highlighting coverage gaps and a lack of competition usually creates additional government regulation.

It's a rather ingenious (if not maniacal) idea, as the project actually does the opposite of its intended purpose -- essentially creating a completely bogus national broadband infrastructure map. In a new follow up report, Public Knowledge explores how Connected Nation stands poised to gobble up the lion's share of the $350 million contained in the broadband stimulus package for mapping broadband, making things worse for rural America, all the while pre-empting better and more consumer-friendly mapping efforts.
view:
topics flat nest 

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

3 edits

FFH5

Premium Member

$350,000 million ???

gobble up the lion's share of the $350,000 million
You can do a lot with $350 billion. I'll bet even Connected Nation can map broadband for that amount.


chemaupr
join:2005-06-06
Alexandria, VA

chemaupr

Member

Re: $350,000 million ???

is not that they cannot... is that they will do using bad data provided by the providers, which have influence all over Connected Nation.

So, you are asking the people that today tell you are covered if at least only one in a zipcode is covered to do the same for the nation.

wifi4milez
Big Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY

wifi4milez

Member

Re: $350,000 million ???

said by chemaupr:

So, you are asking the people that today tell you are covered if at least only one in a zipcode is covered to do the same for the nation.
The fact remains that it (zipcode data) is really the only reasonable way to measure broadband availability, NOT broadband installations. I think people need to realize the difference. For instance, and entire county could be wired (at the CO) for DSL, however only one resident might have ordered it. Would you then say that the provider (or Connected Nation) listing that county as 'served' is an incorrect assessment??

If the whole point of this excercise is to determine how many people have actually ordered broadband (not just can order) then this is doomed to fail.

baineschile
2600 ways to live
Premium Member
join:2008-05-10
Sterling Heights, MI

1 edit

baineschile to FFH5

Premium Member

to FFH5
If I open a broadband company, i dont want people to tell me where I have to provide service, and i certainly wouldnt want the government to subsidize their own network in populus areas that already have a ton of competition.

i dont expect att, comcast, or any other provider to feel any differently. what if the government told wal mart they had to open stores in country-north dakota, where building a store wouldnt pay for itself because of lack of population?

socialism at its best.

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

3 edits

FFH5

Premium Member

Re: $350,000 million ???

said by baineschile:

If I open a broadband company, i dont want people to tell me where I have to provide service, and i certainly wouldnt want the government to subsidize their own network in populus areas that already have a ton of competition.

socialism at its best.

True, even if the amount was only $350 million and not "$350,000 million" like the story said.

fifty nine
join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ

fifty nine to baineschile

Member

to baineschile
said by baineschile:

If I open a broadband company, i dont want people to tell me where I have to provide service, and i certainly wouldnt want the government to subsidize their own network in populus areas that already have a ton of competition.

i dont expect att, comcast, or any other provider to feel any differently. what if the government told wal mart they had to open stores in country-north dakota, where building a store wouldnt pay for itself because of lack of population?

socialism at its best.
The same was said years ago about electricity, telephones, roads and mail delivery. Today in the internet economy it is broadband.

When you look at it, telephone and cable companies (among others) have gotten tons of handouts and access to private property given to them by the Government. I think it's only fair that the public gets something back, even if it's initially unprofitable for the companies.

Otherwise, just give back all of the utility easements and rights of way and let each utility negotiate with individual land owners.

swerve5
join:2000-10-20
La Habra, CA

swerve5

Member

Bastards

"It's a rather ingenious (if not maniacal) idea, as the project actually does the opposite of its intended purpose -- essentially creating a completely bogus national broadband infrastructure map."

Hang them by their b****.

Hillbilly
@tds.net

Hillbilly

Anon

Connected Nation/Connect KY

Hello everyone...long time listener...first time caller...er...anyway.

I've dealt with ConnectKy for a few years now and this is what I can tell you about my experience with them. They went to every county in Kentucky and invited local leaders, technology people, and communication companies in the area to join what they called the local broadband committee. The first few meetings were to try and get an understanding of how technology and broadband could help the county and they gave each of us a packet with a map of the current broadband coverage for the county. After a few more meetings the group dwindled down to our last meeting which consisted of 3 people.

