Saudi Arabia Exploiting Wireless SS7 Flaw to Track Targets In The United States

from the ill-communication dept

In 2017, hackers and security researchers highlighted long-standing vulnerabilities in Signaling System 7 (SS7, or Common Channel Signalling System 7 in the US), a series of protocols first built in 1975 to help connect phone carriers around the world. While the problem isn't new, a 2016 60 Minutes report brought wider attention to the fact that the flaw can allow a hacker to track user location, dodge encryption, and even record private conversations. All while the intrusion looks like ordinary carrier to carrier chatter among a sea of other, "privileged peering relationships."

Telecom carriers and lobbyists have routinely downplayed the flaw and their multi-year failure to do much about it. In 2018, the CBC noted how Canadian wireless providers Bell and Rogers weren't even willing to talk about the flaw after the news outlet published an investigation showing how (using only a mobile phone number) it was possible to intercept the calls and movements of Quebec NDP MP Matthew Dubé.

Now there's another wake up call: a new report by The Guardian indicates that Saudi Arabia has likely been exploiting the flaw for years to track and monitor Saudi Arabian targets when they travel in the United States:

"The data suggests that millions of secret tracking requests emanated from Saudi Arabia over a four-month period beginning in November 2019. The tracking requests, which sought to establish the US location of Saudi–registered phones, appeared to originate from Saudi’s three biggest mobile phone companies.

The whistleblower said they were unable to find any legitimate reason for the high volume of the requests for location information. “There is no other explanation, no other technical reason to do this. Saudi Arabia is weaponising mobile technologies,” the whistleblower claimed.

U.S. carriers like AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile routinely receive Provide Subscriber Information (PSI) messages from foreign phone companies to help them track roaming costs for users on foreign cell plans traveling abroad. But excessive use of such messages usually indicates a more nefarious intent. The Guardian couldn't directly tie the excessive use of PSIs by Saudi telcos to the Saudi government, but most security experts believe Saudi's history makes the intention fairly clear:

"The whistleblower’s data...suggests that the three largest Saudi mobile operators – Saudi Telecom, Mobily and Zain – sent the US mobile phone operator a combined average of 2.3m tracking requests per month from 1 November 2019 to 1 March 2020. The data appears to suggest the Saudi mobile phones were being tracked as they travelled through the US as often as two to 13 times per hour. Expert said that frequency suggests users could probably have been tracked on a map to within hundreds of metres of accuracy in a city."

One reason U.S. telcos may not have been particularly keen on cracking down on the practice is that the U.S. government and the NSA very likely exploit the SS7 flaw as well. Senator Ron Wyden demanded answers as early as 2017 from mobile phone companies as to why they haven't done more to thwart the practice. Of the major U.S. carriers, only AT&T was willing to respond to the Guardian, insisting "we have security controls to block location-tracking messages from roaming partners." It's far less likely the NSA's longstanding BFF blocks similar requests from U.S. intelligence agencies.

Filed Under: saudi arabia, spying, ss7, surveillance

Verizon Is The Only US Wireless Carrier Charging Extra For 5G

from the not-worth-the-hype dept

By now we've established that while fifth-generation (5G) wireless will result in faster, more resilient networks, the technology has been over-hyped to an almost comical degree. Yes, faster, lower latency networks are a good thing, but 5G is not as paradigm-rattling as most wireless carriers and hardware vendors have led many in the press to believe. 5G is more of a useful evolution than a revolution, but it has become the equivalent of magic pixie dust in tech policy circles, wherein if you simply say "it will lead to faster deployment of 5G!" you'll immediately add gravitas to your otherwise underwhelming K Street policy pitch.

The other major problem? Americans already pay some of the highest prices for mobile data in the developed world. Now they're being asked to shell out a lot of cash for pricey new handsets with worse battery life, but more expensive data plans. It was already a difficult, pre-pandemic proposition to explain why users happy with 4G speeds need to pay even more.

