ffic caused by connected things can be challenging or at least requires a different approach. Therefore, while MBB coverage-related KPIs (e.g. CPP) remain relevant for these use case that still needs to be supported, additional considerations need to be applied for network buildout for IOT/machine-type communications (MTCs), which are outlined below.1 MTCs are often used to control and monitor physical parameters of objects without human intervention. MTCs are characterized by sometimes unusual locations of devices generating traffic, and additional requirements unique to IoT, such as latency, lead to new challenges. Specifically, the following needs to be considered when planning an IoT network: Coverage extension to remote areas: additional cell sites may be needed to provide cover- age to connected things such as burglar alarms in solitary houses, supervision of remote technical equipment, smart farming devices, etc. This poses additional challenges (and expenses) as some of these devices will be deployed in areas where there are currently no humans at all and therefore no coverage. Densification: some IoT devices may be deployed in locations with bad path loss condi- tions, e.g. devices deployed in sewerage or in basements, etc. In that case increasing the maximum allowed path loss for a specific device (as is done with NB-IoT or CAT-M) is not sufficient or may lead to inadequate data rates for the expected service, and therefore the network may need to be densified. Multi-access edge computing (MEC): to support URLLC applications with extremely low latency requirements, edge nodes with compute resources are expected to move closer to the base stations, reducing trunking gains (i.e. gains realized by sharing equipment to provide services to many users) and increasing network deployment costs. Operator planning departments have established procedures, expertise, and tools for set- ting up deployment plans based on population maps and current traffic data. Furthermore, feedback from customers about coverage iss