Given this variety of metrics used, in addition to comments on the set of common positions proposed in the document, stakeholders are invited to answer the following questions, with supporting evidence:

Question 1: Should BEREC define common metrics for mobile coverage? Please explain your answer, for example by setting out the reasons why BEREC should or should not define common metric, including views on the potential benefits and risks to consumers and other stakeholders.

Question 2: What service availability definition and minimum requirements would you consider appropriate? What multi-level requirements would be appropriate to represent different level of coverage? Please explain your answer, for example by detailing how your figures for minimum service availability were established and by providing evidence.

Question 3: What signal power thresholds would you consider appropriate for different mobile technologies? What multi-level thresholds would be appropriate to represent different level of coverage? Please explain your answer, for example by providing rational for such thresholds and by detailing how they were derived, including assumptions made and how they are linked to minimum service availability.

Question 4: What might be the practical implications associated with selecting thresholds such as the impact of factors outside of the control of the mobile network operators (for example please see the discussion on key elements for monitoring mobile coverage from the consumer perspective as set out in the consultation)?

Question 5: Given the rapid evolution of mobile data consumption, how often do you consider that common metrics should be reviewed to remain fit for purpose or useful for consumers in the future?

In fulfilling their duties, National Regulatory Authorities (NRAs) and competent authorities (CAs) monitor mobile coverage of licensed spectrum in bands identified for International Mobile Telecommunications (IMT). Each NRA uses different means to provide information on national mobile coverage, which may constitute an obstacle to a consistent approach in presenting mobile coverage both for public policy and for consumer information. In the latter case, there is a greater emphasis on accessibility of mobile coverage information via different means (e.g. a map, apps, etc.). There are benefits to achieve a common understanding on how mobile coverage can be defined and measured for monitoring purposes, see section 1.1.

The principles of mobile coverage obligations specifications and the specification process are outside the scope of this document.

In 2017[1], BEREC conducted a public consultation on a preliminary report in view of a Common Position (CP) on monitoring mobile coverage. This report aimed at facilitating a common understanding through better defining key concepts, baselines and accessibility of information; and fostering a consistent approach on how mobile coverage information can be made available and understandable among NRAs and to the public throughout Europe.

Following on from last year’s work and taking into account the comments received from the public consultation, BEREC continued its initial work of 2017[2] with the aim of establishing a set of future-looking CPs that achieve a common understanding on how to provide information on mobile coverage, and how it can be defined, measured and reported for monitoring purposes.

In 2018 and to meet this aim, BEREC gathered expertise from European NRAs through a survey entitled “Practices in Europe Regarding Monitoring Mobile Coverage”. BEREC received the contribution of 33 NRAs which constitutes a solid basis that depicts a clear picture of the current state of methods to monitor mobile coverage in Europe. In this document, BEREC provides the outcome from studying the range of current NRA practices, the outcome from last year’s consultation and four common positions on monitoring mobile coverage:

- CP1 – Technical specifications for monitoring mobile coverage in Europe;

- CP2 – The use of signal predictions for mobile coverage;

- CP3 – Ensuring the reliability of coverage information;

- CP4 – Availability and presentation of mobile coverage information. These CPs have been developed for outdoor coverage of mobile services only. They are underpinned by the initial BEREC work of 2017.

As the BEREC preliminary report (BoR (17) 186)[3] already stated there are a number of reasons why mobile coverage monitoring would be necessary:

- to provide highly-accessible independent and reliable information on the state of mobile coverage in their respective countries. Such information is often made available by the NRAs to consumers; respective policy makers and/or national governments; the European Commission; industry and wider public;

- to assist in ensuring mobile network operators (MNOs) meet their coverage obligations. Some NRAs monitor the level of mobile coverage provided by operators to assess if they comply with any relevant coverage conditions and obligations set out in their licences. This can help ensure that mobile spectrum is used to deliver greater geographic and population coverage in particular in rural areas, which can have a positive impact on the reduction of the digital divide.

In this context, two different aspects of monitoring mobile coverage can be considered:

a) Estimating and predicting mobile coverage: this is normally based on theoretical calculations and the results are displayed in a specific map format (e.g. resolution, colour coding, etc.) taking into account predetermined assumptions (e.g. technology, propagation modelling, user specific parameters),

b) Measuring mobile coverage through the field signal and/or the service availability in specific location and time taking into account equipment used to perform such measurement. This can be done for example by using calibrated equipment. The results of the measurements can also be represented in a specific map format.

