Tag Archives: Minnesota broadband mapping

MN broadband maps don’t match FCC maps: so which numbers to use and when and will that change?

Posted on by
Reply

I’ve been looking at the new FCC National Broadband Maps and I’ve been trying to compare them to the latest maps I used for the Minnesota Broadband County Profiles last December (from Connected Nation). The MN maps reflect data from October 2022. The FCC Maps report “Data As Of Dec 31, 2022 (Last Updated: 5/24/23)”. So while there may be some updates, the numbers shouldn’t be too far off.

According to the FCC National Map, here’s how Minnesota stands:

  • Wired Access 25/3: 90.95 percent
  • Wired Access 100/20: 88.27 percent
  • Any fixed broadband 25/3: 100 percent
  • Any fixed broadband 100/20: 95.93

According to the Minnesota Broadband Task Force’s 2022 report (published Jan 2023), here’s how MN stands:

  • Wired access 25/3: 92.03 percent
  • Wired access 100/20: 88.29

The FCC wired numbers are much closer to the Minnesota numbers (which also looks at wired connections) than the fixed broadband numbers but they are different. The question is – which numbers do we use when? And what numbers are we going to be using tomorrow? For some folks, it would be nice to be able to use the more generous numbers and say we’re done. For others, it might be nice to use the lower numbers to get funding but hope goals change after the receive funding. For folks who live in these areas, the numbers don’t matter as much their own ability to get access. One of the problems, as Doug Dawson pointed out in his post yesterday, is that we’re asking the providers to report access, and it’s easy to over-report…

Anybody who is intimately familiar with the FCC maps knows that there is a lot of fiction buried in the reporting. There is one huge flaw in the FCC mapping system that has carried over from the previous FCC mapping regime – ISPs self-report the speeds they can deliver. Per the FCC mapping rules, ISPs can claim broadband marketing speeds rather than some approximation of actual speeds. In every county where I’ve delved deep into the local situation, I’ve found multiple ISPs that are overclaiming broadband speeds.

Doug does a great job going into the details so I won’t, except to include his second flaw in the system…

A second flaw in the FCC maps is the coverage areas claimed by ISPs. The FCC is counting on public broadband challenges or challenges by State Broadband Offices to somehow fix this problem – but that’s an unrealistic hope. Most people don’t know about the FCC maps and the challenge process – and even people who know about it are not motivated to file a challenge about an ISP that claims service at their home that’s not really available. This issue can apply to any technology, but it’s particularly a problem for WISPs and cellular broadband. It’s not easy for a knowledgeable engineer to accurately judge the coverage area of a wireless network from a given tower – I have to think it’s beyond the capability of the folks at a State Broadband Office to understand it enough to challenge coverage. But it doesn’t take any expertise to know that a WISP or a cellular company claiming ubiquitous 100/20 Mbps coverage across large areas is exaggerating both speed and coverage capabilities.

But that gets back to my question – which numbers do we use when? More pointedly, will these maps be used to define eligibility for grants. And will the goal posts change once the funds have been awarded?

I’ve pulled the numbers for each county. The fixed broadband, as you can see, is clearly and consistently higher than wired connection. Comparing the wired numbers from MN and FCC wired number below (the columns that are bold), you can see sometimes the numbers are closer but often they are not. And sometimes the MN numbers are higher; other times they are lower.

