Internet service providers are still providing false coverage information to the Federal Communications Commission, and the FCC process for challenging errors isn’t good enough to handle all the false claims, the agency was told by several groups this week.
The latest complaints focus on fixed wireless providers that offer home Internet service via signals sent to antennas. ISPs that compete against these wireless providers say that exaggerated coverage data prevents them from obtaining government funding designed to subsidize the building of networks in areas with limited coverage.
The wireless company LTD Broadband (which has been renamed GigFire) came under particular scrutiny in an FCC filing submitted by the Accurate Broadband Data Alliance, a group of about 50 ISPs in the Midwest.
“A number of carriers, including LTD Broadband/GigFire LLC and others, continue to overreport Internet service availability, particularly in relation to fixed wireless network capabilities and reach,” the group said. “These errors and irregularities in the Map will hinder and, in many cases, prevent deployment of essential broadband services by redirecting funds away from areas truly lacking sufficient broadband.”
ISPs are required to submit coverage data for the FCC’s broadband map, and there is a challenge process in which false claims can be contested. The FCC recently sought comment on how well the challenge process is working.
CEO blasts “100-year-old telcos”
The Accurate Broadband Data Alliance accused GigFire of behaving badly in the challenge process, saying “LTD Broadband/GigFire LLC often continues to assert unrealistic broadband claims without evidence and even accuses the challenger of falsifying information during the challenge process.”
GigFire CEO Corey Hauer disputed the Accurate Broadband Data Alliance’s accusations. Hauer told Ars today that “GigFire evaluated over 5 million locations and established that 339,598 are eligible to get service and that is accurately reflected in our BDC [Broadband Data Collection] filings.”
Hauer said GigFire offers service in Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Wisconsin. The company’s service area is mostly wireless but includes about 20,000 homes passed by fiber lines, he said.
“GigFire wants to service as many customers as we can, but we have no interest in falsely telling customers that they qualify for service,” Hauer told us.
Hauer also said that “GigFire uses widely accepted wireless propagation models to compute our coverage. It’s just math, there is no way to game the system.” He said that telcos “feel they should get an additional wheelbarrow full of ratepayer money, and because of our coverage, they will not.”
“Many of these 100-year-old telcos were so used to being monopolies, that it appears they struggle with consumers that live in their legacy telco boundaries having competitive choices,” Hauer said.
Wireless claims hard to verify, groups say
Wireline providers have also exaggerated coverage, as we’ve reported. Comcast admitted to mistakes last year after previously insisting that false data it gave the FCC was correct. In another case, a small Ohio ISP called Jefferson County Cable admitted lying to the FCC about the size of its network in order to block funding to rivals.
But it can be especially hard to verify the claims made by fixed wireless providers, several groups that represented wireline providers told the FCC. The FCC says that fixed wireless providers can submit either lists of locations, or polygon coverage maps based on propagation modeling. GigFire submitted a list of locations.
Both the list and polygon models drew criticism from telco groups. The Minnesota Telecom Alliance told the FCC this week that “the highly generalized nature of the polygon coverage maps has tempted some competitive fixed wireless providers to exaggerate the extent of their service areas and the speeds of their services.”
The Minnesota group said that “polygon coverage maps are able to show only an alleged unsubsidized fixed wireless competitor’s theoretical potential signal coverage over a general area,” and don’t account for problems like “line-of-sight obstructions, terrain, foliage, weather conditions, and busy hour congestion” that can restrict coverage at specific locations.
“MTA members are aware that many fixed wireless broadband service providers are unable to determine whether they actually can serve a specific location and what level of service they can provide to that location unless and until they send a technician to the site to attempt to install service,” the group said.
The Minnesota telco group complained that inaccurate filings reduce the number of locations at which a telco can receive Universal Service Fund (USF) money. It is often virtually impossible to successfully “challenge the accuracy of fixed wireless service availability claims that can adversely impact USF support,” the group said.
“Critical technical details” missing, group says
NTCA–The Rural Broadband Association told the FCC that the agency doesn’t require enough data from wireless ISPs that submit lists of serviceable locations:
Specifically, data such as “Propagation Model Details,” “Fixed Wireless Base Station Location and Height” and “Fixed Wireless Link Budget Parameters” are only submitted by ‘[p]roviders of terrestrial fixed wireless broadband service that submit coverage maps (as opposed to a list of locations.)” This leaves the Commission without access to critical technical details that underpin availability claims, and this almost certainly provides a strong incentive for operators to submit lists of [serviceable locations] rather than shapefiles that would require greater initial justification and thus could be more carefully scrutinized.
The FCC thus lacks “access to critical technical details that underpin availability claims,” and entities that challenge coverage claims “are frustrated in attempting to assess reporting providers’ ability to perform as promised in the face of terrain, distance, and other factors that can degrade or limit the quality or reach of service,” the NTCA said.
The group urged the FCC to require detailed data submissions from fixed wireless providers that submit lists of serviceable locations. “This should establish better incentives for more accurate filings if providers are required to ‘show their work’ behind coverage claims, and at the very least ensures the Commission has on hand what it needs to respond to challenges without regard to the method chosen for initial reporting,” the NTCA said.
When contacted by Ars today, the Wireless Internet Service Providers Association (WISPA) defended the data submissions of its member companies.
“We believe the WISP industry is following the rules—the spirit and letter,” the group said. “We’ve long worked with the Commission and other stakeholders to ensure the process is properly balanced, and has the right incentives so it cannot be gamed to the detriment of those who still lack broadband. We are excited for WISPs to play a continued role in narrowing the digital divide, especially in rural, under-resourced and Tribal parts of America. Good mapping and a sound underlying process is key to that goal.”
We contacted the FCC and will update this article if we get a response.
Grant programs
GigFire’s wireless service relies on unlicensed spectrum, which can be used by anyone as long as certain regulations are followed. GigFire’s use of unlicensed spectrum means that the presence of its service in any particular area won’t make that location ineligible for the $42.45 billion Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program, which is gearing up to provide subsidies to ISPs that build in unserved and underserved areas.
The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), which administers BEAD, says a location is conserved “served” (and ineligible for grants) if it has access to fixed wireless services that use licensed spectrum and offer speeds of 100Mbps downstream and 20Mbps upstream.
That applies to “terrestrial fixed wireless technology utilizing entirely licensed spectrum or using a hybrid of licensed and unlicensed spectrum.” You can see which parts of the US have fixed wireless with licensed spectrum on the FCC map.
Although GigFire’s unlicensed wireless service won’t affect BEAD eligibility, it will affect a different grant program called the Enhanced Alternative Connect America Cost Model, which is part of the Universal Service Fund. Under the FCC rules for that program, a location is excluded from funding even if it only has fixed wireless service that relies entirely on unlicensed spectrum.
LTD Broadband was previously involved in another controversial FCC proceeding. In 2020, LTD was tentatively awarded over $1.3 billion in FCC grants to serve 528,088 locations in 15 states.
But the FCC later rejected LTD’s final application, preventing it from getting any of that cash. The FCC decided that the company “was not reasonably capable of deploying a network of the scope, scale, and size required by LTD’s extensive winning bids” and proposed a fine of $21.7 million.