5G Phones Will Be Bigger & More Expensive With Crappy Battery Life. Excited Yet?

from the ill-communication dept

Buried underneath the blistering 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.

That's before we even get to actual 5G phone support, which is fairly paltry so far. Some carriers have gone so far as to offer up extensive and clunky battery mods for existing phones, which few are going to want to actually pay for. And the handsets that are available tend to be bigger, more expensive, and with worse battery life than existing phones.

Case in point: 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, driving up overall costs for the end user:

"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."

Keep in mind: US consumers -- who already pay some of the highest prices in the world -- are also going to be paying notably more just to connect to these 5G networks, making 5G in the short term an expensive proposition. The repeal of net neutrality is likely to result in carriers finding new, creative ways to nickel-and-dime you, and the looming merger between Sprint and T-Mobile is likely to reduce competition, driving up consumer costs as well. As such, 5G's added price proposition isn't likely to appeal to most users anytime soon.

This is before you get to simple aesthetics and design, and the fact that 5G phones are going to be bigger and clunkier than ever:

"So far, the industry's response to 5G's bigger space requirements has been to make smartphones even larger. Consider the Galaxy S10 as a data point: you can get 4G versions like the 6.1-inch Galaxy S10 and the 6.4-inch Galaxy S10+, but if you want 5G, you will have to pick up the ultra-huge 6.7-inch Galaxy S10 5G, which is basically a new S10++ sku. For the Galaxy S11's 2020 release (which, remember, has to have 5G in every model), rumors point to across-the-board size increases for every model."

Apple has taken some heat for "lagging" behind on a 5G phone, but it's fairly clear if you're paying attention that there's no actual rush. The folks framing 5G as some kind of "race" are largely network gear makers and carriers looking to spike network hardware and smartphone sales (or hey, scare regulators into blind obedience). In reality, 5G will ultimately provide faster, better, and more resilient mobile networks, but it's going to take years for networks to reach critical mass and prices to come down. For now, there's no shame -- and likely some notable savings -- when it comes to lagging behind on 5G.

Filed Under: 5g, battery life, overhype
Companies: qualcomm

Study Says US Ranked 68th Out Of 100 In Mobile Video Quality

from the not-so-hot dept

While the telecom sector often enjoys crowing about the superiority of U.S. wireless, the reality is we're not all that superior. While the U.S. was among the first countries to deploy 4G LTE, US 4G speeds tend to be fairly pathetic, with one study ranking the US 47th out of 77 countries studied. US wireless data prices are also significantly higher than a long list of other developed nations, thanks in no small part to regulatory capture and revolving door regulators.

This week the US wireless sector was shamed further via a new report by OpenSignal, which found that US wireless video streaming quality also remains somewhat underwhelming. According to the study, the U.S. is ranked 68th out of 100 when it comes to video streaming quality, someplace between Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan. The crowdsourced study is based on 94,086,045,513 measurements from 37,671,772 devices running Opensignal’s software between August 1 and October 30. The authors, by and large, place the lion's share of the blame at the feet of insufficient spectrum:

"While there was an improvement in Americans’ Video Experience — with the score increasing from 46.7 to 53.8 points — it was not enough to shift U.S. consumers up a gear into the Good category. Instead, Video Experience remained stuck in the Fair category. Americans had the lowest Video Experience score of any of the G7 economically leading countries as U.S. carriers struggle with the combination of enormous mobile video consumption and insufficient new spectrum. Opensignal’s results highlight the need for the release of more mid-band spectrum to help U.S. carriers meet the mobile video needs of Americans."

But it's not just spectrum. Another recent study showed that many of the problems with US video streaming come courtesy of bizarre restrictions imposed on U.S. wireless consumers' connections. Restrictions generally used to nickel-and-dime customers into paying significantly higher rates. Sprint, for example, has sold "unlimited" data plans that throttle all video, games, and music unless consumers pay more. Verizon has similarly been selling "unlimited" data plans that throttled all video to standard definition by default, making HD or 4K luxury options that require you pay even more money to obtain.

