Microsoft's New Study Finds 162.8 Million People in the US Do Not Use the Internet at Broadband Speeds, Up From FCC's 24.7 Million Estimate (nytimes.com)

An anonymous reader shares a report: A new study by Microsoft researchers casts a light on the actual use of high-speed internet across the country, and the picture it presents is very different from the F.C.C. numbers. Their analysis, presented at a Microsoft event on Tuesday in Washington, D.C., suggests that the speedy access is much more limited than the F.C.C. data shows.

Over all, Microsoft concluded that 162.8 million people do not use the internet at broadband speeds, while the F.C.C. says broadband is not available to 24.7 million Americans. The discrepancy is particularly stark in rural areas. In Ferry County, for example, Microsoft estimates that only 2 percent of people use broadband service, versus the 100 percent the federal government says have access to the service.

[...] Accurate measurements on the reach of broadband matter because the government's statistics are used to guide policy and channel federal funding for underserved areas. "It's a huge problem," said Phillip Berenbroick, a telecommunications expert at Public Knowledge, a nonprofit technology policy group. "The result is that we're not getting broadband coverage and funding to areas that really need it."

Comments

Access

[rjstanford]

There's a big difference between having access to something and being able - or inclined - to use it. Its like the difference between a food desert (somewhere with no accessible grocery stores) and people not being able to afford to visit the supermarket next door.

The questions about why people who theoretically have access aren't using it will be interesting and hotly debated, but at the end of the day it won't change the fact that, today at least, they're not.

Re: Access

[mysidia]

The FCC has a "summarization" method.... The country is divided into map squares, each of which is approximately the size of a county or half of a county. If ANY household, even just one or two in that entire geographic square has any kind of broadband service available, then the square is colored to available
  broadband speed based on the Highest speed available to ANY household in that square --- Also, when counting competition - the total number providers that can deliver qualified service to ANY house in that regional square count as providing service to that entire square.

So there can be a few dozen rich folks paying $5000 a month or so for Gigabit internet in a certain county, and if these households are not all the same ISP, then as far as the broadband map will be concerned - 1-Gigabit service is available to every customer in that county (They will have the estimated number of households for that map square based on population density statistics - and count the number of estimated customers based on that), and there are at least 2 competing broadband carriers as well. At the same time 1-Megabit "broadband" may be available to 15% of the people in the map square for $30 a month, so when they go to compute the "Average price of broadband" for that area it's going to be close to $30. And if Verizon et al. have their way.... the availability of 4G Phone service counts as "broadband" as well

That was the extreme example for how bad the broadband maps can be.

The reality is the mapping technique can totally hide the last mile problem, because it's built on an assumption that was bogus from the start.
Broadband providers are cherrypicking customers to provide quality service to and not serving entire geographic areas approximately equally like a public utility ought to.

Definitions please...

[bogaboga]

Over all, Microsoft concluded that 162.8 million people do not use the internet at broadband speeds, while the F.C.C. says broadband is not available to 24.7 million Americans.

What does the term "broadband" refer to exactly?

What I know is that compared to what it was defined as in the early 2000s isn't the same today.

What are the 'official' criteria...

[sgage]

...for what can be called 'Broadband'?

I seem to recall they actually lowered the bar at some point.

Another question: Why is Ajit Pai such a deceitful son of a bitch? Was he born that way, or did he have to work at it?

Re: What are the 'official' criteria...

[TheRaven64]

I think around 10-20Mb/s is where you start to hit diminishing returns. That's enough to stream HD and not completely kill everything else that you're doing. I remember as a student we decided to pay extra to get the entire 1Mb/s that our cable company offered (their standard package was 512Kb/s) for a shared house. It was a huge difference from the modem (56Kb/s in theory, 33.6Kb/s if I was lucky, 28.8Kb/s most of the time) that I was used to. I stayed on their fastest (and most expensive) plan until it hit 10Mb/s, and then stayed there as that gradually became their middle plan and then their slowest one. They upgraded me to 20, then 30 and 50Mb/s and I didn't really notice much difference except when I ran speed tests (the main thing was that their 30Mb/s plan, when I was throttled to 25% maximum speed for excess use, was still fast enough to stream HD video). I now have FTTP, but I'm on my provider's slowest plan, which is 54Mb/s. At this point, I notice upstream differences a lot more than downstream (copying 2TB to off-site backups took a few months), but that's not a number ISPs like to advertise.

