Proposed Rule2021-16071
Comment Sought on Technical Requirements for the Mobile Challenge, Verification, and Crowdsource Processes Required Under the Broadband Data Act
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
July 28, 2021
Issuing agencies
Federal Communications Commission
Abstract
In this document, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB), the Office of Economics and Analytics (OEA), and the Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) (collectively, the Bureau and Offices) seek comment on proposed technical requirements to implement the mobile challenge, verification, and crowdsourcing processes required by the Broadband DATA Act.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 86 Issue 142 (Wednesday, July 28, 2021)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 142 (Wednesday, July 28, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 40398-40416]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2021-16071]
[[Page 40398]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 1
[WC Docket No. 19-195, DA 21-853; FR ID 39982]
Comment Sought on Technical Requirements for the Mobile
Challenge, Verification, and Crowdsource Processes Required Under the
Broadband Data Act
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
(WTB), the Office of Economics and Analytics (OEA), and the Office of
Engineering and Technology (OET) (collectively, the Bureau and Offices)
seek comment on proposed technical requirements to implement the mobile
challenge, verification, and crowdsourcing processes required by the
Broadband DATA Act.
DATES: Comments are due on or before August 27, 2021; reply comments
are due on or before September 13, 2021.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by WC Docket No. 19-195,
by any of the following methods:
<bullet> Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the internet by accessing the ECFS: <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs">https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs</a>.
<bullet> Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must
file an original and one copy of each filing.
<bullet> Filings can be sent by commercial overnight courier, or by
first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be
addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary,
Federal Communications Commission.
<bullet> Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive,
Annapolis Junction, MD 20701. U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express,
and Priority mail must be addressed to 45 L Street NE. Washington, DC
20554.
<bullet> Effective March 19, 2020, and until further notice, the
Commission no longer accepts any hand or messenger delivered filings.
This is a temporary measure taken to help protect the health and safety
of individuals, and to mitigate the transmission of COVID-19.
People with Disabilities. To request materials in accessible
formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic
files, audio format), send an email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d9bfbabaece9ed99bfbabaf7beb6af"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="dabcb9b9efeaee9abcb9b9f4bdb5ac">[email protected]</span></a> or call the
Consumer & Government Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice, 202-418-
0432 (tty).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Will Holloway,
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#24734d48484d45490a6c4b48484b53455d644247470a434b52"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="55023c39393c34387b1d3a39393a22342c153336367b323a23">[email protected]</span></a>, Competition & Infrastructure Policy Division,
(WTB), Jonathan McCormack at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ade7c2c3ccd9c5ccc383e0ceeec2dfc0cccec6edcbcece83cac2db"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="94defbfaf5e0fcf5fabad9f7d7fbe6f9f5f7ffd4f2f7f7baf3fbe2">[email protected]</span></a> (OEA), or
Martin Doczkat at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3a775b484e5354147e555940515b4e7a5c5959145d554c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1954786b6d7077375d767a6372786d597f7a7a377e766f">[email protected]</span></a> (OET).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's
document, Public Notice, in WC Docket No 19-195, DA 21-853, released on
July 16, 2021. The full text of this document, including the Technical
Appendix is available for public inspection and can be downloaded at
<a href="https://www.fcc.gov/document/input-sought-mobile-challenge-verification-technical-requirements">https://www.fcc.gov/document/input-sought-mobile-challenge-verification-technical-requirements</a> or by using the Commission's ECFS
web page at <a href="http://www.fcc.gov/ecfs">www.fcc.gov/ecfs</a>.
Ex Parte Rules
This proceeding shall be treated as a ``permit-but-disclose''
proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons
making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written
presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within
two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline
applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex
parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the
presentation must: (1) List all persons attending or otherwise
participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was
made; and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during
the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of
the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the
presenter's written comments, memoranda, or other filings in the
proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or
arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings
(specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data
or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the
memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex
parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must
be filed consistent with Sec. 1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules. In
proceedings governed by Sec. 1.49(f) of the rules or for which the
Commission has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex
parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte
presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the
electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and
must be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml., .ppt,
searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize
themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The rulemaking required under section 802(a)(1) of the Broadband
DATA Act is exempt from review by OMB and from the requirements of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. As a result,
the Public Notice will not be submitted to OMB for review under section
3507(d) of the PRA.
Synopsis
I. Introduction
1. With this Public Notice, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
(WTB), the Office of Economics and Analytics (OEA), and the Office of
Engineering and Technology (OET) (collectively, the Bureau and Offices)
take the next step in implementing the requirements of the Broadband
DATA Act and improving the Commission's data on broadband availability
as part of the Broadband Data Collection (BDC). To implement the
Broadband DATA Act's requirements and obtain better mobile broadband
availability data, the Commission delegated to the Bureau and Offices
the obligation to develop: (1) Technical requirements for a challenge
process that will enable consumers and other third parties to dispute
service providers' coverage data; (2) a process to verify service
providers' coverage data; and (3) a process to accept crowdsourced
information from third parties. These measures will enable the
Commission, Congress, other federal and state policy makers, Tribal
entities, consumers, and other third parties to verify and supplement
the data collected by the Commission on the status of broadband
availability throughout the United States.
2. This Public Notice seeks comment on proposed technical
requirements to implement the mobile challenge, verification, and
crowdsourcing processes required by the Broadband DATA Act. These
requirements include the metrics to be collected for on-the-ground test
data and a methodology for determining the threshold for what
constitutes a cognizable challenge requiring a provider response. The
Public Notice also provides tentative
[[Page 40399]]
views and seeks comment on the types of data that likely will be
probative in different circumstances for validating broadband
availability data submitted by mobile service providers. The Public
Notice and the detailed Technical Appendix, Appendix A, propose
detailed processes and metrics for challengers to use to contest
providers' broadband coverage availability, for providers to follow
when responding to a Commission verification request, and for state,
local, and Tribal governmental entities and other third parties to
follow when submitting verified broadband coverage data. For purposes
of this Public Notice, the Bureau and Offices generally refer to state,
local, and Tribal entities as ``government entities'' or ``governmental
entities.'' The Public Notice seeks comment on the technical
requirements for these complex issues to assure that the broadband
availability data collected in the challenge and other data
verification and crowdsource processes serves the important broadband
data verification purposes envisioned in the Broadband DATA Act.
3. The Broadband DATA Act requires the Commission to collect
granular data from broadband internet access service providers on the
availability and quality of broadband service and also to establish a
challenge process, verify the accuracy and reliability of the broadband
coverage data that providers are required to submit in their BDC
filings, and improve data accuracy through a crowdsourcing process. The
Broadband DATA Act also requires the Commission to develop ``a process
through which it can collect verified data for use in the coverage maps
from: (1) [s]tate, local, and Tribal governmental entities that are
primarily responsible for mapping or tracking broadband internet access
service coverage for a [s]tate, unit of local government, or Indian
Tribe, as applicable; (2) third parties . . . ; and (3) other Federal
agencies.'' In its Second Order and Third Further Notice, the
Commission adopted some of the Broadband DATA Act's requirements for
collection and reporting broadband data from providers, developed the
framework for the BDC, established a process for verifying the
broadband data it receives from providers in their BDC filings, and
adopted a basic framework for collecting crowdsourced information.
While the challenge process, crowdsource data, and other FCC efforts
will all serve to validate the data submitted by providers, for
purposes of this Public Notice, ``verification'' or ``verification
process'' refers to the internal process the Commission sought comment
on in section IV.D. of the Third Further Notice and adopted in section
III.E. of the Third Order. In the Third Order, the Commission adopted
additional requirements for collecting and verifying provider-submitted
data and established the challenge process. The Commission directed the
Bureau and Offices to design and develop the new BDC platform for
mapping broadband availability, and to set forth the specifications and
requirements for the mobile challenge, verification, and crowdsourcing
processes. The Commission was able to begin development of the BDC
systems and the proposed technical requirements to implement these
processes after funding to implement the Act was appropriated in
December 2020.
4. In the Third Order, the Commission determined that it should
aggregate speed test results received from multiple consumer challenges
in the same general area in order to resolve challenges in an efficient
manner, mitigate the time and expense involved, and ensure that the
mobile coverage maps are reliable and useful. When these aggregated
results reach an appropriate threshold, they will constitute a
cognizable challenge requiring a provider response. While the
Commission acknowledged that consumers are likely to submit challenges
in distinct, localized areas instead of expending the time and
resources to test in a broader area or for extended periods, it also
recognized that providers should not be subject to the undue cost of
responding to a large number of challenges in very small areas. In
response to the Second Order and Third Further Notice, providers argued
that a requirement to respond to every consumer challenge would be a
substantial burden. The Commission directed OEA, in consultation with
WTB, to determine the threshold number of mobile consumer challenges
within a specified area that will constitute a cognizable challenge
triggering a provider's obligation to respond. In connection with that
determination, the Commission also directed OEA, in consultation with
WTB, to establish: (1) The methodology for determining this threshold;
and (2) the methodology for determining the boundaries of a geographic
area where the threshold for a cognizable challenge has been met.
5. Consistent with the approach it adopted for consumer challenges,
the Commission stated that it would also aggregate speed test evidence
received from multiple government and third-party challengers in the
same general area. The Commission directed OEA to determine the
threshold number of mobile governmental and third-party challenges
within the same general area that will constitute a cognizable
challenge that requires a provider response. Similar to the consumer
challenges, the Commission directed OEA, in consultation with WTB, to
establish the methodology for this threshold and the methodology for
determining the boundaries of an area where the threshold has been met.
II. Discussion
A. Mobile Service Challenge Process
6. The Broadband DATA Act requires the Commission to ``establish a
user-friendly challenge process through which consumers, [s]tate,
local, and Tribal governmental entities, and other entities or
individuals may submit coverage data to the Commission to challenge the
accuracy of-- (i) the coverage maps; (ii) any information submitted by
a provider regarding the availability of broadband internet access
service; or (iii) the information included in the Fabric.'' The
Commission established requirements for challenges to mobile service
coverage reporting in the Third Order and directed the Bureau and
Offices to adopt additional implementation details.
7. At the outset, the Bureau and Offices note that coverage maps
generated using propagation modeling are probabilistic due to the
variability of mobile wireless service. The BDC coverage maps will be
based on specifications adopted by the Commission to reflect where a
mobile service provider's models predict a device has at least a 90%
probability of achieving certain minimum speeds at the cell edge for
the parameters and assumptions used in the modeling. But an individual
speed test conducted in an area where a provider's propagation model
predicts adequate coverage may not, by itself, be sufficient to
establish the on-the-ground reality of service in that area. Throughout
this Public Notice the Bureau and Offices use the term ``adequate
coverage'' to refer to coverage where a device should achieve upload
and download speeds meeting or exceeding the minimum values associated
with the provider's map for a given technology. The Bureau and Offices
have therefore designed the mobile challenge process to evaluate the
on-the-ground truth of whether devices are able to achieve particular
minimum speeds at least 90% of the time, measured at any point within
the covered area and at any time during typical usage hours. This
approach
[[Page 40400]]
strives to collect sufficient measurements to ensure the process is
statistically valid, while at the same time meeting the statutory
obligation to keep the challenge process ``user-friendly.'' The Bureau
and Offices acknowledge that on-the-ground service can be measured and
analyzed in ways other than the approach set forth herein, but the
Bureau and Offices believe that their approach has the benefit of being
both straightforward and consistent with the framework adopted by the
Commission.
1. Cognizable Challenges
8. To implement the Commission's directives, the Bureau and Offices
propose to evaluate the speed tests submitted by consumers in
combination with the speed tests submitted by governmental and third-
party challengers in the challenge process. Under this approach, the
Bureau and Offices would combine such speed test evidence and apply a
single methodology to determine whether the threshold for a cognizable
challenge has been met and to establish the boundaries of the
challenged area. Since the Bureau and Offices propose to require all
entities submitting challenges to meet the same thresholds and follow
similar procedures for submitting challenge data, the Bureau and
Offices see little functional difference between consumer and
governmental or third-party challenges. As such, the Bureau and Offices
believe combining all challenges will result in more robust and
accurate challenges.
9. In addition to combining consumer speed tests and governmental
and third-party speed tests, the Bureau and Offices propose to validate
each submitted speed test and exclude tests that are outside the scope
of the challenge process, do not conform to the data specifications, or
do not otherwise present reliable evidence. The Bureau and Offices
propose to accept as valid speed tests only those tests conducted
between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. local time, so that speed
tests are reflective of the hours that consumers typically use mobile
broadband networks. The Bureau and Offices acknowledge that their
proposal departs slightly from the time range proposed by the
Commission, which would allow for tests to be conducted between 6:00
a.m. and 12:00 a.m. (midnight) local time. However, the Bureau and
Offices believe that tests conducted after 10:00 p.m. may likely record
network performance that is materially different than tests conducted
earlier in the day due to reduced cell loading. The Bureau and Offices
seek comment on this proposal and their assumptions about network
traffic patterns. The Bureau and Offices also propose to compare each
speed test against the relevant coverage map. Specifically, the Bureau
and Offices propose to compare speed tests for a particular network
technology (e.g., 3G, 4G LTE, or 5G) to the coverage maps for the
corresponding technology, to compare the environment of the speed
test--stationary or in-vehicle mobile--to the coverage map of the
corresponding modeled environment, and to treat as invalid and exclude
any speed tests that fall outside the boundaries of the provider's most
recent coverage data for the relevant technology and modeled
environment. Additionally, because the Bureau and Offices do not
believe there is a reliable way to evaluate mobile voice coverage using
the speed test data which the Commission requires for submitting
challenges, the Bureau and Offices propose not to permit challenges to
the voice coverage maps submitted by mobile service providers. The
Bureau and Offices seek comment on these proposals.