Many carriers appear to have understood this. AT&T includes 5G for free on the company's two most expensive unlimited plans. T-Mobile has been offering 5G for no additional cost (though that could change post Sprint merger) on all of its unlimited plans. Verizon, in contrast, has been eager to charge users an extra $10 per month for 5G. Initially the company backed off this surcharge after some negative early press, but seems intent on imposing these surcharges, it claims, because 5G offers a "differentiated experience":

"When you deliver a differentiated service, you can get a differentiated price point," Verizon CFO Matt Ellis explained during a recent investor event. Ellis pointed to Verizon's recent demonstration of 4.2Gbit/s speeds on its commercial 5G network, noting such speeds are dramatically faster than what Verizon offers even on its wired Fios network."

There arer several problems here. One, Verizon's "launched" 5G markets have been repeatedly ridiculed for being spotty at best. Even the company's 5G launches in sports stadiums have been ridiculed as patchy as hell. Asking users to shell out significantly more money to access a network that is barely available doesn't make much sense, at least when you're trying to initially ramp up adoption. Especially given that most users really don't use much more than the top speeds 4G currently offers (anywhere between 10 and 30 Mbps, or so).

The other problem: while Verizon's best case 5G can theoretically offer speeds that rival fiber, "5G" as a standard behaves very differently depending on what kind of spectrum is being used to fuel it. For example, Verizon's making heavy use of millimeter wave (mmWave) spectrum, which struggles with range and obstacle issues (like building walls). In other words, for many, the benefits of 5G won't be immediately obvious:

"One major factor complicating 5G pricing is the fact that the technology behaves very differently depending on what spectrum band it's in. For example, the speed of Verizon's network is due to the fact that it runs across wide swaths of highband, millimeter wave (mmWave) spectrum. While transmissions in this kind of spectrum only travel a few thousand feet in the best conditions, they can carry enormous amounts of data. While other operators like AT&T and T-Mobile have dabbled in mmWave 5G, Verizon is doubling down on the technology with plans to expand its 5G mmWave network to a total of 60 US cities this year."

Granted, with the T-Mobile Sprint merger reducing wireless competition by 25%, that will likely result in less serious pricing competition and more expensive plans. In turn that could result in AT&T and T-Mobile following Verizon's lead, and charging already cash-strapped American consumers even more in the years to come.

Filed Under: 5g, fees
Companies: verizon

AT&T, Verizon Will Waive Wireless Overage Fees During Pandemic. But You'll Have To Ask.

from the unnecessary-restrictions dept

Earlier this month, the biggest U.S. broadband providers announced they'd be dropping usage caps and overage fees during the pandemic in order to provide a little financial relief to home-bound Americans trying to slow the virus' spread. That's good, since telecom CEOs, engineers, and leaked documents have all made it clear caps and overage fees on fixed-line networks are little more than the price gouging of captive customers in uncompetitive U.S. broadband markets, and do absolutely nothing to help manage congestion in the age of intelligent networks that can prioritize or deprioritize entire traffic types on the fly.

It's slightly different on wireless where there's limited spectrum, but there too, researchers have noted that caps and usage fees aren't helpful to manage congestion. Not only are they like using a bulldozer to try and fix a watch, they open the door to abuse by companies that have long been eager to abuse such restrictions for anti-competitive gain. AT&T's already doing this by charging you overage fees if you use Netflix, but not if you use AT&T's own streaming services. Facebook has similarly been criticized for trying to use mobile caps and "zero rating" to corner the ad market in developing nations.

While many mobile users are now on (not really) "unlimited" data plans, AT&T and Verizon say they'll be giving U.S. residents on limited plans some financial relief by waiving overage fees on limited data plans for at least the next 60 days. This being AT&T and Verizon this of course won't happen automatically, and you'll have to beg the giants manually for some financial leniency. From a Verizon announcement:

"When a Verizon customer is experiencing hardships because of COVID-19, Verizon will waive late fees and [data-cap] overage charges for 60 days from March 16 to May 13 for customers who let us know they are unable to pay as a result of economic hardship due to the pandemic, and we will not terminate service to those customers. If our customers are experiencing a hardship, they should call our customer service team to discuss their situation and available options."

Ars Technica asked Verizon whether users will need to show proof they can't pay in order to get relief, but the company didn't answer. AT&T's announcement of the waived overage fees and surcharges indicates users don't have to show proof of financial hardship to have the charges waived.

