Medical, Home Alarm Industries Warn Of Major Outages As AT&T Shuts Down 3G Network

from the alarm-o-pocalypse dept

It was only 2009 that AT&T heralded its cutting edge 3G network as it unveiled the launch of the iPhone (which subsequently crashed AT&T's cutting edge 3G network). Fast forward a little more than a decade and AT&T is preparing to shut that 3G network down, largely so it can repurpose the spectrum it utilizes for fifth-generation (5G) wireless deployments. While the number of actual wireless phone users still using this network is minimal, the network is still being heavily used as a connectivity option for some older medical devices and home alarm systems.

As such, the home security industry is urging regulators to delay the shutdown to give them some more time to migrate home security users on to other networks:

"The Alarm Industry Communications Committee said in a filing posted Friday by the FCC that more time is needed to work out details. A delay of at least 60 to 70 days could help some customers who have relied on AT&T’s 3G network, although arrangements remain to be negotiated, the group said.

“It would be tragic and illogical for the tens of millions of citizens being protected by 3G alarm radios and other devices to be put at risk of death or serious injury, when the commission was able to broker a possible solution but inadequate time exists to implement that solution,” the group said.

If you recall, part of the T-Mobile Sprint merger conditions involved trying to make a viable fourth wireless carrier out of Dish Network (that's generally not going all that well). T-Mobile's ongoing feud with Dish has resulted in T-Mobile keeping its 3G network alive a bit longer than AT&T. So the alarm industry is asking both the FCC and AT&T for a little more time, as well as some help migrating existing home security gear temporarily on to T-Mobile's 3G network so things don't fall apart when AT&T shuts down its 3G network (currently scheduled for February 22).

AT&T gave companies whose technology still use 3G three full years to migrate to alternative solutions. And it's not entirely clear how many companies, services, and industries will be impacted by the shut down. But there's an awful lot of different companies and technologies that still use 3G for internet connectivity, including a lot of fairly important medical alert systems. Nobody seems to actually know how prepared we truly are, so experts suggest the problems could range anywhere from mildly annoying to significantly disruptive:

Again, this is all something that could have been avoided if we placed a little less priority on freaking out about various superficial issues and a put a little more attention on nuanced, boring policy issues that actually matter.

Filed Under: 3g, fcc, home alarms
Companies: at&t

Superbowl Ads Try To Make 5G Sexy, But Consumers Still Aren't Buying The Hype

from the big-yawn dept

For years now, wireless carriers have struggled to make fifth generation wireless (5G) interesting to consumers. While the technology does provide faster, lower-latency connectivity, that's more of an evolution than any kind of revolution. But in a bid to excite consumers (and justify high prices), wireless carriers have been pouring it on a little thick for years, trying to insist that 5G will somehow revolutionize the future, cure cancer, solve climate change, and generally turn America's urban landscape into the smart cities of tomorrow. And don't get me started on the "race to 5G."

During the Super Bowl, Verizon used Jim Carrey and T-Mobile hired Dolly Parton and Miley Cyrus to try and make 5G sexy, but most consumers still generally couldn't care any less about 5G:

"5G service has yet to really resonate with consumers, said Roger Entner, founder of Recon Analytics. Entner notes that out of monthly surveys of 3,000 consumers, 5G service ranks 5th out of 9 categories for the most important reason to pick a new wireless provider, and 9th out of 9 as a reason to leave a provider. "Just saying my G is bigger than your G — consumers don’t give a hoot," Entner told Axios. "And that’s because we really haven’t seen these must-have applications that are reliant on 5G."

On the one hand, wireless providers want to use 5G to target cable providers by offering home broadband services over 5G. The problem: these aren't companies that have ever been all that interested in competing on price. And wireless still tends to come with odd caveats that make it an inferior alternative to technologies like fiber or even modern cable.

Most consumer surveys show that consumers generally want two things from wireless providers: more reliable coverage and lower prices. The industry isn't interested in providing the second one (and thanks to telecom consolidation that's not likely to change anytime soon). And 5G range in the U.S., has been hindered by a lack of "middle band" spectrum in the U.S., which, unlike high band spectrum (fast speeds, short distances), and low-band (good range, slower speeds), provides both decent speeds at a decent range. The lack of said spectrum has meant that U.S. 5G deployments are generally slower than most overseas deployments, creating an even bigger chasm between reality and hype.

