National Broadband Map Shows Digital Divide

Hugh Pickens writes writes "PC Magazine reports that the Commerce Department has unveiled a national broadband inventory map, which will allow the public to see where high-speed Internet is available throughout the country. Users can search by address, view data on a map, or use other interactive tools to compare broadband across various geographies, such as states, counties or congressional districts. Commerce officials say the information can help businesses decide if they want to move to a certain location, based on broadband availability. The map, costing about $200 million and financed through the 2009 Recovery Act, shows that 5-10 percent of Americans lack broadband access at speeds that support a basic set of applications. Another 36 percent lack access to wireless service. Community anchor institutions like schools and libraries are also 'largely underserved,' the data finds, and two-thirds of surveyed schools subscribe to speeds lower than 25 Mbps and only 4 percent of libraries subscribe to speeds greater than 25 Mbps. 'The National Broadband Map shows there are still too many people and community institutions lacking the level of broadband service needed to fully participate in the Internet economy,' says Larry Strickling, assistant secretary of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). 'We are pleased to see the increase in broadband adoption last year, particularly in light of the difficult economic environment, but a digital divide remains.'"

Comments

$200 million?

[fish waffle]

The map, costing about $200 million

Really? I'd of done it for a paltry $150 million.

Re:$200 million?

[dattaway]

That's a steal at $0.50 cents per person. A fancy gold plated push pin on the map for every American!

Re:$200 million?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to be a grammar nazi or anything, but have.

Re:$200 million?

[Anonymous Coward]

At least you're not claiming it's unconstitutional like some persons might.

Sure, the Founders didn't provide for it, but is there a serious argument that having a survey of the conditions in the country is not a valid function of government? Aside from the people who disbelieve in government entirely, I don't feel there is, as in my experience most of the anti-Census type rhetoric is based on principles of limitation and hamstringing the government out of spite, not because it's genuinely not a good idea to know these things, or because it's somehow a gross intrusion on the citizenry.

Feel free to make a bid on the next update for it though.

Re:$200 million?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to be a grammar nazi or anything, but have.

At least he didn't paint a gigantic "I AM A GOD DAMNED IDIOT" sign on his forehead by confusing "were" and "where" like all the sheepish morons are doing lately. They all collectively stopped fucking up on "they're", "their" and "there" and embraced this new trendy form of stupidity. They are eager to self-identify themselves as not only unskilled idiots with their own native language, but mindless group-thinkers as well.

Re:$200 million?

[Anonymous Coward]

dslreports says it cost $293 million; $200 million is how much it will cost every 5 years.

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Meet-The-United-States-First-Ever-Broadband-Map-112787

Re:$200 million?

[Applekid]

dslreports says it cost $293 million; $200 million is how much it will cost every 5 years.

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Meet-The-United-States-First-Ever-Broadband-Map-112787

All that money and they couldn't make each connectivity technology uniquely color coded? That's a pretty rookie display.

Re:$200 million?

[Mashiki]

What I find amazing is that it cost $200m, doesn't state prices or actual speeds. And they're actually proud of that. Did common sense go out the window? Or is the majority of people these days skipping that trait during character creation?

Re:$200 million?

[causality]

Aside from the people who disbelieve in government entirely, I don't feel there is, as in my experience most of the anti-Census type rhetoric is based on principles of limitation and hamstringing the government out of spite, not because it's genuinely not a good idea to know these things, or because it's somehow a gross intrusion on the citizenry.

The Census as spelled out in the Constitution (Article 1, Section 2) has two purposes: it determines the number of representatives each state gets to elect and send to the House of Representatives. Unlike the Senate wherein each state gets two representatives, the House is proportional to the population of each state. It also determines the number of electoral votes a state may cast during a Presidential election.

It's not unreasonable to want the government to stick to the actual limited purpose of this power, instead of finding clever ways to exceed the Constitutional mandate to go beyond the scope of what the Founders intended. If they really want to do that, there is a Constitutional amendment process that would make it legitimate and that's the part I think you fail to appreciate. Intrusive questions like those about your income and lifestyle have absolutely nothing to do with the requirement that the House and electoral votes are properly apportioned.

Otherwise, those who refuse to answer the Census with anything more than the Constitutionally-required data are implicitly recognizing one important fact: information is a form of power. There are many who quite rationally believe that the U.S. Federal Government is already too powerful. Just to make the point, there have already been abuses of this data. In fact, it greatly facilitated the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. This was made possible because the Second War Powers Act of 1941 repealed all of the legal confidentiality protections that would normally apply to the Census data, which were not restored until 1947.

If you know anything about the U.S. Federal Government and the kind of people who make its important decisions, then you have to wonder whom they will next target. Maybe it will be Muslims or people of Middle Eastern descent, since we are currently fighting them overseas. History does have this annoying way of repeating itself. Refusing to help that happen is not a matter of spiting the government or anyone else; it's a recognition that there is no dire need for them to know so much about you and that this information can be and has been abused. I don't question the reason of those who understand this; I question the naivete of those who don't.

Re:$200 million?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but they wanted someone who could spell.

Re:$200 million?

[Anonymous Coward]

The actual site is 20 million (hey I can read the article right?) the rest was bribes uh... fees spilt between the 50 states or 3.6 million per state. Paid to telco companies and isps to give up the data.

Re:$200 million?

[b0bby]

ABC News said the total would be $200 million over 5 years, which sounds more plausible. I quote:

"The raw data for the map comes from roughly 1,650 Internet service providers — primarily phone, cable and wireless companies — across the country. The NTIA awarded grants to government agencies or non-profits in every state to collect, confirm and package the data to go into the nationwide map, which was then compiled by the NTIA and the FCC. The total price tag of the map, which will be updated twice a year, comes out to $200 million over five years."

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=12943817&page=3

Re:$200 million?

[DarkOx]

Yes, this is why when people bitch and moan about cuts I have no sympathy whatsoever. There is no federal government agency that should not take a SEVERE budget cut no matter what it is the WASTE that goes on is simply mind blowing.

That said since the money is already spent and at least we do have a pretty map to show for it. I do find it interesting how well covered with wired broad band solutions places like Maine actually are. It looks like the midwest is actually well served as well. It seems to be only the Western United states that is problematic. Given the geography and the population density out there I am not to surprised.

Wireless broadband seems to be pretty available just about everywhere. Honestly I don't know what everyone is so worried about with the digital divide nonsense, its nonsense. They only places without good broad band plainly don't have the population to support them. That's not a question of fairness its just reality. The people there do have options like Satellite anyway. Listening to NPR I would have expected the problem to be much worse. In fact I don't think its a problem at all now!

Its like saying it was unreasonable that railroads did not stop in every small town at the turn of the previous century. There are good things and bad things about living in a rural area, deal with it or move.

Re:$200 million?

[Anonymous Coward]

I would be careful if I were you. Don't let them know that you have read the Constitution. They prefer ignorant drudges. Obama is hiding under your bed, and as soon as you fall asleep, he's going to sneak out and take all your guns. And your gold. You are hoarding gold, aren't you? After the collapse, all you will be able to buy with the fiat money will be Fiats, and everyone knows they are made in that soon-to-be-Muslim-Caliphate Italy.

Watch out!!

Re:$200 million?

[PopeRatzo]

most of the anti-Census type rhetoric is based on principles of limitation and hamstringing the government out of spite, not because it's genuinely not a good idea

"Spite" is what drives politics for a significant portion of the electorate and about half the political leadership. When you're morally bankrupt and intellectually suspect, spite is all that's left.

For the electorate, when you've been through thirty years of watching your income and lifestyle eroded while a small portion of the population gains enormous wealth, it's easy to become spiteful. People are too busy trying to survive to pay attention. And that makes them easy to manipulate. In this sense, the social and political strategy put in place back in the 1980s is now starting to bear fruit. When the TV tells you that your world is crumbling because school teachers and firefighters are getting pensions, and your employer tells you that they've decided it's not "cost-effective" to continue to provide your pension, "spite" is what happens.

Re:$200 million?

[xerxesVII]

Not to be a grammar nazi or anything, but have you finished that thought yet?

Re:$200 million?

[causality]

I would be careful if I were you. Don't let them know that you have read the Constitution. They prefer ignorant drudges. Obama is hiding under your bed, and as soon as you fall asleep, he's going to sneak out and take all your guns. And your gold. You are hoarding gold, aren't you? After the collapse, all you will be able to buy with the fiat money will be Fiats, and everyone knows they are made in that soon-to-be-Muslim-Caliphate Italy.

Watch out!!

Is this mockery your way of saving face upon realizing that I have provided rational, non-paranoid reasoning for why limited government that does not try to exceed its enumerated powers is a Good Thing? I suppose it upsets you when it suddenly becomes difficult to portray everyone who disagrees with you as some kind of paranoid lunatic, like an unruly child who just had his toy taken away.

Hell, you're an AC, there's not much "face" to save really. Anyway if you're feeling low and in need of an echo chamber, you won't get that from me but that's alright. There are many who respond to reason as you just did so you have a lot of like-minded company.

Re:$200 million?

[peragrin]

The government your talking about though can't exist inside a captialist economy. Because captialism is all about exceeding your powers.

You are quite correct, however reality doesn't work that way, and humans aren't machines that always fall into nice places. some people will always believe they are better than others even if it isn't true.

Re:$200 million?

[commodore6502]

>>>is there a serious argument that having a survey of the conditions in the country is not a valid function of government?

