Wireless Telecommunications

The Federal Communications Commission is currently in the midst of efforts to streamline infrastructure siting requirements for telecommunications companies, having recently undertaken a review of how state and local processes affect the speed and cost of deployments. But FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn hinted the FCC’s plan to step in on the state and local levels and apply one cohesive framework for siting could be hampered by its separate attempts to roll back Title II regulation.

Speaking at the Southeastern Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners conference in Atlanta, Commissioner Clyburn said a reversal of Title II would do more than erase the foundation for net neutrality. It would also undermine the basis for universal service programs and streamlining pole attachment regulations. Without Title II, Commissioner Clyburn noted, broadband providers who do not also provide a cable or legacy voice service will not be able to take advantage of the rights granted to them under section 224 of the Communications Act of 1934. “There is a lot of talk in Washington right now about preempting states and localities in the context of both tower siting and rights-of-way,” Commissioner Clyburn observed. “But they propose to rely on section 253 of the Act to do so. That provision can only be used if the provider is offering a telecommunications service. I am not sure how a 5G deployment with a LTE and VoLTE fallback will qualify as telecommunications service within the meaning of the Act if the majority’s attempt at reclassification goes through.” Commissioner Clyburn indicated she disagreed with the blanket preemption of localities in the management of their rights-of-way, noting that this approach “ignores that some of the most interesting ideas in infrastructure deployment have come out of the states and municipalities.”

This report examines the implications for communities of color of fifth-generation wireless technology (also known as 5G) and Smart City technology. Currently, major mobile network operators, such as AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile, and Verizon, offer the fourth generation of wireless broadband technology (4G). Over the next four years, these companies will start to offer 5G in select cities. 5G will facilitate the growth of Smart City technologies, which are tools that allow cities and counties to manage public services such as transportation and power grids more efficiently.

We can all agree that what we could do with less is the pull and push between federal, state, and local policymakers. We are in need of and should strive for a new era of cooperative regulation, that recognizes the states as laboratories of democracy, and your federal partners as a uniform guide where and when appropriate. So allow me to take some time this morning, to outline areas where we can work together, and other areas I feel, where states and localities should take the lead when it comes to privacy, universal service, pole attachments, rights-of-way access, and inmate calling.

Mobile devices have rapidly become one of the most common ways for Americans to get news, and the sharpest growth in the past year has been among Americans ages 50 and older, according to a Pew Research Center survey conducted in March. More than eight-in-ten US adults now get news on a mobile device (85%), compared with 72% just a year ago and slightly more than half in 2013 (54%). And the recent surge has come from older people: Roughly two-thirds of Americans ages 65 and older now get news on a mobile device (67%), a 24-percentage-point increase over the past year and about three times the share of four years ago, when less than a quarter of those 65 and older got news on mobile (22%).

The strong growth carries through to those in the next-highest age bracket. Among 50- to 64-year-olds, 79% now get news on mobile, nearly double the share in 2013. The growth rate was much less steep – or nonexistent – for those younger than 50.

[Commentary] Ask the usual suspects when the first 3.5 GHz smartphones are expected to hit the market and things get eerily quiet. A projected timeline from the CBRS Alliance showed the organization expects at least one handset to be approved by December 2017. But an alliance spokesperson also noted that such timelines are subject to change. Apparently, Verizon asked Apple for 3.5 GHz CBRS support in the next iPhone. When questioned on the topic, Verizon declined to comment on that or when it expects any handset, iOS or Android, to support 3.5 GHz. Neither Apple nor Samsung chose to comment, although ZTE told FierceWirelessTech that it does not have plans to introduce a phone with the 3.5 GHz CBRS band this year. However, carriers have shown interest in this band in 2018, and ZTE will be working with them on their requirements, according to a company statement. Of course, Qualcomm has announced 3.5 GHz support in the U.S. in the Snapdragon X20 modem. However, it’s not commenting on carrier or OEM roadmaps. Why so much mystery about when handsets are going to support this band when everybody is so excited about the opportunities the 3.5 GHz CBRS band promises?

For over a century, assessments of competition or the lack thereof have been central to how public policy treats the telecommunications industry. This centrality continues today. Yet, numerous foundational questions about this concept persist. In this paper, we chronicle how the definition of “competition” has evolved in economics and has been applied in the communications arena. The academic literature on competition hits an important inflection point in the mid-20th century with the development of “workable competition”: a term that is equated to “effective competition.” We find that while the concept of “effective competition” is central to policy formation at the Federal Communications Commission, the FCC’s own applications of “effective competition” are inconsistent. Given the centrality of this concept, and its inconsistent applications to date, we draw upon the seminal contributions to the development of the notion of “effective competition” to offer a modern definition suitable for application in 21st century communications markets.

Five Democratic Sens allege that AT&T's use of forced arbitration clauses has helped the company charge higher prices than the ones it advertises to customers. The senators pointed to a CBS News investigation that described "more than 4,000 complaints against AT&T and [subsidiary] DirecTV related to deals, promotions and overcharging in the past two years." But customers have little recourse because they are forced to settle disputes with AT&T in arbitration, according to Sens Al Franken (D-MN), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), and Edward Markey (D-MA).

"Forced arbitration provisions in telecommunications contracts erode Americans' ability to seek justice in the courts by forcing them into a privatized system that is inherently biased in favor of providers and which offers virtually no way to challenge a biased outcome," the senators wrote in a letter to AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson. "Forced arbitration requires consumers to sign away their constitutional right to hold providers accountable in court just to access modern-day essentials like mobile phone, Internet, and pay-TV services." Forced arbitration provisions such as AT&T's also "include a class action waiver; language which strips consumers of the right to band together with other consumers to challenge a provider's widespread wrongdoing," they wrote. When contacted, AT&T argued that arbitration is better for consumers than courts of law.

Wireless carrier T-Mobile has big plans for its newly acquired 600 MHz spectrum — a nationwide 5G network deployment by 2020. However, there’s a hitch. The repack of the TV band needed to clear the spectrum for wireless use won’t be finished until the middle of that year. So, the wireless carrier is trying to speed up the repack by enticing some stations to move their new channels earlier than required.

Gov Terry McAuliffe (D-VA) has signed a bill to advance the deployment of the small cell infrastructure needed for next-gen 5G wireless broadband.

According to a summary, the bill (SB 1282): "Provides a uniform procedure for the way in which small cell facilities on existing structures are approved by localities and approved and installed in public rights-of-way. The measure includes provisions that establish requirements applicable to the location of micro-wireless facilities. The measure also addresses restrictions by localities and the Department of Transportation regarding the use of public rights-of-way or easements and specifies when a permittee may be required to relocate wireless support structures."

Verizon scored another win on the spectrum front, securing early approval from US federal antitrust authorities to move ahead with plans to acquire 28 GHz spectrum from NextLink Wireless. A brief note posted on the Federal Trade Commission's website indicated federal regulators granted Verizon early termination of the waiting period implemented on deals under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act. That means the carrier now has the green light to proceed with its NextLink transaction.

The issue of license transfer from NextLink to Verizon is now before the Federal Communications Commission. Back in February, Verizon wrapped up its deal to acquire fiber assets from XO Communications. But that transaction also included an agreement to lease millimeter wave wireless spectrum from XO affiliate NextLink Wireless, with the option to buy “under certain circumstances.” And it seems Verizon was eager to get the ball rolling on a NextLink acquisition. NextLink gives Verizon access to a significant number of 28 GHz spectrum licenses in and around major cities across the country, including New York City, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Washington (DC), Chicago, Boston, Seattle, Miami, and Portland.