Connect with us

Broadband Mapping & Data

You Can’t Use an Old Map To Explore a New World: Explaining the Affordable, Accessible Internet for All Act

Avatar

Published

on

Photo of Free Press General Counsel Matt Wood

Without good information from Internet Service Providers (ISPs), the federal government is essentially shooting in the dark when it comes to determining how to best target the allocation of resources for underserved and unserved communities.

Even private sector investments are less efficient because of the lack of good data about broadband availability and pricing. That’s why the second major section of the Accessible, Affordable Internet for All Act (AAIA), currently languishing in the U.S. Senate, aims to address the nebulous nature of broadband data at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

In this third installment of our series on the AAIA, we explore the ”Title II – Broadband Transparency” section of the Act, which requires the FCC to adopt rules to gather accurate and up-to-date information from ISPs about broadband service plan prices and subscription rates. It also requires the FCC to collect data that will allow the federal government to assess the resiliency of the nation’s broadband network in the event of a natural disaster or emergency.

Better Data is Needed

Anyone who closely follows FCC news is already familiar with the problems associated with the agency’s broadband coverage maps, which most experts agree overstate actual broadband coverage. Though recent studies indicate there may be as many as 41 million people who lack access to fixed broadband in the United States that meets minimum speed of 25/3 Megabits per second (Mbps), the FCC claims that number is closer to 18 million. It’s a big discrepancy with big dollar implications, as the coverage maps are the basis upon which agencies and states make major funding decisions.

The problem lies with the FCC’s existing Form 477, which seeks service availability data from ISPs. There’s widespread agreement that the form gleans data that is inaccurate, outdated, and misconstrued, as we detail here, with one glaring example being that it allows ISPs to claim an entire census block as being served even if only one residence in that block could have access to service.

Although the Broadband Deployment Accuracy and Technological Availability (DATA) Act was signed into law in March of this year to get more granular data and improve transparency, the GOP-led FCC has yet to deliver.

Immediately after the DATA Act was signed into law, outgoing FCC Chairman Ajit Pai said that because Congress didn’t appropriate any related funds, the FCC would be unable to implement the Act. The FCC has enough control over its internal funds that if Chairman Pai had wanted accurate maps, the agency would have created them.

The “Broadband Transparency” portion of the AAIA seeks to remedy the situation by appropriating $24 million to the FCC to get the job done and goes further than what is required under the DATA Act by requiring the FCC to gather information on ISP pricing, which includes “any additional taxes and fees.” It also requires the FCC to revise the rules, if necessary, to “verify the accuracy of data submitted.”

Beyond the detailed information on broadband coverage and pricing, the bill also requires the FCC to collect “data necessary to assess the resiliency of the broadband Internet access service network in the event of a natural disaster or emergency,” though it doesn’t say exactly how or what data should be gathered.

Distribution and Protection of Data

Of course, it’s one thing to require the FCC to collect this data. But the question of who has access to that data goes to the heart of transparency. In Section 2003, the bill addresses that, requiring the FCC to make the data available to federal agencies; state agencies such as broadband offices and public utility commissions; local governments; and individuals and organizations “conducting research for noncommercial purposes or public interest purposes.”

The last part of Section 2003 directs the FCC to not share the data unless “the Commission has determined that the receiving entity or individual has the capability and intent to protect any personally identifiable information contained in the data.”

Lastly, under Section 2005, the bill requires the FCC to issue rules “to promote and incentivize widespread adoption of the broadband consumer labels” the FCC established in 2016 and that broadband consumer labels should be provided in “a simple-to-understand format describing the key factors consumers need to know when considering broadband service, including: price, data allowances, speeds, and management practices.”

Finally, the bill would require the FCC to hold a series of public hearings to “assess how consumers currently evaluate [I]nternet service plans and whether existing disclosures are available, effective, and sufficient.”