At work, I have a GigE local network that goes to a faster upstream connection such that the GigE link is the bottleneck if I connect to a relatively close Internet peer. I *very* rarely notice the difference between that and the speed of my home connection (though it is nice when I install a game that happens to be on a local CDN node and it's fast enough to warm up my SSD), most of the time the bottleneck isn't my connection.

The point at which you hit diminishing returns is slowly edging up. 10 years ago, 10Mb/s was ample for anything. Now it's right at the slow end of generally useful. It's hard to tell the difference between 50, 100, or 300Mb/s unless you're actively monitoring the network.

the real reason broadband is so important.

[nimbius]

megacorporations like Microsoft are pushing for broadband, not because it provides a better internet experience for users, but because it makes internet bloat less perceptible.
Your Windows internet experience might only be used for Amazon shopping and Facebook, but the number of realtime bandwidth-intensive telemetry, tracking, and advertising connections required to deliver a profitable experience for content providers is what is really at stake. Without fast, unlimited internet, customers will increasingly turn to ad-block and route blocking software for known advertiser subnets.

Re:the real reason broadband is so important.

[TrekkieGod]

You're not wrong that they're pushing for it due to business opportunities, but telemetry and advertising aren't the only business opportunities that come with fast internet. Everybody is hopping on the streaming media bandwagon. And if you're Microsoft instead of Netflix or Hulu, they provide services like azure and skype, office 365, all of which benefit from broadband.

You're not wrong that increased access to broadband is good for megacorporations. You're way off base to imply it's one-sided, and especially in the implication that their benefit is entirely for services that go against the end-user interest.

"...study by Microsoft researchers..."

[DaveM753]

That's where you lost me

Money Talks

[nehumanuscrede]

Especially in rural areas.

Broadband -might- be available ( heavy emphasis on might ) but the costs for high speed internet out there are a bit high which tends to drive most folks away from it.

Example where my parents live ( US ):

5MB down - $70.00
10MB down - $90.00
25MB down - $110.00

Internet only. Advertised speeds you may, of course, never achieve. They have exactly one provider to choose from.

Most get a better connection / price via a smartphone / hotspot. ( assuming a tower is in the general vicinity )

Definition of "broadband" changed in 2015

[bartwol]

In 2015, the FCC upped the definition of "broadband" from 4 Mbps to 25 Mbps (https://broadbandnow.com/report/fcc-broadband-definition/)

In the New York Times article, statistical truth is obscured by political mission.

Re:Definition of "broadband" changed in 2015

[Anonymous Coward]

In 2015, the FCC upped the definition of "broadband" from 4 Mbps to 25 Mbps

And the current FCC wants to lower that to 1 Mbps so they can claim everyone HAS broadband.
AT&T wants to claim 90% of the US population DOESN'T have broadband so they can get government (read taxpayer) money to "improve" service (read dividends)

Re: Definition of "broadband" changed in 2015

[Rujiel]

What a false dichotomy. What's needed is for big players like AT&T to actually spend on infrastructure the taxpayer money they were handed.

Re:"Use" or "Have"?

[James Thompson]

This. I "have" 25mb service, the fastest available in my area. As to the amount I can "use", I can't recall ever seeing a speed test break the single digits (today is a good day at 7.5mb down). I'm in a populated section of the DFW area with apartments and business building all around. When I complained I was told by the service tech that our neighborhood isn't that bad so don't expect service upgrades anytime soon. I'd switch providers if I could but outside of satellite providers, I have 0 options.

I'm sure Pai's FCC includes me as having broadband when in reality I'm nowhere close.

Depressing, a hated co more honest than gov

[DCFusor]

Title really says it all. Ground reality is a heck of a lot closer to what MS is saying than the FCC.

Re:Screw broadband

[Puls4r]

Huh? Most rural people have a well, a septic field, and propane. What in the hell are you talking about water mains for?