These restrictions are justified by claims of spectrum scarcity, but often have more to do with the US telecom sector's allergy to genuine price competition. There's a universe of reasons for that, from the monopolies companies enjoy over tower backhaul to revolving door regulators who prioritize profits over healthy markets or consumers. And it's a problem that's likely to get worse with the repeal of net neutrality rules that attempted, albeit imperfectly, to thwart a lot of this kind of predatory nonsense in the absence of more heated competition.

While 5G is propped up as some miraculous panacea for the sector, it can't stop the FCC from pandering to industry, fix backhaul monopolies, or stop our obsession with merger mania, which, as the T-Mobile Sprint deal will soon illustrate, only acts to erode competition and any incentive to compete on price. The real reason for substandard US Telecom has long been regulatory capture and limited price competition working in concert, something OpenSignal likely isn't keen on highlighting for fear of annoying its paying clients in the telecom sector.

Still, these studies tend to highlight how, while the US crows a lot about wireless superiority, we remain largely mediocre when it comes to most of the wireless metrics (availability, speed, quality) that actually matter. So while many prattle on about the "race to 5G" and how we must pander to AT&T and Verizon or risk losing our amazing edge in wireless, it's worth remembering that edge doesn't actually exist.

Filed Under: broadband, competition, fcc, innovation, mobile video, quality, regulation, us

T-Mobile's 'Nationwide' 5G Isn't Nationwide, Only Slightly Faster Than 4G

from the ill-communication dept

We've noted for a while now how mobile carriers don't seem particularly aware that they're associating 5G in the minds of American consumers with hype and bullshit. AT&T's efforts to use bogus phone icons to pretend 4G is 5G; Verizon's tendency to dramatically overstate availability; scant handset support and annoying surcharges; overly ambitious marketing means that consumers' first contact with 5G is generally one of disappointment.

That's not to say that 5G won't be a solid improvement when it arrives at scale, just that carriers were abundantly eager to overstate what 5G can do and where it's available, and didn't stop to think that they were doing the technology a disservice.

The latest case in point: T-Mobile this week proudly proclaimed it had launched "America's first nationwide 5G network." But a closer look at actual availability finds that by "nationwide," T-Mobile means about 60% of the US. When pressed for clarification, the company that professes to be the "no bullshit" alternative to AT&T and Verizon wouldn't really answer the question:

"The US Census Bureau estimates the population to be more than 330 million people. T-Mobile hasn't actually forgotten about the other 130 million people in the US, as a sentence halfway through the carrier's press release notes that "T-Mobile's network covers more than 60 percent of the population." At 1 million square miles, the carrier's 5G network also covers about 28% of the country's 3.53 million square miles, and it's far short of the geographical reach already provided by T-Mobile's 4G network.

We asked T-Mobile to explain why it defines "nationwide" as "60 percent of the population." T-Mobile did not answer that question."

Only later did T-Mobile attempt to defend its head fake by claiming that the National Advertising Division of the Better Business Bureau declares anything over 200 million to be "nationwide." But NAD is a largely toothless self-regulatory apparatus designed to help the industry forestall any meaningful government punishment for false advertising. Its definition of "nationwide" is meaningless to the broader public and factual reality. Either you're actually deploying 5G to everybody, or you aren't.

One plus side of T-Mobile's 5G launch: at least it's not charging consumers extra to access the network, though you can probably expect that to change post merger when sector competition is weakened. Though there's another issue with T-Mobile's claims that its 5G network is somehow revolutionary: the company's initial implementation of 5G isn't really all that much faster than its existing 4G network, given this initial launch largely relies on the same 600Mhz spectrum it uses for 4G. Not the millimeter wave spectrum that offers lesser range but notably faster speeds:

"The 5G service T-Mobile announced today isn't much faster than T-Mobile's 4G service. That's because the "nationwide" 5G covering 60% of the population uses the same 600MHz spectrum that T-Mobile already uses for 4G. The big speed increases on 5G are expected to come from millimeter-wave spectrum, but those higher frequencies don't travel as far and are being used primarily in densely populated urban areas."