10. After excluding any speed tests that fail the validations
proposed above, the Bureau and Offices propose to associate the
location of each validated speed test with a particular underlying
geography depicted as a specific hexagonal cell area based upon the H3
geospatial indexing system. H3 is an open-source project developed by
Uber Technologies, Inc. that overlays the globe with hexagonal cells of
different sizes at various resolutions, from zero to 15. The lower the
resolution, the larger the area of the hexagonal cell. The H3 system is
designed with a nested structure in which each hexagonal cell can be
further subdivided into seven ``child'' hexagons at the next higher
(i.e., finer) resolution that approximately fit within the ``parent''
hexagon. Because of this nested structure, using the H3 system to group
speed tests allows for challenges at multiple levels of granularity.
The nested structure includes 16 total H3 resolutions of hexagons
ranging in average area size from approximately 4.25 million square
kilometers to 0.9 square meters. In the case where a test reports more
than one pair of distinct geographic coordinates (e.g., because the
device was in motion), the Bureau and Offices propose to associate the
test with the midpoint of the reported coordinates. The Bureau and
Offices propose to use a system based upon hexagonal shapes instead of
squares or rectangles because hexagons better enable them to evaluate
challenges across multiple levels of granularity which can cover a
significant area. The Bureau and Offices further propose that the
smallest cognizable challenge would be to a single resolution 8
hexagonal cell, which has an area of approximately 0.7 square
kilometers. The Bureau and Offices seek comment on this choice of
geographical area, including their proposal to use the H3 geospatial
indexing system, as well as the ideal resolution or minimum size of the
area to consider a cognizable challenge.
11. As part of the proposed methodology, the Bureau and Offices
would evaluate all valid challenger speed tests for a given technology
within each hexagon to determine whether to create a cognizable
challenge to the coverage in that area. In so doing, the Bureau and
Offices propose to categorize each speed test as either a ``positive''
test or a ``negative'' test based upon whether the test is consistent
or inconsistent with the provider's modeled coverage. The Bureau and
Offices would consider a negative test to be a speed test that does not
meet the minimum predicted download or upload speed based on the
provider-reported technology-specific minimum speeds with the cell edge
probability and cell loading factors modeled by the provider. The
Bureau and Offices would consider a positive test to be a speed test
that records speeds meeting or exceeding the minimum download and
upload speeds the mobile service provider reports as available at the
location where the test occurred. The Bureau and Offices seek comment
on this proposal. Alternatively, rather than considering a speed test
as ``negative'' when either the recorded download or upload speed fails
to meet the minimum predicted speeds for that area, should the Bureau
and Offices evaluate the download and upload portions of each test
independently? The Bureau and Offices note that speed test applications
(apps) typically measure download, upload, and latency metrics
sequentially and not simultaneously, and thus evaluating these metrics
independently may better account for geographic and/or temporal
variability at the expense of adding complexity to their proposed
approach. The Bureau and Offices seek comment on this alternative and
also on whether the Bureau and Offices should consider any other
methodologies to address the probabilistic nature of mobile wireless
coverage and the potential for test results ``at the margins'' (either
on the download speed or the upload speed) to either overrepresent or
underrepresent coverage. Commenters proposing any
[[Page 40401]]
alternative methodologies should explain how their proposals are
consistent with the requirements and standardized reporting parameters
set forth by the Commission and in the Broadband DATA Act. By
aggregating speed tests and requiring challenges to meet the thresholds
described below, the Bureau and Offices tentatively conclude that the
methodology the Bureau and Offices propose above would ensure that
challenges are temporally and geographically diverse, and therefore
reflect a robust and representative sample of user experience. As such,
the Bureau and Offices anticipate that situations in which a mobile
service provider has throttled speeds of consumers that exceed data
limits will have little, if any, effect on the challenge process. The
Bureau and Offices seek comment on their assumptions, tentative
conclusions, and whether there are other ways to address the issue of
throttling.
12. The Bureau and Offices propose to consider a provider's
coverage for a given technology in a resolution 8 hexagon to be
challenged when the set of valid speed tests meets three thresholds:
(1) A geographic threshold, (2) a temporal threshold, and (3) a testing
threshold. For the geographic threshold, the Bureau and Offices propose
to require that at least four child hexagons (or ``point-hexes'')
within the resolution 8 hexagon include two or more tests taken within
each point-hex, and that at least one of the tests in each point-hex be
negative. The Bureau and Offices define a point-hex as a resolution 9
child hexagon for a given resolution 8 hexagon. A resolution 9 hexagon
has an area of approximately 0.1 square kilometers. The Bureau and
Offices propose to require fewer than four point-hexes to include tests
when there are fewer than four of the seven point-hexes of a resolution
8 hexagon that are ``accessible''--that is, where at least 50% of the
point-hex overlaps with the provider's reported coverage data and a
road runs through the point-hex. Setting these dual requirements will
help to demonstrate that inadequate coverage occurs at multiple
locations within the resolution 8 hexagon. For the temporal threshold,
the Bureau and Offices propose to require at least two negative tests
be conducted at different times of day, separated by at least four
hours, to demonstrate persistent inadequate coverage. For the testing
threshold, the Bureau and Offices propose to require at least five
negative tests within the resolution 8 hexagon when 20 or fewer total
challenge tests have been submitted within the hexagon. When more than
20 challenge tests have been submitted within the hexagon, the Bureau
and Offices propose to require that the percentage of negative tests
within the resolution 8 hexagon statistically demonstrate, using a 0.95
statistical confidence level, that the probability of a test achieving
the minimum speeds reported for the provider's coverage is less than
90% and therefore warrants a challenge. The required percentage of
negative tests would thus vary, from at least 24% when between 21 and
30 challenge tests have been submitted within the hexagon, to 16% when
100 or more tests have been submitted. The Bureau and Offices also
propose that a larger, ``parent'' hexagon (at resolutions 7 or 6) be
considered challenged if at least four of its child hexagons are
considered challenged. Consistent with the Commission's direction to
consider ``whether the tests were conducted in urban or rural areas,''
the Bureau and Offices propose to allow challenges that account for
differences in areas. The proposal sets forth a different geographic
threshold depending on the road density of each resolution 8 hexagon
which the Bureau and Offices anticipate will make it easier for
challengers to establish a challenge in less densely populated areas.
Additionally, the proposal includes a process to trigger challenges to
a parent or grandparent hexagon (at resolutions 7 and 6, respectively)
that likewise takes into account this different geographic threshold,
thus more easily allowing for challenges over large rural areas. The
Bureau and Offices seek comment on this proposed methodology and the
associated thresholds. Specifically, the Bureau and Offices seek
comment on whether these thresholds are sufficient to adequately
reflect the actual coverage in an area while maintaining a user-
friendly challenge process. Should additional tests and testing at
additional times of day be required in order to overcome typical
variability in mobile wireless coverage? Alternatively, instead of the
Bureau and Offices proposed temporal threshold, should the Bureau and
Offices categorize tests into different temporal ranges (e.g., 6:00 to
10:00 a.m., 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m., 2:00 to 6:00 p.m., and 6:00 to
10:00 p.m.) and require tests in different time ranges to account for
the temporal variability of mobile networks, such as variability due to
cell loading? Should the Bureau and Offices consider other metrics that
correlate with the availability of mobile broadband (e.g., signal
strength or other radiofrequency metrics) or that provide an indication
of real-world conditions that impact throughput, such as cell loading,
when determining the temporal or testing thresholds, and if so, how
should the Bureau and Offices adjust these thresholds in relation to
such metrics? Once the challenge process has been implemented, the
Bureau and Offices anticipate that the Bureau and Offices may revisit
and modify these thresholds, after notice and comment, if they are not
sufficient to provide a clear determination of actual coverage
conditions. Appendix A of the Public Notice provides a more detailed
technical descriptions of these proposed thresholds.
13. Because mobile service providers are required to submit two
sets of coverage data for a given technology--one map modeled to assume
a device is in a stationary environment and one map modeled to assume a
device is in-vehicle and in a mobile environment--the Bureau and
Offices propose to evaluate all tests for a given technology against
each map independently when determining whether to establish a
cognizable challenge. That is, the Bureau and Offices would filter
speed tests to exclude any stationary tests that fall outside of the
provider's stationary coverage map and exclude any in-vehicle mobile
tests that fall outside of the provider's in-vehicle mobile coverage
map. The Bureau and Offices would then aggregate all of the remaining
stationary and in-vehicle mobile tests and compare these tests against
the coverage data for a given technology and modeled environment. If
the aggregated tests in a resolution 8 hexagon meet all three
thresholds proposed above, the Bureau and Offices would consider that
map's coverage to be challenged for that hexagon. Because the two sets
of coverage data may differ (especially at the edge of a provider's
network), tests submitted as challenges against the same provider
within the same hexagon may be sufficient to create a challenge against
one of the maps and insufficient to create a challenge against the
other. The Bureau and Offices seek comment on this proposed approach to
evaluating challenges against stationary and in-vehicle mobile maps.
The Bureau and Offices acknowledge that stationary tests and in-vehicle
mobile tests may not be entirely homogeneous measurements of an on-the-
ground experience. However, the Bureau and Offices believe that
aggregating such tests when evaluating challenges would more closely
align with the Broadband DATA Act requirement to develop a
[[Page 40402]]
``user-friendly'' challenge process and would thus outweigh any cost to
accuracy in treating such tests as homogeneous. In the alternative, if
the Bureau and Offices were to not aggregate such tests and only
evaluate stationary tests against stationary maps and separately
evaluate in-vehicle mobile tests against in-vehicle mobile maps, the
Bureau and Offices anticipate that it may be significantly more
difficult to establish a challenge to certain coverage data. For
example, if most consumers conduct stationary tests while most
government and third-party entities conduct in-vehicle mobile tests
(i.e., drive tests), segregating such tests when evaluating challenges
would likely result in tests meeting all three proposed thresholds in
fewer resolution 8 hexagons. Moreover, there is a higher likelihood
that, after adjudicating the challenges, portions of a provider's
coverage data may show a lack of coverage for one type of map, due to
successful challenges, yet still show robust coverage for the other
type of map due solely to an absence of one type of test and in ways
that are inconsistent with mobile wireless propagation. The Bureau and
Offices seek comment on this view and on any alternatives to
reconciling challenges to these two sets of coverage data.
14. In the Third Order, the Commission required consumer
challengers to use a speed test app approved by OET for use in the
challenge process and provided the metrics that approved apps must
collect for each speed test. The Commission directed OET, in
consultation with OEA and WTB, to update the FCC Speed Test app as
necessary or develop a new speed test app to collect the designated
metrics, so that challengers may use it in the challenge process. For
government and third-party entity challengers, the Commission did not
require the use of a Commission-approved speed test app but instead set
forth the information that all submitted government and third-party
challenger speed test data must contain and directed OEA, WTB, and OET
to adopt additional testing requirements if they determine it is
necessary to do so. The Bureau and Offices propose to update the
metrics that approved apps must collect for consumer challenges and
that government and third party entity challenger speed test data must
contain. Specifically, the Bureau and Offices propose that on-the-
ground test data submitted by challengers meet the following testing
parameters: (1) A minimum test length of 5 seconds and a maximum test
length of 30 seconds; (2) test measurement results that have been
averaged over the duration of the test (i.e., total bits received
divided by total test time); and (3) a restriction that tests must be
conducted between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. local time. The
Bureau and Offices also propose that on-the-ground challenge test data
shall include the following metrics for each test: (1) App name and
version; (2) timestamp and duration of each test metric; (3) geographic
coordinates measured at the start and end of each test metric with
typical Global Positioning System (GPS) Standard Positioning Service
accuracy or better; (4) device make and model; (5) cellular operator
name; (6) location (e.g., hostname or IP address) of server; (7) signal
strength, signal quality, unique identifier, and radiofrequency (RF)
metrics of each serving cell, if available; (8) download speed; (9)
upload speed; (10) round-trip latency; (11) the velocity of the
vehicle, if available, for in-vehicle tests; and (12) all other metrics
required per the most-recent specification for mobile test data
released by OEA and WTB. The Bureau and Offices propose to require
challengers to collect these data using mobile devices running either a
Commission-developed app (e.g., the FCC Speed Test app) or another
speed test app approved by OET to submit challenges. For government and
third-party entity challengers, the Bureau and Offices would also allow
these data to be collected using other software and hardware. The
Bureau and Offices anticipate that updating these parameters will
provide the Commission with reliable challenges, while assuring a user-
friendly challenge process by allowing consumers to use a readily-
downloadable mobile app and preserving flexibility for government and
third-party entities to use their own software and hardware. The Bureau
and Offices note, however, that certain technical network information
and RF metrics are not currently available on Apple iOS devices, thus
limiting the conclusions that the Bureau and Offices can draw from on-
the-ground tests conducted using such devices. The Bureau and Offices
therefore propose to require that, until such time as such information
and metrics are available on iOS devices, government and third-party
entity challenges must use a device that is able to interface with
drive test software and/or runs the Android operating system. However,
the Bureau and Offices do not propose this same restriction for
challenges submitted by consumers to ensure that the challenge process
remains user-friendly and encourage public participation, including by
consumers that may use a device running the iOS operating system. The
Bureau and Offices seek comment on these proposals.
