A Few More Thoughts on Wireless

Posted by: Joan Marsh on August 17, 2010 at 4:57 pm

I got a lot of reaction to my original blog entitled Wireless is Different.  Some good, some critical, but all of it important to the debate.  I welcomed it all, especially the responses from those that disagreed, because it creates an opportunity for a better explanation, a more detailed understanding of what’s actually happening out there on our wireless networks.

Some just are not convinced that wireless is in fact different in any way that matters to the net neutrality debate.  While they didn’t rebut the fundamental points I made regarding the finite nature of wireless network capacity, they viewed the argument as a strawman for some underlying intent by wireless network providers to block apps and services at their whim.  At its core, this opposition is rooted in a fundamental concern about who is going to control the apps and services that wireless network providers deliver over their finite and shared wireless infrastructure.

The answer to that is quite simply:  the customer.  User consumption is fueling the new mobile broadband revolution and there is not a wireless network provider out there doing anything but trying to keep up.  Again, let’s turn to some facts. 

Read More

Wireless is Different

Posted by: Joan Marsh on August 13, 2010 at 2:23 pm

It’s now day four of the aftermath of the Verizon-Google net neutrality announcement and the number of voices weighing in on the matter continues to grow.  Monday’s news fanned what was already a passionate discussion.  And it also brought into focus a critical aspect of the net neutrality debate – the treatment of wireless networks in any net neutrality regime.

There is much misinformation out there about this issue, as well as a genuine lack of understanding about the limits technology and physics impose on wireless networks.  It was therefore a pleasant surprise to read Fortune’s take on the matter.

The article’s opening line sums it up: “Unrestricted access rules for wireless networks would hurt users more than help them. They just don’t realize it.”  We’ve been making this point for several months now but we can’t emphasize it enough:  wireless is simply different.

Wireless broadband is an extraordinary technology and has led to countless innovative (and really cool) mobile services.  It has completely altered how we communicate, play, consume news and information and watch videos. It plays an enormous role in our daily lives, and it will continue to do so at an ever-increasing pace.  But we have huge challenges ahead, defined by the ever-constant struggle between capacity and demand.  

Read More

AT&T’s Hultquist on USF Reform

Posted by: Margaret Boles on August 2, 2010 at 9:53 am

Cecilia Kang interviews Hank Hultquist on Net NeutralityOn Friday, AT&T Vice President of Federal Regulatory Hank Hultquist sat down with Cecilia Kang of the Washington Post to discuss universal service.  Click here to watch the full interview on Cecilia’s blog, where she headlines his view that, as universal service transitions to broadband support, entities that benefit commercially from the broadband Internet should contribute on an equitable and efficient basis to the federal Universal Service Fund.

In case you’re not a regular reader of the AT&T policy blog, check out Hank’s recent series breaking down AT&T’s key concerns surrounding universal service.

Read More

Commission (Almost) Bites Dog: Or the (not so) Hidden Meaning of the FCC’s Broadband Report

Posted by: Hank Hultquist on July 30, 2010 at 10:25 am

When I first heard that the FCC’s 6th 706 report would find, for the first time, that broadband in the U.S. was not being deployed in a reasonable and timely manner, I wondered, half in jest, whether the FCC would single itself out for blame as the culprit responsible for this unfortunate situation. To my amazement, the FCC came fairly close to doing just that.

Paragraph 28 of the report tells the tale – somewhere between 14 million and 24 million Americans lack access to broadband (defined in the report as a minimum of 4 Mbps/1 Mbps); these folks are disproportionately lower-income Americans and residents of rural areas; and, finally, private investment is not going to solve this problem because (citing the National Broadband Plan) there is no business case to offer broadband service in these areas. The report went on to say that “market forces alone are unlikely to ensure that the unserved minority of Americans will be able to obtain the benefits of broadband anytime in the near future.”

What is the significance of this?  Well, in conceding that no reasonable business plan would deliver broadband on a timely basis to these areas, the FCC has basically admitted that this report’s finding reflects a failure of public policy and not, as some have erroneously claimed,  a defect in competitive conditions in the broadband marketplace.

So, where can this public policy failure be found? Mostly in the failed universal service programs described in my recent blog series on USF. Section 254 of the Telecom Act directs the FCC (and state regulators) to base universal service policies on a series of principles, including that “consumers in all regions of the Nation, including low-income consumers and those in rural, insular, and high cost areas, should have access to telecommunications and information services, including interexchange services and advanced telecommunications and information services, that are reasonably comparable to those services provided in urban areas.”

Read More

AT&T Statement on Next Generation Public Safety Device Act of 2010

Posted by: AT&T Blog Team on July 29, 2010 at 2:22 pm

Background – Congresswoman Jane Harman has introduced the ‘‘Next Generation Public Safety Device Act of 2010,’’ legislation that directs NTIA to conduct competitions and award grants for the development of next generation public safety devices. The following statement may be attributed to AT&T Executive Vice President-Federal Relations Tim McKone:

“We applaud Congresswoman Harman for introducing legislation that provides a solid foundation for funding the development of next generation devices for public safety. Importantly, the legislation gives priority to projects that are interoperable with other commercial bands, which will give first responders the comfort in knowing that vital communications will work in emergencies.

“Also, AT&T believes that backward compatibility with 3G and 2G commercial networks should be a minimum requirement for public safety devices as it enhances interoperability for the men and women of the public safety community.”

Read More