In the meantime, myself and two others were trying to get money to put a tower in the center of our county seat so we could put up a WISP and and least get a portion of our county covered. ConnectKy DID help us get the money...and we thought we were on our way to helping the county. After we got the money approved through a grant ConnectKy kept encouraging us to talk to a company, VVDS, and let them have our money as they had put up towers in other parts of the state. After getting pressure from ConnectKy and other agencies from within the state the county agreed to give them the money. That was almost two years ago...we have no tower...no broadband...no money...and the company that ConnectKy kept insisting that we give the money to has basically went out of business. I contacted ConnectKy a few months ago and asked them if they could help us get the money back or at least find some more...they pretty much told me sorry... the county shouldn't have given them the money.

I have little respect for ConnectKy and the maps that they have really do not reflect the actual coverage for the county. They showed promise at first and I really thought they would help our little county...but in the end they just cost us $700,000 dollars and gave us nothing but a crappy map in return. Thanks ConnectKY!
AVonGauss
Premium Member
join:2007-11-01
Boynton Beach, FL

AVonGauss

Premium Member

For 350 million...

For 350 million, you could mail a letter to every single residence in the United States asking them to list what broadband options they have available to them and still have enough money to process the results and give yourself a nice bonus. Not that I am suggesting this would be the best method, but its a lot of money for a simple data warehousing and reporting solution.

I still contend I could do this for a whole lot less money...

1) Create non for profit organization
2) Obtain US Postal address database
3) Establish protocol(s) with providers to collect data from providers quarterly.
4) Collect initial data from providers
5) Clean original postal database and algorithms for matching service provider addresses.
6) Establish contact points with counties.
7) Create initial report and send report to the county for their thoughts and any possible corrections
8) Create a boat-load of silly reports for government agencies that will probably never be used.
9) Establish public web site that allows reports and statistics to be viewed and for people to enter their address.
10) Next quarter, get the updated data from the providers, send report to counties, update database.
11) Every quarter, go back to 10

Yes, that is an over-simplification by far but its not rocket science. Why do we need to create a new government department ($350 million) for mapping broadband?

WA Resident
@msn.net

WA Resident

Anon

Rural Broadband providers should get some of the money.

Here in Washington state we have been lucky as some of the local PUDs (Public Utility District) have built (and continue) to build out fiber networks with access to homes that are truely rural.

These PUDs should get some of that $350,000 dollars to continue it's deployment as one PUD in particular is backing down on their fiber optic expansion due to economics leaving some people with no other alternative but satellite.

Grant County in WA state landed two (Yahoo and Microsoft) companies to build huge server farms thanks to the availability of cheap electricity and to a great fiber optic network that the PUD deployed.

Grant county is still building out their network throughout the county reaching into more people's homes and with 100/100MBps speeds for around $40 per month.

Besides the internet, there is phone and tv programming available from these fiber networks.

Grant County:
»www.gcpud.org/customerSe ··· iber.htm

Douglas County with some 100MB ISP providers: »www.dccn.net/

Chelan County which is halting expansion:
»fiber.chelanpud.org/euedu/

Funny, Verizon hasn't stepped into these areas with their FIOS but guess what?...no need for them!
goinglike60
join:2009-02-10

goinglike60

Member

Keep on keeping on!

The emperor has no clothes.

Connect Kentucky and their spawn Connected Nation are NOT the organizations to do this project, for the reasons stated by other posters.

This post gives me hope that Connect Kentucky / Connected Nation gets $0.
SuperWISP
join:2007-04-17
Laramie, WY

SuperWISP

Member

Karl, why are you coming out against competition?

The article above, which contains a great deal of loaded language, advocates an agenda that would actually harm broadband deployment and competition.

There's a good reason why ISPs -- especially small, rural, and competitive ISPs -- do not want precise maps of their coverage areas published: it enables anticompetitive tactics. Given detailed information about competitors' coverage areas and sites (especially wireless ISPs' towers), large incumbent carriers can precisely target anticompetitive tactics (e.g. predatory pricing, long term "lock in" contracts, etc.) at the areas which competitors serve, while not losing money on other areas. And since our country's current broadband policy does nothing to aid these competitors in any way, they're vulnerable. Want a duopoly? Gather competitive intelligence, at government expense, for the big guys -- who will use it to wipe out all competitors. On the other hand, if you want users to have a choice of providers, or to foster the deployment of broadband to unserved or underserved areas, you'll advocate exactly what "Connected Nation" does: map the general coverage areas but aggregate the information so that it cannot be used to harm competition. It just makes sense.

