FCC Takes Steps to Move Wireless Broadband Forward
As we have discussed several times on this blog, the FCC is drafting a National Broadband Plan which will lay out ways the government can improve broadband service in the U.S. The plan is scheduled to come out in February, allowing plenty of time for feedback on the issue. And, it warrants mentioning that there are no certainties as to how many of its suggestions will ultimately be adopted.
But, there are other measures--policy measures which the FCC does not require congressional approval to make--that are already being put in place. It would appear that the FCC is wasting no time in getting us caught up with global broadband standards. Examples include educating the consumer on wireless broadband, freeing up air-waves for wireless broadband use, and most recently: making it easier to get towers in the air.
"Of the 3,300 applications for new towers or to put a new antenna up on an existing tower, more than 700 have been pending for more than a year..."
That means communication companies like Verizon and AT&T who want to add more coverage are stalled by local and state government bureaucracy. Before any new tower is erected, or even a new antenna is placed on an existing tower, approval must be sought from the local authorities. When those applications are delayed, the expansion of fixed wireless broadband in our communities is slowed.
Under the new policies handed down by the FCC, local agencies will have only 90 days to review and respond to new antenna applications, and 150 days where a new tower is requested. If the agency fails to respond in that time frame, then the wireless carriers can seek a decision from federal courts.
If you've got an idea for how wireless broadband can be expedited across our nation, let your voice be heard. Download the FCC's public notice and follow the instructions found there.
In early November, AT&T took legal action against Verizon for what they call misleading advertising which allegedly made false claims about AT&T coverage. You have probably seen the ads in question (an example shown below). In a recent ad campaign, Verizon has taken their longstanding emphasis on network coverage to a level of direct comparison. The popular "can you hear me now" campaigns implied Verizon's general advantage over their competitors. But, the "there's a map for that" campaign directly references AT&T coverage maps, and the slogan cannot be mistook as anything but a spoof on recent iPhone advertising--a popular product of the AT&T network. But did they go too far?
First, let's understand what is at the heart of this issue. Is Verizon posting inaccurate or false claims about AT&T? Not exactly. And AT&T doesn't claim that they are. The injunctions sought are on the basis, not of technical accuracy, but of a misleading presentation. The maps displayed only depict 3G coverage, not overall coverage. The map of AT&T coverage has notably less color than Verizon's. "Through the use of a coverage map in [Verizon] ads, they suggest through all white or blank space, not only that AT&T doesn't offer 3G coverage but no coverage at all," spokesman Mark Siegel said in an interview. "That's misleading and that's why we filed the lawsuit."
Misleading. That is the root issue. After Wilt Chamberlain's famed 100-point game in 1962, a no-name teammate reportedly said in an interview, "Wilt and I teamed up to score 101 points that game." The teammate had hit a free-throw. Accurate? Yes. Misleading? Indeed. Now, AT&T must now show a federal judge that Verizon misled in much the same manner--by not presenting all the facts. My mother taught me that a partial truth is not necessarily truth.
But, the other questions is the question of intent. Wilt's teammate intended to mislead. But what Verizon will try to demonstrate (or should, in my non-expert legal opinion) is that they did not launch this campaign with the intent to mislead. In Verizon's ads the company does clearly mark the maps as "AT&T 3G Coverage" and "Verizon Wireless 3G Coverage." The courts will have to answer the question: could the viewing audience surmise by these maps that AT&T has no coverage outside the colored regions?
With both companies having invested heavily in their market share, advertising, and in their respective network infrastructures, there is no doubt that much is at stake. Truthfully, I'm pleased to see the improvements that such fierce competition has spurred in our nation's Tcom markets, as well as the due process by which any party can be assured of "fair play" in business competition. I'm anxious to see the decision (and as split as I am on the issue, glad it's not mine to make).
Robert Evatt, a staff writer for the Tulsa World in the nations most stereotypical rural state: Oklahoma (ok, maybe a close second to Kansas) chronicled his recent visit to a rural community and the broadband access that was noticeably absent. Evatt writes: "As it stands, we're creating a sizable gulf between connected areas and disconnected areas."
I noticed something subtle in Robert's experience, and in his commentary thereof, that struck me today. He doesn't say that "there exists" or that "there remains" a gulf. In Robert's estimation, and I would tend to disagree, "we're creating."
Certainly we cannot argue that with less than 70% of homes in America having access to broadband internet, and likely a similar number of businesses, the gulf is undeniable. I call it a gulf because, unless you've live in disconnect, you can't quite appreciate the real isolation it creates. Not just from a social standpoint--the inability to call dad on a cell--but the business disadvantage, ecommerce breakdown, etc. Can you imagine a local grocer who relies on imprint machines?
However, this gulf is being filled in faster than midway of Chicago. I don't agree that we're (any longer) creating a gulf. In years past, perhaps the ISP's and tcom giants were blind to the impacts of leaving rural areas behind. But today, we're seeing companies like AT&T step up to the rural broadband challenge. Organizations like the Internet for Everyone are rallying to the cause.
I applaud the fact that we are today bridging the gap for rural broadband with fixed wireless broadband technology.
No, that doesn't mean we'll be reading about 6G soon, although the nomenclature can get very confusing. AT&T announced aggressive plans to roll out new wireless broadband technology that can double the current 3.6 Mbps speeds to 7.2 Mbps. In a press release last week, AT&T stated "The upgrade to High Speed Packet Access (HSPA) 7.2 technology is part of AT&T’s plan for continued investments to deliver the nation’s best mobile broadband experience."
