FCC Unveils New Mobile Service Maps (axios.com) 23
The Federal Communications Commission released a new set of maps Friday showing mobile service coverage and availability as reported by the major wireless providers. From a report: Billions of dollars are about to be spent on boosting broadband access for underserved Americans. The better the data that directs that spending is, the more effective the dollars will be.
The FCC says these new maps represent a step towards complying with a 2020 law that mandated better public reporting of broadband and wireless service information. The maps use a new data specification that will "improve the uniformity and consistency of broadband availability data," according to an FCC release.
The FCC says these new maps represent a step towards complying with a 2020 law that mandated better public reporting of broadband and wireless service information. The maps use a new data specification that will "improve the uniformity and consistency of broadband availability data," according to an FCC release.
absolutely BS (Score:4, Informative)
they are estimates and dont even take into account building obstructions that block signals or small undulations in terrain
what is needed is a public submission tool something like https://speed.measurementlab.net/
Re: (Score:2)
I agree (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oddly, the AT&T data overlay shows gaps in coverage in the woods inside Fairmont Regional Park (south of Burtonsville MD). There are no roads in most of the places where they show no coverage. Their overlay also has a gap inside Greenbelt Park (east of College Park, MD) where there's no road. (The grayish lines are dirt trails, and the white lines are mostly roads that have been closed off to traffic for years.)
Why is AT&T so blurry? (Score:1)
Just looking at this map in my own area where I know there are RF black holes, I noticed that the AT&T maps are far less "precise". Why is that?
Not very useful (Score:2)
Just checked the coverage map for areas I know are currently black holes for ATT and they showed as covered. Whatever they are doing to determine coverage, its not sufficient to give accurate results.
Re: (Score:2)
'Whatever they are using' is defined on the page you had to click past to get to the map. 'Standardized propagation models defined by the FCC'. It also contains this information:
Please note: The map depicts the coverage a customer can expect to receive when outdoors and stationary. It is not meant to reflect where service is available when a user is indoors or in a moving vehicle.
Because the coverage map is based on propagation modeling, a user’s actual, on-the-ground experience may vary due to fact
Can you hear me now? (Score:3)
If the FCC is depending on carriers compiling and reporting their own service maps, I would hope there were some extremely high penalties (cash or loss of spectrum rights) for lying.
I really don't like the alternative of hiring thousands of government employees/contractors to "verify" the accuracy of self reporting.
"as reported by the major wireless providers" (Score:3)
"as reported by the major wireless providers"
I'll bet the data is amazingly accurate.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a small print above the map stating the accuracy is min 100m and some precentages - so somewhere within 100m of that point of the map there's a chance you will get signal. 100m up, probably.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would it be inaccurate? All it is is a map of where they have towers, something easily verifiable.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know, but I know that ten years ago, the Verizon maps showed full coverage in Fairmont, WV, whereas I couldn't get any Verizon signal at all there--nothing, nada, zilch. It was one reason I switched to AT&T (via StraightTalk), which had decent coverage there and most other places I traveled.
Now we need one for cable/fiber service (Score:1)
You know, where Comcast/AT&T/Charter/Cox/Verizon/Etc claim to offer service in an area, only for a service tech to show up and find that the necessary infrastructure isn't actually there. Or Verizon's laughable "passthrough" definition in NYC, where as long as the cables run under a building, it counts, even if they never connect to the building in any way.
Then the FCC can force the providers to eat the cost of extending their network if they claim to service an address but don't in actuality.
Coverage does not equal signal strength (Score:2)
Unless I am missing something on that map. My provider says they have full coverage over my house.
My cell signal strength says otherwise...
Re: (Score:2)
What you are apparently missing is the entire 'how the map was prepared' section of the page. It says the map was prepared using standardized propagation modelling and assumptions provided by the FCC. And it specifically says: Because the coverage map is based on propagation modeling, a user’s actual, on-the-ground experience may vary due to factors such as the end-user device used to connect to the network, cell site capacity, and terrain.
Re: (Score:2)
So in effect, the map is worthless as it doesn't reflect reality.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on what the map is purported by be showing, doesn't it? If you're looking for widespread areas of no coverage (something the government might be interested in) then it is very useful. If you're looking for every potential dead spot (more of a customer service issue than a governmental problem), then it is not useful.
Mixed Bag (Score:2)
Interestingly, the US Cellular and T-Mobile data maps are actually not terrible from my experience in places I go, at least in the car. The US Cellular one might actually be a touch pessimistic. The Verizon map looks exaggerated, and the AT&T one is weirdly vague in a way the others aren't.
Magic USCellular Technology (Score:1)
I'm very interested in learning more about how USCellular manages to have their cellular coverage area stop precisely at the New Hampshire-Massachusetts border. Must be some seriously high-tech stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
Directional antennas are 'seriously high-tech stuff'? Really? Put some towers along the border and adjust the radiation pattern to only go into NH.
Correction (Score:4, Interesting)
The U.S. taxpayer has already handed over several hundred billion dollars to private companies to boost broadband access to underserved Americans. What happened to all that which went before?