With $37 billion of the $42 billion BEAD program based on the number of locations unserved by broadband, accurately measuring who is unserved is critical — both for the allocation of funds but more importantly so people without access to real broadband can be connected. In this post, I’ll look at what happens if certain suspect service offering were counted as unserved. Overall, there are 2,043,676 locations that are unserved but for the presence of a fixed wireless or DSL service that claims to deliver 25 Mbps download and 3 Mbps upload on the number (max advertised speed = 25/3 exactly).
It's funny because for months (years?) my colleagues at PAgCASA have spoken about using hardware devices to complement the browser based speed tests.
We always thought that the FCC and ISPs would challenge the tests, because that's been the previous history.
I thought it was mighty bold of so many businesses to do broadband mapping via browser tests with the understanding that the data would be submissible.
That felt like just whistling past the graveyard and ignoring the part of the business model that they did not want to see.
What's the solution? Verify the maps with hardware instruments that are beyond scrutiny of the FCC/ISPs. Human error is tied inextricably with browser tests - they are good for understanding where a problem is, but the final numbers should come from instruments that eliminate the errors in having humans doing browser tests.
The FCC disallowing speed tests is not logical or practical. This applies regardless of the provider "source".
At a more simple logical level, If you cant measure you cant manage. What is the metric if speed tests are not the measure? The current "service" model doesn't make any sense.
It is similar to saying a speedometer isnt accurate because the tire size may vary, and the speedomter isnt 100% accurate. Without an independent measure we cant know what service level actually is.
Treating speed tests with a grain of salt is totally acceptable. We look at samples and if we see a mix of "served" "underserved" and "unserved" (by our definition) we can be sure services are available because some is visible - and there are always variables.
Perhaps they require 10% or even 20% sample rates? Or multiple samples at different times of day and days of week? All providing statistically supportable empirical evidence.
With a 10%+ sample size I believe Brown County can prove that service in specific areas is well below the 25/3 advertised threshold (if we are allowed). We also identify where we need more samples to be sure we are exceeding 10% sample rates. Being rigorous for Speed Tests is good, but denying speed tests leaves a hole.
It's funny because for months (years?) my colleagues at PAgCASA have spoken about using hardware devices to complement the browser based speed tests.
We always thought that the FCC and ISPs would challenge the tests, because that's been the previous history.
I thought it was mighty bold of so many businesses to do broadband mapping via browser tests with the understanding that the data would be submissible.
That felt like just whistling past the graveyard and ignoring the part of the business model that they did not want to see.
What's the solution? Verify the maps with hardware instruments that are beyond scrutiny of the FCC/ISPs. Human error is tied inextricably with browser tests - they are good for understanding where a problem is, but the final numbers should come from instruments that eliminate the errors in having humans doing browser tests.
Excellent article as always. Now my 2 cents.
The FCC disallowing speed tests is not logical or practical. This applies regardless of the provider "source".
At a more simple logical level, If you cant measure you cant manage. What is the metric if speed tests are not the measure? The current "service" model doesn't make any sense.
It is similar to saying a speedometer isnt accurate because the tire size may vary, and the speedomter isnt 100% accurate. Without an independent measure we cant know what service level actually is.
Treating speed tests with a grain of salt is totally acceptable. We look at samples and if we see a mix of "served" "underserved" and "unserved" (by our definition) we can be sure services are available because some is visible - and there are always variables.
Perhaps they require 10% or even 20% sample rates? Or multiple samples at different times of day and days of week? All providing statistically supportable empirical evidence.
In Brown County WI if we see areas where every single test is well below 25mbps (in some cases below 5mbs) that leads to the conclusion that that area is UNSERVED by our definition and 99% chance it is actually unserved by the IIJA definition. https://browncounty.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=ae44a0c299554f7ea4e2561d82700451
With a 10%+ sample size I believe Brown County can prove that service in specific areas is well below the 25/3 advertised threshold (if we are allowed). We also identify where we need more samples to be sure we are exceeding 10% sample rates. Being rigorous for Speed Tests is good, but denying speed tests leaves a hole.
Thoughts?