2. Challenge Responses
15. Providers must either submit a rebuttal to the challenge or
concede the challenge within a 60-day period of being notified of the
challenge. Providers may rebut a challenge by submitting to the
Commission either on-the-ground test data and/or infrastructure data,
so that Commission staff can examine the provider's coverage in the
challenged area and resolve the challenge, and may optionally include
additional data or information in support of a response. When a mobile
provider responds to a consumer challenge, the challengers who
submitted the challenge data would be notified individually by the
Bureau or Offices via the online portal and would be able to view the
provider's response. The Commission directed OEA to ``develop a
methodology and mechanism to determine if the data submitted by a
provider constitute a successful rebuttal to all or some of the
challenged service area and to establish procedures to notify
challengers and providers of the results of the challenge.'' The
Commission ``adopt[ed] the same challenge response process for
government and third party-entities as [it] do[es] for consumer
challenges in the mobile context,'' therefore the Bureau and Offices
infer the notification process will occur in the same way for
challenges made by governmental and other entities as it does for
challenges made by consumers. The Bureau and Offices propose for mobile
service providers and challengers to be notified monthly of the status
of challenged areas. Parties would be able to see a map of the
challenged area, and a notification about whether or not a challenge
has been successfully rebutted, whether a challenge was successful, and
if a challenged area was restored based on insufficient evidence to
sustain a challenge. The Bureau and Offices also propose that any area
in which the provider does not overturn the challenge but is otherwise
no longer challenged (e.g., because some challenger tests were
subsequently considered to be invalid or unreliable evidence), the
coverage area would be restored to its pre-challenge status and would
be eligible for challenges against it in the future. The Bureau and
Offices propose that any valid speed test in a hexagon that was
challenged and then restored (but where the provider did not
[[Page 40403]]
overturn the challenge by demonstrating adequate coverage) may still be
used for a future challenge (up to a year from the date the test was
conducted). The Bureau and Offices seek comment on these proposals.
16. The Commission also directed OEA, in consultation with WTB, to
establish procedures for notifying service providers of cognizable
challenges filed against them. Accordingly, the Bureau and Offices
propose that the challenged mobile service provider would be notified
by the Bureau or Offices via the online portal of the challenged
hexagons at the end of each calendar month. The Bureau and Offices seek
comment on this proposal and note that this approach would allow
challengers to submit additional evidence if desired and grant
providers a standard set of deadlines rather than a rolling set of
multiple deadlines. If the challenged provider concedes or fails to
submit data sufficient to overturn the challenge within 60 days of
notification, it must revise its coverage maps to reflect the lack of
coverage in the successfully challenged areas.
a. Rebutting Challenges With On-the-Ground Data
17. The Commission directed OEA to resolve challenges based on a
``preponderance of the evidence'' standard with the burden on the
provider to verify their coverage maps in the challenged areas. When
the challenged mobile service provider chooses to submit on-the-ground
speed test data to rebut a challenge, the Bureau and Offices propose to
require the provider to meet analogous thresholds to those required of
challengers, adjusted to reflect the burden on providers to demonstrate
that sufficient coverage exists at least 90% of the time in the
challenged hexagons. The Bureau and Offices also propose that mobile
providers submit on-the-ground data consistent with the specific
testing parameters and methodologies outlined above that the Bureau and
Offices propose challengers use when submitting speed test data. The
Bureau and Offices propose to require providers to collect these data
using mobile devices running either a Commission-developed app (e.g.,
the FCC Speed Test app), another speed test app approved by OET to
submit challenges, or other software and hardware if approved by staff.
As noted above, certain technical network information and RF metrics
are not currently available on Apple iOS devices. Accordingly, until
such time as these data are available on iOS devices, the Bureau and
Offices propose to require providers to use a device that is able to
interface with drive test software and/or runs the Android operating
system. The Bureau and Offices seek comment on their proposals.
18. The Bureau and Offices propose that the test data that
providers submit meet the same three thresholds required of challenger
tests: (1) A geographic threshold; (2) a temporal threshold; and (3) a
testing threshold. However, the Bureau and Offices propose somewhat
different values (i.e., the number of tests and percentages) for test
data for each threshold. For the geographic threshold, the Bureau and
Offices propose to require at least four point-hexes of a resolution 8
hexagon to include two tests taken within them, at least one of which
must be positive, to demonstrate that adequate coverage occurs at
multiple locations within the resolution 8 hexagon. Fewer point-hexes
may be tested when not all seven point-hexes of a resolution 8 hexagon
are within the coverage area or do not contain at least one road. For
the temporal threshold, the Bureau and Offices also propose to require
at least two positive tests be taken at times of day separated by at
least four hours to demonstrate persistent adequate coverage. For the
testing threshold, the Bureau and Offices propose to require at least
17 positive tests within the resolution 8 hexagon when 20 or fewer
total response tests have been submitted within the hexagon. When more
than 20 response tests have been submitted within the hexagon, the
Bureau and Offices propose to require that the percentage of negative
tests within the resolution 8 hexagon statistically demonstrate, using
a 0.95 statistical confidence level, that the probability of a test
achieving the minimum speeds reported in the provider's coverage is 90%
or greater and therefore the area has adequate coverage. The required
percentage of positive tests would thus vary, from at least 82% when
between 21 and 34 response tests have been submitted within the hexagon
to 88% when 100 or more tests have been submitted. As with the
thresholds proposed for challengers, the Bureau and Offices seek
comment on whether these thresholds are sufficient to adequately
demonstrate the on-the-ground reality of coverage in an area while
maintaining a user-friendly challenge process. The Bureau and Offices
expect any future modifications to these thresholds would apply to both
challengers and providers. The Bureau and Offices also propose that a
provider may demonstrate sufficient coverage in a resolution 8 hexagon
that was not challenged if that hexagon is the child of a lower
resolution challenged hexagon. As discussed more fully in section 3.2.4
of the Technical Appendix of the Public Notice, for challenged hexagons
at resolution 7 or 6, if the provider submits response data sufficient
to demonstrate coverage in the hexagon's child hexagons such that fewer
than four child hexagons would still be challenged, then the resolution
7 or 6 hexagon would no longer be challenged even if sufficient data
were not submitted to rebut a challenge for the remaining child
hexagons. If the provider can demonstrate sufficient coverage in a
challenged hexagon, the provider would have successfully rebutted the
challenge to that hexagon, and the challenge would be overturned.
Conversely, if the provider is not able to demonstrate sufficient
coverage in a challenged hexagon, the provider would be required to
revise its coverage maps to reflect the lack of coverage in such areas.
If the provider demonstrates sufficient coverage in some but not all
child hexagons and the parent (or grandparent) hexagon remains
challenged, we the Bureau and Offices propose that a provider would not
be required to remove from its coverage map the portions of the
challenged parent (or grandparent) hexagon where the provider
demonstrated sufficient coverage in the child hexagons. However, the
provider would be required to remove the remaining portion of the
challenged parent (or grandparent) hexagon where it did not demonstrate
sufficient coverage. The Bureau and Offices propose that any areas
where the provider has demonstrated sufficient coverage would be
ineligible for subsequent challenge until the first biannual BDC
coverage data filing six months after the later of either the end of
the 60-day response period or the resolution of the challenge. This is
to avoid requiring a provider to repeatedly confirm the same area but
also acknowledges that coverage may change over time due to changes in
technology and infrastructure. The Bureau and Offices seek comment
generally on this approach and as to whether this time period is too
short or too long.
19. The Bureau and Offices seek comment on this methodology and
invite commenters to propose alternative approaches that would allow
for staff to adjudicate most challenges through an automated process.
AT&T submitted a preliminary proposal for defining a challenge area
based on the test data submitted by the challenger(s), and the Bureau
and Offices considered
[[Page 40404]]
this proposal while developing the proposed methodology. The Bureau and
Offices tentatively conclude that their proposed methodology is
preferable to that submitted by AT&T, because it ensures the challenge
process is both user-friendly and supported by sufficient data, while
also targeting a more precise geographic area where broadband coverage
is disputed and limiting the burden on providers in responding to
challenges. AT&T recommends the Bureau and Offices adopt an approach in
which the geographic location of speed tests would determine the size
and shape of a polygon that would serve as the challenged area.
Moreover, AT&T proposes the Commission adopt a tiered structure in
which challenges are filed and adjudicated in a manner proportional to
their likelihood of success based on a percentage of valid speed tests
in a polygon. This could lead to significant challenged areas with few
or no speed tests. The Bureau and Offices' approach differs in that
challenged areas would be based on the H3 hexagonal indexing system.
Under the Bureau and Offices proposed process, individual speed tests
would be aggregated and evaluated collectively, and a hexagon would be
classified as challenged once the aggregated speed tests have met
geographic, temporal, and testing thresholds in that particular area.
In addition to the on-the-ground data or infrastructure information
submitted by mobile service providers, staff could also consider other
relevant data submitted by challenged providers, request additional
information from the challenged provider (including infrastructure
data, if necessary), and take such other actions as may be necessary to
ensure the reliability and accuracy of the rebuttal data. The Bureau
and Offices propose such steps could include rejecting speed tests or
requiring additional testing. The Bureau and Offices seek comment on
these proposals.
b. Rebutting Challenges With Infrastructure Data
20. Providers may respond to challenges with infrastructure data
rather than (or in addition to) on-the-ground speed test data. In cases
where a challenged mobile service provider chooses to submit
infrastructure data to rebut a challenge, the Bureau and Offices
propose that the mobile service provider submit the same data as
required when a mobile provider submits infrastructure information in
response to a Commission verification request, which would include
information on the cell sites and antennas used to provide service in
the challenged area. Based on the Bureau and Offices' tentative
conclusion below that such data may not be as probative in certain
circumstances as on-the-ground speed tests, the Bureau and Offices
propose to use these data, on their own, to adjudicate challenges in
only a limited set of circumstances. Specifically, a challenged
provider may use infrastructure data to identify tests within a
challenger's speed test data that the provider claims are invalid or
non-representative of network performance. Under the Bureau and
Offices' proposal, a provider could claim a speed test was invalid, or
non-representative, based on the following reasons: (1) Extenuating
circumstances at the time and location of a given test (e.g.,
maintenance or temporary outage at the cell site) caused service to be
abnormal; (2) the mobile device(s) with which the challenger(s)
conducted their speed tests do not use or connect to the spectrum
band(s) that the provider uses to serve the challenged area; (3) speed
tests were taken during an uncommon special event (e.g., a professional
sporting event) that increased traffic on the network; or (4) speed
tests were taken during a period where cell loading exceeded the
modeled cell loading factor. While providers may use infrastructure
information with hourly cell loading data to rebut a challenge in this
scenario to show sporadic or abnormally high cell loading, in the event
a high number of challenges indicates persistent over-loading, the
Bureau and Offices propose that staff may initiate a verification
inquiry to investigate whether mobile providers have submitted coverage
maps based on an accurate assumption of cell loading in a particular
area. The Bureau and Offices propose to require that mobile providers
respond to such a verification inquiry with on-the-ground data. Using
this proposed approach, the Bureau and Offices would recalculate the
challenged hexagons after removing any invalidated challenger speed
tests and consider any challenged hexagons that no longer meet the
thresholds required for a challenge to be restored to their status
before the challenge was submitted. Challenged providers may also
demonstrate sufficient coverage for any areas that remain challenged by
submitting on-the-ground speed test data. The Bureau and Offices seek
comment on this approach, including on whether there are other reasons
or circumstances under which the Bureau and Offices should use
infrastructure data alone to determine the outcome of a challenge.
