Summary

  • Telecom Decision 2026-258 creates three common outdoor mobile signal levels, but only Level 1 is due in the next Annual Facilities Survey in early 2027.
  • Providers must submit modelled coverage at 50 metres or finer resolution; detailed submissions remain confidential while public coverage appears at 250-metre road-segment resolution.

Analysis

The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission has approved a common way to describe mobile coverage. The design sets a shared signal scale, but it does not make a street-level promise about the service a customer will receive. The CRTC’s 2 October decision leaves providers’ predictive models at the centre of the reporting system, then adds validation and a future public challenge route around those estimates.

That distinction matters because providers previously submitted coverage predictions without a common definition of “coverage.” A provider could report an area as covered without indicating the level of service available, and operators used different methodologies. The CRTC said this made data harder to validate and maps harder to compare. The new thresholds give the Commission and Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada a more consistent input for the National Broadband Map.

The three levels are tied to outdoor signal strength and network generation. Level 1 ranges from -90 dBm for 2G and -100 dBm for 3G to -110 dBm for 4G and 5G. Level 2 sets thresholds for 3G and 4G/5G; Level 3 sets one for 4G/5G. The Commission associates Level 1 with the ability to support uninterrupted emergency voice calls with adequate audio and public alerts. Level 2 adds high-quality voice or video calls and at least 3 Mbps download and 1 Mbps upload; Level 3 raises those data thresholds to 10 Mbps down and 2 Mbps up.

These are capabilities associated with modelled signal thresholds, not a guarantee that a call or data session will work at a particular location. The CRTC did not require providers to report user-level latency, packet loss, jitter or call-drop data, so the level remains an estimate rather than a complete service-quality score.

The naming decision reinforces that limit. The research report behind the proposal used the labels “Emergency,” “Basic” and “Advanced.” The CRTC chose the neutral names Level 1, Level 2 and Level 3 because an “Emergency” label could be mistaken for a guarantee that an emergency call would work. The underlying model estimates signal strength from inputs such as network configuration, terrain, buildings, vegetation and propagation assumptions. The Commission says actual user experience may differ from those predictions.

The reporting layer will be finer than the public one. Providers submit their data at 50 metres or more granular resolution, but those detailed submissions remain confidential. The public map will show, for each 250-metre road segment, which providers, technologies and signal-strength levels are predicted to be available. This gives users a more comparable view without exposing each 50-metre model cell. A public 250-metre segment is still an estimate; it does not certify reception inside a building or at every point along a road.

The timetable is gradual. Providers report annually and may send corrections or updates between surveys after a major deployment or network change. In the next Annual Facilities Survey, scheduled for early 2027, they must report Level 1 only. Levels 2 and 3 follow in later surveys. The standard covers outdoor service for currently deployed terrestrial technologies, from 2G through 5G. It does not cover users in motion or indoor reception, and it leaves low-Earth-orbit satellite-to-mobile service outside the standard for now.

The public map is meant to become more than a display. The CRTC plans to validate submissions using several sources, including crowdsourced data, drive tests and transmitter-site information, with samples from rural, remote and Indigenous communities. When checks identify anomalies, providers will be told and given an opportunity to correct their submissions; the Commission says it will not routinely replace a provider’s data itself. A challenge feature is planned for the next National Broadband Map iteration. Challenged areas are to be marked publicly, while the Commission develops a process to review each case.

It will consider a further process if challenges remain unresolved.

That route may give communities a way to make a map discrepancy visible, but it is not yet a live appeals system. The challenge function, plain-language explanations and review procedure remain to be delivered. The CRTC also acknowledged that providers with limited capacity, including some Indigenous wireless providers, may find the required resolution and signal reporting difficult. It will provide staff assistance and engage with Indigenous providers, but its existing funding programmes are not designed to pay for administrative capacity.

The proceeding drew 99 interventions from individuals, providers, governments, Indigenous organizations, accessibility groups and other bodies. That record supplied a range of evidence; it was not a vote on the standard. The CRTC’s decision is the formal act that sets the requirements. The Commission says standardized reporting will not directly improve mobile service. Better comparisons may help governments, providers and communities identify gaps and consider where to direct future investment, but the decision itself funds no build and guarantees no coverage.

Sources