Again, faster, more reliable networks are always good. But they're not magic. And 5G isn't going to magically fix everything wrong with US telecom, be it high prices, regulatory capture or a refusal to upgrade most of the nation despite billions in subsidies. But since "just ok" doesn't sell new handsets or make for sexy headlines, carriers have resorted to dramatically overstating what the standard can do, in turn associating 5G in the minds of many with bluster and bullshit.

Filed Under: 4g, 5g, competition, coverage, nationwide, truth in advertising
Companies: t-mobile

Empty T-Mobile Promises Convince Texas To Back Off Merger Lawsuit

from the sucker-born-every-minute dept

While the DOJ and FCC have rubber stamped T-Mobile's controversial $26 billion merger with Sprint, the megadeal still faces stiff opposition from more than a dozen state AGs. What began as a coalition of ten states had been slowly expanding over the last few months to include states like Texas. Collectively, state AGs have made it very clear that every meaningful economic metric indicates the deal will erode competition, raise rates, and result in thousands of layoffs as redundant employees are inevitably eliminated.

In response, T-Mobile lobbyists have been working overtime trying to convince some states to back off their opposition in exchange for promises history suggests there's little chance they'll actually adhere to. Case in point: Texas AG Ken Paxton announced Monday morning he'd be quitting the lawsuit coalition after T-Mobile promised more jobs and better broadband coverage. But the promises themselves were kept vague, and there was, you'll note, zero mention of what happens should T-Mobile not meet them:

"Attorney General Ken Paxton today announced that his office reached a settlement with T-Mobile resolving the state’s antitrust claims against the proposed merger of mobile wireless telecommunications service providers Sprint and T-Mobile. The agreement is designed to prevent the New T-Mobile from increasing prices for wireless services on Texans for five years after the merger is complete. The agreement also commits the New T-Mobile to build out a 5G network throughout Texas, including rural areas of our state, during the next six years."

But I've written pretty extensively how pre-merger telecom promises are absolutely meaningless. 99.5% of the time, when it's time to hold a big company accountable on the state or federal level for pre-merger promises five years from now, all backbone suddenly and mysteriously evaporates, and whoever is in charge at the time will suddenly decide that actually enforcing any such promises isn't worth the time and hassle of battling with telecom lobbyists and lawyers. It's a bipartisan tradition that goes back the better part of forty years, and it's a major reason why US broadband is so patchy and mediocre.

Economists are painfully clear about the fact that the T-Mobile merger will eliminate thousands of jobs, reduce competition, and drive up US wireless prices (already some of the highest in the developed world). It's another "debate" where there is no actual debate, yet you wouldn't generally know that from reading fluffy tech press coverage of the deal, which oddly omits historical context (like the fact two variants of this deal have already been blocked for risk of clear anti-competitive harm). The myopia is thanks in no small part to the litany of folks paid by telecom to pretend mergers are uniformly wonderful.

The job losses from this kind of union are inevitable. And while T-Mobile is busy promising Texas that the merger will result in expanded broadband coverage, with their other hand they're working with the CTIA to make it harder to actually determine where 5G will be available. Why do you think that might be, exactly? Still, there are thirteen states taking part in the lawsuit which, thanks to the unrealistic nature of these promises and legal precedent, has a good shot at succeeding.

Texas isn't the only state to be wooed by the dulcet tones of T-Mobile lobbyist promises. Colorado and Mississippi also backed off the lawsuit after receiving promises of new call centers and rural broadband expansion which, if 40 years of telecom history holds, will be little more than a faint echo half a decade from now when it's time to pay the bill. It's the American way.

Filed Under: antitrust, competition, empty promises, fcc, ken paxton, merger, texas
Companies: sprint, t-mobile

The Washington Post And AT&T Team Up To Over-hype 5G

from the hype-it-up dept

Buried underneath the blistering hype surrounding fifth-generation (5G) wireless is a quiet but unpopular reality: the technology is being over-hyped to spike lagging cell phone and network gear sales, and early incarnations were rushed to market in a way that prioritized marketing over substance. That's not to say that faster 5G networks won't be a good thing when they arrive at scale several years from now, but early offerings have been almost comical in their shortcomings to the point where, at least in tech policy circles, 5G has become a sort of magic pixie dust, capable of fixing anything.