21. The Bureau and Offices seek comment generally on other ways
that infrastructure data could be used to automatically evaluate or
rebut speed test data submitted by challengers. Where a challenged
provider's submitted infrastructure data do not meet one of the
processing rules proposed above, the Bureau and Offices propose that
Commission staff consider any additional information submitted by the
challenged provider or request additional information from the
challenged provider. Such information would include on-the-ground speed
test data, as specified in the Third Order, and staff would use this
information to complete its adjudication of the challenge. The Bureau
and Offices acknowledge there may be some scenarios in which a provider
may not be able to respond to a challenge with on-the-ground test data
due, for example, to the inability to collect on-the-ground data during
certain months of the year or other unforeseen circumstances. The
Bureau and Offices seek comment on the best approach to handle such
situations. One approach would be to allow for providers to seek a
waiver of the 60-day response deadline until the provider can make on-
the-ground measurements, or a waiver of the requirement to submit
either infrastructure or on-the-ground speed tests data in response to
a challenge. Another approach would be to allow providers to submit
infrastructure data, even if one of the four instances of particular
probative value set forth above does not apply, with supplemental data
that explain their inability to make on-the-ground measurements at that
time. In such cases, the Commission could request that the on-the-
ground test data be submitted at a time when such measurements would be
more feasible, or that a possible substitute for such data--such as
transmitter monitoring software data or third-party speed test data--be
submitted instead. Commission staff could also use infrastructure data
to do its own propagation modeling and generate its own predicted
coverage maps using the data submitted by the provider including link
budget parameters, cell-site infrastructure data, and the information
provided by service providers about the types of propagation models
they used, standard terrain and clutter data, as well as standard
propagation models, to determine whether the provider should be
required to update its maps. The Bureau and Offices seek comment on
other approaches the Bureau and Offices
[[Page 40405]]
should take where on-the-ground testing is temporarily infeasible.
22. In instances where the Commission staff uses its own
propagation modeling to adjudicate challenges, the Bureau and Offices
seek comment on how staff should conduct such propagation modeling.
What model or models should staff use in different conditions (e.g.,
for what combinations of spectrum band and terrain)? What inputs and
parameters should staff use beyond those supplied by providers (e.g.,
what specific sources of terrain and clutter data in what areas)? What
assumptions should the Commission make regarding carrier aggregation?
How should staff calculate the throughput in a given area given
propagation-model calculations for signal strength? Finally, how should
the Commission calibrate its models or ensure their accuracy?
23. The Bureau and Offices also seek comment about how staff should
adjudicate instances where the on-the-ground test data and
infrastructure data disagree or where the provider-filed coverage and
Commission-modeled coverage differ. Under what conditions should staff
determine that a given hexagon has network coverage? Would the results
of the Commission propagation modeling always be dispositive? For
example, should the Bureau and Offices always find that an area has
network coverage if so indicated by the Commission propagation model,
despite any number of on-the-ground tests that indicated a lack of
service at the required speeds? Should the Bureau and Offices
incorporate other, related metrics, such as signal strength or cell
loading data, when considering how to treat infrastructure data in the
adjudication of challenges? And should staff always require providers
to update their filings or submit additional data if the Commission's
propagation modeling indicate a lack of network coverage? If the
Commission propagation model indicates network coverage over part of a
hexagon, how should staff adjudicate that area? Should the specific
location of on-the-ground test measurements within a challenged
hexagon, relative to the Commission-predicted coverage, matter? Are
there other scenarios in which the Bureau and Offices should consider
adjudicating challenges with only infrastructure data?
c. Other Data
24. In the Third Order, the Commission sought to adopt a flexible
approach for providers to respond to challenges. Several commenters
argued that the Commission should grant providers additional
flexibility in responding to challenges, including allowing providers
to respond with drive testing data collected in the ordinary course of
business, third party testing data (such as speed test data from Ookla
or other speed test app), and/or tower transmitter data collected from
transmitter monitoring software. As discussed in the Third Order,
providers may voluntarily submit these or other types of data to
support their rebuttals, but they may not be used in lieu of on-the-
ground testing or infrastructure data. Consistent with the Commission's
direction, OEA staff will review such data when voluntarily submitted
by providers in response to consumer challenges, and if any of the data
sources are found to be sufficiently reliable, the Bureau and Offices
will specify appropriate standards and specifications for each type of
data and add them to the alternatives available to providers to rebut a
consumer challenge via public notice.
25. The Bureau and Offices also seek comment regarding the
conditions under which a provider's transmitter monitoring software can
be relied upon by staff in resolving challenges. For example, in what
ways would transmitter monitoring software data augment or reinforce
the probative value of infrastructure or other data to rebut challenger
speed test data? How precisely do such systems measure the geographic
coordinates (longitude and latitude) of the end-user devices, and how
does that precision compare to the information collected from on-the-
ground testing? Would such software record instances of end-user
devices not being able to connect to the network at all? If not, would
that exclusion make the data less reliable and probative in the
rebuttal process? What other information would staff need to determine
how to make use of such data in the challenge process?
B. Collecting Verification Information From Mobile Providers
26. The Broadband DATA Act requires the Commission to ``verify the
accuracy and reliability of the [broadband internet access service data
that providers submit in their biannual BDC filings] in accordance with
measures established by the Commission.'' In the Third Order, the
Commission determined that OEA and WTB may request and collect
verification data from a provider on a case-by-case basis where staff
have a credible basis for verifying the provider's coverage data. The
Third Order specifies that, in response to an OEA and WTB inquiry to
verify a mobile service provider's coverage data, the provider must
submit either infrastructure information or on-the-ground test data for
the specified area(s). A mobile provider has the option of submitting
additional data, including but not limited to on-the-ground test data
or infrastructure data (to the extent such data are not the primary
option chosen by the provider), or other types of data that the
provider believes support its reported coverage. The Commission further
directed OEA and WTB to implement this data collection and adopt the
methodologies, data specifications, and formatting requirements that
providers must follow when collecting and reporting such data. Below,
the Bureau and Offices propose processes and methodologies for
determining areas subject to verification and for the collection of on-
the-ground test data and infrastructure information, as well as
information from transmitter monitoring systems and other data. The
Bureau and Offices seek comment on each of these proposals, including
the additional details and specifications set forth in the Technical
Appendix of the Public Notice.
1. Area Subject to Verification
27. The Bureau and Offices propose to identify the portion(s) of a
mobile provider's coverage map for which the Bureau and Offices would
require verification data--referred to as the targeted area(s)--based
upon all available evidence, including submitted speed test data,
infrastructure data, crowdsourced and other third-party data, as well
as staff evaluation and knowledge of submitted coverage data (including
maps, link budget parameters, and other credible information). The
Bureau and Offices seek comment on this proposal and on any alternative
methodologies for determining where staff have a credible basis for
verifying a mobile provider's coverage data.
28. Within the targeted area, the Bureau and Offices propose to
require verification data covering a statistically valid sample of
areas for which the mobile service provider must demonstrate sufficient
coverage in order to satisfy the verification request. The Bureau and
Offices propose to start the sampling with the division of the targeted
area into unique components called ``units.'' The complete list of
units within the targeted area is called the ``frame.'' The Bureau and
Offices propose to first subdivide the targeted area into units based
upon the same hexagonal geography the Bureau and Offices propose to use
for grouping challenger speed tests (i.e., H3
[[Page 40406]]
geospatial indexing system at resolution 8). To create the frame, the
Bureau and Offices propose to include all resolution 8 hexagons that
are within the targeted area or, for those resolution 8 hexagons that
are only partially within the boundary of the targeted area, its
centroid falls within or on the boundary of the targeted area. The
Bureau and Offices next propose to group the hexagonal units that
comprise the frame into non-overlapping, mutually exclusive groups (one
``stratum'' or multiple ``strata''). The Bureau and Offices propose to
define each stratum based upon one or more variables that are
correlated with a particular mobile broadband availability
characteristic, such as population, road miles, and/or variation in
terrain, and seek comment on what variables the Bureau and Offices
should consider. The Bureau and Offices propose to exclude any hexagons
that are not accessible by roads from the strata. If an area is unable
to be sampled because there are too few hexagons accessible by road,
the Bureau and Offices propose to include the minimum number of non-
accessible hexagons within the strata as necessary to create a
sufficient sample. The Bureau and Offices seek comment on these
proposals, and on other methods that can be used to verify the part of
the targeted area that cannot be drive tested.
29. Next, the Bureau and Offices propose to select a random sample
of hexagons independently within each stratum and to require that a
service provider conduct on-the-ground testing within these randomly
selected hexagons or else submit infrastructure data sufficient for
staff to reproduce coverage for these randomly selected hexagons. When
evaluating on-the-ground test data, the Bureau and Offices propose that
a sample meet two of the three thresholds proposed for evaluating tests
in a challenged hexagon in the challenge process, specifically the
geographic and temporal thresholds. The Bureau and Offices also propose
to require a minimum of five speed tests in each selected hexagon. The
Bureau and Offices would then evaluate the entire set of speed tests to
determine the probability that the targeted area has been successfully
verified. Under the Bureau and Offices' proposal, for the targeted area
to be successfully verified, the probability of adequate coverage must
be greater than or equal to 0.9 assessed using a one sided 95%
confidence interval. When evaluating infrastructure data, the Bureau
and Offices propose that staff review all available data and staff
propagation modeling to demonstrate adequate coverage for all hexagonal
units in a sample for the targeted area to be successfully verified.
Where the data submitted by the provider in response to a verification
request are not by themselves sufficient to demonstrate adequate
coverage, the Bureau and Offices may request additional information to
complete the verification process. The Bureau and Offices seek comment
on these proposals.
30. Several commenters supported the Bureau and Offices' proposal
in the Second Order and Third Further Notice to verify broadband
availability data by requiring providers to submit tests and
information on sampled areas, and agreed that it would be an efficient
and less burdensome approach than having providers perform annual drive
tests or regularly submit infrastructure information. The Bureau and
Offices agree that sampling will require lower costs and fewer
resources than collecting data from a provider's entire network
coverage area. In particular, the proposed approach for sampling the
targeted area is designed to minimize the cost and burden placed on
service providers while ensuring staff have access to sufficient data
to verify coverage in a reliable way. Without such a sampling plan,
providers would need to submit substantially more data to demonstrate
broadband availability.
31. In response to the Second Order and Third Further Notice, some
providers expressed concerns that sampling would not mitigate the costs
associated with performing testing and would still be a burden on
providers, as it would require a minimum number of tests at different
locations. However, compared to requiring providers to regularly drive
test their networks or submit large amounts of infrastructure data in
response to a verification request, the Bureau and Offices anticipate
that their proposal to require providers to submit speed test results
or infrastructure information on a case-by-case basis would minimize
the time and resources associated with responding to the Commission's
verification requests. The proposed stratification methodology would
ensure that variation in broadband availability would be as small as
possible within hexagons in the same stratum. The Bureau and Offices
anticipate this methodology would reduce the sample size (e.g., the
number of test locations), the cost of data collection, and the
variance in the estimate of the variable interest (meaning the
percentage, P-hat, of positive tests indicating broadband
availability), and, in turn, would increase the precision of the final
estimate. The Bureau and Offices seek comment on this proposed
methodology.
32. In addition, the Bureau and Offices seek comment on other
variables which correlate with broadband availability and upon which
stratification should be based. The Bureau and Offices also seek
comment on the tradeoffs of setting a higher or lower confidence level
for this verification process than the thresholds established for the
challenge process. Under the Bureau and Offices' proposed methodology,
if the provider fails to verify its coverage data, the provider would
be required to submit revised coverage maps that reflect the lack of
coverage in targeted areas failing the verification. Where a provider
fails to verify its coverage and submits revised coverage data, the
Bureau and Offices propose to re-evaluate the data submitted by the
provider during the verification process against its revised coverage
data for the targeted area. If the targeted area still cannot be
successfully verified, the Bureau and Offices propose to require the
provider to submit additional verification data or further revise its
coverage maps until the targeted area is successfully verified. The
Bureau and Offices seek comment on this proposal and invite commenters
to propose alternative methodologies for generating a statistically
valid sample of areas for which the mobile service provider must
demonstrate sufficient coverage in response to a verification request.
33. Alternatively, the Bureau and Offices seek comment on the use
of available spatial interpolation techniques, such as Kriging, that
could be used to evaluate and verify the accuracy of coverage maps
based on available measurements. Spatial interpolation techniques can
be an alternative or complementary approach to specifying an exact
testing threshold since spatial interpolation techniques require fewer
data to compare with predictions using propagation models. Although
spatial interpolation techniques can readily verify whether or not a
hexagonal cell has coverage with speeds at or above the minimum values
reported in the provider's submitted coverage data, the incremental
benefit over testing thresholds may be minimal because spatial
interpolation techniques provide better results as more data is
collected. The Bureau and Offices seek comment on the costs and
benefits of using spatial interpolation techniques either in addition
to or as an alternative to the testing thresholds proposed above for
verifying the accuracy of coverage maps.