An essential part of getting everyone online

Although the “Broadband Transparency” section of the bill may not get the media focus that other big ticket items in the bill will get, Matt Wood, Vice President of Policy and General Counsel for Free Press Action, sums up its significance succinctly:

While the deployment and financing strategies will understandably draw attention in an infrastructure bill, its digital equity, affordability and pricing transparency provisions are just as essential or more so for getting everyone online.

We concur.

Stay tuned for the next installment of this series on “Title III – Broadband Access.”

Editor’s Note: This piece was authored by Sean Gonsalves, a senior reporter, editor and researcher for the Institute for Local Self Reliance’s Community Broadband Network Initiative. Originally published on MuniNetworks.org, the piece is part of a collaborative reporting effort between Broadband Breakfast and the Community Broadband Networks program at ILSR.

Sean Gonsalves is a longtime former reporter, columnist, and news editor with the Cape Cod Times. He is also a former nationally syndicated columnist in 22 newspapers, including the Oakland Tribune, Kansas City Star and Seattle Post-Intelligencer. His work has also appeared in the Boston Globe, USA Today, the Washington Post and the International Herald-Tribune. An award-winning newspaper reporter and columnist, Sean also has extensive experience in both television and radio. Sean has made appearances on WGBH’s “Greater Boston” TV show with Emily Rooney and was a frequent guest on New England Cable News (NECN), commentating on a variety of Cape Cod tourist attractions. He left print journalism in 2014 to work as a senior communication consultant for Regan Communications and Pierce-Cote, advising a variety of business, non-profit and government agency clients on communication strategy. In October 2020, Sean joined the Institute for Local Self Reliance staff as a senior reporter, editor and researcher for ILSR’s Community Broadband Network Initiative.

Broadband Mapping

Washington State’s Russ Elliot Touts Mapping to the Doorstep as Key to Success

Washington State’s head of broadband says mapping to the premises paying dividends in the state.

Benjamin Kahn

Published

on

Photo of Russ Elliot

Without good information from Internet Service Providers (ISPs), the federal government is essentially shooting in the dark when it comes to determining how to best target the allocation of resources for underserved and unserved communities.

Even private sector investments are less efficient because of the lack of good data about broadband availability and pricing. That’s why the second major section of the Accessible, Affordable Internet for All Act (AAIA), currently languishing in the U.S. Senate, aims to address the nebulous nature of broadband data at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

In this third installment of our series on the AAIA, we explore the ”Title II – Broadband Transparency” section of the Act, which requires the FCC to adopt rules to gather accurate and up-to-date information from ISPs about broadband service plan prices and subscription rates. It also requires the FCC to collect data that will allow the federal government to assess the resiliency of the nation’s broadband network in the event of a natural disaster or emergency.

Better Data is Needed

Anyone who closely follows FCC news is already familiar with the problems associated with the agency’s broadband coverage maps, which most experts agree overstate actual broadband coverage. Though recent studies indicate there may be as many as 41 million people who lack access to fixed broadband in the United States that meets minimum speed of 25/3 Megabits per second (Mbps), the FCC claims that number is closer to 18 million. It’s a big discrepancy with big dollar implications, as the coverage maps are the basis upon which agencies and states make major funding decisions.

The problem lies with the FCC’s existing Form 477, which seeks service availability data from ISPs. There’s widespread agreement that the form gleans data that is inaccurate, outdated, and misconstrued, as we detail here, with one glaring example being that it allows ISPs to claim an entire census block as being served even if only one residence in that block could have access to service.

Although the Broadband Deployment Accuracy and Technological Availability (DATA) Act was signed into law in March of this year to get more granular data and improve transparency, the GOP-led FCC has yet to deliver.

Immediately after the DATA Act was signed into law, outgoing FCC Chairman Ajit Pai said that because Congress didn’t appropriate any related funds, the FCC would be unable to implement the Act. The FCC has enough control over its internal funds that if Chairman Pai had wanted accurate maps, the agency would have created them.

