Wireless Internet

[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.

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.”

Reports of a potential wireless partnership between Sprint, Charter and Comcast have quieted speculation about a merger between Sprint and T-Mobile. But analysts say T-Mobile could play a role in any such arrangement.

Sprint Chairman Masayoshi Son struck a exclusive two-month deal to hold discussions with Charter and Comcast through July focusing on potential partnership arrangements. One such deal could include the cable companies taking an equity stake in Sprint and investing in the carrier’s network, through which they could presumably launch a branded service. But T-Mobile could join such an effort, Jonathan Chaplin of New Street Research wrote in a note to investors. A model that complex would be difficult to pull off, but it could benefit all stakeholders. “Actually, the best-case scenario (for T-Mobile) would be a four-way deal; however that seems tough to get across the goal line,” Chaplin wrote. “The worst-case scenario would see a Sprint/cable deal that leaves T-Mobile out in the cold entirely; we don’t think this is the most likely outcome either. And then there are a host of scenarios in between, where T-Mobile would benefit, potentially greatly, but without the negotiating leverage that many have assumed.”

[Commentary] Comcast and Charter are negotiating with Sprint to offer wireless services to their cable and high-speed internet customers. The real disruption may be how Sprint’s negotiations with the cable companies put a potential merger with T-Mobile USA in limbo. The parent companies of Sprint and T-Mobile, SoftBank of Japan and Deutsche Telekom of Germany, have been in negotiations to merge their American wireless companies. If Comcast and Charter are bidding for a stake in Sprint, then those Sprint and T-Mobile negotiations will be affected.

[Commentary] Sprint needs a deal. With a market value roughly equal to its $33 billion in net debt, a tie up may be the only way for Sprint to get the resources to invest enough in its network to remain competitive. A deal with cable would be bad for Sprint’s wireless competitors because it would reduce the likelihood of industry consolidation through the hoped-for merger of Sprint and T-Mobile . It also would lower the cost of offering wireless service for the two cable companies, further exacerbating wireless competition. The optimistic view is that Sprint is talking to the cable guys to get T-Mobile and its majority owner Deutsche Telekom to agree to a deal on more favorable terms.

The Citizens Broadband Radio Service (CBRS) has not even been born yet, but already major industry players want to change its basic character. CBRS, as its name implies, was conceived and approved by the Federal Communications Commission a couple of years ago as a broadband service for locally-focused businesses. The regulatory paradigm included both a large swathe of generally authorized access (also termed “licensed by rule”) channels that would be made available opportunistically to any entity and licensed channels made available on a census-tract basis for generally non-renewable three year terms. This generated quite a bit of opposition from larger carriers who insisted that the small license areas and short, non-renewable terms would make the band unsuitable for significant investment.

Yet the FCC stuck to its vision for this “citizen”-oriented service and adopted rules which are now effective, though users cannot be up and operating until the spectrum managers begin administering access to the spectrum.

The Federal Communications Commission approved a request by WorldVu Satellites Limited, which does business as OneWeb, to access the United States satellite market. The action paves the way for OneWeb to provide broadband services using satellite technology that holds unique promise to expand Internet access in remote and rural areas across the country.

This approval is the first of its kind for a new generation of large, non-geostationary-satellite orbit (NGSO), fixed-satellite service (FSS) systems. OneWeb proposes to access the U.S. market for its global network of 720 low-Earth orbit satellites using the Ka (20/30 GHz) and Ku (11/14 GHz) frequency bands to provide global Internet connectivity. The satellite system will be authorized by the United Kingdom, but needs FCC approval to provide service in the US. In order for large broadband network constellations to deliver services in the US, the FCC must approve their operations to ensure the satellite constellation does not cause interference to other users of the same spectrum and will operate in a way that manages the risk of collisions. The Order and Declaratory Ruling outlines the conditions under which OneWeb will be permitted to provide service using its proposed NGSO FSS satellite constellation in the United States. As such, this FCC action provides a blueprint for the earth station licenses that OneWeb, or its partners, will need to obtain before providing OneWeb’s proposed service in the United States.

The Federal Communications Commission took action to support the deployment of a nationwide network for use by first responders. The decision, consistent with duties entrusted to the FCC by Congress, will help ensure that state-built portions of the network are interoperable with the core network so that public safety officials can communicate seamlessly with each other during emergencies.

The FCC established the standards and procedures it will use to review state plans. The decision addresses:

• The timeline for states to provide notification of their opt-out decisions and file plans with the FCC;
• Information states should include in their plans to demonstrate compliance with the statutory criteria for interoperability with FirstNet’s network;
• Some of the technical criteria and standards that the FCC will use in evaluating state plans;
• The FCC’s review process, including participation by interested parties, treatment of confidential information, and the timing of FCC action; and
• The FCC’s process for documenting its decisions to approve or disapprove state plans.

In addition, in light of recent filings by FirstNet in the docket, the Report and Order directs the FCC’s Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau to issue a Public Notice seeking comment on one remaining element of the FCC’s review standard, after which the FCC will issue an order on that element.

The White House is gathering technology leaders on June 22 to discuss how the industry aims to drive economic growth in emerging technology areas like wireless broadband and drones.

Administration officials from the Office of Science and Technology Policy will bring in leaders from 25 technology companies and venture capital firms for an event titled “American Leadership in Emerging Technology.” The meeting is part of “tech week,” an initiative aimed at bolstering the Trump administration's relationship with the technology industry — which has been contentious — and the administration’s own information technology infrastructure. The event at the White House departs from tech week’s previous focus on modernizing technology within the federal government and instead will focus on “outward facing tech policy,” and “defending America’s leadership in the technology economy.” Jared Kushner is slated to be at the event, along with other administration officials and advisers including Ivanka Trump, Director of the National Economic Council Gary Cohn and Deputy US Chief Technology Officer Michael Kratsios.

The tech leaders will break into three working groups to discuss drones, 5G wireless broadband and the Internet of Things (IoT), and financing emerging technology before meeting with President Trump to discuss the breakout sessions.

No matter what Americans do to protect their digital privacy, especially on our handheld devices, it’s impossible to keep up with new threats. Now, there’s a new risk to our privacy and security: Our cell phone numbers are being used increasingly by information brokers as the window to personal information that’s kept by nearly all corporations, financial institutions, and, yes, social media networks.

Among those sounding the alarm bell is private investigator and former FBI agent Thomas Martin, who recently wrote an article titled, “Your cell phone number is your new Social Security number.” Martin’s message was clear: We are way too lackadaisical about keeping our numbers private. “If someone you had just met asked you for your social security number, you would likely not give it to them. What if the same person asked you for your cell phone number? My guess is that you would readily tell them the ten-digit number,” he writes. Well, too many of us are likely to divulge our ten-digit number in a flash, as millions of us do in stores and online on a daily basis. Your cell phone number, unique to you, is the gateway to your identity. It provides an entrance to all the data contained on your phone, and can connect your other information to you – your email address, physical address—everything.