Desperate to make 5G more interesting than it is, wireless carriers have taken to over-promoting what the technology can actually do. This almost always involves taking something you could theoretically already do over 4G or WIFI (like giving someone a tattoo on the other side of the country! or using special effects at concerts!) then pretending it's only made possible thanks to the miracle of 5G. But time and time again, consumers have made it clear they're not buying it. It's even resulted in a 40% jump since 2019 in inter-carrier disputes over misleading ads, given even they know they're full of shit on the subject.

Filed Under: 5g, mobile, superbowl

Wireless Industry Now Claims 5G Will Miraculously Help Fix Climate Change

from the is-there-nothing-it-can't-do dept

For several years the wireless industry has been hyping fifth-generation wireless (5G) as something utterly transformative. For this whole stretch we've been subjected to claims about how the wireless standard would revolutionize smart cities, transform the way we live, result in unbridled innovation, and even help us cure cancer (doctors have told me it won't actually do that, if you're interested).

But in reality, when 5G arrived, it was a bit underwhelming. At least in the United States, where speeds were dramatically lower than overseas deployments due to our failure to make middle-band spectrum widely available. And at prices that remain some of the highest in the developed world thanks in large part to consistent consolidation and regulatory capture.

Yeah, 5G is important. But not in any sexy way. It provides significantly faster speeds and lower latency over more reliable networks. Which is a good thing. But it's more evolution than revolution. Consumers are generally happy with 4G speeds, and most consumer surveys suggest the number one thing they want is better coverage (which U.S. 5G has struggled to provide because middle band spectrum was scarce) and price cuts.

Hoping to excite consumers and regulators, wireless carriers have been desperate to come up with marketing that tries to frame 5G as utterly transformative. Usually this involves marketing that takes something you can already do over 4G or Wi-Fi, attaching 5G to it, and calling it a miracle. Like watching concerts (which you can already do) over 5G. Or getting a tattoo remotely (which you could technically already do over wired, Wi-Fi, or 4G broadband):

While 5G hype had slowed a bit in the last six months, the wireless industry jumped back into the fray with a sponsored report claiming that 5G will soon dramatically aid the fight against climate change. The industry study (which was quickly picked up and parroted by loyal telecom trade magazines) insists that 5G will quickly help the U.S. meet its climate goals (which most climate experts say were already woefully undercooked):

"In the United States, use cases on 5G networks are expected to enable the abatement of 330.8 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (MMtCO2e) across five industry verticals by 2025, which is an approximated 20% contribution towards US emission reduction targets at this time. This is the same effect as taking 71.9 million cars off the roads for one year or eliminating the annual emissions from 83 coal-fired power plants."

The report effectively goes on to argue that the very act of embedding faster, lower-latency 5G chipsets into technology in fields and factories will improve overall efficiency and communication speed. Which is true, but the idea that you could actually take these improvements and measure their impact on overall emissions across a parade of different technologies and industries seems suspect at best. And even if you could, the idea that companies will exploit these efficiencies to reduce carbon emissions--as opposed to simply utilizing these improved efficiencies to improve profitability--seems like a fairly sizeable and generous assumption.

The whole report is based on the concept that being faster and more energy efficient will just naturally lead to lower carbon emissions, through very "science-ish" sounding paragraphs like this one:

"5G can reduce carbon emissions through a more efficient use of energy per bit of data transmitted. We call this an “upstream” effect because of technical efficiency gains realized by the network itself. In addition to the upstream effect, widespread 5G adoption will bring a positive effect “downstream,” or changes that result from behavior changes stemming from technologies enabled by 5G’s higher speed or device throughput."

But just because you've affixed faster, lower latency chipsets onto hardware in a factory or field doesn't naturally always equate to greater efficiency, either. The underlying equipment being used could still be inefficient, polluting, and problematic. And any gains in efficiency could still be offset by just a countless array of other factors at the company, be it dysfunctional organization or dated equipment. Like with most claims, 5G isn't just some kind of magic lotion you spread on things resulting in everything somehow getting better.

The wireless industry certainly wants the public to believe 5G is magic to justify U.S. consumers paying some of the highest prices for wireless service in the developed world. But the hype serves another purpose: if you portray 5G as a near-mystical to the majority of societal problems, that increases the pressure on regulators to acquiesce to industry demands quickly and without much thought. If they don't (like say by questioning the need for more subsidies, blocking a problematic megamerger, or supporting basic consumer protections), they're enemies of progress and innovation.

