Wireless Telecommunications

Margarita Aponte and her relatives cleared the road in front of her house with two oxen Sept 24, then drove an hour from her devastated hometown in central Puerto Rico to the old telegraph building in the capital of San Juan. There, thousands of Puerto Ricans gathered for a chance at a resource nearly as precious as power and water in the wake of Hurricane Maria — communication. “It’s ringing, it’s ringing, it’s ringing!”

Aponte, a janitor, screamed as her phone connected to free Wi-Fi and her Facetime call went through to the mainland. Her eyes filled with tears as she talked with nephews, uncles, brothers and sisters in Florida and Massachusetts for the first time since Maria destroyed nearly every cellphone and fiber optic connection on this US territory of 3.4 million people. The low murmur at one of two free Wi-Fi hotspots is occasionally interrupted by the cheering of someone getting through the largely jammed network. Most spend hours frowning at their phones, unable to connect. “There’s no communication. We’re in God’s hands,” Yesenia Gomez, a kitchen worker, said as she left a message for her mother in the neighboring Dominican Republic. Dozens of other Puerto Ricans opted to pull over to the side of the road along various highways where cellphone signals were strongest.

[Commentary] The California Legislature wants to give telecom companies a nice big gift: at least $30 million a year, and perhaps billions of dollars in savings at the direct expense of cities that both rely on the money and use their current leverage to negotiate improved coverage for poor neighborhoods. Gov. Jerry Brown (D-CA) — or, perhaps more to the point, former Oakland Mayor Jerry Brown — has to stop it.

He should veto SB 649, which gives telecoms carte blanche to put their “small cell” antennas on any public property — street lights, public buildings — with a token fee, instead of negotiating with cities for the use of taxpayer-owned facilities.

It’s an outrageous giveaway to companies whose profits are in the tens of billions. And it’s a slap in the face to California residents and taxpayers, who shouldn’t be forced to allow access to public property without just compensation. It will raise serious liability issues, but lawmakers left that up to cities to resolve, even though they took away cities’ bargaining power.

The European telecoms sector has lost €100 million a day to disruptive technology companies over the past decade, says a report commissioned by Etno, the trade body that represents the region’s largest operators.

Europe’s telecoms groups have long complained about the burden of regulation on the sector, while more lightly regulated US and Asian tech companies have launched rival services offering communications and internet access — often using the infrastructure created by the national telecoms groups. The report, compiled by Accenture, warns regulatory change is required to create a competitive digital economy in Europe.

Verizon Wireless is giving a reprieve to some rural customers who are scheduled to be booted off their service plans, but only in cases when customers have no other options for cellular service.

Verizon recently notified 8,500 customers in 13 states that they will be disconnected on October 17 because they used roaming data on another network. But these customers weren't doing anything wrong—they are being served by rural networks that were set up for the purpose of extending Verizon's reach into rural areas. As Verizon explained in 2015, the company set up its LTE in Rural America (LRA) program to provide technical support and resources to 21 rural wireless carriers. That support would help the carriers build 4G networks. Verizon benefited by being able to reach more customers in sparsely populated areas. Customers with these plans don't even see roaming indicators on their phones, as it appears that they're on the Verizon network. But now Verizon is kicking customers off the network in cases when Verizon's roaming costs exceed what customers pay Verizon. Customers are being disconnected for using just a few gigabytes a month. Sept 22, Verizon said it is extending the deadline to switch providers to December 1. The company is also letting some customers stay on the network—although they must switch to a new service plan.

Verizon has had a change of heart regarding a portion of the 8,500 wireless customers whose service it had planned to cancel and will allow certain customers to keep service on plans providing up to 8 gigabytes of data per month. But, according to a Verizon LTE in Rural America partner, important questions remain about the impact of the Verizon rural wireless customer cancellations.

At least some of the Verizon wireless customer cancellations are in areas where Verizon uses a network constructed by a Verizon LTE in Rural America (LRA) partner such as Wireless Partners, which operates a network in rural Maine. The LRA program lets rural wireless carriers build LTE networks using Verizon spectrum and Verizon uses those networks to support service in those areas. Some of the customers who received service cancellation notices from Verizon are in areas where the network was built by Wireless Partners. According to a Wireless Partners spokesperson, the roaming charges that Verizon referenced are actually the charges that Verizon pays Wireless Partners or another LRA partner to use the network constructed using Verizon spectrum.

Apparently, T-Mobile US is close to agreeing tentative terms on a deal to merge with Sprint, a major breakthrough in efforts to merge the third and fourth largest US wireless carriers. The transaction would significantly consolidate the US telecommunications market and represent the first transformative merger with significant antitrust risk to be agreed since the inauguration of President Donald Trump in January.

The progress toward a deal also indicates that T-Mobile and Sprint believe that the US antitrust enforcement environment has become more favorable since the companies abandoned their previous effort to combine in 2014 amid regulatory concerns. The latest development in the talks between T-Mobile and Sprint comes as the telecommunications sector seeks ways to tackle investments in 5G technology that will greatly enhance wireless data transfer speeds. Once terms are finalized, due diligence by the two companies will follow and a deal is expected by the end of October, though talks may still fall through, apparently.

