BraodbandNow Report - Fixed Wireless

A new report from BroadbandNow quantifies problems with FCC broadband map data that have been a major issue for policymakers for several years. According to the researchers, FCC data over-reports broadband availability by 6.5% of the U.S. population.

The report is based on a check of wired or fixed wireless access of more than 110,000 addresses.

More than 42 million Americans do not have access to broadband, according to BroadbandNow estimates. That’s almost three times as many as what is show in the FCC 2020 Broadband Deployment Report, according to the researchers. That report showed 14.5 million people without broadband availability.

Advertisement

The report qualified the wide variance in its estimates and the FCC’s. It claims that all technologies — including DSL, fiber, cable and fixed wireless — are over-reported and that over-reporting occurs in cities, rural towns “and everywhere in between.” Researchers added that the technology reported by the FCC is incorrect for more than 12% of the addresses that the commission says do have broadband service.

FCC Broadband Map Problems

The reason for the discrepancies: “The figures and estimates cited by the FCC rely upon semi-annual self-reporting by internet service providers (ISPs) using the FCC-mandated ‘Form 477,'” according to the research note at the BroadbandNow website. “However, there is a widely acknowledged flaw with Form 477 reporting: if an ISP offers service to at least one household in a census block, then the FCC counts the entire census block as covered by that provider.”

BroadbandNow contrasted its estimates of populations without access to broadband with FCC broadband map data as of year-end 2019.

Five examples show how starkly the numbers disagree:

  • Alabama: 608,000 residents without access according to the FCC compared to 1,202,976 residents without access according to the BroadbandNow
  • California: 594,000 residents (FCC) compared to 3,888,258 (BroadbandNow)
  • Indiana: 261,000 residents (FCC) compared to 890,116 residents (BroadbandNow)
  • New York: 250,000 residents (FCC) compared to 1,258,600 residents (BroadbandNow)
  • Wisconsin: 394,000 residents (FCC) compared to 670,592 residents (BroadbandNow)

BroadbandNow has sounded this alarm before. In February 2020, it said that 20.7 million people considered capable of getting service in fact had no access.

The FCC does not contest the fact that there are problems and is taking steps to address the issue.

Join the Conversation

5 thoughts on “Report: FCC Broadband Map Over-Reports Access by 6.5% of U.S. Population

  1. I found that the speed in my area had been over reported just enough to keep us from being considered unserved. Our provider for this area is AT&T. To qualify as unserved, speeds must be under 10 Mbps, or that is what ideas in the paperwork I found online. We are at 6 Mbps unless the wind blows, the temperature changes, it rains, someone cuts grass…
    The problem is easy to spot, and I have photos, but the company refuses to fix it and it is their equipment. I’ve had 25 techs out in a years time and still can’t get the service they have been charging me for.

  2. Rural America will always be at a DISADVANTAGE even if fiber is 1 mile away. Economic factors.. it should be mandatory to service a certain radius if a main line is run down a hwy at least. If a rural fire department can get internet, the surrounding residents should get it also..

  3. I live in Southern Ohio and I have 2 choices for internet service, 1. Windstream and 2. Hughes Net. The first is to slow and I imagine it is in the kbps range (that’s being generous) the other is very expensive and also sloooooow. I don’t have enough faith in the government to even care if I have internet. Why can’t ISP’s be required to give me the same services and speeds as anyone else i.e, living in L.A. San Francisco. Sort of like the electric company or phone company?

  4. That is why we have formed a consortium of business both in the state and outside. Whereas the system is owned by the state and managed privately to start. This will change in so many years.

    Then we bring in the private companies in each state into the conversation to build out and possibly manage the system. Then these companies can offer the service to their prospective clients both in their areas and outside so the can expand if they desire. What this does is fuel competition in the market place so consumers have choices and no present companies are left out.

    Let me know if you and your state is interested in this type of system.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Don’t Miss Any of Our Content

What’s happening with broadband and why is it important? Find out by subscribing to Telecompetitor’s newsletter today.

You have Successfully Subscribed!