Wireless Telecommunications

Lawmakers in 179 California cities including San Jose, Oakland and San Francisco are fighting a bill to streamline permitting for wireless antennas on public buildings, streetlamps and traffic signal poles that they say would limit local control over where they go. Senate Bill 649, by State Sen Ben Hueso, (D-San Diego), proposes scaling back permit processes for antennas and equipment in an effort to meet demand for wireless services. It would cap how much a local government could charge phone companies for leases to $250 per year, though it does not prohibit them from “mutually agreeing” to a charge that’s different.

Supporters say the proposed law could lower cell phone bills for customers, increase wireless access, allow the state to deploy 5G networks and help California remain a leader in the wireless industry. But the cities and counties opposing the bill say it would be a financial giveaway to telecom companies at the expense of taxpayers. Local officials, they say, would no longer approve the permits in a public hearing, and would lose their power to negotiate public benefits, such as network access for police, fire and parks.

For years Dish Network Chief Executive Charlie Ergen has sought out deals and partnerships with just about every major telecommunications company, from Sprint to T-Mobile to AT&T —so far, to no avail. Now, the satellite-television mogul is turning his attention to the technology world and a new—and somewhat surprising—potential partner has emerged: Amazon.com CEO Jeff Bezos.

The two men—eccentric billionaires with geek tendencies and shared interest in space and robotics—have gotten to know each other better over the past year and have discussed a partnership to enter the wireless business, apparently. Among the ideas: Amazon could help finance a network Dish is building focused on the “Internet of Things”—the idea that everything from bikes to Amazon’s drones can have web connectivity everywhere. Another idea is that Amazon, as a founding partner of Dish’s new wireless network, could offer an option for Prime members to pay a little more a month for a connectivity or phone plan, one of the people said. No deal is imminent and it is unclear if the companies will move forward with a partnership.

[Commentary] Telecommunications companies are preparing to roll out the next generation of wireless networks, dubbed “5G,” which promise an enormous increase in capacity and connectivity. These networks not only will increase competition in broadband, they are a key enabling technology for a host of advanced products and services. They also represent a gateway to better economic opportunities in inner-city areas that are underserved by broadband today.

But these new networks are different in structure and appearance too. Instead of high-powered antennas on tall towers, they rely on an array of lower-power transmitters closer to the ground that serve much smaller “cells.” That’s why mobile phone companies are concerned that cities and counties will throw up bureaucratic or financial roadblocks to 5G in their communities. It’s not a groundless worry; wireless companies already have encountered local resistance in places where they have introduced the new technology. It’s the look and the intrusiveness of the small cell networks that seems to spark the controversy. People are upset about the deployment of thousands of pieces of equipment the size of small appliances being placed strategically and liberally on publicly owned “vertical infrastructure” (that’s bureaucratese for municipal utility poles, street lights and even traffic lights). That means a lot of equipment in full view and in proximity — really close in some cases — to houses and people. The wireless industry has a solution to this potentially huge NIMBY headache: A bill in the California legislature (SB 649) that would “streamline” the approval process for putting small cell networking gear on public poles and lights. If it’s on property the government controls, approval would be automatic in most cases, so local governments couldn’t drag out the permitting process with public hearings and studies. The bill also would limit how much rent locals can charge the companies for space on their poles and lights.

The telecommunication industry has been pushing this “streamlining” strategy in other states, with various degrees of success. Eleven have adopted some sort of laws to limit the local permitting process and pole fees. Legislators in other states, like Washington, have been more skeptical. California’s lawmakers ought to be wary as well and show more interest in protecting the rights of communities to govern the use of their infrastructure, rather than letting telecommunication companies make those decisions for them.

AT&T is denying that its contracts include "forced arbitration" clauses, even though customers must agree to the clauses in order to obtain Internet or TV service. "At the outset, no AT&T customer is ever 'forced' to agree to arbitration," AT&T Executive VP Tim McKone wrote in a letter to US senators. "Customers accept their contracts with AT&T freely and voluntarily; no one 'forces' them to obtain AT&T wireless service, DirecTV programming, or other products and services."