NetAdmin1
CCNA
join:2008-05-22

NetAdmin1

Member

Re: Karl, why are you coming out against competition?

said by SuperWISP:

There's a good reason why ISPs -- especially small, rural, and competitive ISPs -- do not want precise maps of their coverage areas published: it enables anticompetitive tactics.
If everyone one knows where everyone else's coverage areas and gaps are, everyone is on a level playing field. Competition would actually be encouraged and providers begin chasing under or unserved customers.
SuperWISP
join:2007-04-17
Laramie, WY

SuperWISP

Member

Re: Karl, why are you coming out against competition?

If everyone knows the exact extent of everyone else's coverage area, it doesn't create a level playing field. Large corporations with deep pockets are in a much better position to exploit that data in anticompetitive ways than smaller ones. My ISP doesn't target areas where the "big guys" do business for predatory pricing or similar tactics; we can't afford to, and besides, we play fair. But the incumbent telephone and cable companies have no scruples about doing this. In fact, we see them doing it all the time.

Think of the mapping effort as a sort of census. (There is, in fact, a site called "BroadbandCensus.com" which was mentioned in a comment below the Public Knowledge blog posting.) In a real census, it is well known that people will not report accurate information (or even answer the door when the census taker comes) if they believe that sensitive personal information will be published, or even warehoused and possibly be released at any time in the near future. Even when the e government does make assurances that data will be released only in aggregated form, many people belonging to certain groups — such as Hispanics (including those with legal residence and/or citizenship) and more recently Muslims — believe that the risk is too great that the data will get out or be abused, and do not report.

Now, think about what it might be like for a small businessperson, in a line of business where anticompetitive tactics are rampant and government protection of competitors is nil, to be asked to participate in a "census" where detailed data about his or her would be published, not anonymized, and not aggregated. This person’s livelihood and personal fortune are at stake here, in a way that you could not imagine unless you yourself had skin in the game.

We must respect the hard working people who are out there actually deploying broadband to unserved areas, many of whom are justifiably worried that a huge megacorporation will find a way to squash them or "cut off their air supply"
(as a Microsoft exec once famously put it). Every day, I work incredibly hard, against incredible odds, to keep my ISP business running and my customers satisfied. Should the government be gathering competitive intelligence for large corporations that want to put me out of business? I think not. If you want to see more competition and better coverage, don't harm competitors by enabling anticompetitive tactics.

NetAdmin1
CCNA
join:2008-05-22

NetAdmin1

Member

Re: Karl, why are you coming out against competition?

said by SuperWISP:

Should the government be gathering competitive intelligence for large corporations that want to put me out of business?
Government should be giving everyone access to pertinent and accurate information. Having accurate information available to everyone is just as important as allowing Mom and Pop providers to have breathing space. It doesn't need to say that ISP X services area Y, but people need to know that street A in town B has service while street B in town B doesn't have service.
SuperWISP
join:2007-04-17
Laramie, WY

SuperWISP

Member

Re: Karl, why are you coming out against competition?

said by NetAdmin1:

Government should be giving everyone access to pertinent and accurate information.
Yes, but it should be selective about what information it gives out. I doubt that you would like it too much if, for instance, it published your tax return.
said by NetAdmin1:

Having accurate information available to everyone is just as important as allowing Mom and Pop providers to have breathing space. It doesn't need to say that ISP X services area Y, but people need to know that street A in town B has service while street B in town B doesn't have service.
It might well say that. However, as a WISP, I can tell you that we don't go street by street. We go square mile by square mile. And if you're on the edge of our range or behind an obsruction, we can usually beef up your antenna or install a relay. So, if the neighborhood has service from a WISP, you don't have to worry about that sort of granularity. Zip codes are good enough.