Filed Under: 5g, climate change, exaggerations, overhype, overselling
Companies: ctia

Airline CEOs Freak Out Over 5G Despite Limited Evidence Of Real World Harm

from the everybody-take-it-easy dept

We'd already noted that the FAA had been pushing to impose limits on 5G deployments in certain bands due to safety concerns. The problem: the FCC, the agency with the expertise in spectrum interference, has repeatedly stated those concerns are unfounded based on the FCC's own research. The whole feud has been fairly bizarre, with the FAA refusing to transparently "show its math" at several points, but taking the time to leak its scary claims to select press outlets.

More specifically: the FAA (and a big chunk of the airline industry) claims that deploying 5G in the 3.7 to 3.98 GHz "C-Band" will cause interference with certain radio altimeters. But the FCC has shown that more than 40 countries have deployed 5G in this band with no evidence of harm if you implement some fairly basic safety precautions (like limiting deployments immediately around airports, and utilizing a 220 MHz guard band that will remain unused as a buffer to prevent this theoretical interference).

The FCC says there's not actually a problem here. And the wireless industry, having spent billions of dollars on middle band spectrum, obviously wants to move forward with deployment. Especially given criticism that U.S. 5G underperforms many overseas deployments thanks to a dearth of middleband spectrum. The U.S. has deployed substantial low band 5G spectrum (great range, lower speeds), and high band millimeter wave spectrum (poor range, poor building penetration, great speeds), but unlike many nations overseas, not much middle band (both good speeds and good range).

The whole C-band mess escalated significantly this week after the CEOs of several major airlines issued a public letter effectively proclaiming their businesses would grind to a halt if wireless carriers continue to deploy 5G in these spectrum ranges:

"The aviation industry faces “catastrophic” disruption from the rollout of a new 5G service this week, airline leaders have warned. In a letter sent Monday to United States transportation and economic officials and obtained by NBC News, the CEOs of major carriers said that the launch could ground flights and leave "tens of thousands of Americans" stranded overseas."

To be clear, evidence of actual harm here remains hard to come by. The FAA's own recent memos (pdf) stated there was no "proven reports of harmful interference" with C-Band 5G deployments anywhere in the world. And wireless spectrum policy experts tell me there's been absolutely no new studies that would justify this level of renewed freaking out by airline CEOs:

"We have seen no new evidence of anything,” Feld told Motherboard. “No new studies. No lists of altimeter equipment with their sensitivity to potential harmful interference."

When issues have popped up, they've proven relatively trivial to mitigate around the world. U.S. Wireless carriers have already agreed to limit deployment around at least 50 U.S. airports to reduce the chance of interference, and had agreed to a short delay to study harm before this week's deployment. After some initial squabbling between the FCC and FAA, all sides seemed to have basically struck a deal on U.S. 5G deployment in these bands, including that 200Mhz buffer (double what companies like Boeing recommended) to further limit potential harm.

But the real reason for the chaos isn't the actual interference. Some analysts suggest that, as usual, money is playing a role, and that the FAA, tightly wound up with the companies it regulates, wants to push the cost of any mitigation measures off to wireless carriers.

But Consumer groups, FCC sources, and wireless carriers all tell me the real problem is FAA procrastination, hubris and incompetence. Consumer groups and AT&T rarely agree on anything, but they both agree that the FAA didn't respect the expertise of the FCC (who again already studied this problem before the C-band auction and found little need for concern), wasn't willing to offer transparent evidence of their interference claims, didn't bring any of its concerns up years ago during the investigation process, and has lagged on both certifying altimeters it deems safe to use around C-Band 5G--and setting up flight restrictions for planes that have altimeters that don't qualify as safe under FAA guidance. AT&T was fairly blunt:

So it's not really clear why the CEOs of major airlines have dropped a doomsday-esque letter like this into the mix this late in the game (literally a day before initial deployments), given what little safety issues that do exist have already been addressed by the FCC and others. Just like it wasn't really clear why the FAA didn't want to listen to the FCC when it said there wasn't really an issue here that couldn't be easily mitigated. Especially given this same technology has already been deployed in more than 40 countries (in some cases, like Japan, even closer to spectrum ranges used by avionics equipment) with absolutely no evidence of harm. There's being adequately cautious out of respect for human safety, and then there's just being difficult.

