So in other words, all the telecoms are systematically lying to the FCC in order to steal money from taxpayers, but there is no actual enforcement nor penalties for doing so, so they continue to do this with impunity.
(I remember when Clinton gave away a huge giveaway to the telecoms so they would provide fibre everywhere, and then they did fuck all and just laughed.)
In a just society, they would quickly be presented with a estimated bill for the largest amount that they could possibly have stolen - I'm sorry, let me repeat this word "stolen" - from the US taxpayer, PLUS massive penalties, and then they would be required to prove how much they actually stole if they wanted to reduce the cost.
Plus complete discovery of all their records should be required, with a view toward criminal prosecution of their executives.
As it is, they have absolutely no reason not to cheat, lie and defraud if they think they can make money at it.
That article is pretty bad. It doesn't once mention DSL or that technology's inherent technical limitations that can result in widely variable speeds (IIRC, your bandwidth is determined by the length of the wire between your house and the central telephone office). Then it spends a lot of time talking about race, which is likely creating a misleading impression that lends itself to outrage.
DSL bandwidth is determined by the length of the wire between DSL modem and DSLAM which can be in the cabinet on the curb (and I believe it usually is).
Also it depends on what version of DSL standard we are talking. I personally started with adsl2 which was 12/3, upgraded eventually to VDSL2 which did 150/10 and latest standard is G.Fast which can give 1 Gbit/s aggregate uplink and downlink at 100m
It also depends on the condition of the wire. 50 year old paper insulated POTS wiring will struggle for just a few Mbps even if it's a short hop to the CO. Thank god the telcos were able to collect the USF surcharge to pay for the necessary upgrades.
The odds of having a cable under 100m to a DSLAM basically rounds to 0.
At an highly optimistic 1 mile you’re already down to 20Mbps and most people are significantly further than that. Remember it’s the physical distance of the cable between the actual devices that matters and that’s not straight.
depends on location. and on greed of the telco. i used to live within 100m of dslam. in cities with dense construction/etc it's achievable. also, with g.fast it's 1000 aggregated at 100m. for longer distances numbers are 200 m 600mbit, 300m-300mbit, 500m - 100mbit. numbers are not too bad even for suburb. For comparison, high speed mm wave 5g needs to be deployed any 100-200m in order to get proper speed/penetration.
admittedly, even g.gast it's not as good/scalable as DOCSIS or Fiber, but it could be used and deployed "back in a day" as perfectly good solution. and even today it's not that bad for majority of population, if properly deployed
as anecdote , i saw like 20 years ago privately deployed/managed DSL systems in kibbuz. wonder what they have now
Again you can’t directly compare distances between 5G and DSL because the wire isn’t taking the shortest path through 3D space between teleco equipment and your modem.
Also a single 600-700MHz 5G tower can cover hundreds of square miles with 5G service with up to 250 megabits per second. 2.5-3.5GHz can still hit several miles with up to 900 megabits per second, and 24-39GHz towers can cover a mile radius at up to 3Gbps. Real world performance depends on many many factors, but DSL performance can be similarly degraded from it’s theoretical maximum.
because at&t doesn't feel like upgrading equipment. too much effort.
in general they made a strategic decision to invest mainly in wireless.
you can also throw into mix words like "absence of government regulation" and "regional monopoly".
On multiple areas, AT&T (I believe) successfully petitioned the FCC to not count a bunch of low end DSL and similar services, on the basis that they were "obsolete" and lowering averages.
To be clear, they were still actively selling those services, and in some cases, it was the only option, but they just didn't want them to count.
I'd like to read the paper but not $15 want to read it. Apparently ACM wants to charge $5 or $10 for this one article even if I had a membership.
Is this one of those situations I hear about where researchers would be super happy to provide copies of papers that ACM etc keep behind paywalls, if you just ask?
They most likely would send you a copy, I have a 100% success rate with that. Though I should also mention that paper is present on scihub at this very moment.
This is so frustrating. We bought a house out in the sticks once it became WFH forever, thinking there was service because of the FCC's map which said there was Comcast and CenturyLink broadband. When we moved in and I called them, Comcast said they didn't have service in the area and CenturyLink offered me 1.5mbps (!!!) DSL. We limped along
on a spotty LTE connection until we got starlink after waiting a year, which has been great.