[[Page 40407]]
2. On-the-Ground Test Data
34. To submit on-the-ground test data in response to a verification
inquiry, the Bureau and Offices propose to require that mobile
providers conduct on-the-ground tests consistent with the testing
parameters and test metrics that the Bureau and Offices propose to
require for provider-submitted test data in the challenge process. As
described above, the Bureau and Offices propose to require verification
data covering a statistically valid sample of areas for which the
mobile service provider must demonstrate sufficient coverage in order
to satisfy the verification request. To verify coverage with on-the-
ground speed test data, the Bureau and Offices propose that the
provider submit on-the-ground speed tests within a hexagonal area based
upon the H3 geospatial indexing system at resolution 8. The Bureau and
Offices would require that these tests meet a threshold percentage of
positive tests (i.e., those recording download and upload speeds at or
above the minimum speeds the provider reports in its BDC submission as
available at the location where the test occurred). The tests would be
evaluated to confirm, using a 95% statistical confidence interval, that
the cell coverage percentage is 0.9 or higher. In addition, the Bureau
and Offices propose to require that tests meet the same geographic,
temporal, and testing thresholds as proposed for evaluating provider
rebuttals to challenges. The Bureau and Offices envision that the
specific thresholds and the confidence interval proposed would provide
balance between the costs to providers associated with verifying maps
and the need for the Commission to acquire a significant enough sample
to accurately verify mobile broadband availability. The Bureau and
Offices seek input from commenters on the costs and benefits associated
with these proposed threshold numbers and confidence intervals.
35. The Bureau and Offices propose that if the service provider is
able to show sufficient coverage in the selected resolution 8 hexagon,
the provider would have successfully demonstrated coverage to satisfy
the verification request in that hexagon. The Bureau and Offices seek
comment on this proposed methodology and invite commenters to propose
alternative approaches that would allow for staff to automatically
adjudicate speed test data submitted during the verification process.
Staff may consider other relevant data submitted by providers, may
request additional information from the provider (including
infrastructure data, if necessary), and may take other actions as may
be necessary to ensure the reliability and accuracy of the verification
process. The Bureau and Offices seek comment on these proposals.
3. Infrastructure Information
36. In the Third Order, the Commission found that infrastructure
information can provide an important means for the Commission to
fulfill its obligation to independently verify the accuracy of provider
coverage propagation models and maps and provided examples of the
infrastructure information that mobile providers may be required to
submit as part of a verification inquiry. The Commission further
concluded that collecting such data will enable the Commission to
satisfy the Broadband DATA Act's requirement that the Commission verify
the accuracy and reliability of submitted coverage data.
37. If a mobile service provider chooses to submit infrastructure
data in response to a verification request, the Bureau and Offices
propose to require the provider to submit such data for all cell sites
and antennas that provide service to the targeted area. The Bureau and
Offices propose that the Commission staff then evaluate whether the
provider has demonstrated sufficient coverage for each selected hexagon
using standardized propagation modeling. Under this approach, staff
engineers would generate their own predicted coverage maps using the
data submitted by the provider (including link budget parameters, cell-
site infrastructure data, and the information provided by service
providers about the types of propagation models they used). Using these
staff-generated maps, the Bureau and Offices would evaluate whether
each selected hexagon has predicted coverage with speeds at or above
the minimum values reported in the provider's submitted coverage data.
In generating the Bureau and Offices' own coverage maps, they propose
to use certain standard sets of clutter and terrain data. The Bureau
and Offices seek comment on this proposal and seek comment generally on
other ways that infrastructure data could be used to evaluate the
sufficiency of coverage in their proposed verification process. Staff
may also consider other relevant data submitted by providers during the
verification process, may request additional information from the
provider (including on-the-ground speed test data, if necessary), and
may take steps to ensure the accuracy of the verification process. The
Bureau and Offices seek comment on these proposals.
38. Alternatively, the Bureau and Offices could use the submitted
infrastructure and link budget data, along with available crowdsourced
data, to perform initial verification of the claimed coverage within
the selected hexagons using standard propagation models as well as
appropriate terrain and clutter data. The Bureau and Offices could
evaluate the provider's link budgets and infrastructure data for
accuracy against other available data, such as Antenna Structure
Registration and spectrum licensing data. Under this approach, if the
Bureau and Offices' projection of speeds, along with the available
crowdsourced data at the challenged locations, does not predict speeds
at or above the minimum values reported in the provider's submitted
coverage data, the Bureau and Offices propose that Commission staff
would consider any additional information submitted by the provider or
request additional information from the provider. Such information
would include on-the-ground speed test data and staff would use this
information to complete its verification of the targeted area. The
Commission could also leverage spatial interpolation techniques to
evaluate and verify the accuracy of coverage maps based on available
crowdsourcing and on-the-ground data. The Bureau and Offices seek
comment on this approach and other ways that infrastructure data could
be used to verify a provider's coverage in the targeted area.
39. Consistent with the authority the Commission delegated to OEA
and WTB in the Third Order to ``adopt the methodologies, data
specifications, and formatting requirements'' that providers must
follow when collecting and reporting mobile infrastructure data, and to
help ensure that infrastructure information submissions are useful, the
Bureau and Offices seek comment on adding additional input fields to
the list of infrastructure information providers should include when
responding to a verification request. In addition to the types of
infrastructure information listed as examples in the Third Order, the
Bureau and Offices propose that providers submit the following
additional parameters and fields: (1) Geographic coordinates of each
transmitter; (2) per site classification (e.g., urban, suburban, or
rural); (3) elevation above ground level for each base station antenna
and other transmit antenna specifications, including the make and
model, beamwidth, and orientation (i.e., azimuth and any electrical
and/or mechanical down-tilt)
[[Page 40408]]
at each cell site; (4) operate transmit power of the radio equipment at
each cell site; (5) throughput and associated required signal strength
and signal to noise ratio; (6) cell loading distribution; (7) areas
enabled with carrier aggregation and a list of band combinations
(including the percentage of handset population capable of using this
band combination); and (8) all other metrics required per the most-
recent specification for infrastructure data released by OEA and WTB.
The Bureau and Offices anticipate the Bureau and Offices will need all
of this infrastructure information to use as inputs for Commission
engineers to generate their own predicted coverage maps. While the
Bureau and Offices recognize that several commenters recommended
limiting the scope of infrastructure data in response to the Second
Order and Third Further Notice, the Bureau and Offices anticipate that
collecting additional infrastructure data based on the data
specifications listed above will be necessary in order for such data to
be useful in verifying providers' biannual data submissions. The Bureau
and Offices seek comment on these proposals and tentative conclusions.
4. Additional Data
40. Mobile service providers may supplement their submission of
infrastructure information or on-the-ground test data required by
verification inquiry with ``other types of data that the provider
believes support its coverage.'' In addition, OEA and WTB may require
the submission of additional data when necessary to complete a
verification inquiry. The Bureau and Offices seek comment on what types
of other data, besides infrastructure information and on-the-ground
test data, will be useful to verifying mobile service providers'
coverage data and whether such data should be submitted in a specific
format.
41. For example, in the Third Order, the Commission stated that it
will allow mobile broadband service providers to supplement their
submission of either infrastructure information or on-the-ground test
data with additional data that the provider believes support its
coverage, such as data collected from its transmitter monitoring
systems and software. The Commission found that such data currently
have not been shown to be a sufficient substitute for either on-the-
ground testing or infrastructure data in response to a verification
investigation. However, the Commission directed OEA and WTB to accept
and review transmitter data to the extent they are voluntarily
submitted by providers in response to verification requests from staff.
These data could be especially helpful to the extent that they support
potential reasons for service disruptions during the time interval in
which measurements were performed, or to describe remedial improvements
to network quality. To that end, the Commission delegated authority to
OEA and WTB to specify appropriate standards and specifications for
such data and add them to the alternatives available to providers to
respond to verification requests if staff concludes that such methods
are sufficiently reliable.
42. In the absence of any experience with this process it is
premature to propose specifications and standards to receive voluntary
data collected from a provider's transmitter monitoring systems and
software. However, mobile service providers may submit transmitter data
in addition to the infrastructure or on-the-ground data they submit in
response to a verification investigation. The Bureau and Offices
propose that OEA and WTB analyze transmitter data submitted by mobile
service providers to determine whether such data accurately depict
coverage by a mobile service provider. The Bureau and Offices seek
comment on this proposal.
C. Collecting Verified Broadband Data From Governmental Entities and
Third Parties
43. The Broadband DATA Act requires the Commission to develop a
process through which it can collect verified data for use in the
coverage maps from: (1) State, local, and Tribal government entities
primarily responsible for mapping or tracking broadband internet access
service coverage in their areas; (2) third parties, if the Commission
determines it is in the public interest to use their data in the
development of the coverage maps or in the verification of data
submitted by providers; and (3) other federal agencies. In the Third
Order, the Commission directed OEA to collect verified mobile on-the-
ground data from governmental entities and third parties through a
process similar to that established for providers making their
semiannual Broadband Data Collection filings.
44. In accordance with the Commission's direction in the Third
Order and to ensure the Commission receives verified and reliable data,
the Bureau and Offices propose that governmental entities and third
parties should submit on-the-ground test data using the same metrics
and testing parameters as the Bureau and Offices propose above for
mobile providers to use in submitting on-the-ground test data. While
the Massachusetts Department of Telecommunications and Cable asks the
Commission to adopt a ``minimum standard'' and avoid ``strict
submission methodology guidelines'' on data submissions by states and
other third parties, the Bureau and Offices do not propose standards
that are lower than or differ from those the Bureau and Offices propose
for mobile providers. As discussed, these data can be used to verify
service providers' coverage maps, similar to the data submitted by
mobile providers. The Bureau and Offices therefore anticipate that
assigning consistent, standardized procedures for governmental entities
and third parties to submit on-the-ground data will be both appropriate
and necessary to ensure the broadband availability maps are as accurate
and precise as possible.
45. The Bureau and Offices also propose that, to the extent the
Commission has verified on-the-ground data submitted by governmental
entities and third parties, such data may be used when the Commission
conducts analyses as part of the verification processes and would be
treated as crowdsourced data. Governmental entities and third parties
may also choose to use these data to submit a challenge, provided it
meets the requirements for submission of a challenge under the
Commission's rules. The Bureau and Offices invite comment on both of
these proposals and also on whether stakeholders would benefit from
additional guidance regarding when the Commission will consider data
from government entities and third parties.
D. Probative Value
46. The Commission directed OEA and WTB to provide guidance on the
types of data that will likely be more probative in validating
broadband availability data submitted by mobile service providers in
different circumstances. The Bureau and Offices believe that on-the-
ground test data that reflects actual on-the-ground tests as opposed to
predictive modeling and other techniques will generally be more
accurate reflections of user experience and thus more probative than
infrastructure or other sources of information in most but not all
circumstances. The Bureau and Offices recognize that on-the-ground test
data can be more costly to obtain and may not be necessary in every
instance, and therefore describe below at least four circumstances
where the Bureau and
[[Page 40409]]
Offices tentatively conclude that infrastructure information will
likely be of probative value comparable to on-the-ground data. The
Bureau and Offices seek comment on these conclusions and whether there
are any other circumstances where the Bureau and Offices can draw such
a conclusion. The Bureau and Offices further seek comment on the
probative value of potentially less burdensome testing techniques using
aerial drones or other technologies for collecting test data.
47. First, the Bureau and Offices propose to find that
infrastructure information will be of comparable probative value when
extenuating circumstances at the time and location of a given test
(e.g., maintenance or temporary outage at the cell site) caused service
to be abnormal. In such cases, the Bureau and Offices propose for
providers to submit coverage or footprint data for the site or sectors
that were affected and information about the outage, such as bands
affected, duration, and whether the outage was reported to the Network
Outage Reporting System (NORS), along with a certification about the
submission's accuracy. The Bureau and Offices would then remove
measurements in the reported footprint in the relevant band(s) made
during the outage and, as appropriate, recalculate the statistics.
48. Second, the Bureau and Offices propose to find that
infrastructure or other information will be of comparable probative
value when measurements that led to the verification request or
challenge rely on devices that lack a band that the provider uses to
make coverage available in the area in question. In such cases, the
Bureau and Offices propose for providers to submit band-specific
coverage footprints and information about which specific device(s) lack
the band. The Bureau and Offices would then remove measurements from
the listed devices in the relevant footprint and recalculate the
statistics.
49. Third, the Bureau and Offices propose to find that
infrastructure information will be of comparable probative value when
speed tests were taken during an uncommon special event (e.g., a
professional sporting event) that increased traffic on the network. The
Bureau and Offices recognize that mobile service providers would not
have the same throughput they would in normal circumstances given the
high volume of traffic on networks during these types of events, so
demonstrating the existence of coverage in the area by submitting
infrastructure information would be persuasive for why speed tests were
negative in such a scenario.
50. Fourth, the Bureau and Offices propose to find that
infrastructure information will be of comparable probative value when
challenger speed tests were taken during a period where cell loading
exceeded the modeled cell loading factor. The Bureau and Offices
recognize speed tests taken during a period when cell loading is higher
than usual can result in negative speed tests. However, as discussed,
the Bureau and Offices anticipate infrastructure information will be
useful to rebut challenges in this situation, but if a high number of
challenges show persistent over-loading, the Bureau and Offices propose
that staff may initiate a verification inquiry to investigate whether
mobile providers have submitted coverage maps based on an accurate
assumption of cell loading in a particular area, and mobile providers
should respond to such a verification request with on-the-ground data
in order to assess the experience of users in that area.