A potential merger of T-Mobile and Sprint could fare well with the Trump administration, which has telegraphed for months that it isn’t resolutely opposed to the combination of the country’s third- and fourth-largest wireless giants. For years, the two companies have flirted with a tie-up, and while talks became particularly serious in 2014, Sprint-owner SoftBank pulled the plug amid threats from the U.S. government that it would block the deal in its tracks.

Under President Trump, however, the Federal Communications Commission has reversed course and sought to deregulate the telecom industry. And the agency’s chairman, Ajit Pai, previously has said he doesn’t “take a preexisting view as to what the optimal market structure is” when it comes to the country’s four major wireless carriers: AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile and Sprint. “I don’t think any regulator who embraces regulatory humility and intellectual honesty about economics can say whether three or four or five [carriers] is the optimal number,” he said earlier in 2017. “What I do want to see is a competitive wireless marketplace.”

No one but Donald Trump’s pals on Wall Street wants to see this competition-killing, investment-killing and job-killing merger. There is no rational justification for T-Mobile to take over Sprint and remove yet another consumer choice from the marketplace. It’s motivated by pure greed and a desire to reach deeper into people’s wallets.

What’s obvious about the wireless market is that customers benefit most when the government has the wisdom to block such mergers. Competition driven by the smaller carriers is finally starting to pay off for consumers, but this merger would halt all that. The competition between T-Mobile and Sprint is particularly important for lower-income families who favor these carriers over AT&T and Verizon. Many people in these households rely on mobile as their only internet connection. If T-Mobile and Sprint merge, prices will spike and the digital divide will widen. The legal standard for approving giant mergers like this is not whether Wall Street likes it. Communications mergers must enhance competition and serve the public interest. This deal would do just the opposite: It would destroy competition and harm the public in numerous irreversible ways. So unless Ajit Pai wants his tenure at the FCC to go down as the worst for consumers in the agency’s 83-year history, the chairman should speak out and show us he’s willing to do more than rubber-stamp any harmful deal that crosses his desk.

Future 5G networks aim at providing new high-quality wireless services to meet stringent and case-specific needs of various vertical sectors beyond traditional mobile broadband offerings. 5G is expected to disrupt the mobile communication business ecosystem and open the market to drastically new sharing based network operational models. 5G technical features of network slicing and small cell deployments in higher carrier frequencies will lower the investment barrier for new entrants to deploy local radio access networks and offer vertical specific services in specific areas and allow them lease the remaining required infrastructure on demand from mobile network operators (MNO) or infrastructure vendors.

To realize the full vision of 5G to benefit the society and promote competition, innovation and emergence of new services when the 5G end-to-end network spans across different stakeholders administrative domains, the existing regulations governing the mobile communication business ecosystem are being refined. This paper provides a tutorial overview on how 5G innovations impact mobile communications and reviews the regulatory elements relevant to 5G development for locally deployed networks. This paper expands the recent micro licensing model for local spectrum authorization in future 5G systems and provides guidelines for the development of the key micro licensing elements. This local micro licensing model can open the mobile market by allowing different stakeholders to deploy local small cell networks with locally issued spectrum licenses ensuring pre-defined quality guarantees for the vertical sectors’ case specific needs.

In filings about the Federal Communications Commission’s forthcoming wireless-competition report, Free Press called out FCC Chairman Ajit Pai for misrepresenting the state of broadband investment following the agency’s 2015 network neutrality ruling.

The FCC is required by statute to compile this annual report to Congress on the state of the wireless industry. The 20th annual report is the first edition to come due during Pai’s chairmanship. The report is on the docket for the FCC’s next monthly meeting, which will take place on Sept. 26. During that meeting, the commissioners will consider and then vote on adoption of the final report. Chairman Pai released the draft of this annual report earlier this month. In a recent speech at an industry conference, Chairman Pai claimed that this draft contains evidence that wireless-industry capital investment declined from 2015 to 2016. He suggested that this decline is due to the FCC’s February 2015 Title II reclassification decision and adoption of open-internet rules.

Free Press sent a letter to Pai condemning the chairman for misusing this report and “once again misleading the public” to advance his “irrational vendetta” against the Net Neutrality rules the FCC put in place during the Obama administration. “The easily verifiable truth is that wireless-industry investments peaked in 2013, as carriers completed the bulk of 4G LTE deployments,” the Free Press letter reads. “Both that peak, and the ongoing decline from it, predate the entire proceeding that led to the 2015 reclassification of broadband as a lightly regulated Title II service. What’s more, this is by no means the only years-long downturn for the wireless sector: Such periods of slower spending are natural — and, in the recent past, have likewise occurred outside of recessions.” The Free Press letter includes detailed analysis that proves that this fluctuating trend is part of a larger pattern of investment that has nothing to do with the rules the FCC adopted to prevent internet-access providers from blocking, throttling or otherwise discriminating against the online communications of internet users. The letter also notes that many previous agency reports on wireless competition specifically caution against misinterpretation of short-term investment data. Yet the draft of Pai’s report provides no such historical context — and no warnings about investment patterns.