I don't have a problem with a survey - it could be considered part of the annual state of the union report. I have a problem if they say I HAVE to answer it, or else face jail time, like they did with the census. Answering that 1 person lives at my house? Cool. Answering what color I am, how old, how much money I make, and other shit? No.

I also have a problem if Congress takes it upon itself to build High speed fiber (or whatever) to every home. It violates our 10th Amendment rights: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The power to provide internet is reserved to the Member States. Or the people (i.e. entrepreneurs). If this is felt to be too restrictive, then amend the Constitution granting the Congress power to create an internet service, akin to how they were given power to create a postal service.

Re:$200 million?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Census as spelled out in the Constitution (Article 1, Section 2) has two purposes: it determines the number of representatives each state gets to elect and send to the House of Representatives. Unlike the Senate wherein each state gets two representatives, the House is proportional to the population of each state. It also determines the number of electoral votes a state may cast during a Presidential election.

It's not unreasonable to want the government to stick to the actual limited purpose of this power, instead of finding clever ways to exceed the Constitutional mandate to go beyond the scope of what the Founders intended.

Except the Founders did not provide for any such exclusive use of it, if they had wanted to do so, I agree they could have done so. They did not. And you are assuming that it is present without even the rigor of searching for some words you can construe to support your contention.

This is why I don't agree with the literalists, they seek to so narrowly shape everything that you get the feeling they would not be open to any new ideas at all.

If they really want to do that, there is a Constitutional amendment process that would make it legitimate and that's the part I think you fail to appreciate.

Well, at least you admit it could be amended. Many, if not most, of the folks I'm talking about would resist even that idea. Not that I think it's a good idea to demand every damn thing be the subject of an amendment unless it's done as part of an overall process. If you want to say every 20 or even 50 years we should set down and hold a convention to decide the scope of Government. That would help with my aforementioned problem earlier with the literalist mindset, because they could not be caught up in their refusal to adapt, to change. Stasis would actually be avoided.

Unfortunately, the Founding Fathers did not think of that in a sufficiently effective way, so we're left without it, even though I suspect many issues could be resolved better with it being a regular process. At the least it would force the discussion away from the useless pissing contest of what some dudes in the 18th Century wanted and into what we need today.

Intrusive questions like those about your income and lifestyle have absolutely nothing to do with the requirement that the House and electoral votes are properly apportioned.

Otherwise, those who refuse to answer the Census with anything more than the Constitutionally-required data are implicitly recognizing one important fact: information is a form of power. There are many who quite rationally believe that the U.S. Federal Government is already too powerful.

Yeah, keep telling yourself that. Certainly information is a form of power, and that's why it helps to have it, because it helps the rest of the country operate properly.

Are there things outside the scope of what I believe the government should ask? Certainly, but I do not take the absolutist position that the only thing they need to know is the number of warm bodies in the house. The polarity on your side of things prevents any consideration whatsoever of there being valid information worth knowing. You cannot even make the argument because the minds in opposition are closed. That is why I disbelieve in the value of the amendment process. It won't help, as no admission whatsoever of the viability of change will occur. Just stubborn refusal to do anything different, which will pay in the end.

Just to make the point, there have already been abuses of this data. In fact, it greatly facilitated the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. This was made possible because the Second War Powers Act of 1941 repealed all of the legal confidentiality protections that would normally apply to the Census data, which were not restored until 1947.

If you know anything about the U.S. Federal Government and the kind of people

Re:$200 million?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hell, you're an AC, there's not much "face" to save really. Anyway if you're feeling low and in need of an echo chamber, you won't get that from me but that's alright. There are many who respond to reason as you just did so you have a lot of like-minded company.

Just so you know, the above AC is not the AC you started the conversation with.

Re:$200 million?

[Anonymous Coward]

The postal service exist to facilitate communication, which makes a nation possible. I argue that grants Congress the power to build other mediums of communications.

I'm open to rebuttal, but not YOUR rebuttal, so don't respond, or at least be an AC so I can pretend that I am discussing with someone with the capacity to think,

Re:$200 million?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't have a problem with a survey - it could be considered part of the annual state of the union report. I have a problem if they say I HAVE to answer it, or else face jail time, like they did with the census. Answering that 1 person lives at my house? Cool. Answering what color I am, how old, how much money I make, and other shit? No.

You left out a reason. You do know they have reasons for asking those questions, but what is the reason for your refusal? I'd explain the reasons, but there's a lot of different ones, and many of them actually apply more for the usage of your local government more than the federal anyway, so I'd say if you really want to know, check with the Census Bureau for the laws that provide for their questions, they do include reasons.

At least you admit there is a validity to the principle of a survey, so maybe there's some room for discussion.

I also have a problem if Congress takes it upon itself to build High speed fiber (or whatever) to every home. It violates our 10th Amendment rights: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The power to provide internet is reserved to the Member States. Or the people (i.e. entrepreneurs). If this is felt to be too restrictive, then amend the Constitution granting the Congress power to create an internet service, akin to how they were given power to create a postal service.

See, this is where it starts to get to be a problem. I certainly agree the Constitution COULD be amended to say that, but here's the thing, even if we tried, all that would happen from the other side of things is an absolute intransigent refusal to consider any change, any argument, anything, because they would just deny, deny, deny. You couldn't even attempt to persuade them, they'd say no, no, no.

This is why I don't believe in the effectiveness of your method unless we explicitly provide for a mandatory reconsideration of the provisions of the Constitution after a given period of time, or upon the request of the citizenry. But we don't. And good luck getting that to happen.

So we can't make new arguments, or hold a discussion. The door is closed, so says the other side, and they will never ever think about opening it.

Pardon me for realizing when something is futile, and just not listening to it. It's like people who believe Obama wasn't born in the United States. He realizes there's nothing further he can do, anybody who is still in denial will not open their eyes.

Re:$200 million?

[commodore6502]

>>>The postal service exist to facilitate communication, which makes a nation possible. I argue that grants Congress the power to build other mediums of communications.
>>>

That's now how your interpret Laws. You read what the law actually says, and what it actually says is "The Congress shall have Power To establish Post Offices and post Roads" and "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

It says not one thing about handing-out books, or giving everybody access to a printing press to print their mail/books, or handing out free pencils or quills..... It says what it says, and reserves all other powers to the Member State.

If you think that is too limiting, that's why the amendment process exists. We've done it 27 times already - including giving Congress power to ban alcohol (and then repealing it) - it's not a big deal to amend the Constitution again. Or even throw it out and create a new one (a constitutional convention).

But you do NOT twist the Law. You enforce the Law as it is written, with no exceptions, and change it as required.

Re:$200 million?

[commodore6502]

>>>what is the reason for your refusal?

(1) None of their damn business what color I am, what sex, how much I earn, how old, et cetera. (2) The Member States gave the central union government the authority to enumerate (count me) and nothing more. They were never given the authority to invade my privacy (see point one and amends.9 and 10).

>>>all that would happen from the other side of things is an absolute intransigent refusal to consider any change

What other side? The only thing that's involved are the State Legislatures to assent to the amendment, which they've done 27 times already. This is not an R versus D thing. This is a States issue.

- Also there's such a thing as respect for the Law. And the law is clear. If the member states have not given power to the central government, then that power is reserved to the States. It's as clear as black ink on parchment.

Oh and I'm in good company - Thomas Jefferson who founded your party the Democrats* said the tenth was the most important sentence in the whole of the constitution. I agree with him, and I think it's the best policy to obey that Law, until such time as it has been stricken. (Or appropriate amendments made to grant more powers to the union government.)

*
* I'm just guessing you're a D rather than an R. (shrug)

Re:$200 million?

[Anonymous Coward]

(1) None of their damn business what color I am, what sex, how much I earn, how old, et cetera. (2) The Member States gave the central union government the authority to enumerate (count me) and nothing more. They were never given the authority to invade my privacy (see point one and amends.9 and 10).

As I expected, the typical wall of refusal that admits no possibility for the other side to have reasons, just says "none of your damn business, don't intrude on my privacy". I can respect that you might think the government doesn't need to know any of that stuff, but with the institutionalized history of racism, sexism, and other discrimination, I'm afraid that's actually shown it's worth knowing. Why? Because true blindness is not possible to enforce, no matter how much any of us might wish it. Yes, you could argue that being able to learn that has caused a lot of problems, but it's not like you can close people's eyes, sometimes even their eyes can change the results. I found it amusing that I just saw an episode of Cold Case where a black man started passing for white after his officer thought he'd made a mistake on the form. But without the form, would it have mattered? No. So how do we know if we're discriminating? By not closing our eyes and pretending it helps. It doesn't.

Knowing your income is also beneficial to knowing the economic state of the country as well as complying with the laws passed after the 16th Amendment. Yeah, the 16th Amendment says they can do it without regard to any such census or enumeration, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't have some foundation on what to base it. It makes sense to me. That said, they didn't actually ask that on this year's Census, at least not my copy. All they asked was about home ownership. Which is still a valid question to know, what with what it says about the economy.

And really, your age? If they don't know your age, how can they know if you're old enough to vote or not? Voting age is at least something that SHOULD be known. That you're upset over it just makes me wonder. Besides knowing ages helps plan for the future, knowing how many people might say start driving, or might need schooling. You may argue that this information would be more useful to the local gov't, and I would concur, however I feel it'd be better asked in the Census rather than duplicating the work.

What other side? The only thing that's involved are the State Legislatures to assent to the amendment, which they've done 27 times already.

I wouldn't represent it that way. The first 10 were included as part of the Constitution, as such I would count this as a single bundle, not 27 different ones. I would make a similar argument for the Civil War amendments. That and you're leaving out the role of Congress in the Amendment process.