The “Broadband Transparency” portion of the AAIA seeks to remedy the situation by appropriating $24 million to the FCC to get the job done and goes further than what is required under the DATA Act by requiring the FCC to gather information on ISP pricing, which includes “any additional taxes and fees.” It also requires the FCC to revise the rules, if necessary, to “verify the accuracy of data submitted.”

Beyond the detailed information on broadband coverage and pricing, the bill also requires the FCC to collect “data necessary to assess the resiliency of the broadband Internet access service network in the event of a natural disaster or emergency,” though it doesn’t say exactly how or what data should be gathered.

Distribution and Protection of Data

Of course, it’s one thing to require the FCC to collect this data. But the question of who has access to that data goes to the heart of transparency. In Section 2003, the bill addresses that, requiring the FCC to make the data available to federal agencies; state agencies such as broadband offices and public utility commissions; local governments; and individuals and organizations “conducting research for noncommercial purposes or public interest purposes.”

The last part of Section 2003 directs the FCC to not share the data unless “the Commission has determined that the receiving entity or individual has the capability and intent to protect any personally identifiable information contained in the data.”

Lastly, under Section 2005, the bill requires the FCC to issue rules “to promote and incentivize widespread adoption of the broadband consumer labels” the FCC established in 2016 and that broadband consumer labels should be provided in “a simple-to-understand format describing the key factors consumers need to know when considering broadband service, including: price, data allowances, speeds, and management practices.”

Finally, the bill would require the FCC to hold a series of public hearings to “assess how consumers currently evaluate [I]nternet service plans and whether existing disclosures are available, effective, and sufficient.”

An essential part of getting everyone online

Although the “Broadband Transparency” section of the bill may not get the media focus that other big ticket items in the bill will get, Matt Wood, Vice President of Policy and General Counsel for Free Press Action, sums up its significance succinctly:

While the deployment and financing strategies will understandably draw attention in an infrastructure bill, its digital equity, affordability and pricing transparency provisions are just as essential or more so for getting everyone online.

We concur.

Stay tuned for the next installment of this series on “Title III – Broadband Access.”

Editor’s Note: This piece was authored by Sean Gonsalves, a senior reporter, editor and researcher for the Institute for Local Self Reliance’s Community Broadband Network Initiative. Originally published on MuniNetworks.org, the piece is part of a collaborative reporting effort between Broadband Breakfast and the Community Broadband Networks program at ILSR.

Continue Reading

Broadband Mapping

FCC Speed Test App To Improve Broadband Mapping, Agency Says

The agency hopes its new speed test will inform an initiative for more accurate broadband maps.

Tim White

Published

on

Without good information from Internet Service Providers (ISPs), the federal government is essentially shooting in the dark when it comes to determining how to best target the allocation of resources for underserved and unserved communities.

Even private sector investments are less efficient because of the lack of good data about broadband availability and pricing. That’s why the second major section of the Accessible, Affordable Internet for All Act (AAIA), currently languishing in the U.S. Senate, aims to address the nebulous nature of broadband data at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

In this third installment of our series on the AAIA, we explore the ”Title II – Broadband Transparency” section of the Act, which requires the FCC to adopt rules to gather accurate and up-to-date information from ISPs about broadband service plan prices and subscription rates. It also requires the FCC to collect data that will allow the federal government to assess the resiliency of the nation’s broadband network in the event of a natural disaster or emergency.

Better Data is Needed

Anyone who closely follows FCC news is already familiar with the problems associated with the agency’s broadband coverage maps, which most experts agree overstate actual broadband coverage. Though recent studies indicate there may be as many as 41 million people who lack access to fixed broadband in the United States that meets minimum speed of 25/3 Megabits per second (Mbps), the FCC claims that number is closer to 18 million. It’s a big discrepancy with big dollar implications, as the coverage maps are the basis upon which agencies and states make major funding decisions.

