SignalSolved

Our Methodology

How we turn raw data into an honest, sourced answer — and what we refuse to do.

Last updated .

1. Interpreting availability claims

Our current site offers guides and phone-network tools, not an address or ZIP availability checker. When discussing availability evidence, we distinguish four levels; these are not live results for your location:

  • Available — supported by reliable, sufficiently specific data.
  • Likely available — area-level or strong indirect evidence, not address-confirmed.
  • Check with provider — signals exist, but precision or freshness is insufficient to assert it.
  • Not enough data — no reliable source; we show guidance, not a claim.

We never upgrade a result because of a commercial relationship. ZIP/area results are exploratory; address-level claims require address-level data.

2. Confidence levels

The project defines confidence badges using source tier × geographic specificity × freshness:

Confidence: High Official, recent data that is address-specific or provider-confirmed. How we score Confidence: Medium Official area-level data, or a provider map with known limitations. How we score Confidence: Low ZIP/city-level, older, partial, or crowdsourced data. How we score Confidence: Unknown No reliable source — we show guidance, not a claim. How we score

The exact “freshness” windows are per-source and are being calibrated as real datasets are integrated; until then we apply the qualitative model above and lean conservative.

3. Rankings & “best” lists

We do not currently publish local provider rankings. Any future list would require objective, weighted, published criteria: realistic availability at the location, technology tier (fiber generally beats cable/5G-home, which beat DSL/satellite, context-depending), typical performance from cited sources, reliability signals where reputable data exists, and value. Rules we hold to:

  • Weights are explicit and published; changes are logged with dates.
  • Commercial status is excluded from scoring inputs.
  • If a place lacks sufficient sourced local data, we do not publish a ranking.
  • Every figure shown is sourced and dated.

4. Composite scores

Area scores are not available on this site. A future “good for remote work” score would need multiple records (is fiber present? cable? 5G home? cell coverage by carrier? typical speeds? redundancy?) through a transparent rubric. It would need to show the inputs, cap precision at the weakest input’s resolution, display the score’s confidence and as-of date, and never imply a guarantee.

5. Data handling

  • Source tier and freshness drive conflict resolution when sources disagree.
  • Missing data becomes unknown — never fabricated.
  • Modeled data (for example, mobile coverage) is labeled and caveated, never treated as ground truth.

6. What our methodology must never do

  • Let affiliate or sponsor status change availability, confidence, or rank.
  • Present precision beyond what the data supports.
  • Publish rankings without sufficient, sourced local data.
  • Use unlicensed data for user-facing claims.

Read our corrections policy and current contact status. Public submissions are not available.

Frequently asked questions

Why does a coverage guide not confirm availability?

Sources differ in age and geographic precision. We do not run a live address checker. A provider must confirm whether it can supply your specific location.

Do affiliate relationships change your results or rankings?

No. Commercial status is excluded from scoring and ranking inputs. Affiliate or sponsored links are labeled and never upgrade an availability result, confidence level, or rank.