There are ISPs out there licking their chops to take advantage of NTIA/RUS releasing funds to go WAY beyond what they are intended to be used for. By not arguing against abuse of these programs, you’re arguing in favor of it.

Connected Nation is the spawn of Connect Kentucky which came up with the stat that KY access to the web grew from 65% TO 95% in a few short years. Which is of course totally bogus.

IF mapping is desirable it should NOT be put in the hands of Connected Nation.

Here is the best take on Connected Nation: http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/1998

Mapping access to the web would be like asking if mapping for electricity access should have been done.
Do rural areas need electricity/web access?

Exactly. We don’t need maps nor definitions of unserved areas to know that there are way too many Americans who must rely on obsolete dialup and substandard satellite Internet connections. Both of these activities are likely to divert time and resources away from the task at hand: getting broadband infrastructure on the ground and up and running ASAP.

It many areas, it was needed not only yesterday but five years ago. And contrary to mainstream media accounts, it’s not just a rural issue due to the very limited range of DSL over copper — which itself is increasingly obsolete — and cable deployments based on plans drawn up decades ago that are no longer relevant.

This is a question with which I see the Minnesota Broadband Task Force wrestle. They seem to hesitate to put a number on defining broadband – and seem to lean towards a definition based on application – something like “broadband will let you do videoconferencing.” Or creating a hybrid definition.

Sometimes I think there’s a “we’ll know it when we see it” feel about broadband and un-served.

For me the difficult aspect is that it’s a moving target – as are the broadband maps. It seems as soon as a definition is updated or a map created – it’s out of date.

So I guess that’s why I lean towards looking at which areas are in the greatest trouble (with their economy and employment rate) and think about how to serve those areas. Maybe they’ll need broadband infrastructure – maybe they’ll need training in how to use broadband.

If this were a business case I might feel differently – but this is a job/economic stimulus package.

Getting back to this thread, why is it a good idea to fund projects if we don’t know if the project is truly needed, or if that project funding – however limited – might be of better use elsewhere?

If I was to propose a multi-million dollar network expansion to my boss, you’d better believe I would go with a market analysis in hand.

“It is precisely in this vein that Nulty argues fiber to the premises can pencil out in broadband black holes. First, Nulty, told the Broadband Properties Summit this week, there is by definition a lack of competition in such locales, making a strong business case for a potential fiber-based provider since it would have the market to itself. Second, having the fiber market to itself in what was once a digital dead spot would translate into a higher take rate that would generate more revenues to cover the cost of installing fiber to the premises, also reducing uncertainty and building a stronger business case.

http://eldotelecom.blogspot.com/2008/04/fiber-infrastructure-can-pay-off-in.html

As for wireless broadband, I believe it does have an important interim role to play until fixed premises fiber infrastructure can be fully built out and over the longer term as a platform for mobile broadband.

Any physical network expansion of coverage is bound to the same terrestrial hurdles, regardless of network medium. You can’t change the footage required to provide 1 home serviced per mile of plant. All you could argue is that the costs to do so varies with the physical network of choice; copper, fiber, or a combination of both. However, that cost will still be extremely high if the area is rural. You can’t manipulate that cost unless you add more subscribers per mile, or worse – subsidize it with additional fees. To argue ubiquitous coverage would mean wireless is the only economically viable solution, but you’re not arguing that.

Also, as it pertains to our regional rural broadband deployment issues I would pose again: How would everyone here classify a community as “underserved”?

That map would likely reflect neighborhoods and even roads and streets bisected between those having access to advanced IP-based services and those that do not. That’s why the Communications Workers of America has termed broadband deployment in the U.S. a messy “hodge podge.” Cable deployment is similarly arbitrary. One premises will have access to service while someone just down the road will not.

If broadband deployment was a regional issue with for example entire towns and counties lacking infrastructure, then I think it would be possible to produce useful deployment maps.

The standard we should aim for is fiber deployment to nearly all premises. That would cover all but those limited areas where fiber to the premises now exists.

Also, to say “We don’t need a map to tell us…” is rather short sighted. I can’t even tell you the total extent of my own company’s network without referring to a map. It seems that a few posters and readers here don’t see that as useful in determining how to effectively spend government money – which is, after all, your money and my money. How that thought process doesn’t scare the daylights out of taxpayers is downright baffling.