Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

At Least One Major Carrier Lied About Its 4G Coverage, FCC Review Finds (arstechnica.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the false-advertising dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Four months after receiving a complaint claiming that Verizon "grossly overstated" its 4G LTE coverage in government filings, the Federal Communications Commission says that at least one carrier is apparently guilty of significant rules violations. The FCC did not name any specific carrier in its announcement and did not respond to our question about whether Verizon is among the carriers being investigated. But the investigation was apparently triggered by a complaint about Verizon filed in August by the Rural Wireless Association (RWA).

The RWA, which represents rural carriers, made its case to the FCC by submitting speed test data. The speed tests showed the Verizon network wasn't providing 4G LTE service in areas that Verizon claimed to cover, according to the RWA. Inaccurate coverage maps could make it difficult for rural carriers to get money from the Mobility Fund, a government fund intended for unserved areas. "A preliminary review of speed test data submitted through the challenge process suggested significant violations of the Commission's rules," FCC Chairman Ajit Pai said Friday in his announcement of the FCC investigation. The FCC said its investigation focuses on "whether one or more major carriers violated the Mobility Fund Phase II (MF-II) reverse auction's mapping rules and submitted incorrect coverage maps."

46 comments

  1. Coverage maps lie? by dgatwood · · Score: 2

    Like the old joke about politicians.

    Q: How do you know a politician is lying?

    A: His/her lips are moving.

    In much the same vein, you know a coverage map is lying because the carrier provided it.

    --

    Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    1. Re:Coverage maps lie? by Immerman · · Score: 2

      In this case though they lied to the federal oversight organization in order to secure extra incentives. It'd be nice to see that carry the same penalties as intentionally lying on any other federally mandated oversight, such as taxes or other financial statements.

      Personally I think that should at a minimum involve jail time for the executive responsible for having the reports produced, but I'm not holding my breath.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    2. Re:Coverage maps lie? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      Those responsible for the lies . . . have been sacked:

      https://news.slashdot.org/stor...

      Those responsible for the sacking . . . will also be sacked:

      https://news.slashdot.org/stor...

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    3. Re:Coverage maps lie? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So it's like that one about Slashdotters:

      Q: How do you know someone is an incel?

      A: They registered an account on Slashdot.

    4. Re:Coverage maps lie? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. Why did the oversight organisation only find this information now, only after complaints were raised to the public, if a preliminary review showed this? Is it not part of their job to check? Just what have they been doing all this time?
      2. Doesn't this show just how little telecommunications companies (or any company, really) can be trusted by their word, as when Ajit Pai claimed they can be trusted to regulate themselves?

    5. Re: Coverage maps lie? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe the oversight org and the government have been saying the maps are wrong for a long time

    6. Re:Coverage maps lie? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Personally I think that should at a minimum involve jail time for the executive responsible for having the reports produced, What do you think this is? Some socialist shithole? This is America god damnit and these are job creators, they are above the law!

    7. Re:Coverage maps lie? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Repayment of all fraudulent incentives received, to start.

      Additional penalties should include a fine, depending on whether their reports are discovered to be accidental or deliberate misrepresentation. Banning them from telecommunications bids/auctions for a period of time. Possibly cancellation of any government-granted telecom exclusion contracts they own, done in such a way as to prevent further monopolies.

      Jail time is not necessary, and I believe it's also beyond the ability of the FCC to levy. The executives may be remanded to Federal court to face trial for interstate fraud however, and I wouldn't be upset at that outcome.

    8. Re:Coverage maps lie? by Solandri · · Score: 1

      If an investigation found that a carrier's coverage maps were accurate, now *that* would be a news story.

    9. Re: Coverage maps lie? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's been well known since forever that most of the maps show where they are licensed to provide coverage, not that they actually have a signal there. That's why when I see maps like VZ or ATT that show just about the whole country even in the middle of bum fuck nowhere covered in a swath of their brand color, where there's no infrastructure for a dozen miles in any direction I have to take their maps with a grain of salt. At least TMO seems to be a bit more truthful about their coverage maps.

    10. Re:Coverage maps lie? by Spamalope · · Score: 1

      Until actual penalties are enforced for paying a politician to intercede I wouldn't expect anything but a token financial penalty that's far smaller than the profits gained by violating the rules.

    11. Re:Coverage maps lie? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, it's like the one about whatabouters.

      Q: How do you know someone doesn't understand basic logic?