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. And both companies have worked overtime to suggest 5G will revolutionize things like brain surgery, when a closer look past the press release usually reveals such claims to be little more than silly bunk.

Whereas normally it would be journalism's role to point these falsehoods out and deflate marketing hype, apparently major papers have decided to join the fun. The Washington Post and AT&T this week announced a new partnership that both sides claim in press materials will somehow revolutionize journalism. Says AT&T of the new effort:

"AT&T and The Washington Post are working together on the future of digital storytelling. Teams at both companies will experiment with new formats and see what immersive journalism can do better as the world is increasingly connected to 5G. What could this look like? Think about using virtual or augmented reality to put you in the middle of a congressional hearing or giving you a front row seat at a campaign rally. Or perhaps you could see the effects of climate change by taking a virtual tour of a glacier with a digital expert by your side."

The problem with these claims is that there's nothing inherent in 5G that will help "revolutionize journalism" that wasn't possible via existing telecom technology. Outlets like the Post already have access to ultra-fast gigabit WiFi and gigabit Ethernet, not to mention 30 Mbps+ 4G networks. Sure, 5G will be faster and more reliable when it's deployed at scale five years from now, but much like the sector's claim that 5G will revolutionize surgery (nobody's going to use a wireless connection when a fiber to Ethernet hardline is available), these pie in the sky claims tend to be lacking in the supporting evidence department.

I mean maybe something genuinely interesting comes out of such a partnership, but the Washington Post blog about this partnership reads like a damn advertisement (because it is one):

"The Post has focused heavily on the reader experience, and an important part of that is our ability to create an immersive, engaging experience along with our reporting and to deliver that with the best site and app performance readers expect from us,” said Scot Gillespie, Chief Technology Officer at The Post. “With AT&T’s 5G technology, we will not only be able to deliver news more quickly, but we will also be able to deliver it in completely new and compelling ways that are enabled by leveraging the capabilities of 5G."

That's indistinguishable from a press release. It's worth noting that the New York Times struck a similar partnership with Verizon earlier this year, though neither paper has detailed the underlying financial details of these partnerships. It's pretty telling of the era that nobody at either paper thought such a partnership could potentially represent a possible conflict of interest as they cover one of the most heavily hyped tech shifts in telecom history.

You'd hope that as they cement these relationships both papers will point out things like the fact that wireless carriers are actively trying to make it harder to know where 5G really is. Or the fact that AT&T has routinely used bogus phone icons to pretend modified 4G networks are actually 5G. Or that thanks to monopoly domination of the sector, Americans are going to pay an arm and a leg for 5G service. Or how thanks to the industry's refusal to deploy fiber to more rural and less affluent parts of America (despite billions in tax breaks and subsidies), 5G will have scattered availability to the regions that need it most.

Again while it's possible something marginally interesting could come out of these experiments, the lion's share of promises and claims related to 5G have by and large been over-hyped bunk. Hopefully both papers remember it's their jobs to debunk this kind of nonsense, not amplify it.

Filed Under: 5g, media, overhype
Companies: at&t, washington post

46 Cities Sue The FCC For Trampling Their Rights

from the ill-communication dept

The Trump FCC has made it abundantly clear it isn't particularly keen on state, city, or local rights, especially when they interfere with AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast's ability to make a buck. The problem: when the FCC neutered its ability to police the telecom sector at lobbyist request as part of the net neutrality repeal, it may have ironically obliterated its authority to tell states or cities what they can do.

