Australia’s new mobile coverage maps make 4G and 5G easier to compare

Australia’s mobile coverage maps have long looked precise while being awkward to compare. One provider’s coloured patch could be based on different assumptions from another provider’s, even when both maps described the same road, town or property.

That changed at the end of June. Mobile network operators and virtual operators must now publish standardised maps for the 4G and 5G services they offer in Australia. The maps use a common predictive method, common modelling assumptions and four plain-language levels: **Good, Moderate, Basic and No Coverage**.

The result should make a provider comparison more meaningful. It does not turn a coloured map into a guarantee.

The [Australian Communications and Media Authority standard](https://www.legislation.gov.au/F2026L00381/asmade/text) required compliant maps to be published no later than 30 June 2026. Network operators must use the same outdoor predictive thresholds and modelling assumptions, including a 100-by-100-metre map resolution and a receiver modelled 1.5 metres above ground.

That common baseline matters more than the colours. Before it, providers could use different models and presentation conventions. The ACMA’s explanatory statement says those differences made maps difficult to compare and weakened their usefulness to consumers.

Now the four levels also come with descriptions of an indicative user experience. “Good” describes very reliable voice, quick SMS delivery and stable data suitable for high-bandwidth uses. “Moderate” is meant to indicate a stable everyday connection. “Basic” allows for dropped calls, delayed messages and slower data. “No Coverage” means a user should not expect or rely on service, even if a device occasionally finds a weak signal at the edge of a covered area.

Those descriptions are more useful than a single blanket claim that a network reaches a large share of the population or landmass. They let a reader ask a narrower question: what does this provider predict at the places I actually use my phone?

The most important text may sit beside the map rather than inside it. Every compliant map must include standard assumptions and limitations.

It shows where a compatible, correctly configured device is likely to connect **outdoors and at ground level**. It does not describe reception inside a house, shop, office, train or car. Building materials, room position and basements can all change the result. A handset may also lack the network bands or features needed to reproduce the mapped experience.

This is why the map should be read as a comparison tool, not a coverage certificate. A “Good” patch does not promise flawless reception in a kitchen with thick walls. A “Basic” patch does not prove that every call will fail. The standard narrows the modelling differences between providers, but local terrain, buildings, devices, congestion and temporary conditions still affect what a person experiences.

Temporary or planned outages are another boundary. The explanatory statement says providers are not expected to redraw predictive maps for short-lived outages. A map can therefore be current as a network model while a tower is temporarily unavailable.

First, compare the **same exact locations** across providers. A broad national view can hide the difference between a main street, a home on the edge of town and a road through hilly country. Zooming to the places that matter exposes the useful part of the common scale.

Second, separate the coverage levels. A large area of “Basic” is not equivalent to a smaller area of “Good”, even if both are technically coloured as covered. For calls or data on a regular route, the level is part of the claim.

Third, check whether the service is sold by a mobile virtual network operator. These brands use a host network rather than operating the radio network themselves. Under the standard, their published map must be substantially the same as the most recent host-network map they receive, and it must name that network operator. This makes the underlying network relationship easier to see.

Fourth, treat indoor performance as a separate test. The standard explicitly says the maps do not apply indoors or in vehicles. Provider trial periods, return terms, Wi-Fi calling support and experience from a compatible device at the actual location may answer a question that an outdoor model cannot. The map is a better first filter, not the final word.

Providers must keep their maps current and review them at least once every three months. If a network change alters the predicted coverage information, the operator must update the map as soon as practicable after becoming aware of it.

The maps must also be easy to find, available without a login or contact details, and published to WCAG 2.2 level AA or AAA accessibility criteria. Emergency services organisations and specified public bodies must be able to obtain the underlying geospatial data for analysis, although the standard does not require providers to release those datasets to everyone.

The [Australian Competition and Consumer Commission](https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/accc-welcomes-new-mobile-coverage-map-standard-and-warns-on-misleading-coverage-claims) says it will consider whether broader coverage claims align with the standardised maps when assessing future complaints. It also stresses that the rule does not itself govern every geographical claim made in advertising.

That is the quiet value of the change. The maps still cannot tell someone exactly what will happen in a particular room or moving vehicle. They can, however, make two providers answer the outdoor coverage question on much closer terms. For a technology map, speaking the same language is a substantial upgrade.