Slashdot Mirror


FCC Data Exaggerates Broadband Access On Tribal Lands (arstechnica.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Broadband access in tribal areas is likely even worse than previously thought because Federal Communications Commission data overstates deployment, according to a new report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). FCC data collection was already known to be suspect throughout the U.S., not just in tribal areas, which in turn makes it difficult for the FCC to target deployment funding to the areas that need it most. Tribal lands have less broadband access than most other parts of the U.S. and thus may be disproportionately affected by the FCC's data collection problems.

"Residents of tribal lands have lower levels of broadband Internet access relative to the U.S. as a whole, but the digital divide may be greater than currently thought," the GAO wrote. "FCC data overstated tribes' broadband availability and access to broadband service. These overstatements limit FCC and tribal users' ability to target broadband funding to tribal lands." Despite the well-known broadband access problems in tribal areas, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai has been trying to limit the Lifeline subsidies that help tribal residents purchase Internet access. A federal appeals court recently blocked Pai's attempt to take a broadband subsidy away from tribal areas.

54 comments

  1. Headline contains unnecessary words by fibonacci8 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    FCC Data Exaggerates Broadband Access

    The lobbyists just forgot to do something about that particular group being allowed to complain.

    --
    Inheritance is the sincerest form of nepotism.
    1. Re:Headline contains unnecessary words by Anubis+IV · · Score: 2

      Exactly. They exaggerate access everywhere else (e.g. if, as self-reported by ISP X, anyone in the county has the option for broadband from ISP X, everyone in the county is regarded as having broadband access offered from ISP X according to the FCC’s current methodology, even if it’s just that one customer actually being offered broadband), so they’re simply being consistent here.

    2. Re:Headline contains unnecessary words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      the fcc isn't the ones exaggerating.. this time. it's the lying, cheating, money-grabbing, grant-stealing telcos that serve these areas. the tribal lands around me in the midwest have virtually no high speed internet past about a mile from the 'developed' part (which happens to be the closest part to town and within the distance limits of dsl served from equipment there.. a corner store, tribal offices.. not much else), and even then all that's available is about 5-6mbit dsl max, on a good day, with good lines (of which, there isn't much. it's mostly decades-old infrastructure from a time you spun a dial to call someone.. or earlier). there is no cable. there is no fiber. there is poor cell reception (if any), and that will get worse as verizon shuts down cdma in a year's time. satellite is their only other option. and satellite is NOT a suitable alternative to wireline service. latency is far too high and usage limits are too low for the high cost. there are as many people who live out there as in town, yet they are not adequately served by the incumbent telco, nor will the cable company from town build out there.

    3. Re:Headline contains unnecessary words by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      However in this particular story about tribal lands there are additional legal issues involved. There are "Lifeline" subsidies involved here, and the FCC was using incorrect data in its attempt to remove the subsidies.

  2. tribal casino can have good internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I one got 100/100 on the free WiFi at one

    1. Re: tribal casino can have good internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shut up. That is beyond the point. Do not distract us from our Hour of Hate toward Ajit Pal.

  3. Gov't says "Look how GREAT we are"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, a government agency fudges data to paint a "LOOK HOW GREAT WE ARE!!!!" picture?

    And we're acting surprised?

    You expect because you like your broadband you can keep your broadband?

    It doesn't matter who is in power - governments lie and abuse people.

    1. Re:Gov't says "Look how GREAT we are"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank god we can trust corporations!

      Strawman much?

      There isn't a vocal contingent of unthinking morons screaming that we need to take money from people against their will and give it to corporations. "Pay your fair share! Mo betta gubmint!!! (drool!)"

      Or worse yet, total brain-dead fuckwits (Socialists and Communists - but that's just repeating "brain-dead fuckwits") who want to seize corporations and turn them over to the government. Because history has shown that works so well!

    2. Re:Gov't says "Look how GREAT we are"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So why don't we just privatize the Presidency, then we can fire that useless criminal cocksucker, and get a real honest man in office instead of this parade of low-level grifters and common criminals we have running the show now.

      Despite your fuckwit FUD trolling, not all liberals are Socialists, but hey, it's the strawman of the week, "strawman much?", asshole?

      Your powers of whataboutism are very strong. Do try to find a useful outlet for it that doesn't weaken the nation, please.

  4. Why are we funding sovereign nations internet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously just stop giving corrupt tribes our money so they can misplace it and never be held accountable.

    1. Re: Why are we funding sovereign nations internet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But if we don't keep running coax lines, where are they going to steal enough copper to buy booze?

