Public Urges FCC to Expand Fixed Wireless Broadband
Over the past year, the issue of the FCC's broadband plan has come up over and over on this blog. One of the most important topics, of course, is the charge to tell the FCC your thoughts on Fixed Wireless Broadband. Well, guess what! They listened.
Tony Bradley of PC World reported just a few weeks ago: FCC Urged to Expand Wireless Broadband Access. Urged how? Via the very request for your input that we shared months back. The FCC has sought input via formal submission, as well as via social media, blogs, etc. The Government, it would appear, is listening to the people.
As Bradley's article notes, however, one of the overwhelming proposals on the table has to do with the availability of spectrum. In April of last year, we reported on Verizon's buy-up of a huge chunk of the 700mz spectrum. But that brings up two dilemmas: do we want only one company dominating the FCC licenses, and even so, is this spectrum enough?
If fixed wireless broadband is indeed the technology that can make broadband ubiquity a reality in the U.S., then shouldn't we have more spectrum devoted to it? That's what some critics are suggesting. However, the Department of Justice is not so quick to meddle where existing media markets are already succeeding. The switch to digital television, after all, went SOOO smoothly, we certainly don't want to endure such a switch-a-roo again.
Last week, the futuristic science-fiction film Avatar and Pandora's data network inspired me to dream of a far-off future broadband network on earth. This week, my feet are planted more firmly on the ground. As a new year and a new decade dawns, what can we expect from wireless in the near future.
Top 5 Wireless Broadband Developments to Anticipate in 2010:
iPhone Tethering. As an avid iPhone user, I have resisted the last several OS updates for fear that they will shut down the slight modifications I've made to enable tethering (the very connection I am using to post this article). In order to keep up with competition (i.e. droid), they'll have to open this feature to their users.
4G rollouts made available to most major metro areas. Whereas now its still a rare find and something most people don't even know about, 4G will be the talk of techno-toys next Christmas season.
FCC's Broadband Plan. They're due to present the plan to Congress this year, which means we could start to see the new policies and procedures in place before the end of 2010.
The Verizon/Google Home Internet Package. The droid/VZW pair-up is just the beginning. With Google's ubiquitous exposure to the consumer today, and Verizon's extensive network, look for the pair to release a home internet package to rival the Cable providers and--of course--"The" phone company.
3G Enabled Vehicles. Pair this with the prospect of VOIP over wireless networks and you've got the ability for your home phone and internet to follow you wherever you go.
Now, I must offer the disclaimer that these are merely light-hearted and hopeful predictions based on my own personal observation. I don't have an insider track to Google's product release, and I'm not offering competitive investment advice. Just some fun, and hopefully inspiring, predictions on this New Year's Day!
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).
Will Wireless Broadband be Taking Over the Air Waves?
After the digital switch, that grand fiasco that forced the upgrade of every household in America to a digital television signal, Verizon snatched up the 700mz spectrum in an FCC auction to beef up their coverage on the wireless broadband scene. Now, the FCC is talking about reclaiming even more of the spectrum currently devoted to television broadcast and dedicating it to wireless broadband (see FCC Considers Shifting Some TV Airwaves to Broadband).
What's the motivation? Well, it's two-fold -- and I'm not sure which is more important. First, there's money to be made. By reclaiming licenses on certain ranges of the spectrum (currently offered to free broadcast networks) and then reselling those to the more lucrative broadband industry, it's estimated that our government could add over $60 million to their coffers.
Second, however, is the infrastructure that it would augment. As a nation, we still lag behind other developed countries in our ability to provide fast, reliable broadband to everyone everywhere. There's no doubt, especially for rural areas, fixed wireless broadband is the answer. In catching up, the projection is that our businesses will be more competitive. Our small business markets will be strengthened (underpinning a strong economy all around). And, our dear old friends like Verizon and AT&T will have more goodies to hock.
What are the costs to you? Well, there are few drawbacks to the idea of being more efficient and more targeted with our airwaves. There's only so much of a spectrum that can be used, so it makes sense to put those waves to good use in the most needed area: broadband. After all, you can watch tv on the internet now! In the WSJ's article (cited above) there is some talk about converting all free broadcast television to paid subscription. It will be a shock for some at first, but when you think about it, on par with most other forms of modern communication.