Keep in mind that U.S. consumers, thanks in large part due to regulatory capture, lobbying, and the monopolization of the fiber lines that feed cell towers, already pay some of the highest prices in the developed world for wireless data. It's a problem that's only going to get worse courtesy of the rubber stamped T-Mobile and Sprint merger, which reduced overall U.S. wireless sector competition by a cool 25%.

So while it's certainly a good thing carriers are doing this, these kinds of overage fees were never technically necessary in the first place, and are little more than profit gravy in the first place.

Filed Under: covid-19, overage fees, pandemic
Companies: at&t, verizon

Libraries Want To Become Broadband Havens During The Pandemic, But Want More Help From The FCC

from the ill-communication dept

For many of the estimated 44 million Americans who lack access to any kind of broadband at home, the nation's libraries are their only way to get online. And as libraries close up shop to slow the spread of COVID-19, that access is no longer available. That's why the American Library Association, which represents the country's 16,557 public libraries, fired off a letter to the FCC (pdf) last week asking if it would be okay if they left their WiFi hotspots operational during the pandemic quarantine.

The nation's Libraries were apparently worried that the Ajit Pai FCC would penalize them under the FCC's E-Rate program, which helps subsidize broadband access to rural Americans:

"Clarify that public libraries can allow community access to their Wi-Fi networks without jeopardizing E-rate funding. We’re all familiar with stories of people in the library parking lot after hours using the Wi-Fi, but some libraries may refrain if they believe they must cost-allocate a portion of their capacity to account for usage outside their building walls."

But the ALA isn't just interested in ensuring that existing WiFi hotspots remain available to impacted Americans. They're eager to extend access to American communities wherever possible, including putting WiFi hotspots on bookmobiles to help ensure countless millions of Americans can still access the internet during the crisis. That's somewhat important given the millions of American kids who currently can't get online at home:

"Clarify that public libraries may use the Wi-Fi enabled bookmobile or techmobile as a community hotspot without jeopardizing E-rate funding. This would enable them to bring internet access to public locations in communities with a high percentage of families or individuals without home broadband access."

The ALA’s request came on the heels of similar letters from both the Schools, Health and Libraries Broadband Coalition (SHLB) and the Education and Library Networks Coalition (EdLiNC). All of these groups had already been concerned given the Trump FCC's efforts to hamstring the E-rate program in general.

By this week the FCC had issued a statement that only bothered to answer some of these organizations' questions. The good news: the FCC made it clear that it would not penalize libraries and schools that leave their WiFi hotspots online so that people can still access them on school property:

By this Public Notice, the Wireline Competition Bureau reminds schools and libraries that are closed due to the coronavirus COVID-19 outbreak that they are permitted to allow the general public to use E-Rate-supported Wi-Fi networks while on the school’s campus or library property.

But the FCC effectively ignored the libraries' request that they be allowed to extend service beyond that. Former FCC lawyer Gigi Sohn told me this week that the the FCC has been telling petitioners that it "lacks the authority" to allow flexibility in the way E-Rate works. That's somewhat amusing given that this FCC has been repeatedly slapped down by the courts for ignoring or violating agency rules when it's to the benefit of giant media and telecom monopolies.

Like here, when the courts told the FCC it was effectively making things up and ignoring established guidelines to try and kill media consolidation rules. Or here, when the courts told the agency it was again making things up as it rushed to pass the wireless industry's preferred 5G guidance. Or here when the FCC tried kill modest broadband funding to tribal areas. Or the net neutrality debate, during which the Pai FCC not only repeatedly made up data points, but completely ignored wholesale identity theft and fraud because it benefited their primary agenda: an almost mindless deregulation of entrenched U.S. telecom monopolies.

In all of the above three examples, the FCC was more than happy to twist itself into pretzels when it comes to giving US telecom giants everything they've lobbied for, even if it meant bending or outright ignoring the rules. But U.S. libraries request the ability and funding to slightly expand broadband availability during an historic crisis, and the agency suddenly loses all of its appetite for creative policy and going the extra mile.