The problem lies with the FCC’s existing Form 477, which seeks service availability data from ISPs. There’s widespread agreement that the form gleans data that is inaccurate, outdated, and misconstrued, as we detail here, with one glaring example being that it allows ISPs to claim an entire census block as being served even if only one residence in that block could have access to service.

Although the Broadband Deployment Accuracy and Technological Availability (DATA) Act was signed into law in March of this year to get more granular data and improve transparency, the GOP-led FCC has yet to deliver.

Immediately after the DATA Act was signed into law, outgoing FCC Chairman Ajit Pai said that because Congress didn’t appropriate any related funds, the FCC would be unable to implement the Act. The FCC has enough control over its internal funds that if Chairman Pai had wanted accurate maps, the agency would have created them.

The “Broadband Transparency” portion of the AAIA seeks to remedy the situation by appropriating $24 million to the FCC to get the job done and goes further than what is required under the DATA Act by requiring the FCC to gather information on ISP pricing, which includes “any additional taxes and fees.” It also requires the FCC to revise the rules, if necessary, to “verify the accuracy of data submitted.”

Beyond the detailed information on broadband coverage and pricing, the bill also requires the FCC to collect “data necessary to assess the resiliency of the broadband Internet access service network in the event of a natural disaster or emergency,” though it doesn’t say exactly how or what data should be gathered.

Distribution and Protection of Data

Of course, it’s one thing to require the FCC to collect this data. But the question of who has access to that data goes to the heart of transparency. In Section 2003, the bill addresses that, requiring the FCC to make the data available to federal agencies; state agencies such as broadband offices and public utility commissions; local governments; and individuals and organizations “conducting research for noncommercial purposes or public interest purposes.”

The last part of Section 2003 directs the FCC to not share the data unless “the Commission has determined that the receiving entity or individual has the capability and intent to protect any personally identifiable information contained in the data.”

Lastly, under Section 2005, the bill requires the FCC to issue rules “to promote and incentivize widespread adoption of the broadband consumer labels” the FCC established in 2016 and that broadband consumer labels should be provided in “a simple-to-understand format describing the key factors consumers need to know when considering broadband service, including: price, data allowances, speeds, and management practices.”

Finally, the bill would require the FCC to hold a series of public hearings to “assess how consumers currently evaluate [I]nternet service plans and whether existing disclosures are available, effective, and sufficient.”

An essential part of getting everyone online

Although the “Broadband Transparency” section of the bill may not get the media focus that other big ticket items in the bill will get, Matt Wood, Vice President of Policy and General Counsel for Free Press Action, sums up its significance succinctly:

While the deployment and financing strategies will understandably draw attention in an infrastructure bill, its digital equity, affordability and pricing transparency provisions are just as essential or more so for getting everyone online.

We concur.

Stay tuned for the next installment of this series on “Title III – Broadband Access.”

Editor’s Note: This piece was authored by Sean Gonsalves, a senior reporter, editor and researcher for the Institute for Local Self Reliance’s Community Broadband Network Initiative. Originally published on MuniNetworks.org, the piece is part of a collaborative reporting effort between Broadband Breakfast and the Community Broadband Networks program at ILSR.

Continue Reading

Broadband Mapping & Data

Vermont House Backs $150 Million Broadband Plan Creating New State Office

Jericho Casper

Published

on

Photo by Michelle Raponi used with permission

Without good information from Internet Service Providers (ISPs), the federal government is essentially shooting in the dark when it comes to determining how to best target the allocation of resources for underserved and unserved communities.

Even private sector investments are less efficient because of the lack of good data about broadband availability and pricing. That’s why the second major section of the Accessible, Affordable Internet for All Act (AAIA), currently languishing in the U.S. Senate, aims to address the nebulous nature of broadband data at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

In this third installment of our series on the AAIA, we explore the ”Title II – Broadband Transparency” section of the Act, which requires the FCC to adopt rules to gather accurate and up-to-date information from ISPs about broadband service plan prices and subscription rates. It also requires the FCC to collect data that will allow the federal government to assess the resiliency of the nation’s broadband network in the event of a natural disaster or emergency.