Filed Under: 5g, airlines, airplanes, airports, faa, fcc, interference

Wireless Carriers Balk At FAA Demand For 5G Deployment Delays Amid Shaky Safety Concerns

from the regulatory-shenanigans dept

We'd already noted how the FAA had been making some shaky claims about how 5G deployments in the 3.7 to 3.98 GHz "C-Band" spectrum range posed safety threats to airline safety. More specifically, the FAA claims operating in this band poses a potential interference problem for airline altimeters. The problem: FCC data, and data from upwards of 40 countries where 5G is already deployed in this band, suggest the concerns are baseless, and that the FCC's decision to set aside a 220 MHz unused guard band to act as a buffer was more than enough to prevent any issues whatsoever.

It's been a bit of a weird story given the FAA's own documents have suggested that there isn't a problem. And the FAA, instead of initially working transparently with the FCC (the regulator with specific expertise on this kind of stuff), instead spent the last few months leaking scary stories to the press. The FAA then issued an order pausing all 5G deployment in this C-Band.

Deployment in this band matters to you because U.S. 5G performance has been largely mediocre, in large part because of our failure to make middle-band spectrum available for use. We've got plenty of high-band spectrum (high speeds, but limited range and poor building wall penetration) and lots of low-band spectrum (great range but slower speeds), but not much in the middle (a decent combination of speed, penetration, and range). Verizon and AT&T recently paid $70 billion to deploy this spectrum, and aren't keen on any additional delays for obvious reasons.

The two companies had already agreed to a 30-day deployment pause, and to lower the power of transmissions at this range. But in a letter to the FAA last week, the two balked at any additional, prolonged delays:

"At its core, your proposed framework asks that we agree to transfer oversight of our companies’ multi-billion dollar investment in 50 unnamed metropolitan areas representing the lion’s share of the U.S. population to the FAA for an undetermined number of months or years. Even worse, the proposal is directed to only two companies, regardless of the terms of licenses auctioned and granted, and to the exception of every other company and industry within the purview of the FCC."

AT&T and Verizon did agree to avoid deploying 5G around any airports for six months in a bid to mirror select exclusion zones currently adopted in places like France. Again, the altimeters and landing guidance systems the FAA is concerned about don't actually operate in this band, and the existing buffer and exclusion zones means transmissions shouldn't get anywhere close to causing a problem. But that doesn't seem to matter much to the FAA, which seems excited to flex its regulatory muscle here instead of working transparently and collaboratively with the agency that actually knows how these systems work (the FCC, a reality just reiterated by the courts).

Filed Under: 5g, faa, fcc, wireless

Dish's Hyped 5G Network (And 'Fix' For T-Mobile/Sprint Merger) Is Looking Rather Skimpy

from the good-luck-with-that dept

Two years ago the Trump DOJ and FCC rubber stamped the Sprint T-Mobile merger without heeding experts warnings that the merger would likely erode competition, raise rates, and kill jobs. Then, working closely with T-Mobile and Dish, the FCC and DOJ unveiled what they claimed was a "fix" for the problematic nature of the deal: they'd try to cobble together a fourth major replacement wireless carrier in Dish Network.

As we noted a few times the proposal was never likely to succeed. One, because Dish had no track record in this space outside of a parade of empty promises. Two, because the remaining three providers (AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile) want less price competition and would be incentivized at every step to ensure it fails. Three, because the government would likely dole out more than wrist slaps should Dish miss major build out milestones.

So far, things are going just about as well as you'd expect. T-Mobile has already laid off 5,000 employees, and the plan has been mired with endless squabbling between T-Mobile and Dish. And both the beta and commercial launch of Dish's 5G network, first in Las Vegas, keeps being delayed. There is technically a network operating in Las Vegas, but most folks in wireless continue to eye the company's plans with justified skepticism. Early analysis of the network that does exist isn't what you'd call bubbly, as both speeds and coverage are sorely lacking after repeated delays:

"They have some work to do to catch up," summed Emil Olbrich, VP of networks with Signals Research Group (SRG), in comments to Light Reading. He said Dish's 5G network in Vegas isn't as good as T-Mobile's 5G network in the city, but he said it's still early days for Dish and the company likely will improve its offering...the firm's initial findings indicate Dish likely isn't providing the blazing-fast speeds that other 5G providers are.

"They're going to have some issues," Olbrich said of Dish's efforts to refine its network in Vegas."