The agency fiercely opposes your town and city's right to build its own broadband networks, even if nobody else will and locals have voted for it. The Pai FCC has also tried (illegally and unsuccessfully so far) to ban states from trying to protect consumers from predatory telecom monopolies in the wake of federal apathy. And a number of other FCC policy changes have attempted to hamstring your town or city's ability to stand up to wireless carriers over things like environmental reviews for cell tower placement, or the money they can collect for hosting telecom equipment in public rights of way.

This week, the FCC was sued by a broad coalition of cities which say they've had enough. Dozens of states have joined forces to sue the FCC over an August ruling cities say not only limit how much money cities can collect for things like environmental impact reviews on cell tower placement, but hamstrings their ability to stand up to giants like AT&T and Verizon on pretty much any issue of substance. The FCC claimed the changes were necessary to accelerate our positioning in the "race to 5G," though cities say the changes are little more than a giant gift to the nation's biggest telecom conglomerates:

"At least 46 cities are asking federal appeals courts to undo an FCC order they argue will force them to raise taxes or cut spending on local media services, including channels that schools, governments, and the general public can use for programming.

The lawsuits reflect a larger clash of interests among localities, media companies, and the FCC brought on by the agency’s tactic of promoting broadband deployment nationwide—especially in rural areas with spotty or no internet access—by easing rules for business."

The case began with Eugene, Oregon (pdf), though 46 cities, along with eight counties and the state of Hawaii, have since filed seven petitions in three different circuit courts in the hopes of overturning the rules. They say the FCC's ability to constrain the money they can collect from telecom giants will hurt localities, and is part of an overall effort to weaken any municipal opposition to AT&T and Verizon:

"...cities will have to reduce their public media budgets, stop offering services, or cut into other programs to make up the difference, Christopher Ali, associate professor in the University of Virginia’s media studies department, said.

The order also stifles municipal decision-making authority over franchise terms, Ali said. “It allows cable companies to call the shots a lot more than they used to,” he said. The franchise order is part of “much larger agenda to diminish the power of municipalities,” Ali said. “We’re seeing this battle between municipalities and big media, and big media is winning."

While the FCC says that freeing industry incumbents from oversight and accountability will spur greater broadband deployment, the net neutrality debate has shown that limited competition and regulatory capture ensures that doesn't actually happen. Also like the net neutrality debate, the FCC may have painted itself into a corner. The courts haven't looked kindly upon the FCC's decision to neuter its own oversight authority over broadband, then turn around and tell cities or states what they can or can't do, an issue that's likely to rear its head here as well.

Filed Under: cell towers, cities, fcc, franchise rights, municipal authority, regulatory authority

States Are Being Conned By Lobbyists Into Backing Off The T-Mobile Merger Lawsuit

from the empty-promises dept

While the DOJ (run by former Verizon lawyer William Barr) and the FCC (run by former Verizon lawyer Ajit Pai) are really excited to rubber stamp Sprint's $26 billion competition-eroding merger with T-Mobile, a bipartisan coalition of states are all that stand in the way in the deal. What began as a coalition of ten states had been slowly expanding over the last few months to include states like Texas. Collectively, state AGs have made it very clear that every meaningful economic metric indicates the deal will erode competition, raise rates, and result in thousands of layoffs as redundant employees are inevitably eliminated.

But in recent months, T-Mobile lobbyists have had some success peeling states off from the lawsuit by making all manner of promises that history suggests aren't likely to be followed through on. Last month, for example, Colorado's AG pulled the state from the lawsuit after T-Mobile promised some additional jobs and 5G coverage to the state. In a press announcement, the Colorado AG says Dish Network (whose involvement we explain here) promised the state 2,000 additional jobs and broader 5G deployment to rural parts of the state if they back off the suit:

"Dish Network will locate its new wireless headquarters with at least 2,000 full-time employees in Colorado and T-Mobile will significantly build out a statewide 5G network, particularly in rural areas, under agreements the Colorado Attorney General’s office announced today. The companies agree to pay up to a total of $100 million if they fail to meet these commitments."

