98% of census blocks have multiple ISPs offering 10Mbps+
82% of census blocks have multiple ISPs offering 25Mbps+
(This doesn't count wireless offerings.)
[1] https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-355166A1.pdf
[1]: https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/30/18644726/fcc-broadband-re...
> But the 2019 version of the report has come with an unusual amount of political baggage
What? Why baggage? How? Zero explanation, just FUD.
> The census block system relies on data that only shows where providers could easily offer service, not where they actually do.
Yes, that's how it works. Also why every ISP I know charges a connection fee: they're not going to connect unless you first agree to be a customer.
> Starks’ statement questioned the figures. “It’s incredible to me that an error this large — approximately 62 million in overstated broadband connections — didn’t materially change the report,” he said.
BarrierFree is a New England service provider [1], in urban centers where customers have numerous internet options. [2] Without altogether leaving their geographic regions, there's simply no way for their results to affect the FCC report. Probably why their mistake initially went unnoticed.
> Starks points out in his statement that some blocks are larger than 250 square miles.
Maybe 0.01% of the time. No wonder this man is perplexed at statistical averages. Look at any census map and you'll see that census blocks are very focused.
And to top it all off, the article includes zero suggestions for improving the admittedly imperfect measurement. Comes off as just a hit piece.
It's really easy to fix, but just more work.
How about the actual number of homes that can get high speed data? The ISPs already know this to the single address, because when you go to their website to sign up, they tell you right there if you're qualified based on your address.
All they have to do is be forced to share that database with the FCC.
The link below is for a NJ suburb , and lists 6 ISP competitors. But three of them are just satellite services and two are Verizon. In practice, there are exactly two competitors here: the phone monopoly and the cable monopoly, but the FCC would point to this to say that there's robust competition!
Here's another one I just picked at random, in a suburb of Oklahoma City.[2] The FCC lists 9 different providers. 3 of them are Satellite, 2 are Cox Cable, and 4 are AT&T. Again, there are exactly two competitors here: the phone monopoly and the cable monopoly. Look around yourself.
Two long-term competitors are not enough for meaningful competition. Duopoly competition has the same strategic profile as the Prisoner's Dilemma. When you have the same two players in the game over a long period of time, they learn to cooperate. See Axelrod (1980) etc...
Regulatory capture, juking the stats, crooks and liars all.
[1]: https://broadbandmap.fcc.gov/#/location-summary?version=dec2...
[2]: https://broadbandmap.fcc.gov/#/location-summary?version=dec2...
‘Measuring the Economic Impact of Broadband Act’ was introduced in the senate recently.
Even the larger ones still only have a few hundred people (and those are dense, apartment-heavy areas where multiple ISPs are common anyway).
I don't doubt there is some polishing the numbers, but it's still a very granular measure.