      A: They use whataboutery.

    12. Re:Coverage maps lie? by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Repayment of incentives is a good start, but offers no discouragement. Perhaps repayment of X*incentives received, where X is at least 2. Even if it's accidental, you still lose at least as much as you temporarily won. Make sure everyone has a substantial incentive to validate their data *before* applying for the benefits.

      With further penalties for any _individuals_ found to be involved in intentional deception. If you want to risk jail or personal fines in order to obey your boss, that's your business - but if they get caught, you're going down.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    13. Re:Coverage maps lie? by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Why? It's not the buyer that's betraying the nation, it's the seller.

      I'm still waiting for political corruption to be recognized as the treason it is, but I'm not holding my breath.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  2. Fine. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Now ban them from receiving all Mobility Funds in the future. Maybe even sue them to get past funding back.

    1. Re:Fine. by SpzToid · · Score: 1

      https://www.fcc.gov/mobility-f...

      Mobility Fund Phase II (MF-II) will make up to $4.53 billion in support available over 10 years to primarily rural areas that lack unsubsidized 4G Long Term Evolution (LTE) service. MF-II is critically important to supporting mobile voice and broadband coverage, incentivizing the deployment of mobile wireless service through a reverse auction, and ensuring that 4G LTE service is preserved and advanced in those areas of the country that lack unsubsidized service.

      --
      You can't be ahead of the curve, if you're stuck in a loop.
  3. Oh really!!??? by BLToday · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Damn, next you're going to tell me the Sun is hot.

    1. Re: Oh really!!??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is! So hot it will melt my popsicle as they say out west

  4. I'm under the weather a bit by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    They didn't name the company. *coughcast*. I wonder who could possibly be that slimey. *coughcast* *coughcast*

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
    1. Re: I'm under the weather a bit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you read the summary, or (gasp) the Ars article, you'd know it was Verizon. Comcast only recently started offering wireless plans, and they're just reselling cell coverage not providing it.

    2. Re: I'm under the weather a bit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It said later on in the article

    3. Re: I'm under the weather a bit by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      It was intended as joke. I guess it flopped. C'est la vie.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    4. Re: I'm under the weather a bit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was intended as joke. I guess it flopped. C'est la vie.

      Well, yeah, Comcast really has nothing to do with the topic.

  5. And Pai's covering for Verizon as usual by Sarusa · · Score: 2

    Not announcing any names till he figures out how to not implicate his corporate masters at Verizon. Given how this investigation started, and given they're evil bastards who lie about everything I have no doubt they're one of the firms. The only question is who else?

    I'm sure gigantic fines of maybe $10000 will be applied. That'll teach 'em.

    1. Re:And Pai's covering for Verizon as usual by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shanghai Bill considers himself a major carrier now? No doubt actually.

    2. Re:And Pai's covering for Verizon as usual by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      You know for a fact some of their coverage maps are lies. Therefore you can't trust ANY coverage map until you have independently verified ALL of them. Once you have done that you can claw back all the money paid for building out their networks with interest, plus the cost of the nation wide coverage map survey, plus fines for lying.

    3. Re: And Pai's covering for Verizon as usual by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With interest? How much nearly 0% interest do you think this deserves?

    4. Re: And Pai's covering for Verizon as usual by jd · · Score: 1

      Why fines? Suspend their license to operate transmitters anywhere for one month per area they've lied about.

      Far worse than any fine, and the FCC have absolute authority on transmitters.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    5. Re: And Pai's covering for Verizon as usual by bn-7bc · · Score: 1

      Well thar wold have a negative effect on costumers in ateas they do have coverage, thst would not be fair on them

    6. Re: And Pai's covering for Verizon as usual by jd · · Score: 1

      The FCC says there's competition.

      If the FCC are lying, that's the FCC's look out.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  6. Ajit Shitstain won't do anything by Desler · · Score: 2

    But it's not like Verizon's lapdog is going to do anything. So there's nothing Verizon is worrying about.

    1. Re: Ajit Shitstain won't do anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you never have to worry about it. Arent you lucky? Or about their red commie friends

  7. I'll wager T-Mobile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I have Verizon. My business partner has T-Mobile. We travel for business often. Every time we get to an area that isn't urban his phone stops working (we even SIM swapped to a spare device to make sure it isn't his phone). The T-Mobile coverage map would say full LTE coverage around us for miles but no T-Mobile coverage was there at all.