The problem is that US Telecom history is filled with examples of companies making promises just like this one that magically evaporate at a later date. And more often than not, when it comes time for government to hold telecom giants accountable for failed promises of this type, any type of enforcement magically disappears. This isn't just a one off; it has happened from state to state across the union for the better part of the last twenty to thirty years, and is a major reason we still have overpriced, middling broadband networks.

The other problem is that many experts doubt that Dish will ever even properly build a 5G network. After admitting the merger would reduce competition and raise rates (as data shows 4-3 telecom consolidation almost always does around the globe), the DOJ proposed a "solution": force T-Mobile and Sprint to offload some spectrum and the Boost prepaid brand to Dish Network, which will, over a period of 7 years, try and cobble together a fourth replacement carrier. For the better part of the next decade however Dish will be little more than a glorified T-Mobile MVNO or reseller, which won't offset any of the deals real harms.

Another problem: even T-Mobile has criticized Dish Network for spectrum squatting and a long history of empty wireless promises, and the proposal itself has been ridiculed for resulting in far less 5G coverage than the companies are promising. And those thinking they can actually confirm where 5G will be available should know T-Mobile and other wireless carriers are trying to prevent transparent public access to 5G mapping data.

For the Dish plan to actually succeed, the government will have to nanny T-Mobile and Dish to make sure they live up to their end of the bargain, and prevent AT&T and Verizon (which, you'll notice, have been dead quiet and don't oppose deal because it will reduce overall competition) from undermining the effort at every turn. Who's going to do that: industry BFF Ajit Pai? Bill Barr's DOJ? Most economists I've spoken to think this ends with Dish simply selling its spectrum to AT&T and Verizon after several years of what's going to amount to little more than theater. It's easier and more profitable.

When it comes to pre-merger promises, the US telecom industry burned through any benefit of the doubt decades ago. And yet the feds, states, and numerous press outlets still act as if these companies are trustworthy when it comes to said promises. In reality, pre-merger promises are meaningless, and endless telecom sector consolidation is good for just two sets of folks: investors and executives (and even then the proposition is sometimes iffy if you recall fiascoes like Sprint Nextel). Reducing sector competition by 25% will reduce raise rates and stifle innovative incentives. It's just simple economics, as the remaining three companies are obligated to shareholders to take full advantage of the new reality.

Colorado was recently joined by Mississippi in backing off from the lawsuit after some T-Mobile promises. Still, the thirteen states involved in the suit are three more than they started with. The trial is set to begin December 9.

Filed Under: 5g, colorado, competition, fcc, jobs, lobbying, merger, wireless
Companies: dish, sprint, t-mobile

5G Is Not A 'Race,' And We're Incapable Of Determining Winners Even If It Was

from the more-like-a-hamster-wheel dept

By now you've probably been informed that the next-generation of wireless broadband technology is going to revolutionize everything. Much like they did with 3G and 4G, wireless carriers have repeatedly hyped the fifth-generation (5G) wireless standard, insisting that the technology will somehow usher forth a "societal transformation" that's going to have a magical, cascading impact on everything, and everyone.

Reality looks, well, different. Look under the hood at any of the growing 5G "launch" markets, and you'll find service is usually barely available. Hardware support is barely existent and clunky. And while 5G networks are faster and more reliable, they're going to come at a premium, lessening the appeal to US consumers who already pay some of the highest prices in the developed world. Even Vint Cerf is underwhelmed.

Undaunted, industry has used 5G as some kind of mystical tech policy pixie dust. As in, they've been telling lawmakers around the world that unless industry gets whatever the hell it wants (less oversight, a fat new tax cut, merger approval), your country will lose the "race to 5G." China is routinely presented as our arch nemesis in this endeavor, with framing that indicates that if China wins said "race to 5G," something apparently quite terrible will happen. The frequency of this narrative is fairly intense:

And it's usually driven by hardware vendors looking to convince the public, press, and regulators that if a country loses said "race," some immense, horrific, techo-calamity will occur:

Oh no! Don't be left behind! The US technically "won" the "race to 4G," but over time (thanks in no small part to regulatory capture), US 4G LTE networks are not only far more expensive than a long list of countries, our 4G LTE networks are currently some of the slowest anywhere. How'd winning that race turn out?