Here's the problem: to meaningfully build a nationwide 5G network that people actually like and use, Dish is going to need a massive trove of cash and to compete on price. But the company continues to bleed the customers it does have -- traditional satellite TV customers -- at an alarming rate. Here's the other problem: motivating T-Mobile to actually meet set FCC benchmarks (its network has to cover at least 70% of the U.S. population with 5G by 2023) requires regulators willing to impose major penalties and stand up to large telecoms, and the U.S. simply... doesn't have that (regardless of the political party in power).

The Trump folks who pitched this deal knew that. I'm fairly convinced this has always been a performance to justify approval, with the crafters knowing the end result will be a Dish face plant and reduced competition (and fatter revenues) in the wireless space. I also tend to think Dish is inevitably doomed, and this could just be an elaborate exit package for CEO Charlie Ergen, who could eventually sell off the company's massive spectrum holdings and existing build for tens of billions of dollars, throw a few nickels at any regulatory and legal penalties that result, and still ride off into the sunset with a fat stack of cash.

Filed Under: 5g, antitrust, competition, doj, fcc, wireless
Companies: dish, sprint, t-mobile

Another Report Shows U.S. 5G Isn't Living Up To The Hype

from the you-promised-us-a-miracle dept

Despite the relentless hype leading up to the deployment of 5G, and all the lopsided favors regulators gave wireless carriers on behalf of 5G, and all the lobbying and DC rhetoric about how the U.S. was engaged in a "race with China" over 5G -- U.S. 5G continues to be... largely mediocre.

A number of recent studies have already shown that U.S. wireless isn't just the most expensive in the developed world, U.S. 5G is significantly slower than most overseas deployments. That's thanks in large part to our failure to make so-called middle band spectrum available for public use, resulting in a heavy smattering of lower band spectrum (good signal reach but slow speeds) or high-band and millimeter wave spectrum (great speeds, but poor reach and poor reception indoors). The end result is a far cry from what carriers had spent the last three years promising.

Now another Ookla report has emerged showing that while U.S. 5G availability is going well, the actual speeds users are getting rank among the worst in the developed world:

"Ookla placed median 5G download speeds at 93.73 Mbps in the US, far lower than the UK’s 184.2 Mbps median and far lower still than South Korea, which led the pack at 492.48 Mbps. The U.S. placed around the same relative position for upload speeds as well."

To be clear 93 Mbps being delivered to your pocket is certainly nothing to laugh at. 5G delivers some very real latency and speed improvements for wireless networks. But these improvements were always more evolutionary than revolutionary, and even at their maximum potential were never going to live up to much of the ridiculous hype we've seen over the last few years (carriers have already started hyping 6G before 5G has finished disappointing us). But the U.S. isn't even matching the maximum performance seen in most nations around the world.

Ookla's coverage claims should also be taken with a grain of salt. Other reports on 5G show that even when 5G is purportedly "available," users have a hard time accessing it. This OpenSignal report, for example, found that Verizon's ultra-fast 5G variant was only actually available to consumers with 5G-capable phones around 0.8% of the time. A different OpenSignal report also found that availability wasn't all that great, and that U.S. wireless carriers routinely overstate coverage with their marketing maps.

Granted U.S. 4G networks were middle of the pack as well. And this is all before you get to the fact that U.S. wireless prices are some of the highest in the developed world. You'll routinely see most of these organizations never mention price, for fear of upsetting wireless carriers they generally have tight data-sharing business relationships with. They'll also never actually go beyond the purely technical to explain why the U.S. is consistently so mediocre (regulatory capture, increasingly consolidated carriers, feckless and underfunded consumer protection regulators).

Again, U.S. 5G speeds should slowly improve as the country pushes more middle-band spectrum to market. But even then, you can probably expect the United States to ultimately sit somewhere in the middle of the pack, a place it generally rests in most meaningful fixed-line broadband comparisons as well for reasons we've well explored.

Filed Under: 5g, competition, hype

FAA Ignores FCC, Limits U.S. 5G Over Unsubstantiated Safety Concerns

from the weird-standoffs dept

We'd already noted that the FAA had been pushing to impose limits on 5G deployments in certain bands due to safety concerns. The problem: the FCC, the agency with the expertise in spectrum interference, has repeatedly stated those concerns are unfounded based on the FCC's own research. Worse, the FAA has proven a bit intractable in providing the FCC with data proving their claims of harm. The FAA claims that deploying 5G in the 3.7 to 3.98 GHz "C-Band" will cause interference with certain radio altimeters. But the FCC has shown that more than 40 countries have deployed 5G in this band with no evidence of harm.

