Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Man Drives 6,000 Miles to Prove Uncle Sam's Cellphone Coverage Maps are Wrong

posted by mrpg on Friday January 18 2019, @10:34AM   Printer-friendly
from the in-six-weeks dept.

upstart writes:

Submitted via IRC for Bytram

Man drives 6,000 miles to prove Uncle Sam's cellphone coverage maps are wrong – and, boy, did he manage it

A Vermont state employee drove 6,000 miles in six weeks to prove that the cellular coverage maps from the US government suck – and was wildly successful.

In fact not only did he prove conclusively that reports delivered to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) by mobile operators aren't worth the paper they're printed on but also swung a spotlight on just how bad bureaucracy can get when it comes to Washington DC.

Corey Chase, a telecommunications infrastructure specialist who works for the Vermont Department of Public Service (PSD), undertook the monster road trip with some specialized equipment: six phones, each connected to a different mobile nework, and a custom piece of software, G-NetTrack, that carried out constant measurements of download speeds.

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Man Drives 6,000 Miles to Prove Uncle Sam's Cellphone Coverage Maps are Wrong | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 35 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 18 2019, @03:01PM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 18 2019, @03:01PM (#788244)

    The phone company's cell system already has real time location and available bandwidth knowledge.
    They have the information to know the quality of their maps.

    But this may be a game of how to extract funds without doing work.
    If so, then using what they know would be counter productive.

    Vermont likely well understands the game and just wants a bigger share.
    Nicely played.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +1  
       Interesting=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Total Score:   1  

  • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday January 18 2019, @06:08PM (1 child)

    by bob_super (1357) on Friday January 18 2019, @06:08PM (#788328)

    "Our measurements according to procedure #528b_159 v1.3.2 state that we provide the coverage advertised. We would be happy to discuss your measurements according to procedure #528b_159 v1.3.2, (which as a reminder uses profession equipment and high-grade antennas) rather than some custom hackjob using consumer-grade phones inside a car with an electric motor. Yours truly. The Cell carriers"

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 18 2019, @10:53PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 18 2019, @10:53PM (#788457)

      Our measurements according to procedure #528b_159 v1.3.2...

      Actually the FCC FAQ looks pretty simple.
      https://transition.fcc.gov/form477/477faqs.pdf [fcc.gov]

      (Page 27)

      Q: Are there predefined coverage levels for the shapefiles?
      A: There is no predefined dBm level associated with the mobile coverage maps. Instead, the coverage areas
      should reflect where customers can expect to receive service at the reported speeds/bandwidths for the
      particular technology and spectrum band.

      Q: Should holes in wireless coverage areas that result from terrain blocking a signal be included in the
      deployment data?
      A: The polygons representing mobile broadband or mobile voice network coverage should not include areas
      where terrain blocks a signal or other factors prevent service from being provided in that area.