Here in reality, even if 5G was a race, we're incapable of measuring who's winning. US government broadband mapping efforts have long been a shitshow. Here in the US, wireless carriers are actively trying to exclude 5G from efforts to improve said maps. Why? They know that contrary to their claims, 5G, like 4G and 3G before it, is going to have highly spotty availability. In large part because 5G (especially millimeter wave) needs a lot of fiber. You remember fiber? The technology AT&T and Verizon received billions in taxpayer subsidies to deploy and then refused to finish around halfway through?

Meanwhile, who do you trust to tell you China is actually winning the race to 5G? The Chinese government? Companies like Huawei, whose only interest is in portraying immeasurable success? Similarly, who do we trust in the States to inform us of our noble victory? The Ajit Pai FCC, which routinely simply makes things up at industry behest? The carriers themselves, who've already taken to using bogus phone icons to falsely suggest 5G is far more widely available than it actually is?

5G is absolutely an important evolution, creating faster, better, more resilient networks. But it's not a race. It's a massive, often cumbersome effort that will take the better part of the next decade. And it's not a panacea; many of the same problems we have now (high prices, stifled fiber deployment, mindless merger mania causing eroded competition, corruption) will all be very present as we stumble our way forward, stifling the technology's full potential.

There's a reason why industry wants 5G portrayed as a race, and it has nothing to do with winning, and everything to do with creating an environment where regulators and companies rush head first into deploying a new technology on industry's terms, without thinking much about things that aren't important to industry, like affordability, open and fair networks, and uniform availability.

Filed Under: 5g, competition, wireless

California Wildfire Cellular Outages Could Have Been Easily Avoided

from the dysfunction-junction dept

As rolling blackouts and wildfires rattle California this week, many impacted residents are unable to use their cell phones. According to FCC data (pdf), 874 of the state’s 26,000 cell tower sites were out of commission on Monday, up from 630 on Sunday. Of that 874, 702 were caused by a loss of power to the cell site, 88 inoperable towers were due to cut fiber lines leading to the tower, and just 60 were caused by actual wind or fire damage.

It's a problem that could have been avoided. After Hurricane Katrina, in 2008 the FCC passed rules mandating that cellular towers be upgraded to include battery backups or generators capable of delivering at least 8 hours of backup power, if not 24 or more. But the US cellular industry, you know, the one whose rates are some of the highest in the developed world, cried like a petulant child about the requirement and sued to scuttle the rules.

Backed by the then Bush White House, cellular carriers told anybody who'd listen that the requirement would create "a huge economic and bureaucratic burden" for the industry. A better approach, the industry proclaimed, would be to let the industry self-regulate and adhere to entirely voluntary guidelines, leaving it with the "flexibility" to adapt to problems as the industry saw fit:

"While we have the same goal as the FCC - to keep our networks running during times of emergency - we believe that having the flexibility to adapt to unique emergency situations will better serve American wireless consumers," said CTIA President Steve Largent in a statement Monday."

Keep in mind that the US telecom sector has received countless billions for network upgrades that are routinely only half delivered, if they're delivered at all. More frequently, these companies gobble up tax breaks and regulatory favors, then proceed to engage in layoffs and fewer upgrades. In this case, the wireless industry didn't want to have to use those record profits and government subsidies to upgrade towers and protect lives, and here we are.

Experts tell me the same problem reared its head during Hurricanes Katrina, Sandy, Irma, and Sandy. Yet somehow, government hasn't quite figured out that letting giant telecom companies unhindered by healthy competition self-regulate generally doesn't work out all that well when human lives are at stake:

“Nobody likes to pay for emergency preparedness,” Harold Feld, a wireless policy expert and lawyer at consumer group Public Knowledge told Motherboard. “That's why you need rules to force companies to spend the money. Companies will spend as little as they think they have to, which is why regulators need to tell them how much they have to spend."

