The base layer for the new FCC broadband maps is a “Fabric” of serviceable locations on top of which ISP service data is overlaid. The process is so new that everyone involved has been going to great lengths to lower expectations. I’ve long planned to use the 2020 Census as a source of “ground truth” for the new maps. That analysis is now possible. While there are some caveats, in America’s least dense 2,148 counties, there are 25.5 million Broadband Serviceable Locations compared to 24.5 million housing units according to the 2020 Census. This preliminary analysis should give comfort through the challenge process that rural America is not being wholesale underrepresented in the new maps.
Thanks so much for these posts, Mike. They're incredibly helpful as we digest the new maps and the challenge process. We've been using the workbook you created to build models to help us evaluate what the addition of unserved BSLs would mean for Maine and what kind of challenge strategy we'll need to roll out to achieve those goals.
The (multi) million dollar question seems to be: What is the national average of proportional unserved BSL additions that we need to stay ahead of to ensure that we can increase (or at the very least, maintain) our BEAD allocation? In your eyes, is this the right question to be asking?
That sounds like the right direction, yeah. Here's how I'd put it: you have 0.41% of the unserved BSLs. If NY adds 15,000 and you add 0, you're on the losing end. If you add 62 (0.41% * 15000), you're at par with NY's adds (NY still gains, you are basically +/- $0). So you need to stay above .41% * net adds nationally...but we don't know what that net add number is going to be...
I don't think there's a magic number nationally to stay ahead of that we know right now?
Some states have started to share their total number of Type 1 location challenges, but without knowing how many of those were unserved locations, I don't think we have an accurate picture of how those impact BEAD allocations. Sounds like we need to start doing some more statewide challenge data sharing to establish a benchmark we can collectively work toward!
It's interesting to see what an increase of several % over the national average would potentially net a smaller state like Maine. The sad(?) realization that I came to is that the MORE successful we are in adding unserved locations through the challenge, the LESS we're actually going to receive per location to address the problem! We're committed to bringing connectivity to those folks regardless of the federal funding, but it's an interesting conundrum.
That is certainly true. Fixed amount of money and growing number of locations…less per location. Unfortunately others’ challenges have the same effect.
Thanks so much for these posts, Mike. They're incredibly helpful as we digest the new maps and the challenge process. We've been using the workbook you created to build models to help us evaluate what the addition of unserved BSLs would mean for Maine and what kind of challenge strategy we'll need to roll out to achieve those goals.
The (multi) million dollar question seems to be: What is the national average of proportional unserved BSL additions that we need to stay ahead of to ensure that we can increase (or at the very least, maintain) our BEAD allocation? In your eyes, is this the right question to be asking?
That sounds like the right direction, yeah. Here's how I'd put it: you have 0.41% of the unserved BSLs. If NY adds 15,000 and you add 0, you're on the losing end. If you add 62 (0.41% * 15000), you're at par with NY's adds (NY still gains, you are basically +/- $0). So you need to stay above .41% * net adds nationally...but we don't know what that net add number is going to be...
I don't think there's a magic number nationally to stay ahead of that we know right now?
Some states have started to share their total number of Type 1 location challenges, but without knowing how many of those were unserved locations, I don't think we have an accurate picture of how those impact BEAD allocations. Sounds like we need to start doing some more statewide challenge data sharing to establish a benchmark we can collectively work toward!
I've been playing with some models and national averages here. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1-OSWvjS4QTlxt8Da713J17QEXnNrj8y2xIXaRJ3oAQo/edit#gid=882436919
It's interesting to see what an increase of several % over the national average would potentially net a smaller state like Maine. The sad(?) realization that I came to is that the MORE successful we are in adding unserved locations through the challenge, the LESS we're actually going to receive per location to address the problem! We're committed to bringing connectivity to those folks regardless of the federal funding, but it's an interesting conundrum.
That is certainly true. Fixed amount of money and growing number of locations…less per location. Unfortunately others’ challenges have the same effect.