  5. Native's Hrumph by rtb61 · · Score: 1

    Can't have the natives sharing broadband communications, might get uppity about their rights or lack there of. The establishment response, let's not kid about, 'FUCK EM'. Might complain about polluting their land, stealing their resources, killing their people, the rest of the world might really hear how the US government Federal, State and Local, abuses native Americans upon a routine and regular basis. I am Australian and this message is brought to you by the way the Australian government, Federal, State and Local abuse the 'Nunga People' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... (I am South Australia and that is the most accurate regional nomenclature, not a fucking adjective).

    --
    Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    1. Re:Native's Hrumph by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Whatever. It is 2018 and this is the US, not aboriginal Australia. If you have ever been to a US tribal land you would soon realize that people there aren't concerned about pollution or whatever drivel you are sprouting. They are just regular people. Now they are in the casino business. The idea that native Americans are running around saving the environment is ignorant.

    2. Re:Native's Hrumph by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And regular people don't save the environment? You are in your own sheltered bubble here.

    3. Re:Native's Hrumph by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The idea that native Americans are running around saving the environment is ignorant.

      Some tribes care more about the environment than others. The idea that you can paint all native Americans with the same brush is ignorant.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:Native's Hrumph by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Some PEOPLE care more about the environment than others. Native Americans are just people. The idea that they are some sort of mystical people who protect the environment is comical.

    5. Re:Native's Hrumph by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Missed the point. Native Americans are "regular people" just like any other group of people. They have a mix of people with different beliefs, etc. Obviously no one here has visited a tribal land (outside of a casino)

    6. Re:Native's Hrumph by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The idea that they are some sort of mystical people who protect the environment is comical.

      No, it's disingenuous. The only person who's suggested it is you.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re: Native's Hrumph by c6gunner · · Score: 0

      Nonsense. It's implicit in the original comment, and it's an integral part of the left-wing rhetoric surrounding indigenous peoples. Natives are painted as these holistic gurus with a close connection to nature, so that you can use them as figureheads in your protests against things like the Dakota Pipeline. It's a useful fiction.

    8. Re: Native's Hrumph by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe they're not all ultra-religious and mystical but they care a lot more about the country and the land it sits on than you appear to.

      At least they aren't trying to actively fuck over people and the rest of the world like you want to, all to facilitate the corporate quest for a little more cash.

      People like you see evil in everything good since you have no real internal examples or a moral compass. Since you project your own greed, selfishness and avarice into all you see and do, then cast that onto others, you will never have to deal with what is really YOUR problem.

      Just stop. Stop repeating the (R) talking points (lies) and weakening the nation every time you open your mouth.

    9. Re: Native's Hrumph by c6gunner · · Score: 0

      Thanks for demonstrating my point for me.

  6. Re: No surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thanks, Obama!

  7. Re:No surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

    Now when was it that Trump came to be the president? I guess the market just saw it coming in 2009.

  8. It is usually very convenient by bobstreo · · Score: 2

    to support your position when you make up the data only to support your position.

    I guess maybe someone hacked the FCC again to produce these outright lies. /s

    1. Re:It is usually very convenient by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Don't fall for it. This is all part of Trump's plan to encourage everyone not to depend on the federal government and to do things themselves. It's a trick! Keep the power in the federal government where it belongs. Don't let locals take control, that's the worst possible outcome. The educated people know best, leave it in their hands. Don't let Trump succeed.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    2. Re:It is usually very convenient by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed, what we need is a return to the gilded age, under the benevolent care of the masters of industry!

  9. Where? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Which region is Trump's tribe occupying at the moment?

  10. Re: No surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thanks, Obama!

    "Look how well you're breathing now that Obama's foot is off your throat! Isn't it great of him to choke you all those years, and then stop stepping on your neck!"

  11. Steven King, author, dead at 70 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just heard some sad news on talk radio - Horror/Sci Fi writer Stephen King was found dead in his Maine home this morning. There weren't any more details. I'm sure everyone in the Slashdot community will miss him - even if you didn't enjoy his work, there's no denying his contributions to popular culture. Truly an American icon.

    1. Re:Steven King, author, dead at 70 by bobbied · · Score: 1

      I just heard some sad news on talk radio - Horror/Sci Fi writer Stephen King was found dead.

      I just searched Google and Twitter and there are no stories about it yet. I guess if Google doesn't know then it's likely not true or he just died seconds ago?

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    2. Re:Steven King, author, dead at 70 by Mister+Transistor · · Score: 1

      YHBT. YHL. HAND.

      --
      -- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
  12. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  13. Better Article at The Register by Passman · · Score: 3, Informative

    The Register has a better article on this here.
    https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/09/13/fcc_broadband_data_garbage/

    They do a pretty good job of breaking down why the FCC data is so flawed and also why this report only deals with Tribal Lands.

    --
    Minne-snow-da: Winter is comming...
  14. TRUMP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WHY hasn't this orange hair ORANGUTAN been IMPEACH???????????

    1. Re:TRUMP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      gutless GOP

      They didn't want to impeach Nixon either.

