Mike: You've identified a huge problem. I'm working with a county in Texas right now where the FCC map shows just a little over 1,000 homes that are grant eligible, almost all shown as underserved. When you back out a fixed wireless provider that is claiming 100/20 Mbps coverage using unlicensed spectrum, the actual count of grant eligible goes over 6,000, mostly unserved. This County is not an unusual situation and I see this same kind of thing repeated all over the country. I have no faith that the latest FCC map is anywhere close to right since ISPs are able to invent any marketing speed they want to claim. While the magnitude is not as large as the wireless issue, I'm still finding pockets of DSL that are also claimed as served.
Doug, I thought unlicensed fixed wireless doesn’t qualify as being considered served? That being the case, why should the Texas example matter? Those 6000 homes, by definition, are unserved according to the rules.
This is where it gets hairy. The licensed fixed wireless is a BEAD rule, not an FCC rule. The FCC is not making this distinction in it's maps and counts because these same maps are also used for other grants like ReConnect that have different rules for counting unserved and underserved. I assume that the NTIA will make this adjustment to the FCC numbers - but it's not as easy to do this as you might think. This whole mapping thing is enough to make your head hurt.
Our first State to file in Federal Court! I see a number of States following with a class action lawsuit established. The ISPs will settle quickly as they don’t want to endure discovery which will document decades of deceptive advertising and their control of the FCC and other agencies. This entire process has been choreographed from the outset with a big middle finger to Congress particularly the 70 Senators who signed onto the Broadband Data Act. They are an independent regulatory agency with taxing authority so there is little Congress can do! It’s going to be up to each state to establish transparency and oversight. You want to do business in Michigan then you need to be surprise tested just like gas station pumps or the weighing machines at the grocery stores or the electricity/natural gas that comes to your home or business. Time to end this good old boy party.
Got it, thanks! So for the "first look" you published yesterday, what's the source of your total BSL counts?
I am trying to get total BSL counts, but the only files I can seem to find (publicly, without access to Fabric) are the by-state-and-technology ones on the Data Download page of the broadband map, which seem to only include BSL served by that given technology.
In other words, I am having trouble finding the denominator in the "served BSLs/total BSLs" equation.
Mike: You've identified a huge problem. I'm working with a county in Texas right now where the FCC map shows just a little over 1,000 homes that are grant eligible, almost all shown as underserved. When you back out a fixed wireless provider that is claiming 100/20 Mbps coverage using unlicensed spectrum, the actual count of grant eligible goes over 6,000, mostly unserved. This County is not an unusual situation and I see this same kind of thing repeated all over the country. I have no faith that the latest FCC map is anywhere close to right since ISPs are able to invent any marketing speed they want to claim. While the magnitude is not as large as the wireless issue, I'm still finding pockets of DSL that are also claimed as served.
Doug, I thought unlicensed fixed wireless doesn’t qualify as being considered served? That being the case, why should the Texas example matter? Those 6000 homes, by definition, are unserved according to the rules.
This is where it gets hairy. The licensed fixed wireless is a BEAD rule, not an FCC rule. The FCC is not making this distinction in it's maps and counts because these same maps are also used for other grants like ReConnect that have different rules for counting unserved and underserved. I assume that the NTIA will make this adjustment to the FCC numbers - but it's not as easy to do this as you might think. This whole mapping thing is enough to make your head hurt.
Our first State to file in Federal Court! I see a number of States following with a class action lawsuit established. The ISPs will settle quickly as they don’t want to endure discovery which will document decades of deceptive advertising and their control of the FCC and other agencies. This entire process has been choreographed from the outset with a big middle finger to Congress particularly the 70 Senators who signed onto the Broadband Data Act. They are an independent regulatory agency with taxing authority so there is little Congress can do! It’s going to be up to each state to establish transparency and oversight. You want to do business in Michigan then you need to be surprise tested just like gas station pumps or the weighing machines at the grocery stores or the electricity/natural gas that comes to your home or business. Time to end this good old boy party.
hey Mike, had gotten a link to https://us-fcc.app.box.com/v/BSLFabricByGeography
from a previous post on your Substack
do you by chance have a link to those files for V2 of the Fabric? having trouble tracking those down
I’m anxious for those files too. I heard they’d be published in June sometime
Got it, thanks! So for the "first look" you published yesterday, what's the source of your total BSL counts?
I am trying to get total BSL counts, but the only files I can seem to find (publicly, without access to Fabric) are the by-state-and-technology ones on the Data Download page of the broadband map, which seem to only include BSL served by that given technology.
In other words, I am having trouble finding the denominator in the "served BSLs/total BSLs" equation.