Hacker News Reader

Comment by jeffdubin | Hacker News Reader

It's hard for me to take this data seriously when I enter an address that I know to be problematic for cellular coverage and receive "100% coverage" on the mobile broadband tab, and listed with carriers I know to have zero outdoor coverage at the location.

View on HN

That's the whole point of the map. It's using data reported by telcos.

They opened up the map so that individuals could challenge the coverage they're reportedly getting. My data was largely accurate other than SpaceX reporting coverage for addresses that are still waitlisted, so I challenged those.

What happens when the data is challenged? Is it corrected? Is the service provider fined?

No idea about fines but the FCC processed all my challenges and gave Starlink 60 days to respond.

We'll see what happens after.

Same. This map isn’t accurate. Areas I know have no cell phone coverage are marked as 100% covered. Areas I know that don’t have cable broadband show 100% covered. It’s complete BS.

Report it up the chain. This is a map based on ISP-reported data. If there data is bad, the FCC can investigate. But the FCC isn't going to prove the reported data.

I successfully used this map to report my local ISP informally to the FCC to have them run service to my home - which they said they could not locate on this map.

Let that sink in.

If you have no luck with wired internet give this a shot and try an antenna and cooling upgrade if it works at all to get really good speeds and low latency: https://www.t-mobile.com/home-internet/eligibility

Prior to that I rolled my own unlimited data AT&T 4G LTE router while I tried to keep getting my local cable ISP to come to my house or simply acknowledge that they provided service to my address, according to the FCC.

I did the pre-paid centurylink deal for one month, paid all fees up front, and returned everything to them on day 29. Centurylink .5 mbit DSL is absolutely useless.

The AT&T 4G LTE I averaged 30mbit symetrical, maybe a 3/4 of one United States imperial mile to my nearest tower.

After filing the complaint, I had them trenching my back yard in two weeks running 360 feet (sorry I can't metric) of coax.

This is correct. They use census blocks for reporting. So all of these claims are widely over-represented. In theory if an ISP has "Broadband" to one household in a census block, the entire block then is considered to have "Broadband" access even if that is not the case.

Wrote my thesis on US broadband the whole thing made my blood pressure go up.

I had the same issue many years ago. Local ISP said fiber was available at my house. It was not. I reported it. A few months later I noticed they basically carved out my house even though I was quite sure my entire neighborhood was not served.

Same. For my home address it shows I'm "covered" because I have access to satellite internet, including Starlink, which is not actually available to me (I've been on the waitlist for going on two years).

Same, but with fixed connectivity. Also, the definition of broadband is woefully inadequate: 25/3 Mbps

For what it's worth, that's configurable under the gear icon. I changed it from "25/3 any technology" to "1000/100 fiber" and most of the green dots on the map area I was zoomed into changed to red.

Agreed. For one, the map has my zip code wrong. And two, I get very spotty reception at my house and get no reception at the local strip mall but both say I get 100% coverage.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com