Filed Under: e-rate, fcc, hotspots, libraries, wifi

Wireless Carriers Are Training Consumers To Equate "5G" With Bluster And Empty Promises

from the bluster-and-bullshit dept

Buried beneath the unrelenting marketing for fifth-generation (5G) wireless is a quiet reality: the technology is being over-hyped, and early incarnations were rushed to market in a way that prioritized marketing over substance. That's not to say that 5G won't be a good thing when it arrives at scale several years from now, but early offerings have been almost comical in their shortcomings. AT&T has repeatedly lied about 5G availability by pretending its 4G network is 5G. Verizon has repeatedly hyped early non-standard launches that, when reviewers actually got to take a look, were found to be barely available.

In many areas, a "launched" 5G market consists of just a few city blocks. Most phones also don't support the standard yet, and those that do are expensive and have worse battery life because existing 5G antennas are a battery drain. You'll also likely have to pay extra to use 5G, making it not really worth it for those already happy with 4G speeds (most of us).

The wireless industry seems oblivious to the fact that by misrepresenting what 5G is, what it can do, and where it's available, it's only associating 5G with hype and bluster in the minds of US consumers.

The latest case in point: early tests of the Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra are showing that phones from AT&T and T-Mobile are displaying "5G" icons when the phones aren't actually using 5G networks to transfer data. While 5G is generally seen as one thing in the minds of most people, the three variants of the technology leaning on low band, mid-band, and high-band spectrum all deliver decidedly different experiences.

"On AT&T and T-Mobile, the small Galaxy S20 will only have low-band and mid-band 5G. The Galaxy S20+ and Galaxy S20 Ultra have all three kinds. But AT&T and T-Mobile appear to be feeding their low-band phones a "5G" icon if the cell they're attached to is capable of 5G, even if the network and phone use only 4G technologies for the time. You can be on a low-band 5G cell and have the network decide you should use 4G for several reasons. Right now, low-band 5G can't combine with low-band LTE or high-band Licensed Assisted Access (LAA) LTE, so if a network decides that one of those will give you better performance, you'll be on 4G but see "5G."

In addition to being decidedly different experiences and speeds, these options will all have decidedly different availability depending where you live. Low-band 5G, for example, isn't offering connectivity that's much different from the 4G networks you're used to. And yet you'll be asked to pay even more money for the honor from many carriers, despite the fact that US consumers already pay some of the highest prices in the developed world for mobile data. And that's likely to get worse in the wake of the FCC rubber stamping competition-eroding megamergers and obliterating its consumer protection authority at lobbyist behest.

It's all a confusing mess that was largely rushed to market, and it's all being compounded by wireless carriers that were so excited to spike lagging smartphone sales that they made clarity and consumer education an afterthought. Instead of acknowledging that 5G is an evolutionary advancement, wireless carriers have spent the last three years insisting it's revolutionary and transformative -- even insisting it will help cure cancer (not likely, as hospitals are unlikely to even use it).

Again, 5G really will be a hugely beneficial technology when it's deployed more widely a few years from now. It's faster, more resilient, has lower latency, and many of the associated technologies it's bundled with (like virtualization) make networks easier to manage in a litany of ways. But by consistently misleading consumers (or just failing to educate them on the tech's reality), most wireless carriers are training consumers to see 5G as little more than fluff and nonsense.

Filed Under: 5g, hype, lies, overhype, service quality, wireless
Companies: at&t, verizon

NY AG Gives Up, Won't Appeal T-Mobile Merger Ruling

from the do-not-pass-go,-do-not-collect-$200 dept

You only need to look at recent telecom court rulings to recognize that both US antitrust enforcement and regulatory oversight are dangerously and comically broken, at least as it pertains to the US telecom market.

For example, the courts rubber stamped AT&T's $89 billion merger with Time Warner, ignoring an ocean of evidence showing how the deal would harm competitors and consumers alike (allegations that very quickly were proven true). Similarly, the courts just ignored the ocean of evidence showing that T-Mobile and Sprint's $26 billion merger would reduce competition in the wireless space, resulting, inevitably, in layoffs and higher prices for US consumers (who already pay some of the highest prices in the developed world for mobile data).

