My biggest concern after analyzing v1 of the National Broadband Map that came out last November was over 2 million locations that would have been Unserved but for the presence of a fixed wireless or DSL coverage filing at 25/3 exactly. Because the location was considered “Underserved” instead of “Unserved” the state wouldn’t get funding for that location. But that’s not usable broadband, and the states should fund upgrades to those homes, and their allocation from the federal government should reflect that. I’m happy to report that the new version of the National Broadband Map makes a lot of progress on this issue. Of the 2 million that were previously Underserved (and Unserved without the 25/3 coverage) 42% have moved to Unserved, and will be eligible for funding. Thirty-three percent are still Underserved, and 20% have moved to Served at 100/20 or better.
Mike: The problem is far from solved. It's absolutely impossible for a cellular company to be delivery at least 100/20 Mbps across large geographic areas. Speeds die within two miles or so of cell sites and 90% of these claimed speeds are completely bogus. This is an attempt by the cellular companies to squelch competition by denying grant funding to huge numbers of rural customers. To me, this is a bigger scandal than when CenturyLink and Frontier tried to switch tens of thousands of Census blocks to have 25/3 Mbps broadband on the even of allocating RDOF.
The drop in "Served" in North Carolina is almost entirely attributable to a drop of ~900,000 locations served by "UNITED STATES CELLULAR CORPORATION". Verizon also went down by ~80,000 houses served.
Edit: Oh gosh--you totally mentioned that in the article, my bad!
Yes Mike the cup is half full vs completely empty (see T-Mobile you referenced). But why do we have to endure this every funding cycle? What the ISPs "give" they will quickly take away when it benefits their bottom line. How about a Broadband Marketplace consumers trust? Novel idea right?
Mike: The problem is far from solved. It's absolutely impossible for a cellular company to be delivery at least 100/20 Mbps across large geographic areas. Speeds die within two miles or so of cell sites and 90% of these claimed speeds are completely bogus. This is an attempt by the cellular companies to squelch competition by denying grant funding to huge numbers of rural customers. To me, this is a bigger scandal than when CenturyLink and Frontier tried to switch tens of thousands of Census blocks to have 25/3 Mbps broadband on the even of allocating RDOF.
The drop in "Served" in North Carolina is almost entirely attributable to a drop of ~900,000 locations served by "UNITED STATES CELLULAR CORPORATION". Verizon also went down by ~80,000 houses served.
Edit: Oh gosh--you totally mentioned that in the article, my bad!
Yes Mike the cup is half full vs completely empty (see T-Mobile you referenced). But why do we have to endure this every funding cycle? What the ISPs "give" they will quickly take away when it benefits their bottom line. How about a Broadband Marketplace consumers trust? Novel idea right?