E. Crowdsourced Data
51. The Broadband DATA Act requires the Commission to ``develop a
process through which entities or individuals . . . may submit specific
information about the deployment and availability of broadband internet
access service . . . on an ongoing basis . . . to verify and supplement
information provided by providers.'' In the Second Order, the
Commission adopted a crowdsourcing process to allow individuals and
entities to submit such information.
52. The Commission instructed OET, OEA, WTB, and the Wireline
Competition Bureau (WCB) to develop a process to prioritize the
consideration of crowdsourced data submitted through data collection
apps used by consumers and other entities that are determined to be
``highly reliable'' and that ``have proven methodologies for
determining network coverage and network performance.'' The Commission
further directed OET, OEA, WCB, and WTB to consider ``(1) whether the
application uses metrics and methods that comply with current Bureau
and Office requirements for submitting network coverage and speed data
in the ordinary course; (2) whether the speed application has enough
users that it produces a dataset to provide statistically significant
results for a particular provider in a given area; and (3) whether the
application is designed so as not to introduce bias into test
results.'' The Bureau and Offices propose to find that the Commission's
speed test app is a reliable and efficient method for entities to use
in submitting crowdsourced mobile coverage data to the Commission. The
Commission's speed test app allows users to submit specific information
about the deployment and availability of mobile broadband service and
meets the requirements outlined in the Commission's Second Order. To
the extent that OET, in consultation with OEA and WTB, determines that
other apps used by consumers or other entities are ``highly reliable''
and ``have proven methodologies for determining mobile broadband
network coverage and network performance,'' the Bureau and Offices
propose to allow consumers and other entities to use such an app to
submit crowdsourced information. The Bureau and Offices also propose to
consider as crowdsourced information speed tests taken with an
authorized app that do not meet the criteria needed to create a
cognizable challenge or are otherwise not intended to be used to
challenge the accuracy of a mobile service providers' map.
53. To the extent consumers and governmental or other entities
choose to submit on-the-ground crowdsourced mobile speed test data in
the online portal, the Bureau and Offices propose that such data be
collected using a similar measurement methodology as the Commission's
speed test app and submitted in a similar format to that which the
Bureau and Offices propose for challengers and providers to use when
submitting speed tests. However, because crowdsourced data will not
automatically require a response from a provider, and Commission staff
will use crowdsourced data for identifying individual instances or
patterns of potentially inaccurate or incomplete deployment or
availability data that warrants further review and will only initiate
an inquiry when a ``critical mass of'' crowdsourced filings suggest
that a provider has submitted inaccurate or incomplete data, the Bureau
and Offices propose for some speed test metrics to be optional. For
example, the Bureau and Offices propose to allow entities submitting
crowdsourced data to submit tests that include any combination of the
download speed, upload speed, or round-trip latency test metrics rather
than requiring all three as with challenge data. The Bureau and Offices
seek comment on their proposal. Should the Bureau and Offices adopt a
more or less stringent standard for consumers and other entities to
submit crowdsourced data? If so, what metrics and methods should
consumers and other entities be required to meet when
[[Page 40410]]
submitting crowdsourced data? How should the Bureau and Offices ensure
that a speed app has enough users to provide statistically significant
results for a mobile provider in a specific geographic area? How should
the Bureau and Offices ensure apps do not introduce bias into test
results?
54. In the Third Order, the Commission directed OET, in
consultation with OEA and WTB, to update the FCC Speed Test app as
necessary or develop a new speed test app to collect the metrics and
include the requisite functionalities so that challengers may use it in
the challenge process. The Commission also directed OET to approve
additional third-party speed test apps that collect all necessary data
and include these required functionalities for use in the challenge
process. The Bureau and Offices propose that OET issue a public notice
inviting proposals for designation of third-party speed test data
collection apps as acceptable for use for submission of crowdsourced
and challenge data. In submitting proposals, parties would be required
to include information indicating how the app complies with the
requirements for crowdsourced data collection and challenge data
collection requirements as set forth in applicable Commission orders.
OET would provide an opportunity for comments and replies regarding the
proposals. OET would then review all of the proposals, comments, and
replies, and evaluate the functionalities before designating apps as
acceptable for use for submission of crowdsourced and challenge data.
The Bureau and Offices also propose that OET would provide periodic
review and offer guidance for designated third party apps to ensure
continued compliance with all technical and program requirements. The
Bureau and Offices seek comment on their proposed process.
55. The Commission found it appropriate to establish and use an
online portal for crowdsourced data filings and use the same portal for
challenge filings. In adopting this approach, the Commission directed
the Bureaus and Offices to implement the crowdsourced data collection
and create a portal for the receipt of crowdsourced data. The
Commission also directed OET, OEA, WCB, and WTB to ``issue specific
rules by which [the Commission] will prioritize the consideration of
crowdsourced data in advance of the time that the online portal is
available.'' The Bureau and Offices seek comment on ways to implement
this directive. Specifically, the Bureau and Offices ask commenters to
recommend methodologies for submitting mobile crowdsourced data prior
to the creation of the online portal that are efficient for consumers
and other entities, protect consumers' privacy, and are feasible for
the Bureaus and Offices to implement. For example, data submitted by
consumers and other entities that do not follow any specific metrics or
methodologies may be less likely to yield effective analysis and review
by the Commission of providers' mobile broadband availability.
Therefore, the Bureau and Offices propose to require consumers and
other entities to submit any preliminary crowdsourced data using the
same metrics that providers would use when submitting on-the-ground
data in response to a Commission verification request. Do commenters
agree?
56. As discussed in the Second Order, the Commission declined to
establish specific thresholds to use when deciding whether to evaluate
providers' filings where crowdsourced data suggest potential
inaccuracies. Instead, the Commission found that staff should initiate
inquiries when a ``critical mass of'' crowdsourced filings suggest that
a provider has submitted inaccurate or incomplete information. The
Commission directed OET, OEA, WCB, and WTB to provide guidance to
providers when inquiries based on crowdsourced filings could be
initiated. Commenters generally agreed that the crowdsourcing process
could be used to highlight problems with the coverage maps' accuracy
and trigger further review by the Commission. The Bureau and Offices
propose to evaluate mobile crowdsourced data through an automated
process to identify potential areas that would trigger further review
using a methodology similar to the mobile verification process proposed
above, with certain simplifications. The Bureau and Offices propose
that the outcome of this methodology may provide staff with a credible
basis for verifying a provider's coverage data. Under the Bureau and
Offices proposed approach, they therefore propose that areas identified
from crowdsourced data using this methodology would be subject to
verification inquiry consistent with the proposed mobile verification
process. The Bureau and Offices seek comment on this proposed framework
for evaluating crowdsourced data.
57. More specifically, the methodology the Bureau and Offices
propose would first exclude any anomalous or otherwise unusable tests
submitted as crowdsourced data, and the Bureau and Offices seek comment
generally on how to identify such tests. From the remaining
crowdsourced tests, the Bureau and Offices propose to use data
clustering to identify potential targeted areas where crowdsourced
tests indicate a provider's coverage map is inaccurate. The Bureau and
Offices seek comment on their proposal and on any alternative methods
for determining when a ``critical mass'' of crowdsourced filings
suggest a provider has submitted inaccurate or incomplete information.
58. In the Second Order, the Commission determined that all
information submitted as part of the crowdsourcing process will be made
public, with the exception of personally identifiable information and
any data required to be confidential under Sec. 0.457 of the
Commission's rules, and directed OEA to make crowdsourced data publicly
available as soon as practicable after submission and to establish an
appropriate method for doing so. Accordingly, the Bureau and Offices
propose to make all crowdsourced data available via the Commission's
public-facing website. Such information will depict coverage data and
other associated information and will not include any personally
identifiable information. The Bureau and Offices propose to update the
public crowdsourced data biannually. The Bureau and Offices seek
comment on their proposals and on any alternative methods for making
crowdsourced data available to the public. The Bureau and Offices also
seek comment on ways to ensure personally identifiable and other
sensitive information is kept secure and private.
59. Finally, the Commission directed OET, OEA, WCB, and WTB to
modify the process for the collection of fixed and mobile crowdsourced
data over time as determined to be necessary by the Bureaus and
Offices. The Bureaus and Offices seek comment on the proposals herein
and will modify the process for collecting mobile crowdsourced data in
the future as necessary.
F. Supplemental Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
60. Supplemental Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. As
required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA),
the Bureau and Offices have prepared this Supplemental Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (Supplemental IRFA) of the possible
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
by the proposed rules and policies contained in this Public Notice to
supplement the Commission's Initial and Final Regulatory Flexibility
Analyses completed in the Digital
[[Page 40411]]
Opportunity Data Collection Report and Order and Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, Second Order and Third Further Notice, and Third
Order. Written public comments are requested on this Supplemental IRFA.
Comments must be identified as responses to the Supplemental IRFA and
must be filed by the same deadline for comments specified on the first
page of this Public Notice. The Commission will send a copy of this
Public Notice, including this Supplemental IRFA, to the Chief Counsel
for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA). In addition,
this Public Notice and Supplemental IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be
published in the Federal Register.
61. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules. In this Public
Notice, WTB, OEA, and OET take the next step to obtain better coverage
data and implement the requirements under the Broadband DATA Act which
tasks the Commission with collection of granular data from providers on
the availability and quality of broadband internet access service and
verification of the accuracy and reliability of broadband coverage data
submitted by providers. Following the December 27, 2020, Congressional
appropriation of funding for the implementation of the Broadband DATA
Act, the Commission began to implement challenge, verification, and
crowdsourcing processes involving broadband data coverage submissions.
62. The Commission has delegated to its staff the responsibility to
develop technical requirements for verifying service providers'
coverage data, a challenge process that will enable consumers and other
third parties to dispute service providers' coverage data, and a
process for third parties and other entities to submit crowdsourced
data on mobile broadband availability. These measures will help the
Commission, Congress, federal and state policy makers, and consumers to
evaluate the status of broadband deployment throughout the United
States. The Public Notice proposes and seeks comment on technical
requirements to implement the mobile challenge, verification, and
crowdsourcing processes required by the Broadband DATA Act, such as
metrics for on-the-ground test data and a methodology for determining
the threshold for what constitutes a cognizable challenge requiring a
provider response. It also provides initial guidance and seeks comment
on what types of data will likely be more probative in different
circumstances. The Bureau and Offices propose detailed processes and
metrics for providers to follow when responding to a Commission
verification request, for government entities and other third parties
to follow when submitting verified broadband coverage data, and for
challengers to follow when contesting providers' broadband coverage
availability. The Bureau and Offices believe this level of detail is
necessary to allow providers, consumers and other third parties with
robust opportunities to comment, provide input and help formulate the
processes and procedures to enable better evaluation of the status of
broadband deployment throughout the United States.
63. Legal Basis. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to
sections 1-5, 201-206, 214, 218-220, 251, 252, 254, 256, 303(r), 332,
403, and 641-646 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
U.S.C. 151-155, 201-206, 214, 218-220, 251, 252, 254, 256, 303(r), 332,
403, 641-646.
64. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to
Which the Proposed Rules Will Apply. The RFA directs agencies to
provide a description of, and, where feasible, an estimate of the
number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules and
policies, if adopted. The RFA generally defines the term ``small
entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms ``small business,''
``small organization,'' and ``small governmental jurisdiction.'' In
addition, the term ``small business'' has the same meaning as the term
``small business concern'' under the Small Business Act. A ``small
business concern'' is one which: (1) Is independently owned and
operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3)
satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.
65. As noted above, Regulatory Flexibility Analyses were
incorporated into the Digital Opportunity Data Collection Report and
Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Second Order and Third
Further Notice, and Third Order. In those analyses, the Bureau and
Offices described in detail the small entities that might be affected.
In this Public Notice, for the Supplemental IRFA, the Bureau and
Offices hereby incorporate by reference the descriptions and estimates
of the number of small entities from the previous Regulatory
Flexibility Analyses in the Digital Opportunity Data Collection Report
and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Second Order and
Third Further Notice, and Third Order.
66. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements for Small Entities. The granular data
collection for the challenge and verification processes proposed in the
Public Notice would, if adopted, impose some new reporting,
recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements on some small entities.
Specifically, the Bureau and Offices propose that mobile providers of
broadband internet access service submit coverage data in the form of
on-the-ground test data or infrastructure information on a case-by-case
basis in response to a Commission request to verify mobile broadband
providers biannual BDC data submissions. Additionally, the Bureau and
Offices propose a methodology for state, local, and Tribal government
entities and third parties to follow when submitting verified mobile
on-the-ground data to the Commission for use in the coverage maps. The
Bureau and Offices also establish a methodology for mobile broadband
providers to follow when responding to or rebutting consumer challenges
of broadband availability. The Bureau and Offices also seek comment on
other types of data that will likely have more probative value when
used to either verify coverage maps or respond to a consumer challenge.
Finally, the Bureau and Offices propose details and seek comment on how
third parties and other entities may submit crowdsourced data and how
this information may be put to best use. If adopted, any of these
requirements could impose additional reporting, recordkeeping, or other
compliance obligations on small entities.
