Summary

  • Canada's new standard makes operator coverage estimates more comparable, but the detailed 50-metre submissions will remain confidential while the public map shows coverage on 250-metre road segments.
  • A future National Broadband Map feature will let people challenge a reported level; the CRTC's stated process can lead to a provider correction, but unresolved cases do not yet have a defined adjudication route.

The map has always been a prediction

The CRTC's Telecom Decision 2026-258 changes how mobile coverage is reported, not what a handset can receive at a particular doorway. Until now, wireless service providers (WSPs) supplied annual coverage estimates without a common definition of coverage or a shared method for generating the contours. Their submissions feed data collected by the CRTC and shared with Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED), which maintains the National Broadband Map.

That distinction matters because a coverage polygon looks like a statement about service, while the underlying record is a model. Providers estimate signal strength using network configuration, terrain, buildings, vegetation, receiver assumptions and other inputs. The CRTC itself recognizes that reported coverage can differ from what Canadians experience. A standard can make two providers' estimates more comparable; it cannot turn a prediction into a field measurement.

The new standard sorts outdoor coverage into three levels. Level 1 uses signal thresholds of -110 dBm for 4G and 5G, -90 dBm for 2G, and -100 dBm for 3G. Level 2 uses -105 dBm for 4G and 5G and -95 dBm for 3G. Level 3 uses -100 dBm for 4G and 5G. The service descriptions move from some text and voice capability toward higher-bandwidth data, but the levels are not a guarantee of a successful emergency call, uninterrupted service indoors or a particular user's experience. The Commission chose neutral labels after parties warned that calling the lowest tier “Emergency” could be mistaken for a service guarantee.

The decision also separates the precision used for reporting from the precision available to the public. Providers must submit coverage at 50-metre resolution or finer, but that detailed submission remains confidential. Public information will be displayed at the 250-metre road-segment level. The difference is defensible as a way to limit the release of detailed network data, but it means a resident will contest a coarser public representation than the one the provider files.

The CRTC is building a correction path around that gap. A challenge feature is planned for the next iteration of the National Broadband Map. Challenges will be shown publicly; the Survey team will contact the provider, examine its submission and may request a correction. ISED can then update the map. The Commission says it will consider a separate process if a challenge remains unresolved. That is a route to review, not a binding appeal or an automatic order to build a tower.

Validation is a loop, not a button

The Commission plans to compare provider submissions with several sources: crowdsourced information, performance drive tests and transmitter-site data that providers submit monthly to ISED. Its sampling will include rural, remote and Indigenous communities. When it identifies a discrepancy, the provider gets an opportunity to update its file; the CRTC says it will not routinely override the submission.

This design recognizes that no single test settles coverage everywhere. Drive testing is difficult across Canada's distance and terrain. Crowdsourced data can be uneven in places with fewer users. A model can give continuous national coverage estimates, but its accuracy depends on assumptions and calibration that may not be visible on the public map. Combining evidence gives the Commission more than one way to question a reported contour, while leaving the correction decision with the provider in the ordinary case.

Other boundaries matter. The standard covers currently deployed terrestrial technologies from 2G through 5G; satellite-to-mobile service is excluded for now. Operators report annually, with updates allowed after major network changes or to correct a file. ISED publishes the map twice a year. The new rules are scheduled to begin with Level 1 in the early-2027 Annual Facilities Survey; Levels 2 and 3 follow in later surveys.

The CRTC says the reporting standard will not directly improve service. Its intended use is to make gaps easier to identify and to inform policy, funding and future network decisions. That is a consequential role, but it is one step removed from investment. A corrected map may guide a grant, a municipal plan or an operator's build decision; it does not itself compel any of them.

The accessibility record shows why one signal scale cannot represent every need. Deaf and hard-of-hearing organizations said signal strength alone may not show whether a network supports reliable two-way video or video-relay services. The Commission will not require quality-of-service metrics in this standard, though it says users may challenge whether a mapped level meets local needs. Indigenous organizations also raised data-sovereignty and implementation-capacity concerns. Better visibility can help a community plan, but it does not answer who controls the data or whether a small provider can produce it at the required granularity.

Sources