The latter merger was quickly rubber stamped by an FCC and DOJ now headed by two former Verizon lawyers (Ajit Pai, Bill Barr). In the FCC's case, the merger was approved before FCC staffers had even reviewed the full proposal. And while a coalition of state Attorneys General had sued to thwart the harmful deal, U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero last week tied himself in bizarre knots in a bid to ignore all of the evidence they presented.

Apparently believing any further litigation was a lost cause, New York Attorney General Letitia James issued a statement saying that it wouldn't be appealing the ruling:

"After a thorough analysis, New York has decided not to move forward with an appeal in this case. Instead, we hope to work with all the parties to ensure that consumers get the best pricing and service possible, that networks are built out throughout our state, and that good-paying jobs are created here in New York. We are gratified that this process has yielded commitments from T-Mobile to create jobs in Rochester and engage in robust national diversity initiatives that will connect our communities with good jobs and technology."

The problem is there's no fixing such a deal. The consolidation will immediately eliminate just one of four major US wireless carriers, resulting in an immediate 25% reduction in overall competitors. In country after country, data shows that this 4-3 consolidation uniformly results in higher prices as carriers face less incentive than ever to seriously compete on price (a major reason you'll note that AT&T and Verizon never opposed the union).

To "fix" the deal, the DOJ signed off on a problematic proposal that involves T-Mobile giving some spectrum to Dish Network in exchange for a new, replacement fourth carrier to be built over a period of seven years. But Dish has a long history of empty promises, and it's unlikely the hands off Ajit Pai FCC is going to hold T-Mobile and Dish accountable if they miss benchmarks, or AT&T and Verizon accountable when they inevitably try to scuttle Dish's efforts to restore competition.

Wall Street analysts also doubt the DOJ Dish plan will work. Telecom sector stock jock Craig Moffett sent a note to investors this week doubting that Dish's "replacement" fourth carrier ever gets off the ground:

"Before their MVNO deal with T-Mobile expires in seven years, they will have to be 100% built out, not just 50% or 70% as their commitments to the FCC dictate. And “coverage” is just table stakes. Dish’s wireless network vision appears to call for something like 50K macro cells, at an implied cost of around $250K each. That might sound (almost) reasonable, at least on a cost per cell site basis… until one considers all the other costs beyond the cell site itself (e.g., backhaul, powering, etc.). And where in the budget are the literally hundreds of thousands of boosters and small cells for airports and stadiums and shopping malls and other public buildings that are required for a competitive network experience?"

Having watched more giant US telecom mergers than I can count, this is what happens next: T-Mobile will spend a year or two engaging in competition theater trying to convince everyone that critics were engaged in hyperbole. By around year one the layoffs will arrive, despite Sprint and T-Mobile's promises that the deal is a huge job creator. By year two or three (assuming they can wait that long) you'll start to see prices edge skyward as T-Mobile, AT&T, and Verizon work in concert to take full advantage of the reduction in competition (the entire point).

By year five all of the policy big thinkers who supported the deal will pretend they never did, and American consumers will be left holding the (expensive) bag, with top policy thinkers of the day all seemingly dumbfounded as to where we went wrong.

Filed Under: antitrust, competition, consolidation, letitia james, mobile services, new york
Companies: sprint, t-mobile

5G Could Actually Make The 'Digital Divide' Worse

from the ill-communication dept

Since he's taken office, FCC boss Ajit Pai has repeatedly proclaimed that one of his top priorities is closing the "digital divide," or making it easier and less expensive for folks to gain access to internet connectivity. Unfortunately, most of his policies have had the exact opposite effect. From rubber stamping competition-eroding mergers to eliminating consumer protections governing broadband, the lion's share of Pai's agenda has focused on what telecom giants want -- not necessarily what's actually good for markets, consumers, or the country.

Enter 5G, which is routinely framed by both Pai and the wireless industry as some sort of near-mystical panacea. Do everything wireless carriers demand in terms of 5G subsidies, deregulation, and incentives, we're told, and America will soon be awash in a new layer of inexpensive broadband connectivity and innovation.