67. The challenge and verification process proposals and issues
raised for consideration and comment in the Public Notice may require
small entities to hire attorneys, engineers, consultants, or other
professionals. At this time, however, the Commission cannot quantify
the cost of compliance with any potential rule changes and compliance
obligations for small entities that may result from the Public Notice.
The Bureau and Offices expect their requests for information on
potential burdens, costs and cost minimization and alternative
approaches associated with matters raised in the Public Notice will
provide them with information to assist with their evaluation of the
cost of compliance for small entities of any reporting, recordkeeping,
or other compliance requirements the Bureau and Offices adopt.
68. Steps Taken to Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on
Small Entities and Significant Alternatives Considered. The RFA
requires an agency to describe any significant, specifically small
business, alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed
approach, which may include
[[Page 40412]]
the following four alternatives (among others): ``(1) the establishment
of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that
take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and
reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities; (3) the
use of performance rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption
from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such small
entities.''
69. The Bureau and Offices anticipate the proposals set forth in
the Public Notice will balance the need for the Commission to generate
more precise and granular mobile broadband availability maps with any
associated costs and burdens on mobile broadband providers. In
implementing the requirements of the Broadband DATA Act in orders
preceding this Public Notice, the Commission sought comment on the
burdens associated with the potential requirements discussed in
collecting broadband internet access service data and how such burdens
can be minimized for small entities. For example, in the Second Order
and Third Further Notice, the Commission sought comment on the
potential burdens on small providers associated with: (1) Requiring
providers to submit on-the-ground data to validate mobile broadband
coverage; and (2) encouraging small providers to participate in the
challenge process. In part, the comments received in response to the
Second Order and Third Further Notice helped shape the proposals,
approaches and steps taken in this Public Notice.
70. Consistent with the Commission's recognition in the Third Order
that providers should not be subject to the undue cost of responding to
a large number of challenges to very small areas, for the mobile
service challenge process, the Bureau and Offices have proposed in this
Public Notice to jointly evaluate speed tests submitted by consumers
and governmental and third-party challengers. The Bureau and Offices
have also proposed data specifications that all submitted challenger
speed test data must meet. After combining consumer speed tests and
governmental and third-party speed tests, the Bureau and Offices
propose to validate each speed test and exclude tests that do not
present reliable evidence. Under the Bureau and Offices' proposed
approach, they would combine such speed test evidence and apply a
single methodology to determine whether the threshold for a cognizable
challenge has been met and to establish the boundaries of the
challenged area. After determining the full set of combined, valid
challenger speed tests, the Bureau and Offices would then associate
each speed test with the proposed standardized geographical area
discussed in the Public Notice. For each area that includes valid
challenger speed tests, the Bureau and Offices would then evaluate
whether several thresholds have been met in order to determine whether
the challenger evidence demonstrates a cognizable challenge requiring a
provider response. Adopting a process to determine whether there is a
cognizable challenge to which a provider is required to respond rather
than requiring a provider to respond to any and all submitted
challenges will minimize the economic impact for small providers to the
extent they are subject to challenges.
71. The proposed mobile service challenge process metrics for
mobile providers to follow when responding to a Commission verification
request seek to balance the need for the Commission to establish
valuable methods for verifying coverage data with the need to reduce
the costs and burdens associated with requiring mobile providers to
submit on-the-ground test data and infrastructure information. For
example, in order to ensure the challenge process is user-friendly for
challengers and workable for mobile providers to respond to and rebut
challenges, the Bureau and Offices have proposed that challenged mobile
service providers who choose to submit on-the-ground speed test data
will be held to the same standard as the challengers to demonstrate
that the challenged areas have sufficient coverage. Providers would be
required to submit on-the-ground data consistent with the metrics the
Bureau and Offices propose for verifying coverage with on-the-ground
data and meet the same three threshold tests as the challengers. The
Bureau and Offices considered but declined a proposal to define a
challenge area based on the test data submitted by the challengers on
their belief that the Bureau and Offices' proposal is both user-
friendly and supported by sufficient data while also targeting a more
precise geographic area where broadband coverage is disputed and limits
the burden on providers in responding to challenges. The Public Notice
seeks comment on the specifics of the Bureau and Offices' proposed
methodology and invites commenters to propose alternative approaches
that would allow for staff to automatically adjudicate most challenges.
72. Our proposals for collection of verification information
recognize that some types of test data such as on-the-ground test data
can be more costly for small entities and others to obtain and
therefore the Bureau and Offices have proposed to identify the portion
of a provider's coverage map (target area) for which the Bureau and
Offices would require verification data based upon all available
evidence, including submitted speed test data, infrastructure data,
crowdsourced and other third-party data, as well as staff evaluation
and knowledge of submitted coverage data (including maps, link budget
parameters, and other credible information). Using all available
evidence will enable providers to choose options in line with their
specific economic situations. Further, to minimize the cost and burden
placed on service providers, while ensuring Commission staff have
access to sufficient data to demonstrate coverage, the Bureau and
Offices have proposed to use sampling of the target area. Mobile
service providers would be required to provide verification data which
covers a statistically valid sampling of areas for which sufficient
coverage must be demonstrated to satisfy the verification request. The
sample would also be required to meet the same thresholds for adequate
coverage as defined in the challenge process using either
infrastructure data or on-the-ground speed tests for the targeted area
to be successfully verified. The proposed use of a sampling plan to
demonstrate broadband availability will allow small and other providers
to avoid submission of considerably more data and the associated costs.
73. In crafting the challenge and verification process proposals in
the Public Notice, the Bureau and Offices also considered the
appropriate verification data requirements for government entities and
third parties and the probative value of other types of data. To ensure
consistency, reliability, comparability, and verifiability of the data
the Commission receives the Bureau and Offices declined to propose
different or lower standards than those that would be applicable to
providers. Requiring government entities and third parties to submit
on-the-ground test data using the same metrics and testing parameters
proposed for mobile providers will ensure that the Commission
implements a standardized process resulting in the broadband
availability maps that are as accurate and precise as possible. The
Bureau and Offices' consideration of appropriate verification data
sources took into consideration both the usefulness and costs of on-
the-ground
[[Page 40413]]
test data which can be more costly to obtain and may not be needed in
every situation versus the use of infrastructure information. Based on
the Bureau and Offices' analysis they propose to find that
infrastructure information will likely be of comparable probative value
to on-the-ground test data in situations when cell sites or sectors had
a temporary malfunction during measurements, when measurements that led
to a verification request or challenge rely on devices that lack a band
that the provider uses to make coverage available in the area in
question, when speed tests were taken during an uncommon special event
(e.g., a professional sporting event) that increased traffic on the
network, or when challenger speed tests were taken during a period
where cell loading exceeded the modeled cell loading factor. The Public
Notice seeks comment on this proposal, on whether there are any other
circumstances where infrastructure data will be greater than, equal to,
or comparable to, on-the-ground data, and on whether there are other
types of data that will be probative in other circumstances.
74. To assist in the further evaluation of the economic impact on
small entities of proposals in this Public Notice, and to identify any
additional options and alternatives for such entities that the
Commission can pursue while also achieving its objectives of improving
accuracy and reliability of its data collections, the Bureau and
Offices have sought comment on these matters. Before reaching any final
conclusions and taking final action in this proceeding, the Bureau and
Offices expect to review the comments filed in response to the Public
Notice and more fully consider the economic impact on small entities
and how any impact can be minimized.
75. Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict with the
Proposed Rules. None.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 1
Broadband, Broadband Mapping, Communications, internet, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Telecommunications.
Federal Communications Commission.
Amy Brett,
Acting Chief of Staff, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau.
Proposed Rules
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal
Communications Commission, under delegated authority, proposes to amend
47 CFR part 1 as follows:
PART 1--PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
0
1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. chs. 2, 5, 9, 13; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note,
unless otherwise noted.
0
2. Amend Sec. 1.7001 by adding paragraph (a)(20) to read as follows:
Sec. 1.7001 Scope and content of filed reports.
(a) * * *
(20) H3 standardized geospatial indexing system. A system developed
by Uber that overlays the Earth with hexagonal cells of different sizes
at various resolutions. The smallest hexagonal cells are at resolution
15, in which the average hexagonal cell has an area of approximately
0.9 square meters, and the largest are at resolution 0, in which the
average hexagonal cell has an area of approximately 4.3 million square
kilometers. Hexagonal cells across different resolutions are referred
to as a ``hex-n'' cell, where n is the resolution (e.g., ``hex-15'' for
the smallest size hexagonal cell). The H3 geospatial indexing system
employs a nested cell structure wherein a lower resolution hexagonal
cell (the ``parent'') contains approximately contains seven hexagonal
cells at the next highest resolution (its ``children''). That is, a
hex-1 cell is the ``parent'' of seven hex-2 cells, each hex-2 cell is
the parent of seven hex-3 cells, and so on.
0
3. Amend Sec. 1.7006 by:
0
a. Redesignating paragraphs (b)(2) through (4) as paragraphs (b)(3)
through (5) and adding new paragraph (b)(2);
0
b. Revising the newly redesignated paragraphs (b)(3) through (b)(5);
0
c. Revising paragraph (c);
0
d. Revising paragraph (e)(1)(iii);
0
e. Adding paragraphs (e)(2)(i) through (iii),
0
f. Revising paragraphs (e)(4) and (e)(6);
0
g. Adding paragraph (e)(7), and
0
h. Revising paragraphs (f)(1)(i) through (3) and (f)(5).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 1.7006 Data verification.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) On-the-ground crowdsourced data shall include the same metrics
described in paragraph (c)(1) of this section.
(3) The online portal shall notify a provider of a crowdsourced
data filing against it, but a provider is not required to respond to a
crowdsourced data filing.
(4) If, as a result of crowdsourced data, the Commission determines
that a provider's coverage information is not accurate, then the
provider shall be subject to a verification inquiry consistent with the
mobile verification process described in paragraph (c)(1) of this
section.
(5) All information submitted as part of the crowdsourcing process
shall be made public via the Commission's website, with the exception
of personally identifiable information and any data required to be
confidential under Sec. 0.457 of this chapter.
(c) Mobile service verification process for mobile providers.
Mobile service providers shall submit either infrastructure information
or on-the-ground test data in response to a request by Commission staff
as part of its inquiry to independently verify the accuracy of the
mobile provider's coverage propagation models and maps. In addition to
submitting either on-the-ground data or infrastructure data, a provider
may also submit data collected from transmitter monitoring software.
The Office of Economics and Analytics and the Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau may require the submission of additional data
when necessary to complete a verification inquiry. A provider must
submit its data, in the case of both infrastructure information and on-
the-ground data, within 60 days of receiving a Commission staff
request. Regarding on-the-ground data, a provider must submit evidence
of network performance based on a sample of on-the-ground tests that is
statistically appropriate for the area tested.
(1) When a mobile service provider chooses to demonstrate mobile
broadband coverage availability by submitting on-the-ground data, the
mobile service provider shall provide valid on-the-ground tests within
a Commission-identified statistically valid and unbiased sample of its
network, and shall demonstrate that the sampled area meets a threshold
percentage of positive tests, which are defined as tests that show
speeds that meet or exceed the minimum download and upload speeds the
mobile service provider reports as available at the location where the
test occurred.
(i) On-the-ground test data shall meet the following testing
parameters:
(A) A minimum test length of 5 seconds and a maximum test length of
30 seconds;
(B) Reporting measurement results that have been averaged over the
duration of the test (i.e., total bits received divided by total test
time); and
(C) Conducted outdoors between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 10:00
p.m. local time.
[[Page 40414]]
(ii) On-the-ground test data shall include the following metrics
for each test:
(A) Testing app name and version;
(B) Timestamp and duration of each test metric;
(C) Geographic coordinates at the start and end of each test metric
measured with typical Global Positioning System (GPS) Standard
Positioning Service accuracy or better;
(D) Velocity of vehicle, if applicable and available, for in-
vehicle tests;
(E) Device make and model;
(F) Cellular operator name;
(G) Location of server (e.g., hostname or IP address);
(H) Available signal strength, signal quality, and radiofrequency
metrics of each serving cell;
(I) Download speed;
(J) Upload speed;
(K) Round-trip latency; and
(L) All other metrics required per the most-recent specification
for mobile test data released by the Office of Economics and Analytics
and the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau.
(2) When a mobile service provider chooses to demonstrate mobile
broadband coverage availability by submitting infrastructure data, the
mobile service provider must submit such data for all cell sites that
provide service for the targeted area.