NetAdmin1
CCNA
join:2008-05-22

NetAdmin1

Member

Re: Karl, why are you coming out against competition?

said by SuperWISP:

Zip codes are good enough.
Not necessarily. Some zip codes are large enough that one half of the zip code may be able to receive service and the other half can not. That's the problem with the current mapping system - one person able to get broadband in a zip code qualifies the whole zip code as broadband capable.
SuperWISP
join:2007-04-17
Laramie, WY

SuperWISP

Member

Re: Karl, why are you coming out against competition?

said by NetAdmin1:

Some zip codes are large enough that one half of the zip code may be able to receive service and the other half can not.
This has nothing to do with the size of the Zip Code. Someone who is behind a tall building or lots of trees might not be able to receive service (or not easily, anyway) due to the obstruction. It's pointless to try to determine this in advance. Instead, map the general area and let the user call providers, who will bend over backward to find a way to serve the customer.

NetAdmin1
CCNA
join:2008-05-22

NetAdmin1

Member

Re: Karl, why are you coming out against competition?

said by SuperWISP:
said by NetAdmin1:

Some zip codes are large enough that one half of the zip code may be able to receive service and the other half can not.
This has nothing to do with the size of the Zip Code.
The size of a zip absolutely is relevant if you are going to map availability by zip code. Just because some people in a zip code can receive service doesn't mean everyone in a zip code can. There are zip codes that are larger than a hundred square miles.
Someone who is behind a tall building or lots of trees might not be able to receive service (or not easily, anyway) due to the obstruction.
That only matters if you are talking ONLY about wireless providers. The topic at hand isn't just wireless providers.
SuperWISP
join:2007-04-17
Laramie, WY

SuperWISP

Member

Re: Karl, why are you coming out against competition?

said by NetAdmin1:

That only matters if you are talking ONLY about wireless providers.
If more than one provider serves that area, then (again) it's the aggregate coverage area that matters. Which is my point. Don't compromise providers' proprietary information, and put them at risk, by publishing that information.

NetAdmin1
CCNA
join:2008-05-22

NetAdmin1

Member

Re: Karl, why are you coming out against competition?

said by SuperWISP:

Don't compromise providers' proprietary information, and put them at risk, by publishing that information.
Coverage isn't proprietary information. That's the problem I see with your reasoning. On the contrary, most providers put their coverage information in the public realm to be used by potential consumers.
SuperWISP
join:2007-04-17
Laramie, WY

SuperWISP

Member

Re: Karl, why are you coming out against competition?

Coverage is very proprietary information. Neither the large nor the small providers publish it, though for different reasons. The telcos, for example, don't do it because they need to qualify lines for DSL. And small providers (or savvy ones, at any rate) don't do it because they know that it will subject them to anticompetitive practices.

NetAdmin1
CCNA
join:2008-05-22

1 edit

NetAdmin1

Member

Re: Karl, why are you coming out against competition?

said by SuperWISP:

Coverage is very proprietary information.
Dozens of websites and broadband service search tools prove otherwise. The fact that I can search for broadband service at all without having to call in and jump through hoops illustrates that coverage information is not "very proprietary". You might act like your coverage information needs to be a state secret, but other providers publish coverage information so that potential customers can easily determine if service is available.
SuperWISP
join:2007-04-17
Laramie, WY

SuperWISP

Member

Re: Karl, why are you coming out against competition?

Sorry, but that's simply incorrect. They'll let you input a telephone number and try to qualify the pair for DSL. But won't reveal, geographically, where each number is located, so you cannot map out their coverage block by block or address by address.

Kindly don't mess with our business. It's precarious enough for us and for other competitive ISPs to compete with companies tens of thousands our size. We, and the public, don't need or want you to use the government's guns to help those large companies to destroy competition.

NetAdmin1
CCNA
join:2008-05-22

NetAdmin1

Member

Re: Karl, why are you coming out against competition?

said by SuperWISP:

Sorry, but that's simply incorrect. They'll let you input a telephone number and try to qualify the pair for DSL. But won't reveal, geographically, where each number is located, so you cannot map out their coverage block by block or address by address.
That's for DSL only. Other services, including wireless providers actually have coverage maps available on their websites. Whether you believe that fact or not doesn't change it.

