Interesting. I agree that a lot of locations that are still listed as unserved will not be expensive to deploy or may already be served. If states are just counting locations at this point, they may be pleasantly surprised at how far their funds will go. Hopefully a lot of situations like this will be addressed in the BEAD challenge process by the local communities and ISPs that serve there. In fact, I would bet that some of these will be resolved on the next FCC map. The BDC filing window just closed, and the next map should be out in about two months.
In looking at the map, I agree that Altice made a mistake in their previous BDC filing and only reported customers instead of locations they can provide service. I don't know about the farm, but I would say all or most of those locations in that area that are red are actually passed by Altice and already served.
In Anthony, FL, it looks like they've got Lumen there with DSL. In some places it's listed over 25x3, and in others 10 x 1 or less than a meg. That would depend on how far the subscriber is from the DSLAM. Lumen should be able to easily qualify for BEAD funding there, and with an existing subscriber base and infrastructure, it should not be a high cost per location relatively speaking. I wouldn't be surprised if the possibility of getting BEAD funding has stopped private investment in some areas like this. If an existing service providers doesn't have a wired competitor moving in, they may be waiting to see if they can get a BEAD grant to help upgrade their infrastructure to fiber.
In Wylie, TX, I see one area where it looks like either some reporting errors, long-driveway problems or maybe both. In looking at the satellite, I think it might be mostly the latter, where Charter is serving nearby homes, while some homes further off the road do not have service. They may have a high install fee for those locations that some paid, and others won't. It would be good if states addressed that with providers. Maybe they could say something like: "If you want BEAD funding to service these other areas in our state, you need to commit to connect all of these one-off locations that are already within your service area that do not have service, and for no more than your standard installation fee." I also see a dense neighborhood near there that is about 25% covered by Charter, and those are all clustered together on the north and east side of the neighborhood, so it's possible that they are in the midst of deploying cable modem service there. That neighborhood also seems to be on the cusp of where Frontier and Charter meet. Frontier serves the locations on the west side of the main road with fiber, and Charter services locations on the north and east side of that neighborhood.
In Troy, AL, it does look like Troy Cable should be able to serve the locations that are listed as not served. That could also be a BDC reporting error that will be resolved in the next map.
You are right about all of these. However, you're hoping that states will take the time to resolve what you have described as hundreds of thousands of similar issues. I think states are going to be under so much pressure to get the BEAD money out the door in 2024 that they are not going to have to time to get this granular.
You are also not mentioning the reverse of this situation. I still think there are a big number of locations that are shown as served on the FCC broadband map, but which aren't. I'm curious about how many state broadband offices are going to accept factual challenges to such locations to be brought into the grant program?
I fear you are right - that pressure to get the money out the door, and a general lack of understanding of the granularity, and a steady drum beat of press about "super expensive locations" means that states will vastly overpay and run out of money.
On the second point, I'm in favor of a technology-aware approach that considers anything cable or fiber served, and anything else Underserved. Ship has sailed on that though. But yeah we need to do more to make sure coverage filings are achievable.
Interesting. I agree that a lot of locations that are still listed as unserved will not be expensive to deploy or may already be served. If states are just counting locations at this point, they may be pleasantly surprised at how far their funds will go. Hopefully a lot of situations like this will be addressed in the BEAD challenge process by the local communities and ISPs that serve there. In fact, I would bet that some of these will be resolved on the next FCC map. The BDC filing window just closed, and the next map should be out in about two months.
In looking at the map, I agree that Altice made a mistake in their previous BDC filing and only reported customers instead of locations they can provide service. I don't know about the farm, but I would say all or most of those locations in that area that are red are actually passed by Altice and already served.
In Anthony, FL, it looks like they've got Lumen there with DSL. In some places it's listed over 25x3, and in others 10 x 1 or less than a meg. That would depend on how far the subscriber is from the DSLAM. Lumen should be able to easily qualify for BEAD funding there, and with an existing subscriber base and infrastructure, it should not be a high cost per location relatively speaking. I wouldn't be surprised if the possibility of getting BEAD funding has stopped private investment in some areas like this. If an existing service providers doesn't have a wired competitor moving in, they may be waiting to see if they can get a BEAD grant to help upgrade their infrastructure to fiber.
In Wylie, TX, I see one area where it looks like either some reporting errors, long-driveway problems or maybe both. In looking at the satellite, I think it might be mostly the latter, where Charter is serving nearby homes, while some homes further off the road do not have service. They may have a high install fee for those locations that some paid, and others won't. It would be good if states addressed that with providers. Maybe they could say something like: "If you want BEAD funding to service these other areas in our state, you need to commit to connect all of these one-off locations that are already within your service area that do not have service, and for no more than your standard installation fee." I also see a dense neighborhood near there that is about 25% covered by Charter, and those are all clustered together on the north and east side of the neighborhood, so it's possible that they are in the midst of deploying cable modem service there. That neighborhood also seems to be on the cusp of where Frontier and Charter meet. Frontier serves the locations on the west side of the main road with fiber, and Charter services locations on the north and east side of that neighborhood.
In Troy, AL, it does look like Troy Cable should be able to serve the locations that are listed as not served. That could also be a BDC reporting error that will be resolved in the next map.
You are right about all of these. However, you're hoping that states will take the time to resolve what you have described as hundreds of thousands of similar issues. I think states are going to be under so much pressure to get the BEAD money out the door in 2024 that they are not going to have to time to get this granular.
You are also not mentioning the reverse of this situation. I still think there are a big number of locations that are shown as served on the FCC broadband map, but which aren't. I'm curious about how many state broadband offices are going to accept factual challenges to such locations to be brought into the grant program?
Doug Dawson
I fear you are right - that pressure to get the money out the door, and a general lack of understanding of the granularity, and a steady drum beat of press about "super expensive locations" means that states will vastly overpay and run out of money.
On the second point, I'm in favor of a technology-aware approach that considers anything cable or fiber served, and anything else Underserved. Ship has sailed on that though. But yeah we need to do more to make sure coverage filings are achievable.