Substack

If you zoom into Pine Bluff, Arkansas, on the Federal Communication Commission’s broadband map, it doesn’t take long to realize something doesn’t look right.

The wireless industry is out with a new paper that claims, “The bias [towards fiber to the home] ‘could increase costs by upwards of $30 to $60 billion depending on the distribution of fiber deployment costs for the unserved locations.’” It also says “[excluding unlicensed fixed wireless] ‘unambiguously adds’ at least 1.9 million new locations calling for government-funded overbuilding with [Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment] BEAD funds”. As both my 

Senator John Thune (R-SD) recently asked broadband stakeholders what Congress could do to improve the Infrastructure Improvement and Jobs Act (IIJA) with respect to broadband.

An earlier model estimated how far the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) funding might go, using estimates of the unserved and underserved from the old Form 477 data. The prediction was that with an optimal allocation between states, there would be almost enough money to reach all the unserved and underserved. Well, we’re getting closer to real and final data, and an update is in: $41.4 billion at an average national cost of $6,214 per location should reach 6.7 million locations.

New Federal Communications Commission maps that measure broadband access, and new American Community Survey data that measure adoption, show that only 64.4% of rural American households have access to broadband at 100/20 throughput. Most, 58.8%, subscribe to broadband, a gap of less than 6 percentage points. Even with new FCC maps, 98.5% of urban households have access to broadband, but only 73% subscribe.

The Federal Communications Commission released a file that contains the number of “units” (usually housing units) in the  Broadband Serviceable Location Fabric (Fabric). There are 158 million “units” in the Fabric and 140 million housing units in the 2020 Census. In the least dense 2,143 counties, there are 30 million “units” in the Fabric and 24.5 million Census housing units. As counties get more rural, the Fabric increasingly has more locations than the Census. In the least dense counties, the Fabric routinely has 40% more locations than the Census.

As the January 13 deadline looms for states to challenge the current Federal Communications Commission broadband coverage map, many states are asking for more time. I'm starting to wonder, however, whether more time is actually all that important. The FCC process is NOT building a location-level map of actual delivered broadband speeds, but rather a map of the performance that providers say they can deliver if a customer requests it. So let's try to put all of this together and see what it means. For me, a few key takeaways stand out (All of this is not to say that state efforts to understa

The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) is clear: the $42.5 billion for broadband buildout should prioritize projects for the unserved. Specifically, states should prioritize projects where 80% of the locations served by the project are unserved. It may be impossible to reach all the unserved with projects that are 80% or more unserved without gerrymandering the project areas or changing the rules. Census block groups work well as a proxy for broadband project areas because they’re not too big and not too small.

When the Federal Communications Commission's new broadband maps came out, we were quick to compare the number of unserved locations in the new maps to the number of unserved housing units in the previous Form 477 data. As expected, the number of unserved locations doubled, from 3.6 million to 7.8 million. But that comparison isn’t apples-to-apples.

The Federal Communications Commission's new broadband maps give us a view of what the broadband competition situation is in the United States. We want to answer the question of how many options a household has for broadband service. Using the new maps, and a 100 Mbps download and 20 upload throughput as the threshold for acceptable broadband, 37% of households have access to one offering, 34% have access to two offerings, and 18% have access to three or more offerings. This is slightly more concentration than was present in the most recent Form 477 data.