Publication of mobile coverage information at regular intervals by the NRAs gives an overview of the development of the different electronic communication services provided over mobile networks. This greater transparency on the coverage provided by different operators can help promote more competition between operators with regard to delivering better coverage and possibly future investments in network coverage. Such publications are often in the form of numerical data usually contained in report published by the NRAs on a regular basis (e.g. annually).

From consumer perspective, publishing easy-to-access, accurate, reliable and comparable information increases transparency and helps consumers to know if they receive the service they bought or to be empowered to make informed decisions before subscribing to a MNO – these have an overall effect of promoting competition. To date, the use of coverage maps has, for some NRA, been the preferred method of providing mobile coverage information.

The following set of elements is of relevance to consumers from mobile coverage information point of view.

1. The services:

a) Data services, which are split into two subcategories, namely

- Basic quality service sufficient to carry out web browsing, email, satnav, Internet banking, audio download and social networks (excl. videos).

- Good quality service sufficient to carry out most data functions, video content in social networks, video streaming and high-quality audio streaming.

b) Voice service (noting that voice is provided over data in some technologies).

2. The location where services are consumed:

a) Outdoor,

b) Indoor[4] (home/office/shopping malls/etc.; within sight of a window or deep indoor). Along transportation routes (car/train/underground/tram/ferries/etc.).

3. The device[5]:

a) Feature phone,

b) Smartphone,

c) Tablet,

d) Mobile broadband device (e.g. 4G router).

However, in order to provide a data set which is easy to understand by consumers, coverage information presented to consumers should be based on a limited number of combinations of these elements that are deemed relevant to consumers.

From the perspective of giving information about mobile coverage, NRAs should choose either of the following criteria:

1. Specifications based on the strength of the signal received: a given area is declared in-coverage if the average received signal power in that area is greater than a pre-specified minimum, which is chosen by the NRA to achieve a high probability of successful service reception, or

2. Specifications based on the minimum probability of successful service (e.g. voice or data) reception: a given area is declared in-coverage if the service in that area is available with a pre-specified minimum rate of success.

Considering the first case above, although other factors may affect the service quality, the available received mobile signal power is an indicative measure towards the definition of the level of coverage. Such a metric will also facilitate the display of mobile coverage on a map. The metrics for measuring signal power are dependent on the mobile technology. NRAs should use the following metrics for different mobile technologies:

- RxLev (Received Signal Level) for GSM (also referred as 2G),

- RSCP (Received Signal Code Power) for UMTS (also referred as 3G), and

- RSRP (Reference Signal Received Power) for LTE (also referred as 4G).

NRAs should consider applying an appropriate threshold to the available mobile signal power in a given area. Two approaches to such thresholding may be:

- Binary thresholding: here, coverage in a given area should be declared present if the average level of mobile signal power in that area is greater than a prespecified threshold. NRAs should note that different mobile technologies will have different thresholds. The thresholds should be chosen by the NRAs to ensure a high probability of successful service reception.

- Multi-level thresholding: here, coverage in a given area should be defined with respect to a set of probability values of successful service reception that would be specified by a corresponding set of thresholds. Again, a relevant consideration for NRAs would be that different mobile technologies will have different set of thresholds for different probability of successful service reception. The thresholds should be chosen by the NRAs to ensure a range of probability of successful service reception that is meaningful to consumers.

Parameters that NRAs measure in the field may depend on the national licence obligations, but also aim to objectively depict the quality of service that mobile networks offer to the end users. Technology dependent radio signal levels are the most commonly used criteria to define whether a specific location is covered or not. It is used by 20 out of 33 NRAs surveyed. The received mobile signal power that underpins mobile coverage of 2G/3G/4G networks is often based on RxLev, RSCP and RSRP for GSM, UMTS and LTE respectively.

The outcome of the survey shows that 22 out of 33 NRAs define thresholds for the classification of different levels of mobile coverage. It also shows that the reasons for defining thresholds differ – the main reason concerns the definition and the verification of coverage obligations, the other reason being the publication of a mobile coverage map by an NRA at a later stage.

Out of the 22 NRAs defining thresholds, 18 NRAs define thresholds for RSRP, 18 for RSCP and 17 for RxLev. Among those defining thresholds for RSRP are some that also define thresholds for RSCP but not for RxLev. On the other hand, there are some NRAs that only define thresholds for RxLev or which take into account other parameters, such as the level of interference (Ec/Io).

This different practice may be explained by the fact that Member States have imposed different coverage obligations to resolve the specific coverage issues they deal with, or due to the requirements they have specified to do measurements in the field. Different coverage obligations may require different measurement metrics and measurement methods to best assess MNO’s compliance with those obligations (BoR (17) 186). Figure 1 gives the range of thresholds reported by the NRAs.