From 2009 to 2014 Washington had a state broadband office that used a bunch of open data techniques to show where there was broadband internet service available - and where there wasn't. The basic idea was to build an intelligent market for broadband services and minimize the amount of public money needed. We did pretty well in this area but we left a few challenges on the table.
Here's a slide show of the growth of 100 Mbps wireline broadband in Washington from 2009 to 2014 - legacy of the state broadband office. I usually prefer live interactive data visuals, but there's nothing like a quick sequence of images to show growth.
Where we are now
Today's broadband landscape can be explored, downloaded or queried from the National Broadband Map; the final WA submission is on data.wa.gov here; and there are public interest groups like the Open Technology Institute helping communities map their own broadband with open source tools and international experience.
Way Back When
When communities in the Columbia Gorge started advocating and planning for better telecom service in 2004 the idea of a really accurate map and near-universal broadband seemed unrealistic (see this old presentation). When stakeholders in Olympia gathered in 2008 to figure out what could be done to map services by competing carriers they concluded that the best they could hope for was maps showing which "census tracts" had at least some broadband. This was much better than no maps at all, but still a long way from something you could bet on when buying a house.
How'd That Happen?
Then in 2009 the federal government threw out a whole cartload of "can'ts" and set a new expectation: nationwide broadband built different under the Recovery Act. In Washington that meant about a thousand miles of new fiber through places like Republic and Newport and Naselle, plus Community-driven planning efforts grew and graduated in the Gorge, WallaWalla, Clarkston, among Washington's tribes and elsewhere. Clearly those were urgent times and extreme measures. Interestingly, measurement and clarity became hallmarks of the Recovery Act. I know because I filed the monthly reports on tangible progress that were required of those who got the money. I also know because I used the open data tools developed to transparently show where the rest of the money was going.
Where To Now?
The state broadband office stopped short in a few areas:
- We mapped broadband statewide at the most granular level ever achieved (census block), but that wasn't quite enough for the couple who bought their dream home near Foulweather Bluff only to find out that the ISP couldn't get broadband down their particular driveway. People don't live or work in census blocks - real businesses have addresses, and that's the level of precision a map needs to show to be usable.
- We did some very cool crowdsourced speed testing -- anyone could type in their address and provider and take a speed test that would show up on the state broadband map and was used to do sanity checks on provider service reporting. But the home market wasn't ready for speed packages that cost more, and "best effort" is still mostly considered "good enough." By contrast, businesses often insist on Service Level Agreements with providers, and they pay for that level of service.
- We couldn't get our arms around pricing data - the most competitively sensitive data out there. As a result some of our maps included companies whose service (though fast) was probably out of the price range of the average citizen. Neither the NASDAQ not the Dow Jones are government numbers, but the nation's business fabric wouldn't work right without them. Somehow we need to figure out a way to help customers make apples-to-apples price comparisons among competitive broadband providers, and among towns around the state like Newport, where fiber to the home has been widely available since 2012.
- Finally, we have neglected a longstanding homegrown consensus that broadband adoption had worked pretty well for Washington before ARRA came along. CTOP (Community Technology Opportunity Program) was the result of a coalition of private and public supporters, and was generously funded by the state legislature in 2008. It was a close cousin to the technology matching funds and community technology programs still operating successfully in Seattle today, and it was the basis of a case study in data-driven program assessment that informed many programs that followed. It was a key recommendation of the 2012 Broadband Advisory Group as a flexible way to support broadband adoption.
Today the regulatory landscape is different. The FCC has classified broadband as a regulated service (though lightly) but not delegated authority to states, and in so doing has mostly preempted states from regulating in the traditional way. They have also committed themselves to protecting net neutrality and expanding support for schools. All of these are important actions, but it looks like the FCC will have to carry the weight of these regulatory advancements alone.
Broadband in Washington is probably the first example in our history of a working, unregulated utility. Data and competition have been key to that success.