Skip to main content

How Good is Your Internet Coverage?

U.S. President Obama outlined a plan late last month to blanket 98 percent of the U.S. population with high-speed wireless coverage. The timeline for that is the next five years.

Sadly, that means that some Americans will still be without high-speed internet until half-past this decade. We can chart the progress though, as the FCC has erected a Broadband Map website that allows you to view the internet coverage in any given area of the country, both wireline and wireless, as well as by speed.

This is also a great tool for those about to go on holiday to a more rural or remote part of the country but can't live without those superpokes.

  • How about we cover 98% of the US with wired internet first.
    Reply
  • picsoul
    Yeah, I have 6 down 1 up with craptastic Comcast on Docsis 1.0.
    Reply
  • Doctor Rob
    This year part of the state of Minnesota will be getting Fiber to the Home internet service. Just like Verizon's FIOS service. From what I have been told the speeds will be like 10megs up and down on the low end and 100megs up and down on the high end(though I have also been told it would be 100megs down and like 20-50 up)and even faster in the future. This will cover most of lake county and some of cook county in Minnesota.

    The nice thing will be that if you are living in the boonies miles and miles away from the cities and towns if you have power you will be able to get the internet service just the same as if you lived in town.

    Wireless internet is too unpredictable to run a business on. Push out the fiber optics too all areas. (much better, but more expensive, but also no worries about radiation)
    Reply
  • JPForums
    Sounds great. 98% of the US gets high speed wireless coverage. Three questions:
    1) 98% of the US what? (landmass, population, other)
    I'm guessing population from the snippets from his speech.
    2) What dictates high speed? Also, will it be measured by maximum theoretical, average over 24 hrs, average waking hrs, other?
    3) What is our current coverage by their metric?

    It's impossible to say given the unspecified nature of this plan, but an earlier article suggests we'll be getting a 3% boost (from 95% to 98%). It seems disingenuous to tout this 98% it they are only really doing 3%.

    The linked national broadband map defaults to showing only XDSL technologies. If they wanted people to get a real feel for our current coverage, they would show all coverage by default and let you turn off the ones you aren't concerned with. Alternately, since it seems they are only expanding wireless coverage, why not select all wireless technologies by default.

    Given how much of the map is already covered by wireless technologies, their definition of broadband must be quite low with no regard for capability to deliver the theoretical rates. By the time this gets implemented, these lines won't be considered highspeed in the consumer market.

    This leaves us, interestingly, right where we are now. As towers get upgraded, the old equipment can be reimplemented in outlying areas. The cost of new equipment for this previous generation technology has also gone down making it more viable to implement in the lower volume areas.
    Reply
  • JPForums
    Sounds great. 98% of the US gets high speed wireless coverage. Three questions:
    1) 98% of the US what? (landmass, population, other)
    I'm guessing population from the snippets from his speech.
    2) What dictates high speed? Also, will it be measured by maximum theoretical, average over 24 hrs, average waking hrs, other?
    3) What is our current coverage by their metric?

    It's impossible to say given the unspecified nature of this plan, but an earlier article suggests we'll be getting a 3% boost (from 95% to 98%). It seems disingenuous to tout this 98% it they are only really doing 3%.

    The linked national broadband map defaults to showing only XDSL technologies. If they wanted people to get a real feel for our current coverage, they would show all coverage by default and let you turn off the ones you aren't concerned with. Alternately, since it seems they are only expanding wireless coverage, why not select all wireless technologies by default.

    Given how much of the map is already covered by wireless technologies, their definition of broadband must be quite low with no regard for capability to deliver the theoretical rates. By the time this gets implemented, these lines won't be considered highspeed in the consumer market.

    This leaves us, interestingly, right where we are now. As towers get upgraded, the old equipment can be reimplemented in outlying areas. The cost of new equipment for this previous generation technology has also gone down making it more viable to implement in the lower volume areas.
    Reply
  • blackened144
    I dont know how accurate this map is.. It says Comcast offers 50-100Mb service in my area, when in reality they only offer 8mb residential service. I know that because I dropped them and switched to AT&T U-Verse at 24Mb.. I would call Comcast frequently and ask if they ever had plans to upgrade my area and they always said NO.
    Reply
  • Cyex
    JPForums2) What dictates high speed?
    Marketing, branding, pure B.S. dictates 'high speed' but I can guarantee it'll be disappointingly slow.
    Reply
  • leo2kp
    Can't say I've been too disappointed with Comcast. We have 16/20mb internet but I've clocked it at 30+mb down on numerous occasions.
    Reply
  • I have 100Mb fiber in Romania. 8 EUR/month
    Reply
  • rhino13
    Wireless is trash.
    Fiber... that's where you want to be.
    Reply