Starlink is a game changer for rural areas. For the house my family owns up in Maine, the best we could get was about a 1Mbps down DSL and the house was the last one on the road that could get "broadband" at all. Only other choices were traditional satellite or marginal Verizon hot spots.
Meh. I know a number of folks who moved to rural areas, and not a single one was able to use Starlink due to tree coverage and the extremely narrow band of sky their receiver had to be pointed at.
I'm glad it worked for you! But the rural places where my friends live have lots of trees, tall ones, and they made Starlink totally unusable.
It's worth noting that most alternatives require a satellite dish of some sort. Before Starlink, I had a roof-mounted HughesNet dish (and before that a custom WISP receiver).
Either way, I'd say Starlink is an enormous improvement over every other satellite solution I've tried. The lack of data cap alone puts it head-and-heels above the competition, and the speeds are good enough to coax people off 4G. I have some small complaints about CGNAT and the provided router, but the service itself is more reliable than some cable connections I've tried.
Having seen (and tried) a lot of the alternatives, there really aren't any pushbutton services that compare.
It’s still unlimited beyond that, you’re just “deprioritized.” Depending on how rural you are, you might not even notice.
It’s much like a cell tower where a geographical area has finite capacity. You use your “priority” data that has speed guarantees, then it slows down, but is still unlimited. Apparently some users were reselling the link & maxing out the upload/download 24/7. (yeah, I get it, but in this case some kind of QoS probably needs to happen to turn a profit)
I’ve been a beta user since the first couple months of launch. They’ve had growing pains, but it has overall been light years ahead of our local WISP or Hughesnet/Viasat in terms of speed and reliability. Several of my neighbors have no other option than traditional geostationary satellite providers, and I don’t think any of us every want to go back to 600ms+ latencies!
edit: I just wanted to add that for many people, priority speeds for 1TB & having sub-100ms latency is far, far better than the alternatives.
You don't know real suffering until you've tried browsing on HughesNet. $74.99/month for 50gb of 4mb/s up and 1mb/s down (yes, in 2023).
Don't worry though, once you hit your gratuitous 50gb/month limit, they only make your network 8x slower until you pay $10/extra gig... I wouldn't praise Starlink if it wasn't such a steal by comparison.
I know some people used to chop down trees to get a line of sight for satellite TV. Starlink is different in that you need more than a single LOS to a specific spot in the sky, but I wouldn't be too surprised if a lot of people ultimately chop down more trees to get access.
Alternatively, perhaps the starlink antenna could be mounted on a large pole or modest radio tower. That would be ugly but probably a lot less ugly than chopping down your trees.
Yeah, I have a house in a heavily forested area. I put the starlink dish on top of a 12ft pole mounted on my roof. I have a double of line of sight issues, but it's good enough that I don't notice service interruptions.
For a house in the Adirondacks in upstate NY (heavily wooded), we used a 50' triangular antenna tower with Dishy at the top to clear the tree line. Went from abysmal DSL speeds to ~100Mbps, also added microcells from the largest mobile providers to improve cell coverage on the property (mounted to the antenna structure in water resistant housings). Total cost was sub $5k for everything mentioned.
If close to the home doesn't work, depending on siting requirements, you can erect a tower in a clearing or where there is clear line of sight to the sky and then run power and network to the tower from the nearest structure. Don't neglect lightning surge suppression to protect equipment.
The Facebook groups I used to be in had most people putting them on poles, or even mounting them to the tops of said tall trees. Seemed to work fine, even with a bit of sway.
It’s funny, people don’t hesitate to trim and remove trees for roads, power lines, or plumbing. I would consider trimming a tree to access the internet worthwhile.
This is largest hurdle I've seen for Starlink. I know at least 10 people in the foothills of Northern CA that are stuck with 2 choices if they want Starlink. They can either cut down several massive (100ft+) trees or they can pay someone to climb up a tree and mount the dish. The second options comes with a whole other sets of problems and typically still includes cutting some other trees down.
Side note: If I lived in the Northern California foothills I would be cutting down big trees close to the house due to extreme fire danger. Side benefit, better Satellite visibility.
