> But the 2019 version of the report has come with an unusual amount of political baggage
What? Why baggage? How? Zero explanation, just FUD.
> The census block system relies on data that only shows where providers could easily offer service, not where they actually do.
Yes, that's how it works. Also why every ISP I know charges a connection fee: they're not going to connect unless you first agree to be a customer.
> Starks’ statement questioned the figures. “It’s incredible to me that an error this large — approximately 62 million in overstated broadband connections — didn’t materially change the report,” he said.
BarrierFree is a New England service provider [1], in urban centers where customers have numerous internet options. [2] Without altogether leaving their geographic regions, there's simply no way for their results to affect the FCC report. Probably why their mistake initially went unnoticed.
> Starks points out in his statement that some blocks are larger than 250 square miles.
Maybe 0.01% of the time. No wonder this man is perplexed at statistical averages. Look at any census map and you'll see that census blocks are very focused.
And to top it all off, the article includes zero suggestions for improving the admittedly imperfect measurement. Comes off as just a hit piece.