But yes, it has been done. Yet if it were tried today, I would expect to get people who would not make arguments based on logic or reason, but on the idea that somehow what was said in the original Constitution was perfect, could not be changed, and had to be followed till the end of time.

This is not an R versus D thing.

Well, perhaps, but that's not the only division in this country. I don't even consider the RvD to be the definitive division. The division I'm talking about is a collection of people who seem to believe we're still living in the late 1700s, that we need to live by some sacred standard set in stone by the Founding Fathers, and who coincidentally enough, interpret what the Constitution says to be what they want to believe it says. EVERY TIME.

See the debate about the 14th Amendment for one clear example. There's also the whole business of nullification. Totally made up, with no explicit provision for it, but they keep pushing it as if it really did exist in that black ink.

I much prefer people who stick to real reasons, who appeal to the logic and reasons of today, instead

Re:$200 million?

[coaxial]

It's not unreasonable to want the government to stick to the actual limited purpose of this power, instead of finding clever ways to exceed the Constitutional mandate to go beyond the scope of what the Founders intended. If they really want to do that, there is a Constitutional amendment process that would make it legitimate and that's the part I think you fail to appreciate. Intrusive questions like those about your income and lifestyle have absolutely nothing to do with the requirement that the House and electoral votes are properly apportioned.

I certainly hope that you also take a stern view on the Air Force. It's unconstitutional! I see an Army. I see a Navy. I don't see an Air Force.

It's a real shame all the Founder(tm) were dead when the 4th census asked occupation. Oh wait, they weren't. Since when are anonymous metrics needed to determine the most effective allocation of resources "abusive"?

I bet you also didn't know that the Founders(tm) were a completely happy with compulsory purchase programs. George Washington himself, signed the Militia Act of 1792, which required "each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years" had to purchase gun (which was tax deductible).

Re:$200 million?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's now how your interpret Laws.

That may not be how you interpret Laws, but that doesn't mean it's the best way. I prefer people who approach things on a basis of reason, not as you seem to be, on a basis of faith.

We've done it 27 times already - including giving Congress power to ban alcohol (and then repealing it) - it's not
a big deal to amend the Constitution again. Or even throw it out and create a new one (a constitutional convention).

And yet it is a big deal, that hardly ever gets done. I do wish we'd have a mandatory re-examination process for the Constitution, but we don't, so instead we're forced to do what? Go through an Amendment process every time? There are states that have to do that for various reasons. I cannot say I wish to live by their standards.

Me, I would not mind adding communication as a general responsibility of gov't if we were re-writing the Constitution today, just to make you happy, the same as the collection of such information as we discussed earlier, but I do not believe it's necessary to do it before it can be done.

But hey, if you want to agree on a Constitutional Convention, fine, let's do it, but no adhering to dogma of how the Founding Fathers did things.

But you do NOT twist the Law. You enforce the Law as it is written, with no exceptions, and change it as required.

While you're even allowing for the possibility of change, I'm still not comfortable with how you're parsing this particular dogma. Especially because of the thing you may not get which is that some people will RESIST change, to the point where it won't happen.

That's why while I agree that the law is not to be twisted, there is a danger in slavishly adhering to it, to the point where you obey it because it is the law is a short-sighted principle that is as dangerous, if not more so, than being less attached to the law.

Besides, as I said, there's no law prohibiting the collection of the data. You've only got some tortuous connection to the 10th Amendment, and I just don't buy it as saying what you want.

Sorry. Maybe if you'd make an argument not on what I consider to be an article of faith, but on an attempt at persuasion you might be able to convince me, but really, it's more like you're arguing things must be the way because that is the way it must be.

Re:$200 million?

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet you also didn't know that the Founders(tm) were a completely happy with compulsory purchase programs. George Washington himself, signed the Militia Act of 1792, which required "each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years" had to purchase gun (which was tax deductible).

So which state militia will I be serving in that requires me to purchase health insurance?

Re:$200 million?

[initdeep]

they've all.....

not they all.....

Re:$200 million?

[Anonymous Coward]

So which state militia will I be serving in that requires me to purchase health insurance?

Whichever one you live in I presume.

We have a Selective Service Act, might as well make it truly universal.

Re:$200 million?

[coaxial]

It's not unreasonable to want the government to stick to the actual limited purpose of this power, instead of finding clever ways to exceed the Constitutional mandate to go beyond the scope of what the Founders intended. If they really want to do that, there is a Constitutional amendment process that would make it legitimate and that's the part I think you fail to appreciate. Intrusive questions like those about your income and lifestyle have absolutely nothing to do with the requirement that the House and electoral votes are properly apportioned.

It's a real shame that the Founders(tm) violated the constitution in 1790 when they asked what the ages and gender of what members of the household were. You don't need this for representation. It's based on population, not voters. Clearly, George Washington was a traitor to the constitution.

Re:$200 million?

[davester666]

Heh.

On first reading, I thought it said:

"Community anchor institutions like schools and libraries are also 'largely undeserved,'"

Re:$200 million?

[fortfive]

Seriously, I am flabergasted at that cost. Especially because the first zip code I entered (NC) auto-completed as some local projects served by Deutsche Telekom at 8Mb/s. I would really, really like to get in on these kinds of research deals!

Re:$200 million?

[hairyfeet]

It is also a 200 million dollar pile of BS. I put my mom's address in there and they have the area covered by up to 10Mbps which is complete and TOTAL horseshit. They have Verizon (doesn't service this area) AT&T (doesn't service anyone outside of town, even a single block) and Cox (which told her tough shit, they won't run the block and a half).

So surprise surprise, the government spent 200 million on yet another pile of useless data. They should have to check and see whether or not an area has coverage or if they are just BSing. Because I can tell you that while groups like AT&T will lie their asses off and say they cover a zip code in reality if you live a single inch out of town you are told to piss off. I've been trying to get something better than dialup for my mom for a decade and have just been given the finger over and over, this map is BS.

Re:$200 million?

[Ritchie70]

Agreed. I looked up my house, my mom-in-law's condo and my mom's house.

All three are incorrect in significant ways.

Re:$200 million?

[Anonymous Coward]

Too bad it has bad information. I live in the 84047 area code and it says Qwest has 10 - 25 Mbs. The highest Qwest offers me is 7Mbs.

Re:$200 million?

[shutdown -p now]

The whole point of having a constitution in a state is that it's something that you don't easily skirt around. If you want to call it "faith" or "dogma", fine (though it's not, really, due to amendment process). But finding creative ways to reinterpret it to "adapt" it to new requirements is bad, because it devalues the document in its entirety, including the very fundamental protections it spells out.

Oh, and just because there's no law prohibiting the Feds to collect data doesn't mean that they can do it. The constitution lists what Feds can do; everything beyond that is (or at least should be) off-limits unless and until they are granted such power. This isn't to say the government doesn't have power - State government still does, just not the Feds.

Then again, I suspect that, in "modern interpretation", they can probably squeeze and twist just about anything the Commerce Clause somehow, so it's all moot anyway.

Re:$200 million?

[hedwards]

I know this is /., but it was $20m to make the map, and most of the rest of the $180m or so was collecting the data. Not sure how reasonable that is, but that's how they broke it down. Given that you're taking about 50 states plus DC, that's roughly 30m per state on average. Again, I'm not sure what it should costs, but getting reliable data is hard and expensive, the previous method was determining if there was at least one connection in the zip code that met the definition of broadband, the entire zip code was considered provided for.

Re:$200 million?

[hairyfeet]

Hi really old CPU dude! Let me ask you this: Do you not believe in the poor having water and electricity? Because last I checked that wasn't in the constitution either yet thanks to the WPA many poor in rural areas got running water and electricity (which not only gave them light, but may have even saved their lives by giving them early warning for tornadoes and other threats) thanks to the government.

Now personally I believe that spending the money to put Americans to work building out a nationwide infrastructure, including fiber, would be a hell of a lot better use for our money than sending it to thugs like we did with Egypt, or paying people to not work as we are doing now, don't you?

The simple facts are these: We have millions out of work and our infrastructure is frankly falling apart. We are falling farther and farther behind the rest of the world when it comes to broadband, our roads and bridges are frankly getting scary, the whole damned thing is a mess, and our ISPs brilliant idea is to just add worse and worse caps and wipe their asses with their ever increasing bonuses.

So why not put actual Americans with families to work building us the infrastructure we need to be competitive? Sounds like a hell of a better deal to bring back the WPA than to bail out banks or blow cash propping up el presidentes. Near my home there are still WPA bridges in use, built rock solid with quality instead of the lowest bidder trash we have now. I'd say a third of the apts in my building are empty now, not because these people moved up or even over, but because they lost everything and now are living on someone's couch if they are lucky.

We need infrastructure and until the morons on capital hill realize one way trade isn't "free" in any way we have million of Americans needing work. So why not put those people to work making our nation better? Because if we wait for the corps to give us nationwide even at the level the other industrialized nations have now we'll be sitting here until hell freezes over. All they will do is add caps and refuse to run lines into any place where they can't make 300%+ profit in the first year. Oh BTW I didn't pull that number out my ass, that is what one of the managers at the local cableco told me was their math for deciding whether to serve an area or not. if they don't make 300% of the cost of the line in the first year then those folks will NEVER get service. lovely huh?

Re:$200 million?

[AK Marc]

Is this mockery your way of saving face upon realizing that I have provided rational, non-paranoid reasoning for why limited government that does not try to exceed its enumerated powers is a Good Thing?