Well they all have defensible space around their homes. It is a requirement for the only fire insurance they can get. Even the defensible space does not clear enough to get uninterrupted Starlink service.
The house does have a pretty good view of the sky.
I'm not sure what the answer is in general. It's probably not realistic to expect universal wired broadband in very rural areas. Conventional satellite is by all accounts pretty bad. And cellular isn't really an option absent a good 5G signal.
But, other than a vacation cottage, lack of usable Internet isn't really an option either if you're going to be working from somewhere.
But, why is universal wired broadband in very rural areas of the US an unreasonable expectation? We did the same thing 100 years ago with universal service requirements for telephone. As I understand it, the build out was subsidized by the government along with a universal service fee for all phone lines.
Is the infrastructure for low-broadband in low density areas inherently more expensive than POTS infrastructure was 75-100 years ago?
Things are of course a lot different than they were 100 years ago. Bringing electricity and phone service to farms and ranches probably seemed pretty important. I'm not sure how a lot of modern coastal urbanites would feel about a very expensive project to bring wired broadband to everyone living on the side of a mountain somewhere today. (Especially given that wireless technologies are an option for a lot of people, if not everyone.)
POTS bills also at least used to have a universal service charge line item, in part to subsidize rural service.
As one of those coastal urbanites, fucking great. Didnt we already pay a bunch of money for that anyway? Even aside from that the internet is great, I'm not going to feel bad about helping to pay to bring it to everyone.
I don't even really disagree. I just see a lot of hostility on here about providing infrastructure for people who aren't in metros. I'm not convinced that in this day and age it all has to be wired. But it's not unreasonable to consider that at least reasonable Internet should be a basic utility service even for very rural locations.
Some of that is starting to change in the rural South. Georgia changed laws to allow electrical coops and cities to run their own loops. Alabama is also pushing money into local rural fiber builds.
An example, in Carroll County, GA I live outside of Carrollton, GA and have 2 fiber options 1) Charter/Spectrum which I use 2) CarrollEMC/Crossbeam which looks like they just dropped fiber on our power pole within the last month. If you look at the FCC map of Highway 5 it correctly shows ATT DSL availability, incorrectly shows Comcast coax availability, and does not show either Charter/Spectrum or CarrollEMC/Crossbeam. There is only a process to challenge availability on the FCC map, like Comcast...that incorrectly shows availability, and no option to add new providers to the map. It is left up to the provider to claim availability.
Arkansas has also removed some of the barriers for electric coops and municipal broadband, but change has been slow.
There are now plenty of rural areas with symmetrical gigabit broadband available, while most cities are stuck with whatever pitiful options Cox or ATT decides to bestow.
75-100 years ago coincided with the tail end of a massive boom of dirt poor immigrants from Europe. Labor was extremely cheap relative to other things in the economy. It’s vastly more expensive now. It’s the same story as almost all our infrastructure. We couldn’t build the New York subway today either.
> It's probably not realistic to expect universal wired broadband in very rural areas.
I don't know why. It seems incredibly realistic to expect wired broadband in most rural areas. (We were able to provide them with power lines and telephone lines over 60+ years ago, there's no reason fiber would have to be any different)
You're still tying your connectivity to a single provider. That's dangerous considering internet isn't regulated as a utility. No doubt starlink will turn the screws on their customers given they're basically a monopoly for folks in rural areas.
> You're still tying your connectivity to a single provider. That's dangerous considering internet isn't regulated as a utility.
Dangerous also because the media industry insists that ISPs permanently cancel the service of customers after multiple unproven allegations of copyright infringement and without a single conviction. So far, the courts have been completely agreeing with them and ISPs who refuse to bow to the wishes of the media industry and terminate these users are being sued.
Anyone can lose the ability to have an account at the only ISP they have just because some third party P2P snoop, hired by a movie studio, forwarded a DMCA notice to their ISP with their IP address on it too many times (with "too many" being entirely unspecified in law and up to whatever the ISP thinks won't get them sued). Those third parties haven't exactly always been so careful about avoiding false accusations either. Actually doing anything to deserve a DMCA notice isn't required.
4g. External antenna and third-party modem. I typically get 30Mbps up and down, but the latency is horrific at like 150ms minimum. Those vendor provided hotspots are absolute junk and don't even work out here.
