I haven’t written a blog about FCC mapping for a while, and it feels almost wrong not to go on record about mapping in the new year. My biggest current pet peeve about the FCC mapping is that the agency made the decision to give power over the mapping and map challenge process to CostQuest, an outside commercial vendor.
The FCC originally awarded CostQuest $44.9 million to create the broadband maps. Everybody I know who works with mapping thinks this is an exorbitant amount, but if this was the end of the mapping story, then congratulations to CostQuest for landing a lucrative federal contract – lots of other companies have made hay doing so over the years.
Unfortunately, this is only the beginning of the mapping story because the FCC gave CostQuest the ability to own the rights to the mapping fabric, which is the database that shows the location of every home and business in the country that is a potential broadband customer. This is a big deal because it means that CostQuest, a private company, controls the portal for data needed by the public to understand who has or doesn’t have broadband.
A case in point is that soon after CostQuest created the first FCC map, the company was hired by the NTIA to provide the databases and maps for the BEAD grant process for a price tag of $49.9 million – more than the FCC paid to create the maps. CostQuest will also sell access to the mapping fabric to others for a fee. I have to imagine that the FCC is also paying CostQuest a big fee twice a year to update the FCC maps and to process map challenges.
I’m just flabbergasted that there is a private company that holds the reins to the database of broadband availability and which only makes it available for a fee.
I can’t think of even one reason why the database created by CostQuest is not openly available to everybody. The taxpayers funded the collection of this data and paid CostQuest handsomely to organize it. For various reasons, the public can’t easily use the data. The FCC makes a snapshot of the data available to the public in the FCC broadband map and allows everybody to look at their home or any other home or neighborhood in the country. While that is useful information, the average person can’t do much more than that, and it is impossible to use the FCC map to fully understand broadband across a city, a county, or a region. To understand broadband in a city would require looking manually at each household and somehow digesting what it all means.
The fault for this lies squarely with the FCC. I can’t imagine how folks at the FCC could think it is reasonable to pay a vendor to create a database and then relinquish ownership of the database to the company that created it. I wouldn’t be bothered if the FCC created a long-term contract with CostQuest to update the database, although periodic competition for ongoing work would make sure the public gets a good deal.
Our industry is full of data geeks who could work wonders if they had free access to the mapping fabric database. There are citizen broadband committees and retired folks in every community who are willing to sift through the mapping data to understand broadband trends and to identify locations where ISPs have exaggerated coverage claims. But citizens willing to do this research are not going to pay the fees to get access to the data – and shouldn’t have to.
The FCC says that getting broadband to everybody is its most important mission. However, restricting access to mapping data doesn’t support that sentiment. It almost feels more like the FCC doesn’t want folks pointing out the many errors in the data, which is a shame. Nobody expected mapping data that is reported by ISPs to be accurate since ISPs all have their own agendas. When the new maps were created. I had high hopes that an army of volunteers could challenge the ISPs and set the record straight. It seems like the FCC went out of its way to make sure that doesn’t happen by giving a gatekeeper the ownership of the data.
Another item to add to your post – CostQuest will sell the data to broadband companies, but CostQuest still maintains the right to direct the use of that data.
Doug:
Are you (or someone else with your point of view) planning to mount a protest move and/or legal challenge to overturn this trrvesty??? If so, please count us in.
Tim & Leslie Nulty. (CEO, CFO and majority owners of Mansfield Community Broadband). I’ve got to believe that your view on this is widely shared(!!!)
regards
T & L
“I’m just flabbergasted that there is a private company that holds the reins to the database of broadband availability and which only makes it available for a fee.”
I’m not. It’s consistent with current U.S. telecom policy that views “broadband” bandwidth as a market commodity. Creating and selling proprietary market data and analysis is done in other industries as it is here.
Even when you have access to the underlying data, and can demonstrate errors, there is nothing you can do to compel the FCC or CostQuest to correct the errors. This isn’t a trivial matter. The errors are substantial.
From an email I sent to several people in 2020. Some of the original links are now dead so I have updated them.
TL;DR Read the last two paragraphs.
***** ***** *****
I watched a Congressional hearing last September (2019) where two of the witnesses discussed a shapefile and “fabric” method. One of them was a vendor, Costquest. Here are my notes (and a pertinent link) from that.
The witness representing the Internet and Television Association (aka cable) urges shapefiles. The witness representing US Telecom is proposing a proprietary method called “fabric.” They did a pilot project (with the witness from Costquest Associates) in Missouri and Virginia they claimed mapped and verified every serviceable structure in those two states; the entire country could be completed in 15 months for about $10M if Costquest Associates’ proprietary data is used/kept proprietary. It could be done in a slightly longer period of time and for a higher cost if the data needs to be open source (as is much publicly available government data provided by federal agencies). Costquest Associates submitted three Appendices to their testimony that provide more information about their methodology and some intriguing maps, graphs, etc.
The case was discussed that shapefiles could still be the quick route to an accurate map since the “fabric” could be overlain on the shapefiles.
• Shapefiles provide a boundary to a providers network (along with datafiles relevant within that boundary). Shapefiles would represent where broadband does exist.
• “Fabric” mapping would provide coverage with every serviceable structure marked either as served or not.
A video recording, copies of the prepared testimonies, copies of the bills under consideration, and the memo from the sub-committee chairman are available at
https://www.congress.gov/event/116th-congress/house-event/109914?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%22costquest+broadband%22%7D&s=1&r=3
Costquest stated in that hearing that they can map every structure in the US in a couple of years for about $10M if they can use their proprietary software. Or it could take longer and cost more if the data is to remain open source. (My opinion: Open source is important. It keeps the data available publicly for other agencies like Census, HHS, etc. as well as public use.)
Transcript link: https://www.congress.gov/116/meeting/house/109914/documents/HHRG-116-IF16-Transcript-20190911.pdf (Lines 1853 to 1863 are of interest or you can just search for the word ‘proprietary.’)
Section 802(a) appears to be the part specifically talking about the Rules creating the dataset, contracting, etc. I imagine once it goes out for the bid process that there will be more specific requirements.
I’m just a rural grandma at a keyboard but I imagine it is critical that the datasets be open source AND backward compatible in order to be useful to other agencies, policymakers, legislators, researchers, and anyone interested in how internet availability can correlate to other important issues like education, healthcare, public safety, economic indicators, etc.
My comment/question (finally, eh?): I can’t tell by reading the bill if there is a requirement to keep the data open source. Perhaps it will be part of the specifications when it goes out for a bid?
Interesting insight. Recent guidance on the BEAD map challenge process indicated that ISPs would need to sign a licensing agreement with CostQuest in order to access underlying data but did not mention a fee to do so. This is maddening from a taxpayer perspective, given that data is what was used to allocate billions for the BEAD program. We (the taxpayers) pay for CostQuest to create this map and then have to pay them again to see the data??
The allocation of BEAD funding was based out of the FCC mapping data, and I think your last paragraph hits the nail on the head. Though mapping broadband buildout is certainly a moving target (as is the fabric given continuous construction/destruction of homes/businesses), allowing a simple and accessible means to correct the data would get us a lot closer and likely allow the BEAD funds to go further. What better way to support flawed data than by hiding it from those that paid for it? “Flabbergasted” is right.