That didn't seem to sway the FAA, which prodded both AT&T and Verizon to pause deployment in the C-band. The FAA's refusal to listen to the FCC, or be transparent about sharing any data to support its claims, has pissed off the FCC. To the point where a bipartisan coalition of six former agency commissioners and bosses wrote a joint letter politely tut-scolding the agency for being bull-headed:

We are concerned about the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) recent efforts to revisit the FCC’s 2020 decision” to free airwaves for the fast 5G mobile service that’s to start next month, the six said in a letter dated Monday obtained by Bloomberg News.

“The FAA position threatens to derail the reasoned conclusions reached by the FCC after years of technical analysis and study,” the signers, a mix of Republicans and Democrats, said in the letter. They are Ajit Pai, Tom Wheeler, Mignon Clyburn, Julius Genachowski, Michael Copps and Michael Powell.

The weird thing is even one of the FAA's own recent bulletins (pdf) states there are no "proven reports of harmful interference" with C-Band 5G deployments anywhere in the world. Despite no evidence of harm, the FCC was careful to set aside a 220 MHz guard band that will remain unused as a buffer to prevent this theoretical interference -- technically double the amount manufacturers like Boeing requested. The FAA continues to maintain its claim, but so far has refused to provide the FCC with data proving it (but did manage to find time to leak its claims to the Wall Street Journal).

It's a fairly bizarre feud caused by a stubborn agency that's understandably so concerned about the faintest threat to public safety, it's refusing to transparently work with the one agency that actually understands how the technology works. Harold Feld, who probably knows more about U.S. wireless spectrum policy than anybody in the country, has written a long primer here for anybody who's interested.

Filed Under: 5g, c-band, faa, fcc, interference

The FCC Ponders A Hugely Problematic Tax On WiFi

from the this-won't-end-well dept

For years, we've noted how telecom and media giants have been trying to force "big tech" to give them huge sums of money for no reason. The shaky logic usually involves claiming that "big tech" gets a "free ride" on telecom networks, something that's never actually been true. This narrative has been bouncing around telecom policy circles for years, and recently bubbled up once again thanks to FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr.

Carr's push basically involves parroting AT&T's claim that big tech should be funding AT&T network upgrades. You're to ignore the fact that giants like AT&T routinely take billions in tax breaks and subsidies for network upgrades that never arrive. This quest to punish "big tech" with unnecessary new surcharges is something that's also supported by the National Association of Broadcasters, who have long hated companies like Microsoft's efforts to use unlicensed spectrum from unused television channels (aka "white spaces") to deliver new broadband options.

The FCC does desperately need to find more funding revenue to shore up programs like the Universal Service Fund (USF) and E-Rate, which help provide broadband access to schools and low income Americans. So it recently announced it would be considering a new tax on unlicensed spectrum. Pressured by NAB, the Biden FCC's plan would assess regulatory fees on “unlicensed spectrum users,” which would include users of Wi-Fi, Bluetooth and other consumer wireless devices. It's a tax on tech, proposed by telecom and media companies that want to punish their ad and data collection competitors in tech.

Harold Feld, who probably knows more about wireless spectrum policy than anybody, has penned a helpful piece over at Forbes explaining why this is a terrible idea. He outlines that NAB's real goal is to punish companies like Microsoft for daring to use spectrum the broadcast industry falsely believes belongs to them:

"The NAB has made it abundantly clear this is payback against tech companies — particularly Microsoft. Broadcasters don’t just claim to own their individual channels. They claim to collectively own all “broadcast spectrum.” About 10 years ago, the FCC authorized unlicensed access to unused television channels, aka “TV white spaces.” Broadcasters vowed to strangle the new technology in its cradle rather than share “their” spectrum and, unfortunately, were largely successful. But in recent years, Microsoft has tried to resurrect the TV white spaces as a way of bringing broadband to rural America."

