Fabric Challenge Processing

The process by which the FCC reviews a submitted challenge to the Broadband Serviceable Location Fabric depends on the category code of the challenge. All Fabric challenges undergo a series of automated validations. Some types of challenges, such as requests to add or remove locations, also undergo visual verification, or manual review, where a trained team of reviewers look at aerial and/or satellite imagery.

Your chances of submitting a successful challenge or change to the Fabric will improve if you use GIS software to spatially compare the locations of Broadband Serviceable Locations (BSLs) in the Fabric to your location data to ensure that the spatial tests described below do not trigger a rejection (for more details, please see How to Align Your Location Data to the Broadband Serviceable Location Fabric). Additionally, double-checking that any address data provided is not duplicated as a primary or secondary address is critical (for more details, please see Fabric Challenge Address Standardization and Duplicates).

Information is returned back to challengers for each Fabric challenge that fails one of the automated validations or is rejected during manual review.  For more details about these response code values, please see Fabric Challenge Response Codes.

Type 1 Category Code Challenges (Missing Location)

Challenges seeking to add a new location that is missing from the Fabric are reviewed using both a series of automated checks and visual verification. We perform the following sequence of validations:

1. Spatial Validity: spatial validation to ensure the challenger-supplied coordinates for the location do not violate certain geospatial constraints:
   1. ensure that the coordinates do not overlap with the structural footprint for an existing location (response code 1.3, including the location_id of the conflicting point provided by the BDC system);
   2. ensure that the coordinates do not overlap with an “entity boundary”, e.g., a college, military installation, or prison (response code 1.4);
   3. ensure that the coordinates do not overlap with a single location parcel for an existing location (response code 1.7);
   4. ensure that the coordinates do not overlap with a road (response code 1.8);
   5. ensure that the coordinates do not overlap with the challenger-supplied coordinates for an existing challenge, e.g. the same coordinates were provided for two or more type 1 challenges in the same bulk submission  (response code 1.9).
2. Building Type Code: validate whether the challenger-supplied building type code is a broadband serviceable building type, i.e., is one of building type codes “R”, “B”, “X”, or “G” (response code 1.13).
3. Duplicate Address: validate whether the challenger-supplied address conflicts with an existing active location (response code 1.1) or with the primary address of another challenge (response code 1.11).  The location_id of the Fabric location that has the conflicting address is returned by the BDC system.
   • Please note: If there is a conflict with an existing active location, we look to see whether the challenger separately included a Type 2 category code challenge (change primary address) for the conflicting location in its larger submission. In such a case, if the Type 2 challenge is otherwise valid, we process that through, thus removing the conflict with the Type 1 challenge’s address, and then proceed with processing the Type 1 challenge.
4. Invalid Address: validate whether the challenger-supplied address is reasonable for the challenger-submitted coordinates, e.g., whether the CASS-standardized, challenger-supplied street name matches the name of the nearby street (response code 1.2).
5. Manual Review: validate whether the challenger-supplied coordinates for the location overlap with a structure that has the characteristics of broadband serviceability consistent with visual analysis of the location (response code 1.5).
   • Please note: where a challenger has submitted a large number of challenges that pass all earlier validations, we first select a sample of these challenges to run through manual review; where an insufficient percentage of these sample-selected challenges pass manual review, the remaining challenges queued for manual review are not considered (response code 1.25).
6. Unit Count Analysis: validate whether the challenger-supplied unit value is reasonable for the existing BSL, e.g., the count of units is expected based upon the size of the structure, the land use value, and the building type code.
   • Please note: if the challenge fails this validation but has passed all earlier validations, the challenge is considered successful but the challenger-supplied unit count will be overridden with a value within the range of reasonable unit counts.

As part of the Duplicate Address and Invalid Address validations, the challenger-supplied address is processed through a CASS address standardization tool, as described in Fabric Challenge Address Standardization and Duplicates.

Type 2 Category Code Challenges (Change Primary Address)

For challenges seeking to change the address for an existing location in the Fabric, we perform the following sequence of automated validations:

1. Duplicate Address: validate whether the challenger-supplied address conflicts with an existing active location (response code 2.1).
2. Invalid Address: validate whether the address is reasonable for the existing location’s coordinates, e.g., whether the CASS-standardized, challenger-supplied street name matches the name of the nearby street (response code 2.2).

