[News] ISPs don?t want to tell the FCC exactly where they offer Internet service

[StyM]

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...ernet-service/

The Federal Communications Commission is considering whether it should collect more accurate data about broadband deployment in the US, but cable and telecom lobby groups are urging the FCC to maintain the status quo.

Currently, the FCC's "Form 477" data collection program requires Internet service providers to identify the census blocks in which they provide residential or business Internet service and the maximum speeds offered in each block. ISPs are also supposed to identify the census blocks that are near enough to their networks that they could provide service within a reasonable timeframe.

This data helps the FCC evaluate the progress of broadband deployment, identify geographical areas that would benefit from government funding, and determine whether regulatory changes or new rules are needed to spur deployment and competition. But while a census block is the smallest geographic unit used by the US Census Bureau, it doesn't provide the best possible data for determining whether an individual house or apartment building has Internet service. The reason is that an ISP could serve one building inside a census block and be counted as serving that entire block, even if it doesn't serve the block's other homes.

The FCC could solve this problem by requiring ISPs to report whether they serve each street address or household, and the commission recently asked the public to submit comments on whether it should do so. But broadband lobby groups are urging the FCC to maintain the census block-level reporting, saying that reporting whether they can offer service at individual homes would be too burdensome on ISPs.

Getting accurate data about broadband deployment is a problem both for the FCC and individual consumers. ISPs have sometimes mistakenly told people moving to a new home that broadband service is available at their new address when, in fact, it is not.

If the lobby groups succeed in blocking any change, this situation could persist.

[drmrlordx]

Too burdensome? They could cook up a script in hours (if not minutes) to accurately report every damn address they serve all across their entire service area. Stupid.

[Hawkeye4077]

It's already been done. These are mostl of the AT&T customers within 1500m of my house.

[zanzabar]

Too burdensome? They could cook up a script in hours (if not minutes) to accurately report every damn address they serve all across their entire service area. Stupid.

they just dont want to give any evidence that they dont compete.

[alpha0ne]

they just dont want to give any evidence that they dont compete.

Or that they collude with each other

[Hawkeye4077]

Or that they collude with each other

We would know if we could legally get them to reveal how much the internet actually costs to provide.

[drmrlordx]

It's already been done.

Yeah, thought so.

[AliG]

they just dont want to give any evidence that they dont compete.

Of course they don't. Cable companies have gotten away with local monopolies for years claiming the cost of laying infrastructure is too high; why bother changing now?

It's already been done. These are mostl of the AT&T customers within 1500m of my house.

Sounds about right. This is why many of us believe internet should be considered a utility.

[bluestang]

Of course they don't. Cable companies have gotten away with local monopolies for years claiming the cost of laying infrastructure is too high; why bother changing now?

Sounds about right. This is why many of us believe internet should be considered a utility.

+1 Definitely should be considered a utility.