Incidentally the latency has really improved my web development practices.
This probably goes without saying since you presumably just read this article, but I always tell people to actually check the website like they're trying to buy service before moving somewhere new. This is a particularly important for me personally because I have a slightly-petty personal vendetta against Comcast, so I'll only live somewhere that has Verizon FiOS (or a comparable fiber provider).
Even this method can be flawed - there might be a hefty installation fee, or you might run into a situation where even though service is technically offered at your new place but it's not physically possible to install. My mom and I ran into the latter situation years ago when she moved into a new house during a FiOS installer strike. They scheduled installations weekly for a month or two, optimistically thinking they'd reach an agreement I suppose, but nobody ever showed up. We eventually had to sign up with Comcast, which sort of got us through a few months until it was possible to get FiOS installed.
Before you buy ask the owner what they have, and maybe even ask a few of the neighbors. Then call and try to get service. Maps and accuracy are way off and sometimes they have a “connection fee” that is way high because they plan to be in your street but haven’t run the cables yet.
The same exact thing happened to me last year. Before we moved, we checked with Comcast and the support agent told us they could provide service to our new home. Then after we moved, we called them to start service and they said we weren't within the area.
Comcast gave me a quote for $330,000 to run a fiber line to my house.
Starlink is beter than nothing but still disappointing compared to the speeds they promise. And I worry it's going to get worse as more people start using Starlink.
> The same exact thing happened to me last year. Before we moved, we checked with Comcast and the support agent told us they could provide service to our new home. Then after we moved, we called them to start service and they said we weren’t within the area.
I had a funny similar thing happen a long time ago, back when copper ADSL was “broadband”, and it was all the incumbent local telcos or resellers: Before a move, I contacted my local telco, who I was getting ADSL directly from and setup everything for the move, including confirming that service was available and, because of available service appointment windows, having it shutoff at my new place before the move and turned on at the new location.
When we got to the new place, telephone was up and ADSL wasn’t. Initially was told they would need to schedule a new service call, which they missed, and then when I called again was told service wasn’t available. In the meantime, given the service problems, I had already contacted one of the ADSL resellers, who said my address did have ADSL available, and was quoted a lower price than directly from the telco. Confronted the telco with this information, and they insisted that despite confirming multiple times in the past that the new address was in the service area, it was, in fact, too far from the central exchange for ADSL service. Switched to the reseller, and stayed with them for several years (and faster service tiers) before switching to another provider that had fiber available.
Same, comcast offered me a quote for around $250k. I'll just check the couch cushions...
There was a comcast truck driving down the street a while back (before we had starlink) and I literally chased him down and asked if they were installing broadband. He was a little confused, and then said "no, I'm just checking the line levels...but you're the fourth person to ask me that on this street"
It would be neat if there were some sort of remedy built into the FCC’s rules where the ISP is obligated to provide you service if the map says you have service (even if it costs $330k). I bet that would be an effective way of improving the accuracy of the submitted maps.
There should be consequences for it, and there should be a way to get an official record that service is available. There should _definitely_ be consequences when someone has successfully ordered service that can't be fulfilled, like some of these stories show. If an ISP takes an order and can't fulfill, and it's not because of some 3rd party action or temporary issue, then the ISP should be on the hook for providing service anyways. Your sales office shouldn't be offering to sell things they don't have.
I live in a mega-neigborhood with thousands of homes. That same map indicates there are something like 4 ISPs in my area. Some of which aren't even companies I can even contact.
This is what I kindly refer to as the "Comcast Be Good Stick". They're tyrants about things like data caps, speeds, etc. Then the fiber trucks roll in with a Ditch Witch and they're all of a sudden ready to play ball. The only thing is, they simply can't give a residential customer anything more than 6Mps up. Sure I can get 500Mpbs down but, honestly, anything after 200, I barely notice. I'm just not streaming 4k video or anything like that.
I have never seen a cable ISP advertise upload, but the problem is enough people do not differentiate between a poor quality oversubscribed coaxial connection, and a high quality, low latency, symmetric fiber connection that would improve their backups, video calls, and file sharing.
