Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FCC Broadband Map

broadbandmap.fcc.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 67 posts

Re: FCC Broadband Map

#41

Post by focusedone »

davidjfelix wrote: post #35

What's going on in Bismarck, ND. If you set the map to wired 1000+ there's a huge radius of coverage and nothing down town. Light googling took me to BEK, a fiber coop in the area, but I can't reason with why there's no coverage in the city.

Likely there's an for-profit electric company covering the city or possibly a city-owned company. Most electric coops are in rural areas, so when they do FTTH it'll only run to their members over existing poles.

A huge barrier to getting FTTH is ROW negotiations and pole attachment costs. Coops don't have an issue adding fiber to their own poles but things get crazy quickly when they leave their footprint.

It sucks to be in a city with no FTTH options while coop members two miles away have gig for a reasonable price. Coop fiber is awesome and I wish everyone had access to it.

Re: FCC Broadband Map

#42

Post by eganist »

Lots of comments are misunderstanding the point of the map and think it's supposed to be perfectly accurate.

No, that's not at all the point. The point is to allow individuals and businesses to challenge telecom self-attestations of coverage that are likely suspect. So if e.g SpaceX says you're currently served by Starlink but it turns out Starlink is refusing you on their site until the middle of next year, you can challenge the accuracy of Starlink's coverage map.

Starlink used as an example. You can challenge anything, but so far I've had to challenge Starlink at every address I'm responsible for.

Over time the map should be reliable, but for now, look for the Location Challenge and Availability Challenge links to see your options if you think a provider is misrepresenting coverage.

Re: FCC Broadband Map

#43

Post by pxeboot »

pirate787 wrote: post #27
SigmundA wrote: post #19

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.

> We deliver electricity to every household in America

This is certainly not the case. There are many homes without electricity, especially in Alaska and other rural areas.

Re: FCC Broadband Map

#44

Post by Fatnino »

eganist wrote: post #40
jeffdubin wrote: post #15

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.

That's the whole point of the map. It's using data reported by telcos. 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.

What happens when the data is challenged? Is it corrected? Is the service provider fined?

Re: FCC Broadband Map

#45

Post by axus »

voakbasda wrote: post #38
ezfe wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can dispute it if you are unable to get satellite service, or filter it appropriately to only include landline service.

Apparently that means challenging each individual provider, and you must have tried to sign up with them and failed for them to take you seriously? Sorry, FCC, this map is less than worthless.

People without broadband will put in a lot of effort to find service. Before there was no way to challenge the local providers, now there is.

Re: FCC Broadband Map

#46

Post by eganist »

Fatnino wrote: post #44
eganist wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the whole point of the map. It's using data reported by telcos. 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.

What happens when the data is challenged? Is it corrected? Is the service provider fined?

No idea about fines but the FCC processed all my challenges and gave Starlink 60 days to respond.

We'll see what happens after.

Re: FCC Broadband Map

#48

Post by throwaway4PP »

Why, when I lookup my address, do I not see my regional cable internet provider? Yet, when I search that provider, their service availability is shown as 100% in the hexagon covering our home.

While I think I understand that the intention of this map is to document Telecom-asserted coverage such that users can contest inaccuracies, a beneficial flip-side (for me) is to ensure that my regional ISP is accurately represented.

I'll take a non-Comcast/Verizon/National ISP over a National any day of the week. I want their coverage to be accurately documented.

Re: FCC Broadband Map

#49

Post by killjoywashere »

The California Internet 1000/1000 struck me as an outlier. Seems to be coming from some company called Geolinks, which doesn't seem to actually be offering that. In fact, it's unclear they're actually offering anything at the moment, they just "plan to".

https://geolinks.com/caf-rates/

Re: FCC Broadband Map

#50

Post by ed312 »

lxe wrote: post #47

> 25/3 Mbps or greater "Broadband" from 2002

I wish they provided some justification for that target. IMO, "broadband access" should be defined as sufficient bandwidth for a family of 4 to simultaneously work/learn over video call with some slight overhead %. Ballpark 100mbps down 25 up.
Post reply on HN