[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 [www.gpo.gov]
[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:
     Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically 
using the internet by accessing the ECFS: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs.
     Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must 
file an original and one copy of each filing.
     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.
     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.
     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 [email protected] or call the 
Consumer & Government Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice, 202-418-
0432 (tty).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Will Holloway, 
[email protected], Competition & Infrastructure Policy Division, 
(WTB), Jonathan McCormack at [email protected] (OEA), or 
Martin Doczkat at [email protected] (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 
https://www.fcc.gov/document/input-sought-mobile-challenge-verification-technical-requirements or by using the Commission's ECFS 
web page at www.fcc.gov/ecfs.

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