You've not explained where they exceeded their powers. They are allowed to perform a census. There is no mention of what that consists of, and no requirement it be restricted to solely the count of persons (and in fact, even the first census, performed by the very people that defined Census in the Constitution, didn't restrict themselves to solely the count of people). Additionally, they don't use the power to compel answers past the most basic to confirm the count you agree they can do. So I'm curious what power you think they are using that they don't have the power to use.

Re:$200 million?

[AK Marc]

You forget, even the very first census just 3 years after the Constitution was ratified asked questions about age, race, and gender, in addition to the required (at the time) question of whether they were slaves or free persons. The census could be "mark the number of free persons, mark the number of other persons" and be done with it. But not even the very first census restricted itself to such a terse application of the idea of a census.

At least George Washington also stated that the party system would harm the country, and the Republicans and Democrats work as hard as they can to prove him right.

Re:$200 million?

[AK Marc]

The central offices of a telecommunications company are the post offices, and the roads (or highways) the post flows over are made of fiber. That the mail now holds a "e" at the front of it doesn't change the intent of the Constitution. My server runs Post Office Protocol. So the feds should have the ability to establish offices holding those servers (or similar ones) and the roads that connect them.

Re:$200 million?

[AK Marc]

This is not an R versus D thing.

I think you are lying.

I'm just guessing you're a D rather than an R.

Yup, you agree with me that you are a liar. If it wasn't an R vs D thing, then you wouldn't presume someone for a more detailed and accurate census is a Democrat.

Let me guess, you take the R opinion that even if it is known that someone wasn't counted, the fact they weren't counted should not be considered and only those officially counted by official census workers should be counted, and no other means of counting should ever be considered.

Re:$200 million?

[paganizer]

Ditto. They showed 3 possible connections for my house, Charter, Verizon & Beasley Wireless, a little local WISP that I tried to get to work for over 2 years, until I got tired of only having internet between 11pm and 4am. and charter doesn't come within 2 miles of my place.

Re:$200 million?

[mdarksbane]

Agreed. This map claims I get Time Warner service 10 mbps-25 mbps. I can get cable, but no internet service is offered (believe me, I call them every month). They're just comparing zip codes or some bull.

Re:$200 million?

[JackieBrown]

When the TV tells you that your world is crumbling because school teachers and firefighters are getting pensions, and your employer tells you that they've decided it's not "cost-effective" to continue to provide your pension, "spite" is what happens.

The TV shows on CNN that I watch at work say the opposite. If teachers have to pay for a portion of their pensions and a portion of their healthcare (like most Americans do,) the whole education system will collapse. I have been hearing that non-stop since the whole Wisconsin mess started.

It's funny, to me, that we are suppose to be angry at the rich for getting perks we don't get but then are suppose to turn a blind eye to the police and teacher unions for getting the same. Just like the rich CEO getting bonuses while the majority of Americans were not, union teachers/police where getting raises and positive adjustments to their benefits when the majority of Americans where not.

What amazes me is that the teachers would rather 6000 public sector workers lose their jobs than tighten their own budget. Where is the shared responsibility here? Or does shared responsibly only come into play when we are talking about raising taxes.

Re:$200 million?

[Ungrounded Lightning]

You forget, even the very first census just 3 years after the Constitution was ratified asked questions about age, race, and gender, in addition to the required (at the time) question of whether they were slaves or free persons.

At the time the age and gender questions were appropriate as well, because women and children generally didn't have the vote but did count toward representation. While the federal elections were operated by the states primarily under their own rules, the information was appropriate for the federal government to have, to check for election fraud.

I agree that the race question argues for your point.

Re:$200 million?

[hairyfeet]

Wow, color me surprised. So far I have put myself as well as a half a dozen relatives and not once was the data even close to reality. In my own case it says I have four ISPs to choose from up to 25Mbps, when in reality two of those on the list don't even service this area, the DSL offers a MAX of 768k, not the 10Mbps they are claiming because I have actually tried it, and the cable which they are claiming 25Mbps has an absolute max speed of 6Mbps, and that is only if you are willing to pay $300+ a month for a dedicated connection, otherwise it is 2Mbps.

This has to be the most worthless pile of data I have ever come across and the fact that the government NOT ONLY paid 200 million for it, but are actually gonna be basing coverage decisions on this total fairy tale? it is just disgusting. After putting in 8 different people it didn't get a single one right, not even close. I am truly disgusted and whomever compiled this garbage and wrote the checks should be SO fired! I guess that is the nice thing about having a government job, no how bad you fuck up you never get a pink slip. Hell they'll probably get a raise for this bad joke!

Re:$200 million?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's $200M over 5 years and a vast majority of the funding went to states to collect the data. The states need to provide updates every 6 months, so the map won't be obsolete. My company, Computech, worked with the FCC and NTIA to build the site. One of the features includes crowdsourcing that allows users to conduct speed tests and show the gap between advertised and actual; the objective is increased transparency.

Re:$200 million?

[AK Marc]

The representation is apportioned based on persons, not voters. Thus, trying to guess as to the status of whether they are voters is irrelevant to the constitutionally-based reason for the census. Some places allowed non-white persons to vote. Other's required land ownership to vote while that question was not asked, and the answer of whether they were voters was irrelevant to the representation thereof.

I do understand your point, but it is clear in the context that the information was to be used for more than the minimalistic requirement of apportionment. And it was administered by a person often considered the greatest single contributor to the Constitution. So it's clear that they didn't intend the count to be a count with no other information gathered.

Re:$200 million?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's $200M over 5 years and a vasy majority if the funding went to the states to collect the data. This data will be updated every six months for years to come. The site shows advertised speeds as reported by the telcos. My company, Computech, worked with the FCC and NTIA to build the site. One of the features includes crowdsourcing that allows users to conduct speed tests and show the gap between advertised and actual; the objective is increased transparency.

Re:$200 million?

[PopeRatzo]

I have been hearing that non-stop since the whole Wisconsin mess started.

Wisconsin wasn't in a serious budget deficit until Governor Wanker decided to enact big tax cuts for the rich in the first week of his term. That's what's brought on this sudden need to take away the unions' right to collectively bargain.

Walker's second biggest contributor was the Koch Brothers PAC, which has as its number one agenda issue the destruction of every single last union in America. If closing a budget gap was the issue, why didn't Walker simply ask the union for a concession? They've been willing to give concessions at every step. And if there's such a need to break the public employee unions all of a sudden, why did Governor Lex Luthor decide to go after teachers and librarians instead of police and firefighters? If' it's the right thing, then wouldn't it be the right thing for all of Wisconsin's public workers? No, it's about ending any notion that American workers might have about standing together. Then, it's only a matter of time until we have wage parity with Chinese workers and Indian workers. How'd you like that? Could you live on $2.50/hr?

And maybe, just maybe, American workers in the private sector should be wondering why they are no longer getting pensions from the companies they work for decade after decade. There was a time when if you gave your working life to a company, you got a pension. Maybe instead of playing into the class warfare that the Right has been perpetrating on workers since Ronald Reagan was in diapers, it's time for American workers to start asking why corporate profits are at record levels but they're still getting screwed.

You're sitting at home with your little 401k, and every year your company decides it's going to match a little less. Where are you at now, about 5%? You wonder why? How do you think the CEO of your company's 401k is doing? There's not much of a future in being a punk for the CEO, because even middle managers are not going to be exempt from the big squeeze. You can either stand up for yourself and your fellow workers, your neighbors and friends, or you can hide in your cubicle and hope you're boosterism is not going to be overlooked the next time layoffs come around.

Re:$200 million?

[man_of_mr_e]

You're being lied to. For some reason, CNN chooses to portray this issue as a salary and pension issue, when in reality the only issue.. and the one that has everyone upset, is that the governor is trying to take away collective bargaining. Remove the collective bargaining ban from the bill, and all this mess goes away.

/. News Networks

[Even on Slashdot FOE]

Today's top story is how prominent ISPs received government funding to extend broadband access to more of America and blew it on bonuses and advertisement. And possibly blow.

In related news, ISPs are complaining about how expensive people who use their entire bandwidth allotment are.

Re:/. News Networks

[Nadaka]

What? no hookers and wiskey? They didn't get their monies worth.

Re:/. News Networks

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh how nice it would be to have good service again. Already fussed over a period of a month with AT&T to get my service back up, but never better than balancing plates on sticks. DSL is crawling once more and the last tech didn't want to repair the line so said to not expect anything above 1.5 MBps (had solid 3.0 service for years before). My area is listed as 10-25MBps on this site. AT&T has sent out reps twice saying that the area is green lighted for the Uverse deal, but it isn't and aside from their trucks always parked on the side of the road (guess they are reading the paper or something), no work is apparently being done.

Makes me wonder how much of this is mis-information. Comcast looks like the better deal around here. Starting to think I maybe the only customer left in the area from the Bellsouth days.

Re:/. News Networks

[Anonymous Coward]

Correction, telecoms received government funding, not ISPs. In a fair percentage of the US, there is a competitive ISP market (always for DSL, since that is the only thing resold on the wholesale market), but they're slave to how fast the last-mile telecom's lines can go.

Co-ops, or Gov't?

[Anonymous Coward]

So... How did the power companies handle this? As I recall, the investor-owned utilities didn't want to spend a lot of money for rural customers, such as farmers. As such, the farmers joined together and created "Co-ops".

Then there are places like ?Nebraska? where there is a publicly owned utility, but they will only exist until a privately owned company comes in and takes over a territory.