Seriously, look at:
»www.wirelessmapping.com/ ··· 0Map.png
»www.clearwire.com/store/ ··· reas.php
»aircanopy.net/services
Kindly don't mess with our business.
Mapping availability isn't messing with anyone's business.
SuperWISP
join:2007-04-17
Laramie, WY

SuperWISP

Member

Re: Karl, why are you coming out against competition?

That's a perfect example of the right way to do wireless mapping. The data is aggregated. You can't deduce the location of any one provider's site, or determine its exact coverage area, from the map.
said by NetAdmin1:

Mapping availability isn't messing with anyone's business.
Yes, it is. It's setting large competitors up to harm us. Again, you obviously know nothing about this business and have no knowledge of what WISPs face. Kindly show some respect for the hard working people who are risking everything to get people access to competitive broadband.

NetAdmin1
CCNA
join:2008-05-22

NetAdmin1

Member

Re: Karl, why are you coming out against competition?

said by SuperWISP:

Yes, it is. It's setting large competitors up to harm us.
If large providers wanted to be in areas that you covered, they would have already been there, long before you were. Small WISPs thrive because large providers don't want to serve those areas because the CAPEX of building out to those areas is too high. That is a fact.

Mapping who and where WISPs serve don't change the fact that the CAPEX is too high and isn't worth it to larger providers. No company is going to spend millions or billions to wire an area if they will never see a reasonable return on the investment.
Again, you obviously know nothing about this business and have no knowledge of what WISPs face.
I do work in the business, at one of the large telecom companies you blithely rail against.

If you think that mapping availability is suddenly going to make large providers come into your area, you obviously don't know anything about how wireline providers work.
SuperWISP
join:2007-04-17
Laramie, WY

SuperWISP

Member

Re: Karl, why are you coming out against competition?

said by NetAdmin1:

I do work in the business, at one of the large telecom companies you blithely rail against.
Ah, there's your motivation. You want the government to force us to reveal proprietary information so that you can try to run us out of business. Nuff sed. Game over.

NetAdmin1
CCNA
join:2008-05-22

NetAdmin1

Member

Re: Karl, why are you coming out against competition?

said by SuperWISP:
said by NetAdmin1:

I do work in the business, at one of the large telecom companies you blithely rail against.
Ah, there's your motivation. You want the government to force us to reveal proprietary information so that you can try to run us out of business. Nuff sed. Game over.
So, not only do you know nothing about the business of being a large ISP, you also have ESP? I'm amazed. You don't have a clue about my motivations.

If you smart enough to look beyond blind hatred of the big boys, you would see that mapping out availability could actually help you out.

But you don't want to hear it because you think everyone is ganged up in some big business conspiracy to put you out of business. Like I said, if Qwest wanted to put you out of business, they already would be in your area. The fact that you don't have any major competition is a clue that Qwest isn't interested in your area.

And contrary to what you believe, your potential competitors already know more about your coverage than you think.

Wispa Member
@rapidsys.com

Wispa Member

Anon

Service Providers do show coverage maps

»www.wirelessmapping.com/ ··· 0Map.htm
SuperWISP
join:2007-04-17
Laramie, WY

SuperWISP

Member

Re: Service Providers do show coverage maps

The map at the site you mention intentionally does not show individual WISPs' coverage area. Many of the WISPs who gave Brian Webster, the author of the map, their coverage information did so only on the condition that it be aggregated with other data so that the exact extent of their coverage areas could not be identified. And quite a few gave only Zip Codes.

There are good reasons for that. Fellow WISPs (including some who have posted about it on this site) report that when they expand into a new area, the incumbent telephone monopoly follows, as soon as it finds out, with remote DSL terminals and begins offering "loss leader" deals. And I’ve seen my own wireless sites targeted for illegal interference by less-than-savory wireless competitors.

MadixBM
@Level3.net

MadixBM

Anon

Progress isnt socialism

People automatically assume that government spending like this is socialism. If it wasn't for progressive moves like this there wouldn't be highways to most of the country and in all likelihood most of the US would still be inhabited by its native people.

Think of it like simulation a game. Cities cant progress without the proper infrastructure.