31–40 of 67 posts
Also the map is screwed up, as there is only "0%" and "100%" despite the scale having multiple values, they're never used.
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.
Wrote my thesis on US broadband the whole thing made my blood pressure go up.
In Wisconsin we have this map that I used heavily when searching for new apartments and house shopping. It has the ability to filter by wireline vs wireless and satellite, which is nice. https://maps.psc.wi.gov/apps/WisconsinBroadbandMap/
I wish datasets like this were more integrated into Zillow and friends; being able to see at a glance what the neighborhood is wired for would be quite nice. Often a few blocks can be the difference between DSL and gig fiber.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I successfully used this map to report my local ISP informally to the FCC to have them run service to my home - which they said they could not locate on this map. Let that sink in.
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.
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…
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.
You can dispute it if you are unable to get satellite service, or filter it appropriately to only include landline service.
Sorry, FCC, this map is less than worthless.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Solar doesn't deliver to a wooded property either, doesn't mean the solar maps are bullshit. 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.
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.
They opened up the map so that individuals could challenge the coverage they're reportedly getting. My data was largely accurate other than SpaceX reporting coverage for addresses that are still waitlisted, so I challenged those.