> It's not that precise I think you're being too kind. That map is a disgrace. The 'latest public release' is from June 2019, a whole year out of date. One sel

> It's not that precise I think you're being too kind. That map is a disgrace. The 'latest public release' is from June 2019, a whole year out of date. One self-reported hookup in a census block is enough to mark the entire block as 'having service', which is a ridiculous metric, particularly in rural areas as you said. This map was designed by the incumbents as something to point at when they are criticized for the sub-par and overpriced services they provide. And the FCC went along with it, which is just regulatory capture. A real broadband map would a) not rely on self-reporting or have really serious fines if companies deliberately provide incorrect information b) give an indication of what is actually installed (1 house out of the 100 in this census block has fiber from Verizon? Great, 1% actually installed). c) give an indication of what is actually available. 95 buildings out of 100 can't get the Verizon fiber service? That's 95% of the census block that does not have service. The telcos have this information (they all have a way to look up a physical address on their website to see if you can get service), they are just not sharing it. The FCC broadband map is about as bad as the cell phone carrier's coverage maps, which are also a complete joke. For those, though, there are crowdsourced and way more accurate alternatives (e.g. opensignal.com, cellmapper.net).