DS-08 · Broadband, income, and what the map does not show

FCC broadband availability data is self-reported by providers at a granular level. Does reported availability match what the ACS says about actual household subscription — and where is the gap largest?

FCC Broadband Data Collection / National Broadband Map (https://broadbandmap.fcc.gov/data-download). Census ACS internet subscription and income tables (https://www.census.gov/data/developers/data-sets/acs-5year.html).

Availability and adoption are different things and conflating them is the classic error — a place can be fully served and barely subscribed, which is an affordability story, not an infrastructure one. FCC data is provider-reported and historically overstates coverage. Geographic units differ between sources and require careful crosswalking.

A tract-level comparison of reported availability against measured subscription, with income controlled, and an explicit separation of the "no infrastructure" story from the "cannot afford it" story.

CT: holding two similar-sounding variables apart. CR: crosswalking incompatible geographies defensibly. CO: peer review of the crosswalk. CM: a brief that does not let a reader collapse availability into adoption. CZ: broadband funding is allocated on these maps.

A telecom engineer, digital-equity organizer, or policy analyst reviews the crosswalk at Checkpoint 1 and the framing at Checkpoint 2. School-supervised.

R1: the availability/adoption distinction is in the question itself. R2: crosswalk method documented with loss reported. R3: income-only baseline. R4: gap quantified with uncertainty. R5: a reader cannot conflate the two. R6: names the funding consequence of overstated coverage.

(a) The student reports "20% of the county lacks broadband" using subscription data, and has measured poverty. (b) The student treats provider-reported availability as ground truth and concludes there is no access problem.