Will Co-ops spring up for internet? Or will we see more government spending?

Re:Co-ops, or Gov't?

[alva_edison]

Loans from the U.S. Federal government during the great depression. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rural_electrification#United_States

Re:Co-ops, or Gov't?

[PitaBred]

Naah. Co-ops are sued by incumbents that are too lazy to actually build out the infrastructure that they've been taking federal money to do. Welcome to the future.

Re:Co-ops, or Gov't?

[Gilmoure]

Just obvious socialism with proletariats grouping together (practically a union and you know how evil unions are) getting money from Roosevelt's obvious fascist gov't, stolen from true blue American capitalists so that these 'people's' collectives can compete unfairly with hard working bankers and industrialists.

Re:Co-ops, or Gov't?

[demonlapin]

Alternatively, Roosevelt despised the industrialists who had actually built power companies and founded agencies like the TVA in order to prevent them from profitably electrifying the rural areas of the country.

Indiana

[wiredlogic]

Indiana seems to have remarkably high penetration of DSL compared to its neighbors. Three of its borders are clearly demarcated. Is there any explanation for this?

Re:Indiana

[CraftyJack]

I don't know, but Vermont has it too. Whatever it is, West Virginia should start taking notes.

Re:Indiana

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in southern indiana. When the state deregulated ~three years ago, we had dsl up and running in my county and every county bordering us within a year. We had no broadband (outside of the satellite) before that.

Not commenting on the deregulation bit, just saying what happened.

Re:Indiana

[vawwyakr]

As soon as they acquire the technology needed to begin taking notes they will begin taking them. Then sometime later begin working on this "broadband" stuff.

Re:Indiana

[Tr3vin]

Verizon worked to set up quite a bit of DSL / FiOS in my area. As far as I know, we were one of the first areas to get FiOS. There was a bit of begging and probably some tax breaks involved. We also removed regulations to make it easier for companies to add service. Verizon's FiOS service has been amazing and I haven't had any trouble with it. Unfortunately, Verizon has sold all of their lines to Frontier. Since Frontier is smaller, they are having trouble negotiating TV prices, so there is going to be a ~$30 rate hike. Their internet services are still great, though. I've never hit a cap and have not once noticed any throttling.

Re:Indiana

[Nadaka]

Indiana seems to have remarkably high penetration of DSL compared to its neighbors...

I hate to do it. But I just feel compelled. You walked right into this.

"Thats what she said"

Re:Indiana

[Quill_28]

West Virginia is so sparsely populated, I think only wireless access would make sense for 90% of the state.

Re:Indiana

[adonoman]

Yeah, I don't buy it. In Southern Manitoba - an area with half West Virginia's population, and four times the land area, there's nearly complete broadband penetration (pdf file).

Montana and Alaska are sparsely populated. The interior of Australia are sparsely populated, as is northern Canada. A good 2/3rds of West Virginia has > 10 people per sq. mile. That's practically jamming people in.

Re:Indiana

[fermion]

When I look at this map, what I see is population distribution. For example, Indiana and Arizona has about the same population. In Arizona, about a quarter of the people are in the about 400 aquare miles of Pheonix. The rest are spread over the state in a density of less than 40 people per square mile. Compare this to indiana where only about 10% live in Indianapolis and the rest are spead with a density of about 150 people per square mile. In the case of Arizona the state will have to take huge sums of tax payer money to provide service to the state, while in Indianapolis more areas are able to pay a fair price for service without government regulations and waste. The same is true for Texas. There are simply not that many people that live south and east of Abilene. Sure we could pay huge taxes to pull fiber and provide broadband to the one farm located in the middle of a square mile of noting, but why would we?

Take a look at this image of the earth at nigh It shows the same trend as the bradband map.

Frankly when one goes east, the population density decreases, and we must assume the level of service to do so as well. I don't see broadband like I do land telephone. I hope over time we will see some cost saving, and decrease in taxes on communications, by encouraging individuals to cover more of the costs. For instance in some countries no physical lines are run to places with low population density. They are expected to use mobile phones. Furthermore, the coverage is not that good, and many people are required to buy home booster units if they want cell service. It is simply not fair to charge other customers high rates or taxes so that one person can use a phone. This type of thing can also deliver broadband to low density areas. New cell technology seems to able to cover 5 square miles, which in the case of Arizona would be 150 people, maybe enough to justify a station.

Re:Indiana

[Kozar_The_Malignant]

West Virginia is still working on Rural Electrification.

Re:Indiana

[Fallingcow]

Colorado, the Dakotas, and Kansas have the weird service-stopping-at-their-borders thing going on in the wireless.

Re:Indiana

[element-o.p.]

Yeah, I don't buy it. In Southern Manitoba - an area with half West Virginia's population, and four times the land area...

...and from what Google Maps shows me, essentially none of the mountains. I don't know if that's a factor or not, but I'd think at least it could be.

Montana and Alaska are sparsely populated.

According to the map, broadband penetration in Alaska is pretty sparse, too. FWIW, I live in Alaska and work for one of the companies that provides broadband up here (and I used to work for a different one). What you will find in AK is relatively good service in Anchorage, Fairbanks and Juneau, with progressively crappier service the farther you get from these hubs. Keep in mind that roughly half the population of the entire state lives within Anchorage alone; by including the other two cities (as such...even Anchorage is only the size of a suburb compared to Chicago or L.A.), you've added a significant fraction of the rest of the population of the state. That means by serving these three locales, you've pretty much provided broadband penetration to the majority of the population of the state -- even if the vast majority of land area in the state is completely uncovered.

If you are in the other secondary hubs in Alaska (Bethel, for example) or the outlying villages, forget it. The service there is a fraction of what you get in the three "urban" (using the term very loosely) environments. And, even if you can get a 256K or 512K line (does that even count as broadband?!?!) in some of these secondary areas doesn't mean your provider has enough bandwidth on the uplink back to the rest of the world to even provide that much speed.

Re:Indiana

[Anonymous Coward]

I saw that myself. I live in West Central Indiana. I have access to DSL, DOCSIS 3.0, UVerse, and a municipal FTTH service that isn't shown on the map. The last one is the reason why ATT brought in Uverse and Comcast brough in DOCSIS 3.0. Indiana is doing quite well for a Red State, I"d say some of it, at least in certain counties, has to do with Purdue University and Indiana University, but that's not a situation unique to Indiana.

Re:Indiana

[hedwards]

You're not doing it right.

Re:Indiana

[Nadaka]

There is an older meaning for DSL outside of tech circles.

That is most definitely doing it right.

Re:Indiana

[hedwards]

No, the GGP poster isn't doing it right. That whole apology before the act isn't right. Either you say, "that's what she said" and nothing else or you're doing it wrong.

Re:Indiana

[Nadaka]

perhaps, but I feel that such a short response is usually inappropriate for a discussion forum. Its fine for conversational speech with a higher rate of flow. But a less terse quip is generally called for here.

Canadian Broadband

[KingPin27]

For those of you interested in under served markets -- check out the Canadian set of broadband maps (current to 2010) Maps here

Just an FYI currently where I am at (southern Alberta, just outside of Lethbridge). I am maxed out at 3Mbps down on a good day when my DSL isn't bottlenecked from the DSLAM. On average I get about 1.7Mbps with 120ms Ping to most places.

Re:Canadian Broadband

[bazorg]

Blame Canada! Blame Canada!

Re:Canadian Broadband

[StikyPad]

You poor fellow. My connection at work is a T1 -- a symmetric 1.5Mbit connection shared by no less than 30 people, not to mention two externally accessible websites which are hosted on the same connection. And yes, it's absolutely the best connection available at that location. For anything over ~400MB in size, it's literally faster for me to remote into my home setup, start a download, drive home to pick it up, and drive back to work. And for what it's worth, this is less than 2 miles outside the border of a major metropolitan city (in the same state).

$200M? Should have spent more

[Anonymous Coward]

... ON the website. So gawdawful slow.

broadband.gov wants to access your location. Confirm or Deny.
I am usually against government spending, but I am paying all for faster speeds for everyone as I believe it will do more for U.S. and her people than just about any other government program would.

Re:$200M? Should have spent more

[Firehed]

It's so slow to remind you what it's like for the underprivileged Americans without broadband access living in...well, I have no idea since the damn map won't load.

Really not that bad.....

[commodore6502]

According to DSLreports.com:

99% of the country is already connected to high speed internet via wireless 3G connections. That only leaves a few nomads living in deserts or montana ranches that can not get "broadband" internet.

*
* BTW what is broadband? 100 MHz width? 500 MHz? I've never seen it defined other than the loose "greater than a phoneline's 4 kHz" definition.

Re:Really not that bad.....

[NullProg]

* BTW what is broadband?

An upgrade from 300 baud to 14400 without any government assistance.

Enjoy,

Re:Really not that bad.....

[k6mfw]

>According to DSLreports.com: >99% of the country is already connected to high speed internet via wireless 3G connections.

I just cannot believe this, unless they did a survey which only those with wireless 3G connections. Maybe if you simply lotsa $$$ you can get highspeed wireless internet anywhere, but I'm not stinking rich and there is no DSL in at my part of the city.

Re:Really not that bad.....

[mrdogi]

Or in a valley that is poorly covered by cells. I have a co-worker who can't get anything beyond dial-up because she is too far out of town (2 miles, maybe) and is nowhere near cable. This is in Western Wisconsin, perhaps 30 miles from downtown St. Paul, MN.

Re:Really not that bad.....

