21–30 of 67 posts
It's hard for me to take this data seriously when I enter an address that I know to be problematic for cellular coverage and receive "100% coverage" on the mobile broadband tab, and listed with carriers I know to have zero outdoor coverage at the location.
It's hard for me to take this data seriously when I enter an address that I know to be problematic for cellular coverage and receive "100% coverage" on the mobile broadband tab, and listed with carriers I know to have zero outdoor coverage at the location.
It's hard for me to take this data seriously when I enter an address that I know to be problematic for cellular coverage and receive "100% coverage" on the mobile broadband tab, and listed with carriers I know to have zero outdoor coverage at the location.
Same. This map isn’t accurate. Areas I know have no cell phone coverage are marked as 100% covered. Areas I know that don’t have cable broadband show 100% covered. It’s complete BS.
It's hard for me to take this data seriously when I enter an address that I know to be problematic for cellular coverage and receive "100% coverage" on the mobile broadband tab, and listed with carriers I know to have zero outdoor coverage at the location.
It's hard for me to take this data seriously when I enter an address that I know to be problematic for cellular coverage and receive "100% coverage" on the mobile broadband tab, and listed with carriers I know to have zero outdoor coverage at the location.
This is so much bullshit. Satellite coverage should not be counted, because that requires a clear view of the sky. My property and most others in this area are covered in forest, so those options are right out. My only options are terrestrial, where the highest listed speed is 10Mbps. It is not fair for my local ISP to compete against entities that cannot possibly serve the same address.
That's like saying it's bullshit because you have to put up a pole or dig a trench to get a wire from the road to your house to get fiber. Or that solar irradiance maps are bullshit because you have trees. The provider gets the service to your property, its not their issue you have to modify your property to get it to your house and your equipment. Cut some trees down and or put the receiver up higher if you want to…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Same. This map isn’t accurate. Areas I know have no cell phone coverage are marked as 100% covered. Areas I know that don’t have cable broadband show 100% covered. It’s complete BS.
Report it up the chain. This is a map based on ISP-reported data. If there data is bad, the FCC can investigate. But the FCC isn't going to prove the reported data.
Let that sink in.
National Broadband Internet Service Availability Map
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's like saying it's bullshit because you have to put up a pole or dig a trench to get a wire from the road to your house to get fiber. Or that solar irradiance maps are bullshit because you have trees. The provider gets the service to your property, its not their issue you have to modify your property to get it to your house and your equipment. Cut some trees down and or put the receiver up higher if you want to…
Satellite doesn't deliver to wooded property, that's not a realistic form of broadband access and shouldn't be counted in the coverage statistics. We deliver electricity to every household in America but somehow the corrupt land-line providers and their FCC apologists can't deliver terrestrial broadband on top of the same infrastructure.
You can cut trees down if you want satellite or solar, this is not impossible to do. You can dig a trench to run fiber from the road, but might be difficult if the ground has large boulders in it, you can run fiber on poles if you cut trees down to make room.