I'm glad we spent $200 million on that.
So I can say with pretty high certainty that the reason this sucks is because of the telecom lobby. There is an enormous amount of pressure on regulators to not require the telecom companies to disclose detailed information about where they provide what levels of service. Even information that's retrievable by going to their site and checking for coverage and/or service availability at an address. They most certainly have this information, but it's considered one of their most closely guarded trade secrets.
Those at the NTIA (and FCC to a degree) seem to be mostly interested in figuring out the minimum amount of disclosure they can give to meet the law-mandated requirements. This is the same old problem in Washington where the people who end up regulating are those that were plucked right out of highly-networked positions in the industry they regulate.
Totally broken.
And they broke the back button when you navigate to the 'Engage' page.
Edit: And I'm really trying to find a way to confirm or refute the info, but I see no 'yes' or 'no' icons it claims are there.
I like how the redirect to some of the providers' sites is a redirect to http://, even for big names like Comcast. If it does have a site, it's a redirect to e.g. http://http://example.com
Advertised Speeds Above 768 Kbps and Below 3 Mbps Data as of: 6/30/10 AT&T Inc. 1.5 - 3 Mbps
Firstly, I don't think Comcast will give Gbps speeds anytime soon. Secondly: I get close to 6Mbps from ATT. Thirdly: data is from 6/30/10 ? Did somebody like physically walk the data over from SF to DC ?
No results in Chrome at all for my area, which is served by Comcast. I wonder how much taxpayer money was dumped down this particular rat hole.
After calling AT&T and Verizon just now (both listed) they tell me I can't subscribe because they don't offer service here.
I would understand the value of something like this in a poor or enterprise-unfriendly country. But in the US? If it has been funded with taxpayers' money, I say it's a waste.