I would take a 100/100 fiber to the home connection than a “1Gbps” Comcast connection.
I mean a number of states made it against the law for cities to create their own internet services and there are lots of different utility laws, so I don't think the same set of rules applies everywhere.
> Seems like a golden opportunity for a community owned and operated Internet provider.
Somewhat related.
I'm in the middle of signing a lease on a new place...
One of the biggest draws for me is what me and my friends jokingly call "the socialist service" I'm going to have.
Water, Sewer, Electricity, Phone, Cable and Internet (up to 2gig!) all in one bill and managed by the same company. Oh and the bill is on average cheaper than even a single electricity bill from the nearby city my old place was in.
Only downside is the internet is cable so not asymmetric.
In 2020 when we rented in the bay area and decided to find a forever home, we also moved to full WFH and started looking at hundreds of houses in the Pacific NorthWest.
The very first thing we did (mostly my wife) was to call Comcast, give them the specific address, and have them verify the place had high speed Internet.
For those that passed that test (a relatively low percentage did since we were looking to live in a relatively rural area) the next thing we did was contact the relevant real-estate agent. This part was tricky and often annoying. We cut through everything they had to say and said that, if they wanted to potentially move forward, they had to do something for us. They had to get permission from the current owner and run an Internet speed test.
This was a PITA, but most of the time they did it. And most of the time, Comcast's data was accurate about whether service was available.
The place we ended up buying is about 10 miles outside of Olympia Washington. Our street is one of the very few in the area that has high speed comcast.
Having said that, we also got a starlink dishy right away and we use that as backup, because while most of the time our Internet is really excellent, speed is great, etc, it has a lot of small outages, so it's worth having a highly reliable but much less fast backup.
Funny, we moved just outside Lacey. Honestly we made do with LTE for a year and survived just fine, it didn't impact work much. So I have no regrets, but am still upset at Comcast for blatantly lying the the fcc.
Let me get this straight. You bought a house without going through the ISP's portal to confirm they serviced an address? That is some leap of faith! I'm happy you got star-link but you've tied yourself to a single provider who will no doubt turn the screws on you eventually because we don't treat internet as a utility in this country.
Having at least two good internet providers is a requirement for any home I purchase going forward.
The only way to stop companies from doing this is to fine them for the submission of incorrect data.
If the cost > benefit, they will adhere to the rules.
$5k per false data point should be enough. 10 addresses inside the service area = $50k. And 10% of that fine should go to the whistleblower.
That's how all this government data submission should work. At that point pretty much everyone with any skills will be going through every address in America and checking the database, hoping to get some of that pot of money.
>`$5k per false data point should be enough. 10 addresses inside the service area = $50k. And 10% of that fine should go to the whistleblower.
Or make ISP's connectivity report binding. If the ISP claims that they provide connectivity and they do not, make them liable for the user's costs to get equivalent service from an alternative provider (e.g. Starlink), until the ISP can provide connectivity to the subscriber or the subscriber is out of the minimum contract period with the alternative provider, whichever is later.
An ongoing rather than one-off cost would give the ISP an incentive to build the necessary infrastructure that they have misreported already exists.
Binding offer (of minimum UL, DL, and maximum latency) AND service must be available within 5 business days at the listed price with no surprise fees.
Failure to fulfill the offer should have a maximum penalty of compulsory purchase of the claimed property at 2x the greater of current market or last purchase price if offered. A penalty structure for late service (E.G. 1 month wait) should also be an option. Maybe 1/100th the value of the instant buy requirement per month (rounded up) of non-service.
woah, let's not go crazy here. Just making the offer binding with, say, a 6 month window is eminently doable and still still be incredibly expensive to the ISP in some cases. making the timeframe ultra short is not going to do anything other than make it an impossible bar. There is a lot of planning an approvals from municipalities, landowners, utilities, etc that goes into that sort of thing.
This is effectively lying under oath to the US Government as well as prospective consumers.
How would you feel if a city advertised that Water and Sewer service were available at a given property, only to find that there weren't even mains anywhere nearby or that even if there were they were already 'at capacity' and you wouldn't be authorized to hook up?
That's the sort of data that drives rejection of sale.
How about we make them liable for damages if someone buys a house in an area they claim to support? That might actually get these cheating ISPs to change.