Better Data is Needed

Anyone who closely follows FCC news is already familiar with the problems associated with the agency’s broadband coverage maps, which most experts agree overstate actual broadband coverage. Though recent studies indicate there may be as many as 41 million people who lack access to fixed broadband in the United States that meets minimum speed of 25/3 Megabits per second (Mbps), the FCC claims that number is closer to 18 million. It’s a big discrepancy with big dollar implications, as the coverage maps are the basis upon which agencies and states make major funding decisions.

The problem lies with the FCC’s existing Form 477, which seeks service availability data from ISPs. There’s widespread agreement that the form gleans data that is inaccurate, outdated, and misconstrued, as we detail here, with one glaring example being that it allows ISPs to claim an entire census block as being served even if only one residence in that block could have access to service.

Although the Broadband Deployment Accuracy and Technological Availability (DATA) Act was signed into law in March of this year to get more granular data and improve transparency, the GOP-led FCC has yet to deliver.

Immediately after the DATA Act was signed into law, outgoing FCC Chairman Ajit Pai said that because Congress didn’t appropriate any related funds, the FCC would be unable to implement the Act. The FCC has enough control over its internal funds that if Chairman Pai had wanted accurate maps, the agency would have created them.

The “Broadband Transparency” portion of the AAIA seeks to remedy the situation by appropriating $24 million to the FCC to get the job done and goes further than what is required under the DATA Act by requiring the FCC to gather information on ISP pricing, which includes “any additional taxes and fees.” It also requires the FCC to revise the rules, if necessary, to “verify the accuracy of data submitted.”

Beyond the detailed information on broadband coverage and pricing, the bill also requires the FCC to collect “data necessary to assess the resiliency of the broadband Internet access service network in the event of a natural disaster or emergency,” though it doesn’t say exactly how or what data should be gathered.

Distribution and Protection of Data

Of course, it’s one thing to require the FCC to collect this data. But the question of who has access to that data goes to the heart of transparency. In Section 2003, the bill addresses that, requiring the FCC to make the data available to federal agencies; state agencies such as broadband offices and public utility commissions; local governments; and individuals and organizations “conducting research for noncommercial purposes or public interest purposes.”

The last part of Section 2003 directs the FCC to not share the data unless “the Commission has determined that the receiving entity or individual has the capability and intent to protect any personally identifiable information contained in the data.”

Lastly, under Section 2005, the bill requires the FCC to issue rules “to promote and incentivize widespread adoption of the broadband consumer labels” the FCC established in 2016 and that broadband consumer labels should be provided in “a simple-to-understand format describing the key factors consumers need to know when considering broadband service, including: price, data allowances, speeds, and management practices.”

Finally, the bill would require the FCC to hold a series of public hearings to “assess how consumers currently evaluate [I]nternet service plans and whether existing disclosures are available, effective, and sufficient.”

An essential part of getting everyone online

Although the “Broadband Transparency” section of the bill may not get the media focus that other big ticket items in the bill will get, Matt Wood, Vice President of Policy and General Counsel for Free Press Action, sums up its significance succinctly:

While the deployment and financing strategies will understandably draw attention in an infrastructure bill, its digital equity, affordability and pricing transparency provisions are just as essential or more so for getting everyone online.

We concur.

Stay tuned for the next installment of this series on “Title III – Broadband Access.”

Editor’s Note: This piece was authored by Sean Gonsalves, a senior reporter, editor and researcher for the Institute for Local Self Reliance’s Community Broadband Network Initiative. Originally published on MuniNetworks.org, the piece is part of a collaborative reporting effort between Broadband Breakfast and the Community Broadband Networks program at ILSR.

Continue Reading

Recent

Signup for Broadband Breakfast

Get twice-weekly Breakfast Media news alerts.
* = required field

Trending