As part of the Duplicate Address and Invalid Address validations, the challenger-supplied address is processed through a CASS address standardization tool, as described in Fabric Challenge Address Standardization and Duplicates.

Type 3 Category Code Challenges (Change Unit Count)

For challenges seeking to change the unit count for an existing location in the Fabric, we perform the following sequence of automated validations:

1. Spatial Validity:  spatial validation to ensure the challenger-supplied units for the location do not violate certain geospatial constraints:
   1. ensure that the location is not within an “entity boundary”, e.g., a college, military installation, or prison (response code 3.1).
2. Unit Count Analysis: validate whether the challenger-supplied unit value is reasonable for the existing BSL, e.g., the count of units is expected based upon the size of the structure, the land use value, and the building type code (response code 3.2).

Type 4 Category Code Challenges (Change Building Type)

For challenges seeking to change the building type code for an existing location in the Fabric, we perform the following sequence of validations:

1. Spatial Validity: spatial validation to ensure the challenger-supplied building type code for the location does not violate certain geospatial constraints:
   1. ensure the location is not within an “entity boundary”, e.g., a college, military installation, or prison (response code 4.1).
2. Manual Review: validate whether, based upon a manual review of satellite imagery, the challenger-supplied building type code for the location is consistent with visual analysis of the location (response code 4.5). 

Type 5 Category Code Challenges (Move Location)

For challenges seeking to move the geographic coordinates (latitude / longitude) of an existing, active location, we perform the following automated validations:

1. Spatial Validity: spatial validation to ensure the challenger-supplied coordinates for the location do not violate certain geospatial constraints:
   1. ensure new latitude and longitude do not overlap with an existing entity boundary (response code 5.1);
   2. ensure new latitude and longitude fall within the parcel boundary for the existing location (response code 5.2).
   3. ensure new latitude and longitude do not overlap with the structural footprint for an existing location (response code 5.3);

Type 6 Category Code Challenges (Remove Location)

For challenges seeking to remove an existing location from the Fabric, we perform the following sequence of validations:

1. Spatial Validity: spatial validation to ensure the challenger-supplied build type code for the location does not violate certain geospatial constraints:
   1. ensure the location is not within an “entity boundary”, e.g., a college, military installation, or prison (response code 6.1).
2. Manual Review: validate whether, based upon a manual review of satellite imagery, the coordinates for the existing location do not overlap with a structure that has the characteristics of broadband serviceability consistent with visual analysis of the location (response code 6.5).
   • Please note: where a challenger has submitted a large number of challenges that pass all earlier validations, we first select a sample of these challenges to run through manual review; where an insufficient percentage of these sample-selected challenges pass manual review, the remaining challenges queued for manual review are not considered (response code 6.25).

Type 7 Category Code Challenges (Add Secondary Address)

For challenges seeking to add a secondary (supplemental) address for an existing location in the Fabric, we perform the following sequence of automated validations:

1. Duplicate Address: validate whether the challenger-supplied address conflicts with an existing active location (response code 7.1).
   • Please note: If there is a conflict with an existing active location, we look to see whether the challenger separately included a Type 2 category code challenge (change primary address) for the conflicting location in its larger submission. In such a case, if the Type 2 challenge is otherwise valid, we process that through, thus removing the conflict with the Type 7 challenge’s address, and then proceed with processing the Type 7 challenge.
2. Invalid Address: validate whether the address is reasonable for the existing location’s coordinates, e.g., whether the CASS-standardized, challenger-supplied street name matches the name of the nearby street (response code 7.2).

As part of the Duplicate Address and Invalid Address validations, the challenger-supplied address is processed through a CASS address standardization tool, as described in Fabric Challenge Address Standardization and Duplicates.

Type 8 Category Code Challenges (Remove Secondary Address)

For challenges seeking to remove a secondary (supplemental) address from an existing location in the Fabric, we perform the following sequence of automated validations:

1. Primary Address: validate whether the challenger-supplied address is the primary address for an existing location (response code 8.1).

Fabric Challenge Processing Table and Order of Operations

Further reading and references

• Fabric Challenge Process
• Fabric Challenge Category Overview
• Bulk Fabric Challenge FAQs
• Challenge Resolution Information for Bulk Fabric Challengers
• Fabric Challenge Response Codes
• How to Submit a Successful Bulk Fabric Challenge
• How to Align Your Location Data to the Broadband Serviceable Location Fabric
• Fabric Challenge Address Standardization and Duplicates