The FCC Wants Carriers to Prove Their Coverage Claims, T-Mobile and AT&T Say It’s Too Much

AT&T Credit: Jonathan Weiss / Shutterstock
Text Size
- +

Toggle Dark Mode

Let’s face it, most of the U.S. carriers exaggerate their wireless coverage at the best of times, and in some cases spin things to the point of being downright misleading.

We’ve seen this with AT&T’s bogus 5G E branding, Verizon’s claims about its 5G coverage, and even years ago with Sprint’s promotion of its unlimited plans, but as new 5G networks continue to roll out across the U.S. it’s clear that if left unchecked, the situation is likely to get worse before it gets better.

Clearly, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is tired of taking a reactionary approach to combating these claims, so it’s now preparing to make the carriers put their money where their mouths are.

A new proposal tabled last month would require all of the mobile providers in the U.S. to actually drive test their own networks to check their network coverage range and publish the numbers to prove that they actually have the coverage that they claim to have — both in terms of range and speed.

We propose requiring mobile service providers to submit on-the-ground test data. The Broadband DATA Act requires the Commission to verify the accuracy and reliability of mobile broadband coverage data that mobile providers submit to the Commission, and we believe that on-the-ground test data from mobile providers could be a critical component of our verification process

FCC proposal

While FCC Chairman Amit Pai has let carriers’ exaggerated coverage claims slide in the past, a new mandate by Congress is pushing the FCC forward in requiring the carriers to provide much more accurate coverage maps.

Not surprisingly, however, it seems that at least some of the carriers are formally pushing back against the proposal, insisting that it will drive up their costs.

As reported by Ars Technica, both AT&T and T-Mobile filed objections to the FCC’s proposal this week, stating in part that it’s “not the proper solution” for verifying nationwide coverage maps, and that it’s highly complex, time-consuming, and expensive,” and that such drive tests are “burdensome to conduct.”

A blanket requirement to perform regular on-the-ground testing will force providers to spend millions of dollars each year on tests, resources that would be better spent investing in our network and deployment in rural America.

T-Mobile, in an FCC filing

Verizon hasn’t yet filed anything with regard to the FCC’s current proposal, but it did go on the record last fall in objecting to the possibility of the plan, making the rather bafflegab-sounding statement that it “conducts drive tests in a more targeted manner to calibrate its propagation model and to confirm the accuracy of the model.”

AT&T estimates that to drive test just 25% of the square kilometers of its nationwide 4G LTE coverage would cost approximately $45 million each year and that drive testing only 10% of its coverage would still cost as much as $18 million/year.

AT&T, in an FCC filing

Alternatives to Drive Testing

If you think all of this sounds like the carriers want to avoid having to own up to the reality of their coverage maps, you’re probably right, although to be fair they’re not just opposing the plan outright, but have offered some alternative solutions.

For example, AT&T has specifically suggested that the FCC could instead “collect certain confidential tower site location information, which would be a better verification tool compared to drive testing.”

However, as much as the carriers are trying to claim that actual drive testing is both costly and inaccurate, it would certainly seem that it’s miles ahead of whatever it is that they’re doing right now, and several state-level agencies have already conducted their own drive tests that would seem to confirm this.

For example, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) supports extensive drive testing, stating that “drive tests are required to capture fully accurate data for mobile wireless service areas,” and offering up a graphic that shows how CPUC’s own tests in California seriously contradicted the map offered by one unnamed national carrier.

We have found such overstatement of [mobile] providers’ submitted coverage footprints to be the case for all providers in all years we conducted tests, not just for the anonymized single example shown above.

California Public Utilities Commission, in a statement to the FCC

A state official in Vermont who drove more than 6,000 miles back in 2018 also found “wide disparities” between the coverage being reported by carriers and the actual on-the-ground reality.

At this point, the FCC’s plan is only in the proposal stages, and it could change after it evaluates feedback from the carriers and other stakeholders such as state officials and the public, but as it stands the general consensus is that it will be pushing for more testing, and it’s only the specific testing methodology that’s ultimately under discussion here. While these policies will likely move at the typical speed of government, we can certainly hope that it’s the first step to ushering in an era when carrier’s coverage maps can actually be trusted to be accurate, thereby pushing the carriers to bring better coverage to underserved areas.

Sponsored
Social Sharing