Wireless Telecommunications

Microsoft introduced an initiative, the Microsoft Rural Airband project. Microsoft will invest an unspecified amount of money with existing rural broadband carriers to bring broadband to 2 million people in rural America by 2022. Microsoft will help fund projects that use TV white spaces spectrum for wireless broadband. It’s a technology they believe in and have deployed in 20 projects across the globe, serving about 185K subscribers.

TV white spaces spectrum is in the 600 MHz band and offers good propagation and distance characteristics. Microsoft is also calling on federal, state, and local governments to play a role. They are advocating appropriate spectrum use policies with the FCC to ensure nationwide unlicensed use of three channels below the 700 MHz band. They are calling on matching funds from any federal and state infrastructure spending to include TV white spaces technology options.

Anyone who has spent half a minute working on wireless communications issues knows that America’s wireless providers need additional spectrum to expand existing network capacity and/or deploy new technologies (e.g., 5G). Such constraints apply to both licensed and unlicensed spectrum users. While spectrum isn’t necessarily finite, current technical limitations make it so. This means that there is constant and appropriate pressure on the Federal Communications Commission to identify underutilized spectrum bands and reallocate them for new commercial purposes. Next generation wireless networks will require high, mid and low band spectrum.

While the Commission has taken steps to provide high and low band resources, more attention needs to be paid to the mid bands. So, when presented with a viable proposal that would free spectrum for licensed and unlicensed purposes while protecting or accommodating incumbent licensees, the Commission should grab it with both hands and rejoice. That exact scenario presents itself in the 3.7 to 4.2 GHz and 6 GHz bands. The Commission has the chance to reallocate key bands in a way that would provide needed spectrum for both licensed and unlicensed networks without harming incumbent users. Accordingly, we should tee up the private sector idea outlined above in a quick manner -- whether as part of a longer Notice of Inquiry or a separate, more targeted proceeding -- in the very near future. I, for one, believe doing otherwise would put U.S. spectrum leadership in question and threaten the longevity and viability of America’s broad wireless community.

Experts and government officials say 911 systems across the country are dangerously outdated and putting lives at risk, while 911 fees consumers pay on monthly phone bills to maintain and upgrade the systems are often diverted by states for other uses. In fact, Scripps found that two dozen states were named “diverters” by the Federal Communications Commission at least once from 2008-2015, and some were repeat offenders. Experts warn that the nation’s antiquated patchwork of 911 systems is an easy target for hackers who want to wreak havoc and criminals who want to hijack 911 and demand a ransom.

[Commentary] Newly-minted Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai has repeatedly stated that one of his top priorities is to “increase infrastructure and innovation.” Taking the chairman at his word, developing an efficient, transparent and expedited process to allow existing license holders to convert their spectrum in underutilized bands to a higher-value use should be at the top of his “to do” list. In so doing, we short-circuit the laborious task of identifying, clearing and auctioning potential “greenfield” bands of government spectrum (although as spectrum is always in short supply, those efforts should certainly continue) and provide a powerful incentive for existing license holders to convert their spectrum through relatively quick regulatory changes for use in enterprise partnerships; consumer-focused commercial endeavors; or sold in the secondary market for other purposes. Under these scenarios, more high-value commercial spectrum would be available for advanced wireless services which, in turn, will lead to more investment, innovation and infrastructure deployment.

If Chairman Pai is truly serious about increasing infrastructure and innovation, then he needs to send a loud and clear signal that the FCC is “open for business” for repurposing spectrum from low to high value uses. The Commission has a unique opportunity to bring much-needed spectrum for commercial use on its own motion without having to deal with the bureaucracy of the rest of the federal government. It need only seize it.

[Lawrence J. Spiwak is the president of the Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal and Economic Public Policy Studies]

The American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico has sued the city of Albuquerque, seeking records by the city’s police department about its use of stingrays, also known as cell-site simulators. In May 2017, the ACLU of New Mexico filed a public records request to the Albuquerque Police Department (which has been under federal monitoring for years), seeking a slew of information about stingrays. The requested info included confirmation on whether the police had stingrays, "policies and procedures," and contracts with the Harris Corporation, among other materials. Albuquerque denied many of these requests, citing a state law that allows some public records to be withheld on the grounds that they reveal "confidential sources, methods." So, the week of July 3, the ACLU of New Mexico sued.

The Federal Communications Commission’s Universal Service Fund initiatives are important, complex programs that are as necessary as they are challenging to manage. The Government Accountability Office Lifeline report provides additional evidence that flaws in these programs can be used by unscrupulous actors seeking to line their own pockets at the expense of taxpayers and populations truly in need; and that while the FCC’s Lifeline program is essential to those that need it, there is significant room for both improved efficiency and performance.

Chip maker Qualcomm is asking US trade authorities to ban imports of Apple products, including iPhones, that don’t use its processors. Qualcomm said it will formally request that the US International Trade Commission (ITC) temporarily ban the imports to “stop Apple’s unlawful and unfair use of Qualcomm’s technology.”

The company is accusing Apple of infringing on its patents. “Qualcomm’s inventions are at the heart of every iPhone and extend well beyond modem technologies or cellular standards,” Qualcomm general counsel Don Rosenberg said in a statement. “The patents we are asserting represent six important technologies, out of a portfolio of thousands, and each is vital to iPhone functions. Apple continues to use Qualcomm’s technology while refusing to pay for it.” The chip maker is also suing Apple to prevent it from selling any of products that have already been imported.

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.