(i) Infrastructure data shall include the following information for
each cell site that the provider uses to provide service for the area
subject to the verification inquiry:
(A) Geographic coordinates of the site measured with typical GPS
Standard Positioning Service accuracy or better;
(B) A unique site ID for the site;
(C) The ground elevation above mean sea level of the site;
(D) Frequency band(s) used to provide service for each site being
mapped including channel bandwidth (in megahertz);
(E) Radio technologies used on each band for each site;
(F) Capacity (Mbps) and type of backhaul used at each cell site;
(G) Number of sectors at each cell site;
(H) Effective Isotropic Radiated Power (EIRP);
(I) Geographic coordinates of each transmitter;
(J) Per site classification (e.g., urban, suburban, or rural);
(K) Elevation above ground level for each base station antenna and
other transmit antenna specifications (i.e., the make and model,
beamwidth (in degrees), and orientation (azimuth and any electrical
and/or mechanical down-tilt in degrees) at each cell site);
(L) Operate transmit power of the radio equipment at each cell
site;
(M) Throughput and associated required signal strength and signal
to noise ratio;
(N) Cell loading distribution; and
(O) Areas enabled with carrier aggregation and a list of band
combinations (including the percentage of handset population capable of
using this band combination);
(P) Any additional parameters and fields that are listed in the
most-recent specifications for wireless infrastructure data released by
the Office of Economics and Analytics and the Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) Speed test data. Consumer challenges shall include the test
metrics described in paragraph (c)(1) of this section, and shall:
(A) Be performed outdoors;
(B) Indicate whether each test was taken in an in-vehicle mobile or
outdoor pedestrian environment; and
(C) Be conducted using a speed test app that has been designated by
the Office of Engineering and Technology, in consultation with the
Office of Economics and Analytics and the Wireless Telecommunications
Bureau, for use in the challenge process;
(2) * * *
(i) A hexagon at resolution 8 from the H3 standardized geospatial
indexing system shall be classified as challenged if it satisfies the
following criteria.
(A) Geographic threshold. At least two valid speed tests, at least
one of which is a ``negative'' test, are recorded in a minimum number
of ``point-hexes'' of the resolution 8 hexagon, where:
(1) A test shall be defined as negative when the test does not meet
the minimum predicted speeds based on the highest technology-specific
minimum download and upload speeds reported for that area by the
provider in its most recent coverage data;
(2) A point-hex shall be defined as one of the seven nested
hexagons at resolution 9 from the H3 standardized geospatial indexing
system of a resolution 8 hexagon;
(3) A point-hex shall be defined as accessible where at least 50%
of the point-hex overlaps with the provider's reported coverage data
and the point-hex overlaps with any primary, secondary, or local road
from the most recent U.S. Census Bureau's road data; and
(4) The minimum number of point-hexes in which tests must be
recorded shall be equal to the number of accessible point-hexes or
four, whichever number is lower. If there are no accessible point-hexes
within a resolution 8 hexagon, the geographic threshold shall not need
to be met.
(B) Temporal threshold. The difference in time of day between two
negative tests is at least four hours irrespective of calendar day; and
(C) Testing threshold. At least five speed tests are negative
within a hex-8 cell when a challenger has submitted 20 or fewer tests.
When a challenger has submitted more than 20 tests, a certain minimum
percentage of the total number of tests in the cell must be negative;
(1) When a challenger has submitted 21-29 tests, at least 24% must
be negative;
(2) When a challenger has submitted 30-45 tests, at least 22% must
be negative;
(3) When a challenger has submitted 46-60 tests, at least 20% must
be negative;
(4) When a challenger has submitted 61-70 tests, at least 18% must
be negative;
(5) When a challenger has submitted 71-99 tests, at least 17% must
be negative;
(6) When a challenger has submitted 100 or more tests, at least 16%
must be negative;
(ii) In addition, a larger, ``parent'' hexagon (at resolutions 7 or
6) shall be considered challenged if at least four of its child
hexagons are considered challenged. The smallest challengeable
hexagonal cell is a hexagon at resolution 8 from the H3 standardized
geospatial indexing system.
(iii) Mobile service providers shall be notified of all cognizable
challenges to their mobile broadband coverage maps at the end of each
month. Challengers shall be notified when a mobile provider responds to
the challenge. Mobile service providers and challengers both shall be
notified monthly of the status of challenged areas.
* * * * *
(4) To dispute a challenge, a mobile service provider must submit
on-the-ground test data, consistent with the metrics and methods
described in paragraph (c)(1) of this section, or infrastructure data
to verify its coverage map(s) in the challenged area. To the extent
that a mobile service provider believes it would be helpful to the
Commission in resolving a challenge, it may choose to submit other data
in addition to the data initially required, including but not limited
to either infrastructure or on-the-ground testing (to the extent such
data are not the primary option chosen by the provider)
[[Page 40415]]
or other types of data such as data collected from network transmitter
monitoring systems or software, or spectrum band-specific coverage
maps. Such other data must be submitted at the same time as the primary
on-the-ground testing or infrastructure rebuttal data submitted by the
provider. If needed to ensure an adequate review, the Office of
Economics and Analytics may also require that the provider submit other
data in addition to the data initially submitted, including but not
limited to either infrastructure or on-the-ground testing data (to the
extent not the option initially chosen by the provider) or data
collected from network transmitter monitoring systems or software (to
the extent available in the provider's network). If a mobile provider
is not able to demonstrate sufficient coverage in a challenged hexagon,
the mobile provider shall revise its coverage maps to reflect the lack
of coverage in such areas.
(i) A mobile service provider that chooses to rebut a challenge to
their mobile broadband coverage maps with on-the-ground speed test data
shall confirm that a challenged area has sufficient coverage using
speed tests that were conducted during the 12 months prior to
submitting a rebuttal. A provider may confirm coverage in any hex-8
cell within the challenged area. This includes any hex-8 cell that is
challenged, and also any non-challenged hex-8 cell that is a child of a
challenged hex-7, hex-6, or hex-5 cell. Confirming non-challenged hex-8
cells can be used to confirm the challenged hex-7, hex-6, or hex-5
cell. To confirm a hex-8 cell, a provider must submit on-the ground
speed test data that meets the following criteria:
(A) Geographic threshold. Two speed tests, at least one of which is
a positive test, are recorded within a minimum number of point-hexes
within the challenged area, where:
(1) A test shall be defined as positive when the test meets both
the minimum predicted speeds based on the highest technology-specific
minimum download and upload speeds reported for that area by the
provider in its most recent coverage data;
(2) A point-hex shall be defined as one of the seven nested
hexagons at resolution 9 from the H3 standardized geospatial indexing
system of a resolution 8 hexagon;
(3) A point-hex shall be defined as accessible where at least 50%
of the point-hex overlaps with the provider's reported coverage data
and the point-hex overlaps with any primary, secondary, or local road
from the most recent U.S. Census Bureau's road data; and
(4) The minimum number of point-hexes in which tests must be
recorded shall be equal to the number of accessible point-hexes or
four, whichever number is lower. If there are no accessible point-hexes
within a resolution 8 hexagon, the geographic threshold shall not need
to be met.
(B) Temporal threshold. The difference in time of day between at
least two positive tests is at least 4 hours irrespective of calendar
day; and
(C) Testing threshold. At least 17 positive tests within a hex-8
cell in the challenged area when the provider has submitted 20 or fewer
tests. When the provider has submitted more than 20 tests, a certain
minimum percentage of the total number of tests in the cell must be
positive;
(1) When a provider has submitted 21-34 tests, at least 82% must be
positive;
(2) When a provider has submitted 35-49 tests, at least 84% must be
positive;
(3) When a provider has submitted 50-70 tests, at least 86% must be
positive;
(4) When a provider has submitted 71-99 tests, at least 87% must be
positive;
(5) When a provider has submitted 100 or more tests, at least 88%
must be positive;
(D) Using a mobile device running either a Commission-developed app
(e.g., the FCC Speed Test app), another speed test app approved by OET
to submit challenges, or other software and hardware if approved by
staff;
(E) Using a device that is engineering-capable and able to
interface with drive test software and/or runs on the Android operating
system.
(ii) A mobile service provider that chooses to rebut a challenge to
their mobile broadband coverage maps with infrastructure data may only
do so in order to identify invalid, or non-representative, speed tests
within the challenged speed test data. A provider may claim challenge
speed tests were invalid, or non-representative, if:
(A) Extenuating circumstances at the time and location of a given
test (e.g., maintenance or temporary outage at the cell site) caused
service to be abnormal;
(B) The mobile device(s) with which the challenger(s) conducted
their speed tests do not use or connect to the spectrum band(s) that
the provider uses to serve the challenged area;
(C) The challenge speed tests were taken during an uncommon special
event (e.g., professional sporting event) that increased traffic on the
network; or
(D) The challenge speed tests were taken during a period where cell
loading exceeded the modeled cell loading factor.
(iii) If the Commission determines, based on the infrastructure
data submitted by providers, that challenge speed tests are invalid,
such challenge speed tests shall be ruled void, and the Commission
shall recalculate the challenged hexagons after removing any
invalidated challenger speed tests and consider any challenged hexagons
that no longer meet the challenge creation threshold to be restored to
their status before the challenge was submitted.
(iv) Aside from the scenarios discussed in paragraph (e)(4)(ii)(A)-
(D), the Commission shall only use infrastructure data, on their own,
to adjudicate a challenge upon a showing by the provider that
collecting on-the-ground or other data (not in infrastructure
information) would be infeasible or unlikely to show an accurate
depiction of network coverage. In such a situation, the Commission
shall evaluate infrastructure data using the same process the
Commission uses to verify providers coverage maps.
* * * * *
(6) After a challenged provider submits all responses and
Commission staff determines the result of a challenge and any
subsequent rebuttal have been determined:
(i) In such cases where a mobile service provider successfully
rebuts a challenge, the area confirmed to have coverage shall be
ineligible for challenge until the first time a mobile service provider
files its biannual filing information six months after the end of the
60-day response period.
(ii) A challenged area may be restored to an unchallenged state,
if, as a result of data submitted by the provider, there is no longer
sufficient evidence to sustain the challenge to that area, but the
provider's data fall short of confirming the area. A restored hexagon
would be subject to challenge at any time in the future as challengers
submit new speed test data.
(iii) In cases where a mobile service provider concedes or loses a
challenge, the provider must file, within 30 days, geospatial data
depicting the challenged area that has been shown to lack sufficient
service. Such data will constitute a correction layer to the provider's
original propagation model-based coverage map, and Commission staff
will use this layer to update the broadband coverage map. In addition,
to the extent that a provider does not later improve coverage for the
relevant technology in an area where it conceded
[[Page 40416]]
or lost a challenge, it must include this correction layer in its
subsequent filings to indicate the areas shown to lack service.
(7) Commission staff are permitted to consider other relevant data
to support a mobile service provider's rebuttal of challenges,
including on-the-ground data or infrastructure data, to the extent it
was not previously submitted by a mobile service provider. The Office
of Economics and Analytics will review such data when voluntarily
submitted by providers in response to consumer challenges, and if it
concludes that any of the data sources are sufficiently reliable, it
will specify appropriate standards and specifications for each type of
data and add it to the alternatives available to providers to rebut a
consumer challenge.
(f) * * *
(1)
(i) Government and other entity challengers may use their own
software to collect data for the challenge process. When they submit
their data they must meet the test metrics described in paragraph
(c)(1)(i)-(ii) of this section. Additionally, their data must contain
the following metrics for each test:
(2) Challengers must conduct speed tests using a device advertised
by the challenged service provider as compatible with its network and
must take all speed tests outdoors. Challengers must also use a device
that is engineering-capable and able to interface with drive test
software and/or runs on the Android operating system.
(3) For a challenge to be considered a cognizable challenge, thus
requiring a mobile service provider response, the challenge must meet
the same threshold specified in paragraph (e)(2)(i) of this section.
* * * * *
(5) To dispute a challenge, a mobile service provider must submit
on-the-ground test data or infrastructure data to verify its coverage
map(s) in the challenged area based on the methodology set forth in
paragraph (e)(4) of this section. To the extent that a service provider
believes it would be helpful to the Commission in resolving a
challenge, it may choose to submit other data in addition to the data
initially required, including but not limited to either infrastructure
or on-the-ground testing (to the extent such data are not the primary
option chosen by the provider) or other types of data such as data
collected from network transmitter monitoring systems or software or
spectrum band-specific coverage maps. Such other data must be submitted
at the same time as the primary on-the-ground testing or infrastructure
rebuttal data submitted by the provider. If needed to ensure an
adequate review, the Office of Economics and Analytics may also require
that the provider submit other data in addition to the data initially
submitted, including but not limited to either infrastructure or on-
the-ground testing data (to the extent not the option initially chosen
by the provider) or data collected from network transmitter monitoring
systems or software (to the extent available in the provider's
network).
* * * * *
0
4. Amend Sec. 1.7008 by revising paragraph (d)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 1.7008 Creation of broadband internet access service coverage
maps.
* * * * *
(d)(1) * * *
(2) To the extent government entities or third parties choose to
file verified data, they shall follow the same filing process as
providers submitting their broadband internet access service data in
the data portal. Government entities and third parties that file on-
the-ground test data shall submit such data using the same metrics and
testing parameters the Commission requires of mobile service providers
when responding to a Commission request to verify mobile providers'
broadband network coverage with on-the-ground data (see 47 CFR
1.7006(c)(1)).
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2021-16071 Filed 7-27-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on July 28, 2021.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.