[Seumas]

I don't think it should be a point of accomplishment that 99% of the country is connected to a low speed option. In most cases, our highest speed wired broadband connections are slower than the slowest wireless (4G) connections available in other countries. Especially since it's the result of us paying for the lines and then handing them over to monopolies for whom it is in their best interest to hold back and artificially restrict service capacities.

At the same time, the map shows (*shock*!) that the denser an area's population, the greater the broadband penetration (of course, you're still only left with ONE option, no matter how dense the population is in your area). If you're way out in the fucking middle of nowhere and you don't get broadband internet, you probably also may not get cable television. Or be connected to a city sewer line. Or have a robust library system. That's what you get when you live in the middle of nowhere and that's why people tend to congregate in bigger cities. You know, where you can get stuff.

Re:Really not that bad.....

[0racle]

50 miles outside of Raleigh, NC and AT&T only just brought their 3G service to the area about 6 weeks ago. I don't believe 99% of the US has 3G, by area or by population.

Re:Really not that bad.....

[Quiet_Desperation]

Broadband is the speed at which porn can be downloaded at an erotically acceptable pace to maintain en erection.

Re:Really not that bad.....

[BJ_Covert_Action]

3G qualifies as broadband? That's news to me. That 3G is the same 3G I use for a data plan on my phone right? The data plan that restricts me to less than 5 GB per month before I get throttled down to lower speeds? Sure, that 3G connection may work great for a smartphone, where I check my e-mail a few times a day and might even stream Pandora once or twice, but it's not going to work for general home use.

Anyone who routinely updates/downloads software over the internet will violate their cap. Anyone who wants to establish and maintain their own web server will violate a 3G cap. Anyone who wants to telecommute to work, and handle the large datasets/documentation material that they need to for their job is going to violate their 5 GB cap in a week, much less a month.

Don't kid yourself. 3G is about as broadband as a creek is a viable water supply for a city. It's inadequate for anything but semi-regular use on phones.

Re:Really not that bad.....

[commodore6502]

Here's the quote for those who are curious: "Granted, Obama did say "next-generation" wireless, but given the current debate around the definition of fourth generation (4G) wireless, that term now technically includes every variety of mobile broadband faster than 256kbps. It's certain a vast majority of the public will see "next generation" 4G wireless within the next five years without the government lifting a finger.

"That makes this promise much like the FCC's promise to bring 100 Mbps service to 100 Million households in twenty years, something also destined to happen organically (relatively inexpensive DOCSIS 3.0 cable upgrades) without Uncle Sam doing anything. In short, the 98% mark is another meaningless metric designed to impress people who don't pay attention."

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Why-Obamas-98-Wireless-Goal-Is-Empty-Rhetoric-112429

Re:Really not that bad.....

[Unequivocal]

Up until recently BB was defined as 756k. There's been a move to redefine as 3mbps or 5mbps but as far as I know FCC hasn't pulled the trigger on this.

And it's not just Montana that doesn't get BB wired or wireless. My folks live not 8 miles from a town of 8,000 people (and in a community of at least 40 homes) and can't get cell service (even analog) let along 3g. And no DSL/Cable either.

Re:Really not that bad.....

[Anonymous Coward]

Lucky you. I'm 40 miles northwest of Texarkana, right on the Oklahoma/Arkansas line. I guess we've had DSL for about three years now. 1/2 MB service is all I can afford, and 1 MB service is the highest available. That is through my local phone company. No cable available, satellite suffers that infamous lag, and all the wireless services follow the corridor along Interstate 30. If I lived about ten miles further south, I would be on the fringe of that corridor. Maybe I'll invest in a micro-cell and a yagi antenna - but I'm not real sure that would solve my problem. The best antenna has it's limitations.

Re:Really not that bad.....

[Anonymous Coward]

Broadband is the speed at which porn can be downloaded at an erotically acceptable pace to maintain en erection.

Genius

I may well quote you:)

Re:Really not that bad.....

[Quiet_Desperation]

I may well quote you:)

With my blessing. Spread the gospel!

Missing some data

[mitler]

I hope they aren't factoring missing data into their statistics. I'm in York County PA, and the default map showing DSL service is mysteriously blank for the entire county. I think they have some holes in their data, or it's just not displaying it all properly.

Re:Missing some data

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup. The town I live in has about 500 residents, and the map claims that we don't have broadband access, which is incorrect. There are two cable companies that provide access, and I'm connected to one of them.

I wonder what the accuracy of this map is? For the area I live in and several miles to the North and South it is completely inaccurate.

Re:Missing some data

[alta]

You expect it to be perfect for $200 million? They passed up the perfect option, it was $200 billion. They would have gone for that option but the company was run by replicans and the dems just couldn't bring themselves to pay them.

Hey, at least you got a map. it's /.ed for me. Actually, it finally DID work. It shows I have broadband, however it is NOT available to me. I was talking to someone working with this on the state level, and they said the initiative says that if ONE person in a zipcode has access to broadband, they mark that entire zip code as 'yes'

That's BS. I'm .25 from someone with a 20MB connection to mediacom. They want $25k to put a 'tap' on my street.

What a waste of our money. How many people could this have fed?

Re:Missing some data

[Anonymous Coward]

Same here. Not the entire county, but the map of my area is missing large areas I know have better than dialup in the 3-6Mbps range..

200 million down the toilet

[jimbolauski]

What did this study prove that rural areas are undeserved, that was well worth 200 million that was supposed to be for helping the economy recover.

Re:200 million down the toilet

[Haven]

This is a silly "either or" fallacy, both could be done.

The merits of this study let us know the scope, and exactly where the problem lies. Only then can we really begin to fix it.

I wonder..

[aBaldrich]

I wonder why is this map so similar to the united states population density.

Re:I wonder..

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder why is this map so similar to the united states population density.

Except for the black hole known as West Virginia.

Re:I wonder..

[guruevi]

It isn't really. Make sure you select Cable DOCSIS 3.0 and Fiber to the End User in order to compare broadband as broadband is defined in other countries (Europe, Asia). I don't consider my copper DSL (2Mbps/256k) or Cable (10/1Mbps offered, 3Mbps/512k actual) options here to be very broadband. The only places I do get 10Mbps is against benchmarking sites (very suspiciously it actually goes to 15/3Mbps sometimes on those sites even though the company says it can't go faster than 10).

Re:I wonder..

[Jenming]

My 10/1 Mbs Cable in Maine is consistently above 8 Mbps even at peak times. The upload does leave something to be desired, maybe somewhere around 512k.

Re:I wonder..

[PitaBred]

Suspicious? It means they're giving you more than you pay for. The speeds they advertise are maximum speeds... there are many servers on the Internet that can't sustain 10Mbps downloads, and there are many reasons why it may be slow getting all the way to you. Benchmarking sites are selected because they have excess bandwidth that they can play with. What about something like Netflix... does that go fast for you?

Really, 10Mbps may not be blow your hair back fast, but it's most certainly "broadband" as far as application use is concerned.

Re:I wonder..

[guruevi]

I can barely stream 720p from YouTube. I should be able to stream 1080p H.264 but it can't, takes forever to load. The more I YouTube however, the slower it gets - the first 2-3 (20 minute) videos work well but then they start buffering while if I go to the YouTube benchmark site which works full throttle.

NetFlix and other channels (such as Comedy Central) works well at first but then (after 10 minutes) degrades further until it's no longer watchable on a 26 or 32" display. I've changed routers already thinking it might be something with that and I use different computers and even an iPad with the same results.

This is TWC in NYS, they are definitely throttling even though I don't use the connection a whole lot (maybe 10GB/month). They have the monopoly on cable here and PPV for movies and series which is what they recommend I use instead of the Internet when I complain while another company has the monopoly on DSL.

Re:I wonder..

[mjwx]

I don't consider my copper DSL (2Mbps/256k) or Cable (10/1Mbps offered, 3Mbps/512k actual) options here to be very broadband

Luxury,

The luddites in the previous government of my nation (Australia) declared anything over 56 K to be "broadband". Average speed here is about 1.4 Mbit\s and most of the nation is connected via ADSL 2RE

Nice job, Feds.

[MachineShedFred]

Would have been nice to have put this map showing where the good connections are on a good connection so that more than 10 people can use it at once.

Re:Nice job, Feds.

[Anonymous Coward]

Would have been nice to have put this map showing where the good connections are on a good connection so that more than 10 people can use it at once.

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing ... Obviously, this server is hosted in East Nowhere....

Re:Nice job, Feds.

[Anonymous Coward]

Would have been nice to have put this map showing where the good connections are on a good connection so that more than 10 people can use it at once.

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing ... Obviously, this server is hosted in East Nowhere....

Obviously we need to throw another 200 million at it.

Re:Nice job, Feds.

[alienzed]

I disagree for two reasons, one, a bad connection to the map really drives the point home and secondly, for those who simply can't access it, the problem is out of sight and so out of mind. Ignorance is bliss after all! Besides, we all know that those 10 people are probably responsible for 99% of the internet's traffic so they don't deserve to see the map.

Re:Nice job, Feds.

[klui]

For that to happen it would have cost $200 billion.

Re:Nice job, Feds.

[TheoMurpse]

And also have, you know, the entire United States visible when the map first loads.

Inadvertently hilarious title

[SuperKendall]

"Are you being served?" turns out to be a funny question to ask when www.broadbandmap.gov is incapable of doing so.

No Chrome?

[sockonafish]

Is it just me, or does this not work on Chrome?

Re:No Chrome?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not just you, I see nothing.

Re:No Chrome?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ditto.

Re:No Chrome?

