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.
Posted by: Jim Cicconi on June 28, 2010 at 3:17 pm
Today’s Presidential Memorandum on spectrum policy, and the public comments of the President’s top economic advisor, are both encouraging and timely. At AT&T, we are already dealing with phenomenal increases in mobile broadband use — a whopping 5,000 percent over the last three years. However, the potential of wireless broadband to drive innovation and connect every American to the Internet will be limited without bold action to address the spectrum crunch that all providers face, and today’s action signals this Administration’s commitment to do just that.
Spectrum deficiencies, if left unaddressed, will limit job growth and investment, harm consumers, and hobble innovation. And just as all wireless carriers will face these spectrum deficiencies, all carriers should be allowed a fair chance to acquire the spectrum their customers need. We look forward to working with the Administration as it moves to meet the spectrum goals outlined in the National Broadband Plan, and now endorsed by the President.
Posted by: AT&T Blog Team on June 24, 2010 at 11:32 am
Authored By Jeanine Poltronieri, AT&T Assistant Vice President-Federal Regulatory
In the FCC’s 14th Annual Wireless Competition Report, the Commission spends a lot of time discussing investment. It also delves into profits. Now, before your eyes glaze over, stick with me on this. I’ll try to be brief.
The Commission analyzes capital investment and concludes that it is “robust” but “declining relative to industry size.” An analysis of either of these areas may be helpful. But why link them together?
The idea of comparing investment to industry size was proposed last year in comments filed by certain interest groups. They specifically focused on the capex and revenues of AT&T and Verizon and concluded that there was a decline in investment compared to profits. This decline, they said, is “a strong sign that providers are not competing on non-price factors such as investment.” In its report, the FCC adopted this idea but broadened the capex/revenues comparison to include the whole industry, rather than just AT&T and Verizon.
The notion that this comparison is a cause of concern, let alone the idea that this comparison demonstrates increased levels of concentration or declining competition , is simply untrue. AT&T made these points in our comments, but they bear repeating here.
Posted by: Joan Marsh on June 4, 2010 at 12:14 pm
One of the many things that caught my eye in the FCC’s most recent Wireless Competition Report is a detailed analysis of carrier spectrum holdings. Not surprising – spectrum has been called the lifeblood of the industry.
In the report, the Commission takes an in-depth look at who holds what and where. But they draw a line at 1 GHz, giving spectrum holdings below this level its own set of stats. As a wise man once said, “Statistics are like a bikini. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital.”
So let’s look first at what the 1 GHz analysis reveals. The Commission concludes that lower frequency bands, such as the 700 MHz and Cellular, “possess more favorable intrinsic spectrum propagation characteristics than spectrum in high bands.” True, but not particularly vital. From a historical perspective, the introduction of 120 MHz of PCS spectrum at 1.9 GHz revolutionized the industry, clearly demonstrating that higher-band spectrum can and has played a significant role in fostering competition.
Backing the notion of “favorable” low band propagation characteristics, the report cites a propagation model developed to estimate coverage requirements in different bands. The model concludes that lower frequency spectrum requires fewer sites. We agree. But while such models have abstract validity, they say little about the capacity-centric deployments that network providers are designing today to support 3G and 4G services.
Posted by: Carl Povelites on May 27, 2010 at 2:13 pm
I have now been in the wireless industry for more than 20 years. With the release of the FCC’s 14th Annual Wireless Competition Report, I’ve begun to wonder whether I have been sleeping the last couple of years or whether I am on the show Lost (maybe living in an alternative universe?). For those who know me, I am no beauty and I certainly don’t get enough sleep (although I do enjoy my naps), I have come to conclude that it is the latter and the smoke monster is very disconcerting.
Having been around awhile, I lived through the early days when the states and the FCC were grappling with how they were going to regulate this thing called wireless (actually, we called it cellular then – yes, I’m that old). Remember, the wireless sector was conceived as competitive with two licenses being awarded in each market. In these early days, we were busy running from state to state, filing Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCNs) in order to get approval to build facilities and start offering services to customers. In many states, we filed tariffs and even had to file tariff changes 30 days in advance for any promotion that we wanted to offer (this made it so much simpler to find out what your competitor was up to ahead of time – now all we have are rumors in the blogosphere). Eventually, the industry was deregulated in many states.
With the passage of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act in 1993, Congress authorized spectrum auctions and set forth a National Framework for the regulation of wireless, preempting states on entry and rate regulation. It also set forth the requirement for the FCC to produce its annual competition report. With the PCS spectrum auctions, competition and the competitive nature of wireless were cemented.