Every map, in one place.
The spatial evidence behind the case — the need, your address, the towers, the District's own field test, the competition, income, and the footprint — all on one page. Each also lives on its home page; this is the gallery.
A century on the map — the whole story, in motion.
A three-minute animated film on the county's real terrain: the 1945 buyout of the private power company, the 82-mile fiber backbone of 2002, the 2010 federal wireless build blooming across the valleys — and the unwinding of 2026, award by award. Play it, or scrub 120 years by hand.
See the whole network in 3D, on the real terrain.
Every tower on real satellite imagery and elevation — spin it, zoom in, and switch layers: coverage, population, poverty by tract, and a terrain-aware model of what old line-of-sight gear reaches versus the new non-line-of-sight hardware. It's the clearest way to see why this county is hard to serve.
Median household income, next to where the fiber money goes.
The map most worth a long look: darker tracts are higher-income; the lines show existing and funded fiber. Fiber follows the towns; the wireless network covers the lower-income rural areas between. Full context on Income & Equity →
All four measures of the gap, at a glance.
The same census tracts, shaded four ways — no clicking required. Darker means worse (fewer households online, fewer with a computer, deeper poverty; for speed, darker = slower). The reservation and remote eastern tracts run worst on nearly every measure. Zoom-and-click version on Coverage →
Tract data: NoaNet / Washington broadband planning layer — ACS adoption & poverty and Ookla median speeds (the 2023 county plan's dataset). Numbers shown are each tract's value for that measure.
What's serving your address — and what an upgrade would deliver.
Search an address or click the map: today's service, what a modernized network could deliver, and what Starlink would cost instead. Rust = the seven first-phase upgrade sites; navy = the existing network. Open on its own page →
Or click anywhere on the map below. Search uses OpenStreetMap and is limited to Okanogan County.
The seven rust sites are the District's current first-phase upgrade plan; the navy points and shaded sectors are the existing wireless network a future phase could modernize. Speed and price figures are estimates.
What ~$1.2M actually buys — seven towers.
The seven Tarana upgrade sites, bubble-sized by customers served; green marks the three lowest-cost-per-customer towers. Tap a tower for its cost and payback. Full per-tower table on The Data →
Engineered for 90°. Measured at ~160°.
From the District's own Tarana test at Jackass Butte: a sector designed for a 90° view delivered usable coverage closer to ~160° — nearly double the ground. The field-test data on The Data →
The reseller's own towers, next to the PUD's.
NCI Datacom — the one reseller behind most of the recent RSP decline — runs its own competing towers. The PUD network held its own for years even against that. The full comparison on The Data →
Who lives inside the wireless footprint.
Built from Census blocks: residents inside today's coverage (green) vs. outside it (grey) — about 32,000 of 42,104, ~77% of the county. More on Coverage →