  15. Re:No surprise by El+Cubano · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Like the rest of this administration, the FCC is a criminal enterprise now (emphasis added)

    Nice job, Trump voters

    I just knew that this sort of thing was going to crop up in this discussion. Let me share a few quotes from the report:

    According to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), as of December 2016, 35.4 percent of Americans residing on tribal lands lacked access to fixed broadband services, compared to 7.7 percent of all Americans.

    owever, in 2016 we reported that tribal and federal officials had concerns that the federal map of broadband availability at the time (the National Broadband Map) did not accurately depict broadband availability on tribal lands.

    The federal government has not updated the National Broadband Map since April 2015, with the last update containing data as of June 30, 2014.

    To address both objectives, we analyzed FCCâ(TM)s December 2016â"the most recent data at the time of our review

    In case it isn't obvious, all of those statements clearly indicate that the data and analysis are from prior to Trump taking office. Now, the Trump administration has done plenty that is worthy of criticism, but so did the Obama administration. Yet, I see plenty of Republicans willing to openly criticize Trump, but hardly any Democrats willing to criticize Obama, Hillary, etc.

    If the strategy is to always blame the other side, even when your side was the source or a major part of the problem, then it is difficult to actually fix anything.

    Unemployment numbers are a good example. Democrats continually complained that Bush wasn't using the "real" numbers since U3 (I think it is) does not accurately reflect labor participation, among other things. They same complaint is being made about Trump. Interestingly, the methodology remained unchanged under Obama, yet I cannot recall a single instance of a prominent Democrat or the media calling out Obama for fudging the unemployment numbers.

    And lest you think that I am biased against Obama and the Democrats, the Republicans do the same thing. Listen to a Republican rant and rave about Obama racking up more debt then every previous president put together. Then ask what the majority party was in Congress that sent him spending bills for 6 of the 8 years of his presidency.

    Seriously, own it when your own side is wrong and then get to work fixing it.

  16. Tribal bribes by DigiShaman · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It's my understanding that anyone that wishes to build cellular infrastructure on tribal land must go through the FCC. Then,by law, the FCC must send out notifications to every tribe in the US (regardless of being states away) and ask if they have a vested interest in that tiny plot of land to be used. If "Yes", the tribe must make an offer.

    So what do you know, every tribe comes out of the woodwork and demands fee. That gets real expensive in a hurry!

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
  17. Relying on government by mi · · Score: 1

    What better way to keep a population compliant and docile, than by conditioning them to believe, that government — and its officially-sanctioned monopolies — is the source of all the important things: food, shelter, electricity and other utilities, healthcare, and now the Internet service?

    At what point did we collectively swallow the patent falsehood, that without the benevolent and omniscient government officials none of those things would've been available — and that any self-evident problems encountered are due to a particular official being insufficiently benevolent or omniscient, rather simply that whatever government does is done poorly?

    This is all to ask, why do we need FCC at all?

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  18. Socialism by p51d007 · · Score: 1

    When we put the indians on "tribal" lands, and said "we'll take care of you", provide them with housing, food, medial etc...it was a perfect example of government instituted SOCIALISM. How's that worked out for them? And people are hell bent on having the entire country embrace communism/socialism? NO THANK YOU!

  19. Improve your own land by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They are a separate nation. Not our job to improve the infrastructure on the lands that they own and police themselves.

  20. Please read the article. So misleading. by GregMmm · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    I was curious of what was going on here. Had the FCC in the last 2 years suddenly gave the shaft to tribal lands? Here is an quote from the article:

    "As of December 2016, only 64.6 percent of tribal areas had access to home Internet services with speeds of at least 25Mbps down and 3Mbps up, for example. Those speeds were available in 69.3 percent of rural areas and 97.9 percent of urban areas."

    First, who was in control of the FCC on December 2016? Not who's controlling it now. Where was the outcry then!!!
    Second, the data from tribal areas compared to rural areas is nearly the same. The comparison to urban areas doesn't make sense. Most of the tribal land is not urbanized. (and i believe a lot of Native Americans would prefer it that way)

    So the article proves the following:
    When President Obama was in office this "horrific" FCC mentality was firmly in place. How dare he, and his corrupt FCC!!

    I wrote this not to put down the former president, or elevate the current president and his FCC. I believe people need to be able to look at facts and make informed decisions. Please people, don't allow anyone to hijack your thoughts by pandering to your "political lean". Do some quick research and be a better person for it.

  21. Re:No surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    'FCC Chairman Ajit Pai has been trying to limit the Lifeline subsidies that help tribal residents purchase Internet access', this is the issue, not when the data was collected.

    But, please, don't let the fact that your apologist attempt to deflect was so blatantly obvious that everyone who read it knew exactly what was your intent stop you from, "what about Obama??!!!???", gas lighting. We understand what a reach y'all Trumpette's are having to go to these days.