The Electronic Frontier Foundation notes that the same story has played out repeatedly on the state level. Fresh on the heels of convincing the FCC to self-immolate, the telecom sector has been trying to gut most California state oversight of broadband and wireless providers. As climate change accelerates and California attempts to impose meaningful public safeguards, it's getting harder for industry to justify its dream scenario of zero meaningful oversight:

"I think 2020 will be a very busy year at the state regulator to promote public safety rules over the telecom industry,” Falcon said. “This fire season and the number of people that had to be evacuated and rely on mobile devices for everything furthers the need to examine what works and address what is not working for people."

The idea that eliminating government oversight of the broken and barely competitive telecom sector somehow results in rainbows and Utopian outcomes is a common refrain in US tech policy, where protecting and improving carrier revenues trumps any and every other consideration. But time and time again, evidence shows that eliminating consumer protections, emergency requirements, and other forms of fundamental oversight of the largely broken sector doesn't end that well for anybody. If that lesson hadn't already been obvious watching cable companies do business, climate change will quickly make it more so.

With any luck, we might just actually learn something before it's too late.

Filed Under: battery backup, california, cell towers, fcc, fires, power, power outages, wildfires

Canadian Wireless Carrier Rogers 'Surprised' That People Like Unlimited Data Plans

from the surprised-by-the-obvious dept

Despite industry claims, US wireless is painfully mediocre. US consumers pay some of the highest prices for mobile data in the developed world, thanks to regulatory capture and wireless competitors who embrace "competition theater" more than actual price competition. Also contrary to industry claims, these high prices don't necessarily reflect quality; US LTE (4G) speeds are not only among the slowest in the developed world, arbitrary throttling, caps, and other usage restrictions reduce the value of these connections even further.

Up in Canada the problem is even worse, thanks to industry consolidation the US appears poised to replicate. Rogers, historically one of the more embarrassing Canadian telcos on the net neutrality front, has seen its stock drop this week after the company was forced to slash its revenue expectations for this year. The reason? Rogers, under pressure from the public and regulators, was forced to introduce unlimited data plans this year, causing a user exodus from more expensive, metered offerings that sock users with costly per gigabyte surcharges.

Rogers, for its part, was amusingly surprised by the sudden consumer interest in (relatively) straight forward wireless data plans that don't nickel-and-dime users to death:

"Enthusiasm for wireless data plans that don't charge overage fees has forced Rogers Communications Inc. to slash its revenue expectations for this year. Senior executives told analysts Wednesday that they were positively surprised that about one million customers have switched to its unlimited wireless data plans, but acknowledged that has meant less revenue from overage fees generated when consumers surpass the monthly limits."

That Rogers was surprised here speaks volumes about how in touch North American telecom giants are with consumer demand. The company proceeded to note that while it was taking a slight hit this year, the shift toward less confusing, unlimited data plans was a good thing overall for everybody:

"Chief executive Joe Natale said Rogers did an analysis before making the wireless plan change, but was surprised by how quickly consumers gravitated to the new unlimited data offerings.

"That ended up being three times the rate that we had anticipated, which I think is a good thing," Natale said.

He said the switch to unlimited wireless data plans, which began in late June, was the beginning of a "critical and necessary shift" that has three long-term advantages: higher consumer data usage, increased customer satisfaction and lower costs to acquire and retain customers.

"Overage is a big pain point for customers. Rather than continue to perpetuate that complexity, which drives all sorts of ... costs in our organization, we said 'Let's bite the bullet. Let's create a very simple construct. And let's get to the simplicity dividend as quickly as we can.'"

Granted it's worth noting that just like in the States, Rogers' "unlimited" data plans aren't truly unlimited; you'll still hit a usage cap after which your mobile data speeds will be dramatically reduced for the remainder of the billing period. Still, baby steps and all that. That said, Canadian consumers still pay even higher prices for mobile data than users in the US, thanks largely to mindless industry consolidation leading to just three major competitors. It's a trail the US is intent on stumbling down as well despite ample evidence of negative outcomes.

Filed Under: canada, competition, data caps, unlimited
Companies: rogers