[AgentSmith]

Rainier Wolfcastle: Ah! My eyes! The website . . .it does nothing!

Re:No Chrome?

[Rob the Bold]

I don't get it on Chrome or Firefox. Methinks they need a faster broadband connection . . .

Re:No Chrome?

[Anonymous Coward]

It works fine for me on Firefox.

Re:No Chrome?

[Seumas]

Yep. For $200,000,000, you'd think it could at least work on something other than MSIE. Enormous government waste to document enormous government waste. Go figure.

Re:No Chrome?

[Firehed]

It worked after I disabled Flashblock.

Re:No Chrome?

[StuartHankins]

I had to refresh a couple of times, but it worked on Firefox for me, even with Ghostery, ABP and NoScript enabled.

Re:No Chrome?

[Anonymous Coward]

$200M and it does not load the actual map in Safari or Chrome on Mac. Firefox seems to work ok, but slow like dial up slow.

FCC, not Commerce Dept. Released Broadband.gov

[Anonymous Coward]

The original article incorrectly states that the Commerce Dept. is responsible for the map, when in fact it was released by the FCC.

The goverment built a POS? How is it possible

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean their broadband map isn't capable of getting /.'d? Did anyone notice for the half second it does show up the thing is written in ASP? They paid 200,000,000 for this thing...

Re:The goverment built a POS? How is it possible

[Seumas]

What are you viewing it in? I don't think it's slashdotted. It just doesn't work in Firefox or Chrome (it'll load the header and then all you'll get is a blank page with a single horizontal rule at the top).

Re:The goverment built a POS? How is it possible

[icebike]

ASP Fail.

200 million bucks and they can't even support standard browser.

God, it's a barren, featureless desert out there,

[Anonymous Coward]

isn't it? I can't see a thing, they must be showing the other side of the map.

Probably bunk

[MetricT]

Tennessee has maintained a online map of broadband availability for some time. Except that it shows theoretical broadband availability instead of actual broadband availability. The federal map seems to be Slashdotted, but I'm betting it pulls from the same data sources and has the same problems.

The Tennessee map tracks cable, DSL, and cellular wireless/WiMAX. According to the map, my parents are serviced by both cable and cellular wireless.

Except that my parents live at the bottom of a valley and can't get any cell phone signal where they live. And since they live a mile off the main road, the cable company wants $4k to pull cable down to their house.

So my parents have no broadband. There's a BellSouth DSLAM a mile from their house, but no DSL.

BellSouth promised to roll out DSL several years ago, purely coincidentally about the time that the local electric co-op was making noises about providing broadband. BellSouth/Charter/Comcast increased their political donations that year by a factor of 100, and again purely by coincidence the republican party passed a law to prevent public co-ops from getting into the internet business. Since the law was passed 3 years ago, BellSouth has been promising us DSL "within 6 months". I expect broadband to arrive in our neighborhood in the "Half-Life 23" timeframe.

Re:Probably bunk

[Anonymous Coward]

BellSouth promised to roll out DSL several years ago, purely coincidentally about the time that the local electric co-op was making noises about providing broadband. BellSouth/Charter/Comcast increased their political donations that year by a factor of 100, and again purely by coincidence the republican party passed a law to prevent public co-ops from getting into the internet business. Since the law was passed 3 years ago, BellSouth has been promising us DSL "within 6 months". I expect broadband to arrive in our neighborhood in the "Half-Life 23" timeframe.

I live in Tennessee myself. I don't know about this law, but my electric co-op, EPB IS providing Fibre Internet/Phone/Television to everybody in its customer area. You should get your co-op to do the same thing. EPB has made their customers very happy, and made Comcast and AT&T very nervous and forced them to invest into their own provisions.

Not saying it's without problems, I had to work on one location they didn't think they served, but that was a database problem caused by an irregular address. But if EBP can do it, so can your parent's provider.

Re:Probably bunk

[MetricT]

EBP is grandfathered in because it already offered internet before the bill was passed. CEMC (I live in Ashland City) wasn't.

http://www.nashvillepost.com/news/2008/4/7/cableatt_legislation_unveiled

Re:Probably bunk

[Anonymous Coward]

EBP is grandfathered in because it already offered internet before the bill was passed. CEMC (I live in Ashland City) wasn't.

http://www.nashvillepost.com/news/2008/4/7/cableatt_legislation_unveiled

Well, well the article doesn't mention that it prohibits such conduct, but I'll take your word for it being somewhere in the law. I do know Comcast and AT&T fought hard in the courts to stop EPB from proceeding, so it would not surprise me at all.

Pity that once again the Free Market is free to buy the laws it wants. Go Capitalism!

.gov fail

[Chaseshaw]

whelp doesn't work on my chrome or ie on win 7 64 ultimate. typical .gov. -- I'll bet even the javascript programmers needed security clearance to work on it.

Re:.gov fail

[watermark]

whelp doesn't work on my chrome or ie on win 7 64 ultimate. typical .gov.

I have same config, works fine.

Color me unimpressed w/ the map itself.

[yoder]

Usability = 5 out of 10
Speed = 4
Design = 6

5-10 percent? Not bad

[thule]

That doesn't sound that bad to me. One of the most rural areas I have recently visited has fiber to the house. The service is provided by the telephone co-op. The co-op claims they can provide 100mbit service if you want it. This is a farm area and the population density is very, very low, but they have fiber!

Re:5-10 percent? Not bad

[Anonymous Coward]

Must be because its a co-op.

Re:5-10 percent? Not bad

[SilentChasm]

The co-op's lucky for the people there but still does not help the people without it.
See:
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2000894&cid=35237276
Where the commenter claims the other internet providers prevented that (sounds like a perfectly reasonable business strategy to me, just not fair to the people and should be prevented as anticompetitive). I can kind of understand the whole 'public money vs private business is unfair' aspect to it, but they really should be required to actually compete at that stage or shut up about it, rather than leaving the people unserved.

The incumbents really are the problem with the whole thing. They continuously make promises for better infrastructure, take money to do that and then do nothing to little in actual improvements. Then they complain that they're over loaded.
I also have to ask how they measure whether or not someone can get broadband as it can be very complicated, even just in a small area of one city.

Re:5-10 percent? Not bad

[antdude]

How come my city had FIOS for a couple years, but not in my neighborhood or big hill? Obviously, no DSL due to 20K ft. :(

Re:5-10 percent? Not bad

[Anonymous Coward]

5 to 10% if you believe the statistics this highly over priced map provides... You can get broadband Internet ANYWHERE in the USA if you're willing to pay for it. On quite a few of the lookups I did they were missing providers, and some they did list didn't actually serve the area in question.

Doesn't proove that

[SuperKendall]

Read the other responses here. What it proves is that the government cannot measure rural broadband access.

View Source ... bloody incompetence

[theNAM666]

on home page. It begins:

[html comment code here]

[insert ascii art that /. won't let me use because o fthe 'junk characters' filter]

[//end html comment code]

And gets worse. Good bloody grief. Who the hell built this and who gave them the time machine from 1995 and no wonder it cost $200M, they evidently had to contribute to the time machine project.

Oh crap. Now /. (-- junk characters) wants me to use fewer 'junk characters.' Great. Let's just cut&paste from the OP:

[snip. didn't work.]

Re:View Source ... bloody incompetence

[Anonymous Coward]

I think they're using 1995 servers too since the site has been slashdotted for the last couple days.

I bet it would have worked on firefox 2.0.0.8, too

[Ungrounded Lightning]

Really? I'd of done it for a paltry $150 million.

I bet it would have worked on firefox 2.0.0.8, too.

Apparently $200,000,000 doesn't pay for testing on a range of browsers.

If I could display the government's map I'd take a look at how much stuff it downloaded. I bet it's so bloated it's only viewable over broadband.

airports? WTF

[alta]

What's the point in marking every little airport on the map? What does this have to do at ALL with airports. Let me show you ow rediculous this is. 1 mile from my house, there's a grass landing strip. The wealthy owner of a local company wanted his spoiled grown kid to learn how to fly. He was too rich to bother driving the 10 miles to the local airport, so he got the field behind his house designated as a landing strip for small aircraft. They came out and put the orange balls on the high tension power lines. After the brat (25ish) got about 20 hours in, he quit. This was 20 years ago. AND RICHARDSON FIELD IS ON THIS MAP? WTF? For shits and giggles did they import every site the FAA ever had since the beginning of time?

To back up my story a bit...
http://www.airport-data.com/airport/26AL/

Still shows airport as operational. Apparently no one checks this crap. Last time I drove by the pine trees had grown up to about 12 feet in 'richardson field airport' Geeze

Re:airports? WTF

[Anonymous Coward]

It would suck if someone needed to make an emergency landing and decided to land there because it was the closest airport.

Re:I bet it would have worked on firefox 2.0.0.8,

[LWATCDR]

Doesn't work on chrome....

Amazing!

[wcrowe]

Gasp! It looks eerily like a population map of the United States! Amazing!

Advertised rates are lies

[RatherBeAnonymous]

This map is reporting the ISPs' advertised rates. I eventually got the site to load up my address. It is a load of baloney. Time Warner is claiming 10 to 25 MB, which may be accurate. But I tried their service for a month last Fall and the service was frequently down for hours or days at a time. Windstream is claiming 6 to 10Mb for my address, and I use theme currently. I was signed up for 3Mb from them, but it turns out I am too far from the CO to support that speed. I had to reduce to 1.5Mb for reliability.

I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that I'm not the only one living in an area where these claimed data rates are marketing fabrications.