The problem: 5G isn't magic, and the technology won't fix the rot that plagues the U.S. broadband sector. It won't fix the fact we approve mergers that directly contribute to higher prices and weaker markets. It won't fix the lack of competition in the fiber lines that feed cellular towers, which also contributes to higher rates. It also won't fix the fact that FCC policy and telecom lobbying positions are virtually indistinguishable. And, contrary to carrier claims, you're still going to have patchy availability as carriers focus on the most profitable areas despite countless billions in taxpayer subsidization.

5G's technical accomplishments don't mean all that much if the underlying structure is rotten, and US telecom is, if you haven't spent time on the phone talking to telecom customer service lately, very rotten indeed.

And in some instances, 5G may actually make the digital divide worse. The National Digital Inclusion Alliance, for example, is correct to note that the low-income families we profess to love can't afford new, far more expensive handsets or the even higher rates companies like Verizon intend to charge users to access these networks. Telecom giants (and the current FCC) do yeoman's work focusing on unhelpful and silly "race" rhetoric, hoping to steer the conversation away from the subject that matters most to low-income families stuck on the wrong side of the digital divide -- price:

Dana Floberg, a policy manager with the media and technology equity advocacy group Free Press, agreed, noting there is a narrative being sold to the public that the country is locked in a must-win, high-stakes race to deploy 5G faster than other countries such as China.

"Validity aside, that very notion only frames the issue as a technological challenge — asking how fast can we build small-cell networks — rather than an economic challenge. Ignoring the affordability component is likely to create all the same problems that have existed for years with other Internet services.

“5G is potentially an enormous technological innovation,” Floberg said, “but it’s not that innovative when it comes to the economics of the service. It’s a step forward for technology, but it’s not necessarily a step forward for affordability of competition."

If you stop and study Ajit Pai's rhetoric (or any group or individual that mirrors or parrots the thinking of U.S. telecom mono/duopolies), you'll notice he will go out of his way to avoid acknowledging high US telecom prices. That's because that conversation leads to another conversation these folks really don't want to have: the regulatory capture and lack of competition in U.S. broadband that's causing the problem in the first place. If you don't acknowledge there's a problem, you'll never have incentive or responsibility to fix it. Ingenious!

Filed Under: 5g, competition, digital divide, fcc

iPhones Will Get Bigger And More Expensive This Year Thanks To 5G

from the bigger,-faster,-stronger dept

While the airwaves are inundated with ads insisting that fifth-generation (5G) wireless is a transformative technology, we've noted repeatedly how much of this stuff is little more than hype designed to spur lagging smartphone sales. While faster, more resilient wireless networks will certainly be a good thing, when the standard arrives at scale several years from now, it's not actually going to transform the world in the way carrier ads would lead you to believe. And, in fact, some things will actually get a bit dumber before 5G fully arrives.

Case in point: 5G-supporting phones are already expensive and hard to come by, much like the networks they're supposed to attach to. Qualcomm was so eager to hype 5G and sell more hardware, the company removed the integrated 4G LTE chipset in its 2020 Snapdragon 865 system-on-a-chip (SOC). But one of the impacts of removing integrated LTE is that 5G support now requires more battery life and more space, increasing phone size and overall device cost:

This means nearly every flagship Android phone will be a 5G phone in 2020, and putting the 5G and 4G on a giant extra chip means smartphones are going to use way more power, no matter which cell network you're connected to. When 5G networks are only going to be in their infancy in 2020, this sounds like an across-the-board downgrade to me.

Apple's been lambasted in some quarters for being slower to market with 5G phones, even though the networks the phones will run on are patchy at best and will be for several years, still. Apple's finally pleasing those folks and will announce the iPhone 12 family of devices later this year, which will likely be, you guessed it, bigger and more expensive to accommodate 5G:

In order to add a 5G modem into an iPhone, there needs to be space. There are physical limitations to the current 5.8-inch and 6.5-inch iPhone 11 Pro that make it impossible for Apple to retain the same dimensions. Because 5G modems are still so new, they're larger (to support multiple spectrum) and more power-hungry; this is no different than the first smartphones with 4G LTE (the HTC Thunderbolt on Verizon was a fatty).