County 100/20 Mbps Connected Nation Data 100/20 Mbps National BB Map Fixed 100/20 National BB Map Wired 25/3 National BB Map Wired
Aitkin 60.36 99.74 70 72.96
Anoka 96.64 97.38 97.1 98.28
Becker 78.45 100 81.12 86.69
Beltrami 98.86 100 98.65 98.84
Benton 89.94 83.77 82.47 86.42
Big Stone 97.09 100 99.01 99.01
Blue Earth 81.88 96.05 75.33 86.69
Brown 79.96 95.37 75.97 79.02
Carlton 48.71 74.1 58.55 65.53
Carver 93.2 98.91 93.48 94.33
Cass 56.37 100 57.72 54.32
Chippewa 80.55 100 75.59 84.26
Chisago 73.63 77.31 76.95 79.2
Clay 92.06 100 91.39 93.53
Clearwater 98.85 100 98.5 99.17
Cook 90.95 100 91.75 91.88
Cottonwood 67.02 85.27 61.09 68.03
Crow Wing 87.51 97.6 87.81 91.28
Dakota 96.82 98.52 96.31 96.7
Dodge 84.2 99.84 88.43 89.91
Douglas 74.59 100 77.38 87.46
Faribault 72.68 90.72 61.97 83.56
Fillmore 64.95 85.81 66.36 70.52
Freeborn 86.36 99.26 85.55 86.4
Goodhue 78.56 94.26 82.57 83.55
Grant 77.71 100 77.11 91.9
Hennepin 98.69 99.11 99 99.16
Houston 82.98 82.28 82.16 85.42
Hubbard 90.07 99.99 91.44 92.67
Isanti 50.09 60.21 58.15 69.08
Itasca 85.5 100 89.07 90.01
Jackson 61.98 94.9 62.73 64.12
Kanabec 23.46 49.36 25.87 42.85
Kandiyohi 68.18 94.69 70.18 79.84
Kittson 87.57 100 86.58 86.58
Koochiching 72.3 93.55 74.04 75.77
Lac qui Parle 99.86 100 99.63 99.63
Lake 84.15 98.44 88.31 88.34
Lake of the Woods 74.26 100 73.6 85.31
Le Sueur 74.92 98.49 79.32 81.66
Lincoln 99.99 100 97.82 97.87
Lyon 84.27 100 79.48 80.02
McLeod 75.48 97.25 73.92 80.88
Mahnomen 70.81 100 71.41 78.29
Marshall 82.9 100 81.63 81.93
Martin 67.03 98.1 69.53 74.92
Meeker 72.85 93.22 74.3 77.52
Mille Lacs 66.71 90.63 71.45 76.54
Morrison 77.57 90.83 83.61 85.94
Mower 83.25 98.75 84.93 87.17
Murray 51.38 98.94 53.78 56.38
Nicollet 77.29 91.75 77.65 84.21
Nobles 80.27 96.9 77.36 79.94
Norman 55.52 100 80.46 85.63
Olmsted 94.38 98.93 93.01 94.06
Otter Tail 70.54 100 73.29 82.4
Pennington 99.4 100 98.82 99.2
Pine 35.1 77.03 40.8 48.39
Pipestone 80.7 100 78.98 81.41
Polk 95.24 100 95.99 96.06
Pope 79.15 100 79.82 87.11
Ramsey 99.63 99.51 99.47 99.7
Red Lake 100 100 91.73 100
Redwood 48.35 84.37 63.34 73.05
Renville 70.79 97.68 70.98 72.72
Rice 85.23 95.3 86.3 90.48
Rock 99.9 100 94.99 94.99
Roseau 90.71 100 93.34 94.41
St. Louis 74.89 88.06 73 78.06
Scott 92.04 98.46 94.58 95.6
Sherburne 82.82 88.3 87.65 90.84
Sibley 65.63 94.4 62.88 65.71
Stearns 84.69 90.92 85.22 89.66
Steele 88.28 99.97 88.89 89.56
Stevens 97.08 100 95.97 99.08
Swift 97.5 100 94.96 97.41
Todd 47.52 83.89 53.92 61.66
Traverse 67.5 100 73.91 74.48
Wabasha 71.24 93.44 71.08 75.57
Wadena 98.88 100 99.28 99.3
Waseca 75.12 99.97 75.53 77.4
Washington 93.59 95.3 94.53 96.53
Watonwan 71.06 99.92 67.66 73.75
Wilkin 77.48 99.97 75.65 84.85
Winona 85.62 96.66 85.42 86.59
Wright 78.02 85.23 80.09 85.36
Yellow Medicine 58.17 99.68 57.28 62.21

 

 

 

Minnesota gets ARRA Broadband Mapping Funds

Posted on by
1

The official word is out. Today the NTIA announced the next round of mapping grants. They awarded grants to Minnesota, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Michigan, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota and Tennessee.

Here’s the word on the Minnesota funding:

Minnesota: NTIA has awarded Connected Nation approximately $1.2 million for broadband data collection and mapping activities over a two-year period and almost $500,000 for broadband planning activities over a five-year period in Minnesota, bringing the total grant award to approximately $1.7 million. Connected Nation is the designated entity for the state of Minnesota.

