The previous blog summarized the basics of the order for the new 5G Fund for Rural America that will provide $9 billion to improve rural cellular coverage. This blog looks at some concerns I identify with the order.
Are the Maps Accurate? The Rural Wireless Association (RWA), which represents smaller cellular companies, recently sent a letter to the FCC that claimed the FCC cellular maps are still highly inaccurate.It’s easy to check claimed cellular usage around you. Once you’ve loaded your address in the FCC map, look at the Mobile Broadband tab at the upper right. You will see the claimed cellular at your address or at any homes around you by clicking on locations.
I live in Western North Carolina, and rural cellular coverage around me is terrible – like is true for much of rural America. When I look at the rural cellular coverage around me on the FCC map it’s hard to find unserved areas. When I dig into the details of the map, I find a huge hodgepodge in rural areas where one carrier claims to serve each rural location – one cluster of homes might be deemed served due to T-Mobile, a nearby cluster deemed to be served by Dish, and another neighborhood claimed by AT&T. This mix of 35/3 Mbps 5G coverage in very rural areas seems unlikely.
An interesting complaint from RWA is that the FCC cellular reporting only looks at cellular coverage at homes. RWA argues that in rural areas, this is measuring the wrong thing – home cellular coverage is important, but cellular coverage should be measured along the roads where people drive every day. The current map shows no coverage data for areas between homes.
No Specific Public Map Challenge. The FCC is not pausing to give citizens and local governments a chance to challenge the cellular map. In fact, the FCC might only issue the final map of areas eligible for the funding 30 days before the auction begins.
This is a big oversight. If the RWA is right about poor maps, then the public should be given a chance to make sure that areas without adequate cellular coverage are included in the 5G Fund. It seems like the FCC thinks the public and local governments have had enough time to challenge the maps since the FCC started the BDC mapping process a few years ago.
The methodology need to challenge the maps is not easy. Speed tests to challenge can only be taken using the FCC speed test app. There must be a lot of tests in a given geographic area for tests to be considered. Speed tests must be taken either from a stationary place outside (like pulling over along the side of a road) or inside a home. Only the outdoor tests matter for the 5G Fund. To be done right, speed tests must be done using phones from all of the major carriers, meaning AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon, Dish, and any local smaller carrier that offers decent coverage.
It’s basically impossible to challenge a carrier that has overstated coverage areas – you can’t conduct a speed test for a carrier that isn’t there. I note in rural North Carolina that there are a lot of places claimed as covered by Dish – but I’m highly dubious that there are many, if any, Dish subscribers in these areas who could take an FCC speed test to verify this. This is true for any carrier that is not really present – nobody is going to have a phone subscribed to a non-working service.
It’s unlikely that many county governments have undertaken a formal effort to organize the needed speed tests. And even if they did, that challenge has to have happened in the last year to be relevant. I work around the country, and in most of the rural counties I’ve worked in recent years, I’ve heard that cellular coverage is even worse than broadband coverage – and that’s saying something.
I don’t want to sound too critical of this plan because poor rural cellular coverage is a huge issue. This has been needed for a long time. But after having taken four years to get to this announcement, wouldn’t it make sense to take six more months to allow local governments to prove that cellular coverage is poor or that the FCC maps are inaccurate? The FCC does not want to repeat the dreadful problem it had with RDOF based on faulty maps. If the FCC rushes this through without the chance for a map challenge, it will feel like the agency is rushing to grab headlines. Doing this right is vital because communities that get missed by this upgrade are likely going to be stuck with poor cellular coverage for a decade or more.
If the so-called “challenge” process is anything like the mess we’ve just fought for BEAD, don’t look for any upgrades in the FCC maps. Our area maps look like our service coverage is just great. Except that it isn’t. And now that the challenge period is over, speed tests at my house are back to something like crappy to abysmal— not that they were that great during the challenge period.
“Doing this right is vital because communities that get missed by this upgrade are likely going to be stuck with poor cellular coverage for a decade or more.” That meets the end goal of the performative mapping process: delay. Same thing in premise service. Delay is a function of the gap between user demand and infrastructure construction.
We all shouldn’t skip over the fact that rural ‘cellular’ services are dramatically degraded by same-tech ‘FWA’ from carriers. There is limited capacity per eNB/gNB and phones tend to be fairly light users, with some bursty traffic but mostly small data flows. Put that cell phone in a box in a house and call it FWA and the usage patterns change to being a more constant medium to high throughput device from streamers and home-use patterns.
When you take a rural area that is covered by a single cell and put a bunch of home users on it, mobile users are left with the scraps. How many times have you been in such an area and had 1-2 bars on your phone but effectively no service?
‘Cellular’ services should remain mobile service and the attempt by cell carriers to get into home FWA should be halted.
Meanwhile, there is a clear need to improve services on highways. I would suggest forcing carriers to map their coverage along all US highways. They already have these maps, they collect GPS and signal levels so they could easily report this data, they just benefit from the more averaged out maps that make them look like they have better services than they really do.
A major concern is that cell coverage and service levels change frequently. Even a good speed test today does not ensure good service 6 months or a year from now. This is particularly troublesome in rural areas with little to no coverage and competition.
Verizon recently discontinued 4G LTE Home Internet service in the area where I live. When T-mobile and Sprint merged, 3G services were dropped and other tower changes eliminated service to many locations. Technologies and business priorities affect service and coverage with little consideration of the impact on subscribers.
My view is that wireless services should be viewed as a short-term solution with no commitment. I am delighted that they exist, however they should not be eligible for government funding programs.