But it is different in that the hype surrounding 5G is exponentially larger than 4G hype ever was. Again, largely thanks to a saturated smartphone sales curve, courtesy of a plateau in overall design and innovation. Consumers are barely using the 30+ Mbps they receive (sometimes) via 4G now. Although it's not necessarily a bad thing, as faster speeds will drive innovation, few are currently calling for gigabit speeds in their pockets. Most consumer studies show that, more than anything, what consumers want is lower data prices.

In time, 5G (and a variety of technologies like virtualization rolling hand in hand with the standard) will provide faster, better, more reliable networks. But, as we keep noting, it's not some deus ex machina or panacea for the broadband sector. Thanks to corruption, regulatory capture, muted competition, and consolidation, you're going to pay more than ever for the same patchy availability and shaky customer service the sector has long been known for. As usual with consumer tech, the smart play will be to wait a year or two for phone design, battery development, and network deployment to catch up before diving into the 5G pool.

Filed Under: 5g, devices, size, wireless

The 'Race To 5G' Is A Giant Pile Of Lobbyist Nonsense

from the ill-communication dept

We've noted for a while that the "race to 5G" is largely just the byproduct of telecom lobbyists hoping to spike lagging smartphone and network hardware sales. Yes, 5G is important in that it will provide faster, more resilient networks when it's finally deployed at scale years from now. But the society-altering impacts of the technology are extremely over-hyped, international efforts to deploy the faster wireless standard aren't really a race, and even if it were, our broadband maps are so terrible (by design) it would be impossible to actually determine who won.

The idea that we're "racing China to 5G," and need to mindlessly pander to U.S. telecom giants to win said race, has also become a mainstay in tech policy circles and tech coverage for two or three years now. We're at the point where 5G (like the blockchain or AI) now exists as a sort of policy pixie dust to be sprinkled around generously by lobbyists and K Street beggars looking to wow luddite lawmakers, even if the underlying arguments often make no coherent sense. When 5G is fused with overheated national security concerns, it becomes even more incoherent.

Enter former Representative Mike Rogers, who last week announced he was heading a new 501(c)4 group dubbed 5G Action Now. 5G Action Now frames itself as an objective third party outfit that is just apparently really excited about 5G, insisting its goal is to "educate members of Congress and the American people" to better understand the "race to 5G":

"5G Action Now was founded to establish the United States as the worldwide leader in 5G. Our goal is to elevate the conversation regarding American national security and the economic benefits of winning the 5G innovation and deployment battle against China. 5G will spur economic growth in rural America, create an environment for technological expansion, and put the U.S. on strong national security footing for generations to come."

Mike's bio around the internet usually reveals how he's also a "security advisor" for AT&T, though oddly his bio over at the 5G Action Now website excludes this fact. The ambiguous venture appears to have numerous telecom backers, including a coalition of European and Canadian satellite companies looking for all the usual fare: weakened regulatory oversight, more subsidies, and a bigger slice of the publicly-owned airwaves to make a profit off of. It's more of a "race to government protection" or a "race to fatter revenues" than any kind of race to meaningful 5G domination or consumer benefit.

The group's website is filled with rhetoric about how the US is in a battle with China for 5G domination, hinting at some immense unforeseeable calamity should the Chinese government deploy 5G quickly to human beings you'll never meet, half a world away:

Press outlets that buy into this rhetoric usually "forget" to mention that while the US technically "won" the race to 4G (by being first to deploy it) that didn't wind up mattering much. U.S. consumers pay some of the highest prices for wireless service in the developed world, for 4G services that are routinely ranked as some of the slowest in the OECD. Thanks to regulatory capture, corruption, and mindless M&A mania (like the looming Sprint T-Mobile merger), it's a problem that's not going away anytime soon. 5G is not, contrary to what you'll be told by industry and stenographing journalists and evangelists, some mystical panacea.

There's a reason AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile are fighting efforts to adequately map 5G, and have routinely over-inflated 5G availability claims overall. The "race" rhetoric is largely an illusion created by companies eager to do the bare minimum in exchange for as many subsidies, regulatory favors and tax breaks they can grab. This mindless regulatory capture has resulted in a US Telecom sector that routinely ranks in the middle of the pack in every metric that matters. While 5G will be a good thing when deployed at scale, it's foolish to think the new wireless technical standard will address the deeper rot that plagues the sector.