    My Verizon phone worked even when the map said it shouldn't. So don't be so quick to jump to conclusions.

    1. Re:I'll wager T-Mobile by Desler · · Score: 1

      Maybe learn to read the whole summary?

      But the investigation was apparently triggered by a complaint about Verizon filed in August by the Rural Wireless Association (RWA).

    2. Re:I'll wager T-Mobile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The FCC did not name any specific carrier in its announcement

      Maybe you should learn to read. Assuming the outcome of a report is still conjecture, is it not? Or is that okay for companies that Slashdotters love to hate.

    3. Re:I'll wager T-Mobile by Desler · · Score: 1

      Yes and if you continue reading past what you quote mined it clearly states in both the summary and article that this all started due to a complaint about Verizon.

    4. Re:I'll wager T-Mobile by mcswell · · Score: 2

      I live south of Baltimore MD, and my daughter was attending college in Fairmont WV. The Verizon map showed (as of three or four years ago) continuous coverage from here to there, and there. There was not; there were numerous long gaps along I-70 and I-68 between Frederick MD and somewhere in eastern WV, and no coverage whatsoever that I ever discovered in Fairmont or the surrounding area for ten or so miles--not even at Fairmont State University, which is on a hill above much of the city of Fairmont. It was around that time that I switched to AT&T (via StraightTalk), and since then I've always had good reception all along that route.

      So no, I do not believe Verizon's coverage maps. I'm glad someone in the FCC agrees.

    5. Re:I'll wager T-Mobile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone is a T-Mobile fanboy. I don't trust predictions. Just facts.

    6. Re:I'll wager T-Mobile by satsuke · · Score: 1

      The selection of device makes a huge difference for TMO.

      Pretty much only the latest generations of Galaxy S8 or higher (or Apple Iphone X) support all of the bands they use to the fullest extent.

      e.g. for rural coverage, they might deploy only band 71 // 600mhz band for LTE coverage, rather than putting GSM/UMTS out, simply because there's not enough demand for the closer tower spacing required for 1900 coverage.

    7. Re:I'll wager T-Mobile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anecdotal evidence aren't such reliable facts.
      And just because T-Mobile may be lying assholes about their coverage doesn't mean that Verizon aren't lying themselves. Pointing that out, especially after the fact that it is directly mentioned in TFA, does not make one a fanboy.

    8. Re: I'll wager T-Mobile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Was the map showing cellular coverage or cellular _data_ coverage?

      There is a difference.

      I have found that in that area, and fringes of the coverage maps, cellular coverage is there, but not necessarily cellular data coverage.

      The difference?

      You will be able to make a call, as long as your phone's LTE is configured for data, but NOT data + voice.

      However, if your phone is configured for data + voice, you are likely SOL...

  8. Get OpenSignal by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 3, Informative

    Run it, use its maps. Carriers lie, radios don't.

    https://opensignal.com/

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  9. I actually give Ajit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe with the recent layoffs, Verizon is going to lose support?
    There's still Ma Bell to step in. Not that it's any better cost-wise.

  10. The head of the FCC is bankrolled by Verizon by jd · · Score: 1

    So we already know there will be no penalties, merely some stern words in exchange for an under the table donation.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  11. Not just rural, but also in cities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've reported to FCC and others that carrier maps in my city are blatently wrong and provided specific gps coordinates and reasons what the blockage is. They include areas that never have service due to hills and obstructions...these areas are not small. The response I got was, the carrier says they do have correrage of that location.

    Waiting for class action for false advertising and not provided service carrier claims.....[breath holding begining now]

    1. Re:Not just rural, but also in cities by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      I've reported to FCC and others that carrier maps in my city are blatently wrong and provided specific gps coordinates and reasons what the blockage is. They include areas that never have service due to hills and obstructions...these areas are not small. The response I got was, the carrier says they do have correrage of that location.

      Ah, but you are a plebian. A commoner. A mere consumer. You are nothing. When the Rural Wireless Association complains, that means businesses are being affected. And businesses are real people. So something must be done. It will be a very minimal something because the businesses being affected are tiny and not good campaign donors, and the business doing the lying is huge and a very very good campaign donor. But something will be done. A one time fine of $10,000 was mentioned. That sounds about right for Ajit Pai's master. He sure as fuck can't allow any penalty that will noticeably affect profits.