The National Broadband Map: a $350 million "boondoggle"?

The United States government's National Broadband Map has been out for three months and hasn't generated much heat—until now. Suddenly advocates from the New America Foundation are posting commentaries calling the project a big disappointment.

"We think that with a few vital improvements, the map could easily become an exemplar of government data transparency as well as an incredibly useful tool for US residents and policymakers," write Benjamin Lennett and Sascha Meinrath on Slate. "But without these improvements, the National Broadband Map runs the risk of becoming a $350 million boondoggle—a map to nowhere filled with inaccurate and useless information." "Map to nowhere"? Ouch. That's a phrase reminiscent of potshots taken at the Obama administration's $7.1 billion broadband stimulus package, sometimes called "broadband to nowhere" by critics. The alleged problems are twofold. First, the map doesn't display information about Internet Service Provider prices. And second, its data on ISP speeds relies heavily on information provided by the companies themselves. "Anyone who's ever checked their connection speed knows that real-life speeds tend to be substantially lower than what you're paying for," they note. The Federal Communications Commission, on whose site the map is posted, was quick to reply to the charges. The criticisms "miss almost entirely the real story regarding broadband data and the FCC, including the National Broadband Map," countered the agency's Steven Rosenberg. NTIA pointed out to us that the stimulus plan authorized "up to" $350 million. That isn't what the map has cost so far. $200 million has been allocated over the next five years, the agency says. The rest has been rerouted to local and statewide broadband projects.

There's quite a lot to chew on in this tussle. The good news is that FCC and NTIA have come through with an open and expandable map of the nation's broadband resources -- and they are working with constructively critical groups who want to make the application much more accurate and useful. This uneasy collaboration could go far. One small suggestion -- perhaps words like "boondoggle" should stay out of future public exchanges. They may only give credence to those who thought that the National Broadband Map should never have been developed in the first place.