If someone really wanted to make a change, setup some bot farm to fuzz comcast's own address search for literally _everyone_ in a given region, and report real numbers for who can and cannot get service there. Then like the nice folks that made the online method to fight your tickets and such, mass submit them in batches to the fcc, or all individually as disputed complaints. Comcast "could" do this themselves, but reality would be horrifyingly destroying to their fake metrics, thus they'd never get any more grants, and we can't have that.
XFinity's website for new internet service blocks VPN and automated traffic with a heavy hand. I've had trouble accessing my own account, even when logged in as a paying customer, depending on if I'm using a VPN.
This was probably originally meant to keep wide-scale pricing information secret from competitors, but it sure has the nice side effect of making it hard to verify their coverage promises.
Shouldn't we push for a world that doesn't depend on independently smart and well off random people to exhaustively track which things are objectively and clearly lies? Why is there not a government group whose entire job is to seek out businesses doing shitty things and claw back unjustly earned profits?
A friend of mine had a project that would get it's rotating ip addresses by connecting to wifi of the parade of Google busses that dropped off and picked up in front of his office.
I'm pretty sure their own address search tool will be wrong too.
I bet there are lots of installs where they take your money, and then later call to apologize that they can't in fact offer service and give a refund.
Part of 'lying' as a company is to make sure that your internal data sources tell the same story, but just never invest in correcting any inaccuracies that aren't in favor of the story you want to tell.
It doesn't really matter if their service tool is wrong (as in "We technically have lines to this address"). It matters that their service tool disagrees with what they're reporting to the federal government, which they use to participate in federal grant programs.
And if it doesn’t? I think the point that poster was making is that it’s likely their tool matches what they’re reporting. It’s their actually service that is different
This still isn't the most reliable. Windstream says they don't service my house. Their map says they can't give me service, they've responded to 811 calls with no wires at the house.
I have windstream gigabit fiber. There's a windstream box in the back yard.
Spamming the ISPs form for checking service isn't the best way to see if they provide service. Since, at least for windstream, they'll tell you (online) they don't service an area, but do.
I've had to file an informal complaint against my local cable ISP because they told me over the telephone multiple times they couldn't find my home on the FCC's broadband map. 2 weeks after filing that complaint I had 360 feet of shiny new coaxial internet service.
So yeah, I can see all sorts of sketchiness going on with the FCC and their map and how they gave out money to sketchy LLC's for rural internet service.
> We tested Comcast's coverage claims in Hillier's area by clicking nearby addresses on the FCC map and then entering the addresses on Comcast's ordering website at xfinity.com. Our search wasn't exhaustive, but we found over 30 residential addresses on Quartz Loop and several abutting streets that had the same problem—Comcast claims to serve those houses on the FCC map, but each address is listed as "invalid" on the Comcast website.
This seems like something that could be automated quite easily with a browser-based tool, that could then be used by individuals to quickly add themselves to the “I’m not covered” list. If there was ever a grass-roots effort that techies could spearhead, this has got to be it.
It's a bit surprising that sites like Zillow and Redfin don't yet include internet availability in listings. They probably could get a bit of revenue from doing so, as it's essentially an ad for the ISP. But I would caution that even ISP sometimes don't know what addresses they can service. It's not a large percentage but there are addresses in most ISP's availability databases that shouldn't be there.
Looks like Comcast also falsely claims to offer (a) residential service (though, this is likely just an address mis-detection mistake since it's a multi-use building despite me entering several apartment numbers) and (b) the speeds listed on the FCC site for my address.
I imagine that this is the case in many places, but I submitted a challenge. ISPs have gotten away with abusing government subsidies (and many times, abusing their customers with fees and silly price increases) for too long...
If there ever was a relationship between a large corporation and a Federal agency that epitomizes how corruption is institutionalized in the USA, it's the romance between Comcast and the FCC. (Or at least the only one that involves a company that's a household name: I suspect a lot of defense contractors mastered this ages ago.)
This not surprising. Telecoms have been accepting govt. subsidies for years while failing to expand in rural areas. Additionally they have been lobbying to interfere with municipal broadband projects and push anti-competitive legislation in local governments as well.
