Enforcement and Benefits:

The regulator now has hard evidence to enforce SLAs. In the case of Carrier A’s coverage shortfall, they can present a report to Carrier A: “Our independent audit shows you only achieved 85% coverage in Region X, not 95%. Here are the anonymized data points backing this, all verifiable on-chain . Please submit a remediation plan or face penalties per your license agreement.” Carrier A, confronted with this level of detail (and knowing it’s pointless to argue against cryptographically verified data), must respond constructively – perhaps accelerating tower deployments or optimizing their network in that region.

• For Carrier B’s outage, the regulator might waive penalties if it was a genuine accident but will use the evidence to ensure better redundancy measures. More importantly, the public and enterprise customers gain trust that the regulator has real visibility. Carrier B might even leverage Authra data themselves to communicate transparently: e.g., “Yes, we had an outage on June 5, here’s the third-party evidence of it and we’re ensuring it won’t happen again.”

• Over time, the availability of Authra’s neutral data can reduce disputes. Often carriers contest traditional reports (like from Opensignal or Tutela) by saying the methodology was flawed. With Authra, any stakeholder can independently verify each piece of data (drill down to the proof if needed, see it was signed by a device’s TEE on a given date, etc.). This transparency discourages futile arguments and encourages carriers to just fix issues.

• The regulator also benefits from continuous monitoring vs. snapshots. Instead of an annual drive test campaign that provides a limited view, Authra gives them a 24/7, 365 feed. Trends can be spotted – e.g., maybe every day at peak hours, a certain region’s latency spikes (indicating capacity issues). They can prompt the carrier to address that proactively rather than waiting for complaints.

• Another benefit is public accountability. The regulator could choose to release some of Authra’s findings to the public via a web portal (since it’s all open data in essence). Citizens can see unbiased information about network performance in their area, fostering a more competitive environment where carriers are pushed to genuinely improve service, not just marketing claims.

Unique Value Proposition: In this SLA verification scenario, Authra’s USP shines where previous approaches didn’t:

• Verified Proofs vs. Self-Reported Data: Each data point is a proof (PoP + QoE) that’s independently verifiable . Traditional crowdsourcing (like Opensignal) provides useful stats but ultimately those require trusting the aggregator’s process. Authra provides evidence that could stand up in court if needed – every datum is backed by a chain of trust . This level of assurance is crucial for regulatory or contractual enforcement.

• Continuous, Real User Coverage: Authra captured data continuously across the country, including times/places that drive tests or installed probes would miss. For example, no traditional method would have full insight into that random June 5 outage or every remote village’s signal. By using regular people’s devices, Authra covers the “long tail” of locations and times – basically wherever human users are, Authra can be. This ensures that the SLA monitoring is not a one-time snapshot but an ongoing audit.

• Scalable Incentives vs. High Cost Testing: Getting this breadth and depth of data via old methods would require huge budgets (driving thousands of miles, installing many probes) – not scalable or timely . Authra did it far more cheaply by rewarding users with tokens (which, as we know, are partly funded by carriers buying data access). So it turns what used to be a big expense into a decentralized micro-incentive model, which is much more scalable. Millions of data points can be gathered at a fraction of the cost of a large drive-test operation.

• Neutral and Transparent: Neither the regulator nor the carriers solely control the data source – it’s decentralized and open . This neutrality reduces friction: carriers cannot claim the regulator’s data is biased (since it’s community-sourced and auditable), and regulators feel confident because they aren’t relying on the carrier’s word. In fact, carriers themselves can (and did, in the scenario) access the same data – it’s on a public ledger. This shared single source of truth changes the dynamic from adversarial to collaborative (at least that’s the hope).