The Data Is Wrong

[krgallagher]

I typed in my Mother's address. She lives 40 miles outside of Dallas, and can only get 3G wireless from a couple of providers. Even then she rarely gets faster than 720 Kbps. It listed two "Fixed Wireless" providers with speeds up to 6 Mbps. I went to their web sites and typed in her address. They say, correctly, that she is outside their coverage area.

Re:The Data Is Wrong

[Rob Riggs]

This map is a joke. Wishful thinking at best. Qwest is shown in my neighborhood as providing 3-6Mbps down. Go to their site and type in the exact same address that I did and you'll find they offer up to 768Kbps down. My wireless broadband carrier is showing the same thing (3-6Mbps). Yet they only offer up to 2.5Mbps in my neighborhood, and you'll only get 500kbps during prime time (making Netflix unwatchable).

Here's why the map is really a joke. It asks for feedback -- "crowd-sourcing" they say. However, you can only provide feedback as to whether the provider actually serves the area, not whether the bandwidth numbers are accurate. It seems they do not want all of the facts, just some of them.

Re:The Data Is Wrong

[initdeep]

It seems they do not want all of the facts, just some of them.

you find this unusual for something run by the government?

detailed map, already available

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't they use that map that every Verizon commercial shows, about how good their coverage is? Then we could have taken that 0.2 $G and hand out a million bucks to everyone in this thread, like Oprah: "You get a million! You get a million! You get a million! You get a million! You get a million! You get a million! You get a million! You get a million! You get a million! " x 200 people. The quality of the information would be the same, plus, instead of one agency cashing in on free tax money, we could share it. Government is not in the business of providing broadband access to anyone. RTFM.

Re:I bet it would have worked on firefox 2.0.0.8,

[jebrew]

I'm running Chrome and it appears to work fine...slow, but you can't blame the browser for that.

What a piece of garbage!

[swilly]

I tried going to my town, and didn't see our largest (and best) ISP listed. Then I noticed that the map was way, way outside of town.

I tried putting in my street address, still putting me outside of town.

So, I go to Google maps and get my lat/lon to 4 decimal places. I put my lat/lon in, and it returns nothing. I notice that the URL had a positive longitude, despite my putting a negative into the text field. I edit the URL to have a - in front of the longitude. Now I have data. Way, way outside of town.

None of the download options work, they all give me an error.

I'm going to stop playing with the site. It is useless.

Please tell me the 5 years, 200 million dollars is a joke.

It's not that similar

[RatherBeAnonymous]

Look at the map and highlight all of the wired connections technologies, then look at the state of Indiana. The reported consistency of broadband coverage is amazing. Indiana is not that well populated. California, The San Francisco area in particular, looks dramatically under-served for the population density. The Flagstaff, Arizona area looks pretty well over-served for the population.

You could include wireless connection technologies, but the cost for wireless data service is so much greater than wired that I don't consider it a viable option.

O'Rly?

[pugugly]

According to this map, I have access to fiber to the end user? From Who?

Pug

wow, what a fucking waste

[cavtroop]

Looked up my neighborhood, and NONE of the data is correct. According to the map, I can get fiber. Nope. According to the map, I cannot get a cable modem, let alone docsis 3.0. - wrong again, thats what Im on right now.

What a complete waste of 200mil.

Fiber in the desert? and to boats? WTF?

[Anonymous Coward]

Look just north of Phoenix, Arizona and select ONLY the "Fiber to the End User" option. Mysterious coverage areas appear that are in un-developed desert lands and some that lay directly on top of Lake Plesant! I guess on my next boat party we can all plug in to some serious bandwidth!

What a joke!

Really 20 million for "just the map"

[markass530]

From TFA: Some llegislation provided $350 million for the creation of a national broadband inventory map. 293 went to states for data collection. 20ish went to contractors to build The fucking map. Somehow somebody extrapolates this into a 200 mil price tag. Who said pork was dead?

Not accurate

[Algan]

The map is not accurate. It says I have access to fiber (presumably FIOS), which I don't. It also claims I don't have access to Docsis 3 cable service, which I do.
And don't get me started on how spectacularly crappy it works on Safari and Firefox.

So how does one read the map?

[jc42]

I looked at its (rather small) maps for a few areas, but couldn't figure out how it was telling me about broadband coverage. The maps look normal, with big white and green zones that don't seem to correlate with anything I know about the territory. There are a few brown areas scattered around the map. Nowhere can I find anything saying what the colors might mean.

At the left, there are some bar graphs labelled with various kinds of Net access, but no obvious way to relate them to the maps. Poking around didn't turn up any explanations anywhere.

So how does one decode these purported broadband maps? Anyone know where TFM is hidden?

Coverage along state borders

[tepples]

I do find it interesting how well covered with wired broad band solutions places like Maine actually are. It looks like the midwest is actually well served as well. It seems to be only the Western United states that is problematic.

The most striking part to me was the fact that I could see coverage or lack thereof follow state borders. For example, in the DSL and DSL+cable maps, Indiana has far better coverage than its neighbors (in fact some of the best in the Union), and North Dakota sucks $private_part compared to its neighbors South Dakota and Minnesota.

Australia Broadband Maps

[Hyperhaplo]

I like TPG's Broadband map. Very useful - http://www.tpg.com.au/maps/

For nation wide see http://www.adsl2exchanges.com.au/

The new National Broadband network also has coverage maps - http://www.nbnco.com.au/wps/wcm/connect/main/site-base/main-areas/our-services/coverage-maps/ ....

and I'm fairly certain that all of the above, combined, has cost less than $100 Million :-)

Yes, the interior is "sparsely populated" - Not much water in there, and the climate can be harsh. Amount of water and comfort of living roughly equates to amount of people.

Re:Australia Broadband Maps

[mjwx]

Looking at the TPG map and seeing nothing west of Griffith (hint for those playing along at home, Griffith is east of Melbourne, this network is for New South Welshmen only) I can only say, Julia, bring on the NBN. I'm not sure if we are going to see any NBN love before 2014 with Worst Australia being a Liberal loving state.

How about postcards?

[bill_mcgonigle]

Here's what I get when I type in my ZIP code:

The area you have selected does not contain a complete broadband record set. The system will only display available data (if any).

And it shows a tiny little area of my town with some actual data. I think it's a new development.

With $200M they could have instead sent out postcards to a statistically representative sample of the population, licensed the speedtest.net technology, and had people pop in a unique code.

Kudos on the OpenStreetMap usage, though.

Are you being served?

[PPH]

Yes. Roasted, with an apple shoved in my mouth. To the sole broadband provider in my neighborhood.

Three Hundred Fifty Millon

[kenh]

There was $350M put aside for this map in the 2009 ARRA bill, and despite spending a bit more than $1/citizen, not one American will enjoy a faster internet connection because of the expenditure.

Bravo! A victory for style over substance! Why spend money to provide broadband connectivity when you can instead create a website for those folks with broadband connections to play the age-old game of comparing to who's got the faster connection speed!

Ironic

[Anonymous Coward]

Does't work in chrome. I would think that for two hundred million the map could be made to work in chrome.

How many really need it?

[rhalstead]

My guess it that nation wide a good 10% neither need, nor want broadband. I think we could coordinate the implementation of broadband, help those that need it, skip those who nether want nor need it, and save hundreds of millions. 200 million for a map. Sounds like the military's $2,000 toilet seat.

Where's the other map?

[ThatsNotPudding]

You know; the one that shows where US consumers have a choice between two or more equivalent broadband services? Perhaps I missed it, given that such a map could be rendered with around fifty pixels.

WOMBAT!

[Sparkle]

Yes my friends this is your typical government Waste Of Money Brains and Time!

What is wrong you say? Well just suppose I went to my location and found some coverage. For me that would be wireless only as there is not cable or DSL within miles and that leaves only wireless.

Now I zoom it in and see it is covered. Big question is, covered by WHOM? I have guv'mint assurance that I can get it but no clue where to sign up. Thank you for nothing tax payers er bureau rats.

This is very buggy

[Anonymous Coward]

Upon entering my zip code the map and data presented a location 2 states away. The full map displays poorly in Firefox with all community names covered by any broadband blobs. It refused to display in my Chrome browser.
Epic fail for $200 million.

Inaccurate

[FS]

In my rural community this map shows Verizon offering 10mbps down, 1.5mbps up. Verizon barely offers POTS here, and I just reconfirmed with them this morning that they do not offer any Internet to me. How much of this map is overstating connectivity? What a waste of money!

the data is inaccurate

[Anonymous Coward]

I used the map to check broadband availability for 2 addresses I know of. http://www.broadbandmap.gov/ shows 3 wired ISPs at these addresses, Comcast, Verizon and One Communications.

I checked the web sites of all 3 companies. Verizon does not offer service at either address and One Communications offers only business accounts.

There is a place on http://www.broadbandmap.gov/ to confirm whether or not a listed ISP actually serves the specified address. I hope that means someone will double check to correct the errors.

Glad to see our government spent $200 million of our tax dollars on a database filled with incorrect data.

Turn DSL off and mobile wireless on

[tepples]

I just cannot believe this, unless they did a survey which only those with wireless 3G connections.

They did. Open the map, turn off asymmetric and symmetric DSL, and turn on terrestrial mobile wireless.

1200 baud modems vs. reading speed

[tepples]

Slash fic and other erotic text works exist. Downloading text has outpaced reading since the days of 1200 baud modems. Yet this is a thousand times slower than the cheapest 1.5 Mbps "broadband" available in cities.