Unfortunately, the FCC is about to award $20.4 billion in RDOF grants later this year based solely on these dreadful maps. Luckily, there are other grant programs that allow grant applicants to challenge the FCC data. This includes the USDA ReConnect grants and many of the state grant programs.
One of the few ways to challenge the FCC maps is with speed tests. Anybody undertaking such a challenge needs to be aware that the incumbent telcos might challenge your speed test results, and unfortunately, some of their criticisms will be right. This means that anybody challenging the FCC maps has to take some steps to maximize the effectiveness of speed tests. Here are a few aspects of administering speed tests that should be considered.
- A speed test needs to distinguish between cellular and landline connections. Rural folks with no broadband connection or those using cellular for home broadband are going to take the test with their cellphone. While such results are interesting, cellular speed tests can’t be mixed into a challenge of landline broadband coverage.
- Everybody needs to use the identical speed test because each speed test measures speed using a different algorithm. Never use a speed test from the incumbents – it might be baked to show too good results.
- A challenge can be most effective if it can get feedback from folks with no broadband available at their home. You need to somehow solicit and include results from folks that can’t take the speed tests.
- You also should be aware a speed test sometimes doesn’t work for somebody with really slow broadband or high latency. We recently sat on the phone with somebody using satellite broadband and they couldn’t get the speed test to complete, even after many attempts.
- The biggest challenge is in mapping the results. If you map the results so precisely that the results can be overlaid on individual homes on Google Earth, then you have provided an incumbent ISP the chance to challenge the test results. They can likely identify homes where they aren’t the ISP, or homes that have broadband that meets the FCC speed thresholds, meaning that slow speed test results might be due to poor WiFi or some other reason. Ultra-precise mapping might also violate the privacy of the people taking the speed test, This is an issue that many state speed test programs have wrestled with – some of them take such care to mask the precise location of the data that their final product can’t be used to challenge the FCC maps. For example, if speed test results are summarized by Census blocks then the results incorporate the same kinds of problems that are included in the FCC maps. Probably the best approach is to embed the final results in a pdf that is of low enough resolution to not identify individual homes.
There is one other way to map broadband coverage. An experienced field technician or engineer can drive around an area and can identify every broadband asset in the field. They can precisely identify where the cable TV networks end, down to the house. They can identify field DSLAMs that generate DSL signals out of rural cabinets – and they can often precisely identify the flavor of DSL and know the maximum speed capability of a given unit. They can identify the location and height of wireless transmitters and can map out the likely coverage areas. This kind of effort is most effective at identifying where there is no broadband, A good technician can make a decent map of the likely maximum broadband speeds available in a given area – something that is rarely achieved on most rural networks. This kind of challenge could be expensive and time-consuming, and I’ve never seen a challenge done this way. But I know engineers and technicians capable of making highly accurate maps.
Communities can tackle speed tests – they can get households to take the same speed test, such as the speed test from Ookla, and then match and map the results using GIS data. This can be a lot of work. Mapping can also be provided by many telecom engineering companies. One of the lowest-costs solutions is a speed test by Neo Partners that administers the speed test and overlays the speed test results automatically on Google maps.
Even if you aren’t challenging a grant, communities ought to consider speed tests to better understand the broadband in their community. As an example, I worked for a city where the speed tests showed that one neighborhood had far slower speeds than the rest of the city – something the city hadn’t known before the speed test. We’ve done speed tests that showed that the incumbent was delivering more than the advertised speed – again, something worth knowing.
8 replies on “Challenging the FCC Broadband Maps”
In Maine, providers are teaching community members how to go out and “read” poles. Turns out there are many retirees who love the process of driving around their town looking up.
As a guy who is always looking up at the poles I love that!
On behalf of Blandin Foundation, I examined two CAF II deployments in east central Minnesota, ultimately driving down roads, following the orange and white fiber markers to both old and newly deployed DSLAMs. By mapping the DSLAMs and drawing simple 3,000 and 10,000 foot circles around them, we had a rough estimate of rural broadband speeds. This approach probably overstates DSL service quality due to the poor quality of some of the existing last mile copper and the indirect routing of those copper lines. You can find the report here: https://blandinfoundation.org/content/uploads/Impact-of-CAF-II-funded-Networks_WEB.pdf
The Vermont Department of Public Service conducted a mobile wireless drive test for Vermont back in 2018. The Department published a report and an interactive map, both of which are on their website:
I have also been doing some work in WV and I know there is a problem, but until we change the process to collect data by polygons, at least, instead of Census Blocks, there is very little I can do to improve what is being reported to the FCC. there are a lot of Census Block where my client can serve well less than 10% of the land area in a Census Block, but they can serve one or more locations. The FCC 477 rules require the Census Block to be reported when at least one location can be served in accordance with FCC guidelines. In some cases, they may be able to serve all the actual locations, but not land area. In other cases, they may only serve the locations on one side of a mountain and not on the other, but the Census Block covers both. I am accumulating the data by location, but don’t have any way to report it, so am looking forward to providing better mapping so dollars can be better spent. There are many areas that could be served fairly economically, but in many cases you cannot build a business case to serve the entire Census Block Group.
I know where a lot of locations that want service, that are not economical to build, even with the support. I provided one potential customer an estimate of $140,000 to serve him and some additional to serve about 6 locations. He offered to help, but only a couple of thousand dollars. There are locations where it would take 12+ miles of construction to get to one location in a Census Block and it would require building through an additional county to get there. One suggestion the FCC made a long time ago was to go to the carriers closest to the customers and make them an offer. That makes a lot of sense because they already have the infrastructure built nearby and don’t need middle mile, etc. to be overbuilt.
The UK uses vouchers to build the demand for the ‘band –
Government Changes UK Gigabit Broadband Voucher Rules https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2020/01/government-changes-uk-gigabit-broadband-voucher-rules.html | Government Launch £67m UK Gigabit Broadband Voucher Scheme https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2018/03/government-launch-67m-uk-gigabit-broadband-voucher-scheme.html | Gigabit Broadband Voucher Scheme (GBVS) – UK
Are we not doing a national census in 2020? Why not just add a field?
I would love to see a techie implement M-Lab speed tests on Tomato and DD-WRT type open source router firmwares. That would allow for more reliable tests because the router knows if any other applications are using the network at the time AND avoids the possibility of bad in-home wireless biasing the results.