The FCC's proposal may go nowhere. Interim (and soon permanent) FCC boss Jessica Rosenworcel may just be doing her due diligence, and opening the door to a conversation about various options to shore up dwindling FCC broadband program funding. But Harold makes it very clear the proposal, if adopted, would be hugely problematic and defeat the benefit of unlicensed spectrum:

"The idea that a tax on unlicensed spectrum would only hurt Microsoft or “big tech” is absurd. The whole point of unlicensed spectrum is that it’s open for everyone to use. The effort by broadcasters to impose a Wi-Fi tax should be as laughably ridiculous as modem taxes and email taxes. But rather than simply deny the proposal, the FCC has put it out for public comment."

While Harold's correct that this particular push belongs to NAB, the broader push to hit "big tech" with various new FCC regulatory fees is something also being supported by telecom giants, and the regulators who love them. Both broadcasters and telecoms realize the FCC is desperate for new funding for low-income programs, and want to exploit that with efforts that predominately benefit themselves. For NAB, it's punishing big tech for daring to innovate using spectrum it falsely thinks it owns. For AT&T, it's forcing "big tech" to pay for network upgrades it routinely fails to finish despite billions in tax breaks, regulatory favors, and subsidies.

Filed Under: bluetooth, broadcasters, e-rate, fcc, radio, tax, usf, wifi
Companies: nab

T-Mobile, Dish Continue Petty Squabbles As Sprint Merger 'Solution' Looks Shaky

from the dysfunction-junction dept

To gain regulatory approval for its $26 billion merger with Sprint, T-Mobile made numerous promises. One was that the deal would immediately create jobs (there've been 5,000 layoffs so far). Another was that the company would work closely with Dish Network to help them build a fourth wireless network that would replace Sprint, theoretically "fixing" the reduction in competition the deal created. As predicted, that plan isn't working out so well.

T-Mobile was supposed to closely shepherd Dish's own network build over a period of 7 years, but the two companies have proven largely incapable of getting along. Recently, Dish accused T-Mobile of shutting down its 3G (CDMA) network (which Dish is currently using as it builds a 5G network) prematurely. T-Mobile in turn accused Dish of being too cheap to pay for 4G and 5G upgraded phones for its fairly tiny userbase. This week T-Mobile balked, issuing a hilariously passive aggressive press release saying T-Mobile would be leaving its 3G network on for a little bit longer because Dish was, effectively, incompetent:

"Recently it’s become increasingly clear that some of those partners haven’t followed through on their responsibility to help their customers through this shift. So, we’re stepping up on their behalf. We have made the decision to extend our deadline for the CDMA sunset by three months to March 31, 2022."

Salty! T-Mobile goes on to accuse Dish of being generally terrible, and throws in a few references to the "digital divide" for good measure:

"There should be no more room for excuses. We have provided even more time and those partners can follow suit with the effort that is needed to ensure no one is left on the wrong side of the digital divide."

Recall that it's T-Mobile that spent millions of dollars lobbying the Trump administration (including spending more money at Trump's hotel) to approve a $29 billion merger with Sprint that experts warned would reduce competition, ultimately raise consumer prices, and result in thousands of lost jobs. And recall that the Trump DOJ and FCC approved T-Mobile's demands before even seeing the full impact analysis of the deal.

Then, to provide cover for the approval of a deal most folks didn't think should have been approved due to competitive harm, Trumpland and T-Mobile came up with the idea of creating an entirely new wireless carrier out of Dish Network (a company with a long history of empty promises in wireless) and some twine. The deal was crafted by folks who like to wax poetic about how government shouldn't meddle in business, yet now expect the U.S. government to mommy Dish and T-Mobile's attempts to create an entirely new competitor. A plan you wouldn't need if government had just blocked the deal and forced Sprint to find outside investment (Amazon, Google, Comcast, whoever).

But T-Mobile and Dish can't even get along long enough to make it out of the first several years of the plan. And Dish continues to delay the launch of any meaningful wireless network. I still tend to think this ends with Dish stringing the FCC along for a few years on network build obligations until it can cash out of its vast spectrum holdings and head for the exits. Then, over time, investors will pressure the remaining three wireless providers (AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon) to progressively exploit the dwindling competition and stop competing so intensely on price.

In most countries (Ireland, Canada, many European countries) the reduction of overall wireless competitors from four to three via merger and consolidation always ends badly. I tend to think Trumpland regulators and T-Mobile knew this from the outset, and this entire deal was crafted to help them pretend that wasn't going to happen this time.

Filed Under: competition, doj, fcc, mobile service, mvno, promises, spectrum
Companies: dish, sprint, t-mobile