A quick reminder – each state was asked to recommend one mapping project. Minnesota recommended Connect Minnesota’s proposal. I’m hoping to talk to Connect Minnesota about the project after the holidays. They are usually very accommodating with more info.

Mapping debates on Connected Nation continue

Posted on by
3

The Washington St Journal ran an article on the Connected Nation maps. The big sticking point is that Connected Nation has ties to big telecommunications providers. There have been problems with their maps. Small providers claim they aren’t represented on the maps. Communities claim that their broadband access is overstated.

Mostly I avoid the debate – because I’m used to working with the hand I’m dealt and Minnesota has been dealt Connected Nations maps. Last fall, Connected Nation was hired to map broadband access in the state. They came out with preliminary reports in February indicating that 92 percent of the state has broadband.

It was interesting to see how often the CN maps came up in the paragraphs written by Minnesota Ultra High-Speed Broadband Task Force members. Some questioned their results; other quoted them. At the end of the day, I think the legislators will pay attention to the report, because they’ve paid for it.

I did find it interesting (in the WSJ article) that Kentucky seems to have become less and less enamored with CN.

Also while referring to the Kentucky report, WSJ said that, “Connect Kentucky says its maps include data from more than 300 Internet providers and disputes it left smaller carriers off its maps.” I spoke to CN last winter and they told me that there were about 100 providers in Kentucky. So, 300 seems strange. I remember the number because they were expecting to talk to 225 providers in Minnesota – that number was changed to about 100 – the reason being that apparently once they looked at the list many ISP were merely resellers, subsidiaries or different names for other companies. So I understood that change – but I don’t understand this discrepancy.

March 20 Minnesota Ultra High-Speed Task Force Meeting Minutes

Posted on by
1

Today’s meeting felt collegial. The healthcare folks did a great job. I think the afternoon speaker (who presented variations on the Connect Minnesota maps) spurred a lot of good conversation relating to the maps. From the outside it seem like people were really in synch and that compromises were being made in an effort to really start working together. Or maybe it’s not right to say that there were compromises – but that everyone was able to rise above their individual concerns to start building a plan together.

Here are the regular notes from the Broadband Task Force meeting… Continue reading →

Mapping Presentation from Connected Nation

Posted on by
Reply

Brent Legg from Connected Nation was good enough to send me the presentation he gave on the Minnesota broadband mapping last week. I wanted to make sure to share it here.cn-map-presentation

On a slightly related note, The NY Times recently ran an article (Why Spend $350 Million to Map Broadband?) addressing concerns about the proposed $350 million pegged in the economic stimulus proposals. As the article says, “Deep inside the stimulus bill that passed the Senate Tuesday is an allocation of up to $350 million for making a “nationwide inventory map of existing broadband service capability and availability in the United States.”

I think the author makes some good points. First, if they’re going to spend money on such a map, they should also create a provision that requires providers to participate in any surveys. Second, that info provided by providers should be made public – not just in the aggregate. (Geoff Daily just wrote a good piece on this too.)

If the government is willing to put money into broadband, it makes sense to create policies that reflect that public investment.

Connect Minnesota – the Broadband Maps are Here

Posted on by
6

The broadband maps of Minnesota have been unveiled! This afternoon I got a sneak preview of the maps from the folks at Connection Nation (CN) – specifically from Brent Legg, Wes Kerr and Chip Spann. Connected Nation has been hired by the State to map access to broadband across Minnesota. The maps are being created to help the Ultra High-Speed Broadband Task Force make recommendations to the Legislature regarding a vision for broadband access in Minnesota.

I have a brief video clip from our meeting; I tried to catch the introductory key points. (I’m hoping to get the presentation they gave too and will post it when I can.)

According to the data collected (mostly from providers) 92 percent of the state is covered with broadband – as defined by greater than 768 Kbps download speeds. The 8 percent that is not covered comes to about 150,000 households or 418,000 people. Although participation by providers was not mandated by the State, CN heard from 98 providers of the estimated 225 providers in Minnesota, however it sounds as if they had heard from the largest providers. That being said they are working to get more data. Continue reading →