We didn't win the race to 4G, and we're unlikely to win the "race to 5G," either. Why? Because U.S. telecom policy involves effectively pandering to the every whim of mono/duopolists, then standing around with a dumb look on our faces as prices soar, coverage lags, and Kafka-esque customer service headlines become the norm. Yes, 5G will be fast. It's also going to be hugely expensive and filled with arbitrary nickel and diming restrictions courtesy of the Trump FCC's decision to effectively give up on all consumer protection.

The "race" rhetoric serves one larger purpose: it ensures that nobody pauses to think about policy considerations like prices, open networks, consumer rights, or even coverage to lower income and rural areas. It results in a country that can't apparently repair its bridges or feed the public, but can easily throw another $1.5 billion at telecom giants that are in absolutely no need of subsidization or more tax breaks. At some point, you'd think we'd learn to stop throwing billions of unaccountable dollars at companies with a thirty-year track record of failing repeatedly to live up to their end of the bargain.

Filed Under: 5g, hype, mike rogers, race to 5g
Companies: at&t, verizon

There's A Recurring Theme With 5G, And It's Disappointment

from the not-all-that dept

Buried beneath the unrelenting hype surrounding fifth-generation (5G) wireless is a quiet but growing consensus: the technology is being over-hyped, and early incarnations were rushed to market in a way that prioritized marketing over substance. That's not to say that 5G won't be a good thing when it arrives at scale several years from now, but early offerings have been almost comical in their shortcomings. AT&T has repeatedly lied about 5G availability by pretending its 4G network is 5G. Verizon has repeatedly hyped early non-standard launches that, when reviewers actually got to take a look, were found to be barely available.

As carriers ramp up their marketing hype and promote 5G "launches" that aren't really full launches, that theme is only continuing. One ZDNet reporter recently wandered around Miami -- a "launched" T-Mobile 5G market -- only to find coverage was nonexistent and phone support was even worse. He ultimately concluded that T-mobile's definition of "nationwide 5G" most definitely leaves something to be desired:

"...this early hype -- on the part of carriers and phone manufacturers -- may, as so often happens, create a greater excitement than is currently warranted. Yes, T-Mobile wants to claim it has the first nationwide 5G. In the way that nationwide doesn't include the Bay Area. (Well, there are a lot of separatists here.) But when it's all switched on, will we be startled by the difference? We can but hype."

That same story is playing out in Chicago, where consumers are bombarded with endless ads for 5G, but show little real interest in paying a premium for faster speeds, when many haven't even fully utilized 4G's available bandwidth:

“Right now, I’d say 5G is in the hype cycle. Deployment is going to be slower than people think,” said Mohan Sawhney, a professor at Northwestern University’s Kellogg School of Business. “Yeah, you’ll get faster Internet, but that’s not a breakthrough. ... I’d stay tuned beyond 2020."

It's not just America. In South Korea, users similarly say that while the added speed is nice, they're not all that impressed with the value proposition, especially if it involves overpaying for an even bigger phone with worse battery life (5G is currently quite the battery hog), or paying carriers even more for mobile data. For users already paying an arm and a leg for 4G speeds upwards of 30 Mbps, there's really not a whole lot of motivation to make the jump -- at least not right now. That's before you even get to patchy availability (let's just say there's a reason carriers are trying to obscure where 5G is actually available).

This is, of course, all a far cry from carrier 5G marketing, which routinely insists 5G is already largely everywhere (it's not), and will revolutionize everything from cancer treatment (not really) to the four day work week (nope).

Again, 5G is a good thing in that faster, more resilient, and easily managed networks are always good. And in five years from now, when phone development and 5G coverage has improved, there will certainly be ample benefits to the upgrade. But carriers continue to ignore the fact that over-marketing the standard prematurely may have the opposite impact they intended; associating 5G in the minds of many consumers with hype, empty promises, added costs, and little to actually show for it.

Filed Under: 5g, hype, overhype, wireless
Companies: at&t, t-mobile, verizon