What do you think? Would you pay for TV (if you don't already) in the interest of seeing more of America reached with broadband connectivity?
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) asked for input last month on what actually should constitute "broadband" connection speeds. The government sets a standard for what is technically considered broadband and what is not. The motivation, at least originally, was simply that we could not allow dubious tech companies to slap a road-runner emblem on a 56K modem and try to advertise it as broadband.
But the current definition was recently opened to debate by the FCC, eliciting a range of responses from those affected by any modifications. A public interest group called Free Press, urged the FCC to dramatically ramp up requirements to 5 mbps for both upstream and downstream. For a sense of perspective, that would be over 8x the current definition for downstream speed, and 25x the current upstream speed. But companies directly affected by any decision, such as Verizon Communications Inc., urged the FCC to be more conservative.
Appeals to the FCC cited competing nations' who have set the bar for broadband far higher than the U.S. However, it's important to note that the nations cited in Reuters report (France and Japan) are in fact 1/18th 1/26th the size of the U.S. respectively. The challenge of Rural Broadband presents a uniquely different landscape for technology and business in the U.S. than in most other nations on the globe.
Where do you think the bar for broadband should be set? If higher, how shall we ever get there? If the same, what will motivate carriers to improve?
Greene commented that Verizon's decision to unload such a large amount of infrastructure--$8.6 Billion worth to be precise--is simple: these assets "don't align with its core businesses." In fact, the more notable news to me was learning that Verizon ever owned over $8 Billion in copper cable and fiber optics.
The buyer, Frontier Communications, sees value in the assets as part of their mission to bring broadband access to rural areas. Most of the network being sold serves rural areas across the U.S. While we applaud Frontier for their dedication to that service, I still have to shake my head wondering, "isn't wireless broadband a better way to serve rural areas?"
All in all, I'm convinced this is an excellent move for Verizon, increasing capital that can be applied to the more pertinent task of building their fixed wireless infrastructure. As for the rural access, we shall wait and see what Frontier makes of their new growth.
How often do you find headlines that read like this: "Sidewalks Destroyed and Sod Ripped Up as Miles of Fiberoptics are Laid to Increase Broadband Capacity." Not very often. When major tcom companies like Verizon need to increase broadband capacity to meet demand, more and more often they're turning to fixed wireless broadband solutions.
That was the case with this morning's announcement that Verizon Wireless Increases Wireless Broadband Capacity in Watertown Area. According to their press release, this wasn't just for your average teenager downloading videos and music. Verizon has a serious interest in "the company's high-speed wireless broadband network geared toward mobile professionals and business customers."
What is most notable to me, however, is the speed at which the upscaling can occur on wireless broadband networks. As I parodied the downsides to beefing up wireline networks--major construction that entails destruction in its path--there is a serious side to the benefits of leveraging a growing GSM network. Think about the costs and time-to-market that would be required for copper cable and fiberoptics to deliver the same bandwidth capacity that Verizon's 10 new cell sites will offer. Wireless Broadband is, without a doubt, the answer to expanding broadband coverage.
In March, the FCC auctioned licenses to the 700MHz spectrum which was made available by the nation-wide mandated transition to digital TV. Who wound up owning the vast majority of those licenses? Verizon Wireless. The FCC raised $19.6 Billion but the real winner was Verizon Wireless, who now estimates they will have enough network to reach every corner of rural America with 4G fixed wireless broadband access.
Aside from the fact that infrastructure already exists all over the nation for broadcasting this spectrum; And, not to mention that receivers and devices on this spectrum have been developed and redeveloped since the dawn of television; It's the physics of the waves that makes Verizon, and all of the broadband industry, excited to see what develops. The 700MHz spectrum waves can travel long distances and propagate through walls, which makes it ideal for covering broad, geographically dispersed regions of the U.S.
As we wrote about a while back, fixed wireless broadband has always been the most feasible technology for bringing internet to rural areas. That fact has not changed. What this purchase means, however, is that one of the most technically capable spectrum in air waves is now under the control of one of the nations largest telecom companies, Verizon, with the express mission of bringing delivering broadband to more Americans than ever.
When can we expect to see the roll-out begin? Verizon plans to begin building a 4G network as early as 2010. However, reaching every household could take years. Whatever the time frame, this purchase marks an exciting new era for wireless broadband.