  22. Re: Tribal bribes - look a lie! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    https://www.fcc.gov/wireless/systems-utilities/tower-construction-notifications

    It's right there. Now AC, learn to wipe your own ass after you take a shit

  23. Re: No surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The weight of his foot vs. the Orange Fat Bastard we have running the show now, I'd take 10 of Obama's feet vs. one from that thin-skinned overblown criminal cocksucker bag of dicks currently in charge.

  24. Re: Tribal bribes - look a lie! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your link says NOTHING about other tribes objecting or causing interference in the process. That's BULLSHIT.

    Your link actually says use of that reporting system is VOLUNTARY. Wrong again! More BULLSHIT.

    Please stop spreading BULLSHIT. Wipe yo own ass, fucktard.

  25. Re: Tribal bribes - look a lie! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When people resort to caps, they are wrong and know no other way to express themselves.

  26. The Truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about just being honest? The majority of the FCC doesn't care about having good broadband access at competitive prices anywhere in the US. Competitive prices would mean businesses wouldn't be able to charge near monopolistic prices or skimp out on their expansion. The last thing any business wants to have as their motto is "expand or die". They want "expand enough to appease the next quarterly announcement for the shareholders but not enough to piss of a competitor who may feel threatened to fight a price/expansion war".

    So, the FCC could just be honest about the broadband situation. Then they'd be compelled to actually regulate from a populace who could clearly read their reports which practically beg for regulation. So, just smudge the facts a little bit and the FCC gets to write "the truth". "No cause for alarm people. No need for regulation."

    It's such a sweet deal when you can put in charge a person who has drank the flavor aid and thinks all the little people can just go fuck themselves. I mean, if they had sold their soul or did something important, they'd be paid such heaps of money that those monopolistic prices wouldn't mean a thing. Hell, helping to enforce those monopolistic prices just does more to keep the poor and middle class poor if they want to have any sort of "good" life. Drop out of all that to save money and you're some sort of "kook" to be ignored.

    Yep, such a sweet, sweet deal. Can't imagine why I think I'm better than them.

  27. Re:Please read the article. So misleading. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "As of December 2016, only 64.6 percent of tribal areas had access to home Internet services with speeds of at least 25Mbps down and 3Mbps up, for example. Those speeds were available in 69.3 percent of rural areas and 97.9 percent of urban areas."

    "However, FCC considers broadband to be “available” for an entire census block if the provider could serve at least one location in the census block." and "Additionally, FCC does not collect information on several factors—such as affordability, quality, and denials of service—that FCC and tribal stakeholders stated can affect the extent to which Americans living on tribal lands can access broadband services." So, one person in a census block can get the service for $200/month? Coverage! And even with those juked numbers, you still don't see 100% coverage in urban areas and only 69.3% in rural areas? That's pathetic. Couple that with the FCC deciding that if you're within a mile of the termination point of another provider, they're consider a competitor to whatever access you have and you're basically guaranteeing that companies will and do intentionally fail to solve "the last mile" problem and charge monopolistic rates.

    I wrote this not to put down the former president, or elevate the current president and his FCC.

    You want to argue that this started before Trump? Sure as fuck it did. It's been going on since the 90s at least with the push by government with funding to expand out broadband and never holding providers to actually deliver. Every President from Clinton to Trump is to blame for the sorry state of affairs. There is every reason to put down each President in the list. I don't see how "it stills sucks" does anything to elevate the current President or the FCC. It just further entrenches the notion that this President can't or won't do anything to actually increase competition, strike better deals, or really give a shit about rural voters.

  28. High speed Internet on tribal lands? by wyattstorch516 · · Score: 1

    I thought the whole point of these tribal lands was to allow the natives to live the same lifestyle as their ancestors. Why is the federal government promoting the white man's technology there?

  29. Thanks 4 demonstrating you're trash c6gunner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    6gunner your name's on a post impersonating me & worse was you altering /. user's words https://linux.slashdot.org/com... since I challenged you to show you do better work and you can't after you tried to mock me you hypocrite LYING loser https://linux.slashdot.org/com... .

    * You're online FAKENAME trash c6gunner & a childish dishonest punk.

    APK

    P.S.=> Impossible to deny FACT of your name on those posts you unbelievable pussy loser... apk

  30. c6gunner paints himself as online trash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    6gunner your FAKEname's on a post impersonating me & worse was you altering /. user's words https://linux.slashdot.org/com... since I challenged you to show you do better work and you can't after you tried to mock me you hypocrite LYING loser https://linux.slashdot.org/com... .

    * You're online FAKENAME trash c6gunner & a childish dishonest punk.

    APK

    P.S.=> Impossible to deny FACT of your FAKEname (for your FAKE wasted lie of a so-called life) on that 1st post link above you unbelievable pussy loser... apk