AT&T was responding to concerns raised by Sens Al Franken (D-MN), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), and Edward Markey (D-MA), who previously alleged that AT&T's use of forced arbitration clauses has helped the company charge higher prices than the ones it advertises to customers. While AT&T is correct that no one is forced to sign up for AT&T service, there are numerous areas of the country where AT&T is the only viable option for wired home Internet service. Even in wireless, where there's more competition, AT&T rivals Verizon and Sprint use mandatory arbitration clauses, so signing up with another carrier won't necessarily let customers avoid arbitration.

Before the advent of the iPhone, if someone wanted to buy a cell phone, he or she would go to the carrier first. The phone itself — and who made it — didn’t matter as much as the service it ran on. The quality of the network mattered in the early days, and there was pent-up demand for a Verizon iPhone that became available in 2011. As it grew in market share, the iPhone shook up this dynamic, creating high demand for Apple’s iPhone instead of a phone on AT&T or a phone on Verizon.

Verizon Wireless said it is disconnecting a small group of customers who use vast amounts of data in rural areas where Verizon relies on roaming agreements with smaller network operators. "Earlier this month we notified a small group of customers who are out of contract and primarily use mobile data on other wireless companies’ networks that we won’t be their service provider after July 30, 2017," a Verizon spokesperson said. "This only affects a few people who primarily roam on other networks and does not affect customers who primarily use Verizon's own network."

The customers who are affected "are using vast amounts of data—some as much as a terabyte or more a month—outside of our network footprint," the company said. Verizon gave the customers several weeks notice so they have time to port their numbers to new providers. Verizon provided no option to switch to different plans. "We regularly review accounts with data use that primarily takes place outside of the Verizon network," Verizon also said.

RadioShack is going down swinging. With nearly all of its stores now out of business, the retailer’s creditors have sued Sprint and are accusing the wireless carrier of backstabbing RadioShack and destroying any hope of a great American comeback story. The creditors are seeking $500 million in damages, and are alleging that Sprint used a co-branding partnership formed between the two companies in 2015 to its own selfish benefit — and to RadioShack’s eventual doom.

This study evaluates the estimated impact of the Federal Communications Commission’s recent efforts to remove barriers to investment into next-generation wireless and wireline broadband networks, and thereby to accelerate the transition from legacy copper networks to next-generation services.

We estimate that these proposed changes could have a significant impact not only on new wireless and wireline broadband infrastructure investment, but could also positively impact job creation, economic output and consumer welfare. Our models forecast that with these new rules in place, up to an incremental 26.7 million premises would become economical to serve with next generation networks, driving up to $45.3 billion in capital investment. This investment would be made by incumbent service providers across the country and is expected to take place over at least five years.

Rep Mike Doyle (D-PA) has circulated a discussion draft of a bill to accelerate the rollout of 5G wireless. The 5G Acceleration Act would mandate action items and deadlines for the Federal Communications Commission. They include: Auctioning 200 MHz of new spectrum below 7 GHz, with the auction required to begin by July 1, 2025; submitting a plan in coordination with the National Telecommunications & Information Administration by Jan. 1, 2024, to balance licensed and unlicensed spectrum; submitting a report to Congress by Jan. 1, 2018 identifying 300 MHz of different below-7 GHz spectrum. And in the near term, the FCC must issue a Notice of Inquiry on making spectrum available below 12 GHz.

Rivada Networks said it received the top score among three bidders to build Michigan’s statewide public safety broadband network. But that doesn’t at all mean it will beat out FirstNet for its first statewide win.

Michigan’s Department of Technology, Management and Budget recommended that the state analyze Rivada’s bid alongside FirstNet’s proposal “to determine the best value bid for the state,” the company said this morning in a release. Michigan is the second state to select a vendor for a potential alternative to FirstNet, Rivada said, following the lead of New Hampshire, which is also considering Rivada’s offering. “We are honored that our alternative plan for public safety broadband in Michigan will have the chance to be placed side-by-side with the federal government’s offering,” said Declan Ganley, Rivada’s co-CEO, in the announcement. “By putting out this RFP (request for proposal), Michigan has given its governor a real choice, as envisioned in the legislation that created FirstNet.”