IIRC many parts of Eastern Europe have managed to provide broadband by building mesh networks with wireless backhaul. (MikroTik builds some of these products, Ubiquiti also has others). This should be a reasonable way expand broadband easily in the short term without having to lay fiber across the countryside.
Suspension from participating in public grant programs (no free taxpayer cash for you - sorry) and a fine on the order of 5% of yearly gross revenue per instance would help ensure that corporations are not incentivized to lie. Of course, that'll never happen.
Have the Board draw straws and execute the person who draws short. Anything short of this admittedly harsh measure will be written off as the cost of doing business and probably overturned by lobbying, bribery, legal arguments in court, etc. There is value in a punishment that cannot be undone.
Have the board draw straws and then execute everything currently working for Comcast. The whole company is a crime against humanity and anyone who can go along with it deserves a share.
I'd say being forced to provide the service at an address that you said is eligible would be adequate. And no tricks with $10k installation service & inflated monthly bill.
Maybe an opportunity for crowdsourcing? Instead of paying the fine to the FCC, pay the fine to whomever files a successful challenge. Maybe make the fine per-address. Maybe require a nominal deposit from challengers to discourage false challenges (deposit(s) returned upon successful challenge(s)).
Probably adds too much complexity to be worth it (especially the part about deposits), but still interesting to think about.
Let's not understate it either - 13 invalid addresses in Fort Collins that Ars was able to find. I wouldn't expect this is isolated to Fort Collins. And indeed - "30 residential addresses on Quartz Loop" which were falsely listed as served were found too.
Also, this is data used to participate in federal grant programs, so it's not like an "oopsie!" kind of thing.
Over 30, just in that neighborhood. And that was after a brief search.
> We tested Comcast's coverage claims in Hillier's area by clicking nearby addresses on the FCC map and then entering the addresses on Comcast's ordering website at xfinity.com. Our search wasn't exhaustive, but we found over 30 residential addresses on Quartz Loop and several abutting streets that had the same problem—Comcast claims to serve those houses on the FCC map, but each address is listed as "invalid" on the Comcast website.
Luckily most of FoCo doesn't need to rely on Comcast. They have their own muni ISP which is $60/mo and no taxes/fees. I've been using them for a few years without any issue.
Both Comcast and Verizon have mistakes in their databases. They both list me as living on N. Main St. even though it's been Main St. (with N. Main just being a short stub) for some number of decades now. I actually have Comcast service and it hasn't been a problem but the point is that they have some incorrect/outdated data.
Overstate? Overstate?! Go on the fcc map. Pick a rural location that supposedly has service. Go to that providers website and try to sign up for service on that address. If I had to ballpark, probably 25% of addressees outside my home town are fraudulently claimed as having service.
The FCC needs to enable a fraud bounty. I'd be more than happy to stick it to these companies and get paid for doing so.
Unfortunately, I don't see enough about sample size or testing method to tell if that's a big or small problem; if they randomly sampled 20 addresses and 13 were wrong, that's a big deal. If they sampled every address in the state and 13 were wrong, that's a smaller issue.
The C-levels are in fact people, and can be thrown in jail.
The board of directors are also people, and can be thrown in jail.
*SOMEONE OR SOMEONES* at the top signed off on that document. If it's multiple people in on this, that makes a conspiracy to commit mass fraud at a country-scale.
This loophole needs to be closed. Companies have the power to do harm on a large scale with bo repercussions. Fines become a cost of doing business. How is reporting incorrect data to the federal government which is used for grants not flat out fraud?
> I expect more from a government body like the FCC
We need people who expect things to be better than they are. I'm not sure anyone who's been following the FCC for the last 10 years or so would really expect better. As pointed out elsewhere, Comcast won't get in any trouble for lying through their teeth.
I get scam calls based on being a previous Xfinity customer and Xfinity got their database hacked and never disclosed the breach. I even had one of those email alias services with a unique Xfinity email address to prove it and Xfinity just ignored the reports.
Several comments suggest systematically comparing FCC data to what ISP websites say about availability. My research group did this! Here's the paper:
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3419394.3423652
And here's a followup project by investigative journalists at The Markup:
https://themarkup.org/still-loading/2022/10/19/dollars-to-me...