Sprint Taking FCC To Court Over 5G Order Cities Seeking Local Control

— A swathe of Western cities including Los Angeles, Portland, Seattle, Las Vegas and San Jose are suing to challenge the FCC over its September 5G wireless deployment order that, they argue, unfairly trampled on city governments’ rights, John reported Thursday . The wireless industry largely celebrated this FCC action and said its federal pre-emption is vital to ensure carriers can roll out 5G wireless infrastructure in a timely and affordable manner.

— Not all carriers are satisfied. Sprint, the fourth-largest carrier in the nation with a $26 billion T-Mobile merger pending before the commission, is taking the FCC to court to challenge the order . A Sprint spokeswoman says that while the carrier backs much of the order, “in one area, we believe the final order did not go far enough.” Its challenge argues that the FCC “declines to adopt a ‘deemed granted’ remedy when siting authorities fail to act on siting applications within the shot clock timeframes established by the Commission.” Local government advocates were pleased that the FCC order left out this so-called “deemed granted” provision, in which the federal government could have mandated city governments automatically approve a carrier’s infrastructure siting application if they had not acted on it by a certain time. In other words, Sprint wants the FCC to be more aggressive in granting wireless industry wishes.

Source: POLITICO Morning Tech

Advertisements

Forbes: Five Ways 5G Will Rock Our World

Forbes interviewed a number of 5G experts and technologists to get their insights. Here are five areas where they see 5G making its mark.

1. Cord-Cutting En Masse

2. Distributed AI

3. High-Speed Data Backbone for Autonomous Tech

4. The Doctor Is In—24/7

5. Every Experience Will Be Augmented

Read the details HERE.

If you live in a rural neighbor do not get too excited, as you are last on the list to get 5G.

Verizon’s wireless chief on 5G use cases: retail, manufacturing, gaming and more

Fierce Wireless has the story:

And Dunne offered some specific 5G use cases that might leverage some of those features:

Retail: “Think in a real-time enterprise environment for retail, where you can deliver both quality of insight and information about your customers that you might have previously only assumed that an online retailer can have, in real time in a physical retail environment,” Dunne said, explaining that retailers could also offer augmented and virtual reality offerings through 5G.

Healthcare: Dunne said healthcare providers could use advanced network services to provide better and more effective long-term patient monitoring.

Gaming: “Things like gaming will be really, really interesting,” Dunne said, noting that lower latency will be key for the sector. “That’s probably where you get this extra level in your game that only Verizon’s 5G customers are able to access with the extra capability there.”

Added Dunne: “Clearly in the gaming world its the latency … Getting your retaliation in first in a gaming app is all that matters.”

Stock trading: Dunne said that Verizon could “deliver a trading experience on your mobile, in conjunction with Yahoo, that is best-in-class and perhaps even your ability to trade nanoseconds faster than somebody who is on a wired service.”

Smart cities: Dunne mentioned services like real-time facial recognition, traffic management and potentially autonomous vehicles as services enabled by an advanced, 5G network. He noted that such technology could improve the reaction time of autonomous vehicles significantly: For example, a car traveling 60 miles an hour could respond to an accident within the time it travels four inches rather than four feet on a 4G connection. “That sort of helps to give you a sense of how important that latency is,” he said.

Stadium experiences: 5G connections in locations like a stadium could provide new, real-time experiences to sports fans or concert goers, Dunne said.

Precision manufacturing: Dunne said 5G could aid in industries like manufacturing, which is an area that other companies have also discussed.

Full article is HERE.

The real question is will rural communities see 5G anytime in the near future?  Remember 5G is being brought to you by cooperations that must answer to stockholders who are expecting a profit on their investment. That makes AT&T, Verizon, and Sprint/TMobile profit-driven companies that make decisions based on return on investment.  Rural 5G installation are major risks, and will only be addressed after the all the low hanging fruit is all gone, and by then soon forgotten as the G6 hype will become the next big thing. Rural America will be left holding an empty bag of promises once again.   Rural America, if you want broadband for economic development, then build it, just like you build new sewer plants, extend water services and widen roads to meet the demand.

“5G” Wireless Is the New Fiber Optic, Bait-and-Switch Scandal

Bruce Kushnick, a Telecom Analyst and New Networks Institute,Executive Director, & Founding Member has a long and rambling discussion of telco bait and switch on Medium, the last third of his article and link to full article is below.  This does not bode well for rural broadband, just a higher tech digital divide. Cities, towns and villages need to build thier own networks and not wait for the telco promisses to be broken again.  Link to full article is HERE.  See the Ft Colins article HERE.

View story at Medium.com

History Shows 5G Is Just another “We Will Bring New Tech if You Get Rid of Regulations” Scam.

The 5G frenzy is like any of the previous techno-bait-and-switch schemes — and this one is ironically similar to the super-hyped 1990’s “Info-Highway” when America was supposed to get a fiber optic network that would replace the existing copper wires. The companies, changing the state laws, collected (overcharged) over $400 billion from this hype, and worse, the original rate increases were built into most of the current rates.

In fact, a lawyer came up with Kushnick’s Law:
“A regulated company will always renege on promises to provide public benefits tomorrow in exchange for regulatory and financial benefits today.”

And anyone who thinks this is different should travel back to the techno-hype that was thrown at the public hourly; it was everywhere, it was all pervasive and it was using a ‘new technology’ — the new shiny bauble, as the lure.

Example: It’s the spring of 1993 and the fiber optic Info Bahn is just a few months away. The April 12th, 1993 cover of Time Magazine proclaims: “The Info Highway: Bringing a Revolution in Entertainment, News and Communication: Coming Soon to your TV Screen….”. The story continues: (Click to get/view/purchase/tweet the cover.)

“It’s not here yet, but it’s arriving sooner than you think. Suddenly the brave new world of videophone and smart TVs that futurists have been predicting for decades is not years away but a few months…. We won’t have to wait long. By this time next year, vast new video services will be available at a price to millions of Americans.”

Ironically, America should have started on the path of a fiber optic future 25 years ago.

•  AT&T (Pacific Bell) California claimed it would spend $16 billion from 1993–2000 to complete 5.5 million households with fiber. Never deployed; pocketed the tax breaks and rate increases.

•  Verizon Bell Atlantic claimed it would spend $11 billion from 1993–2000 to have eventually 12 million households wired with fiber. (Most of the East Coast — never deployed; pocketed the tax breaks and rate increases.)

And 25 years later we have little to show for it. AT&T California never deployed the fiber optics in the 1990’s and then pulled a bait-and-switch with U-Verse in 2005, claiming it was ‘fiber-based’ when it is really a copper-to-the-home service. Verizon deployed virtually no residential fiber from 1993–2005, even though they got billions per state. They ended up finally deploying FiOS in 2005, then stopped in 2010–2012, leaving less than ½ of the utility territories covered (and with major gaps). Unfortunately, we know of no state that gave refunds or lowered rates based on the state-based incentives and the removal of ‘barriers to investment’.

Now we know why the previous FCC stats showed that there is little or no competition for high-speed broadband in America — AT&T and Verizon never showed up.
And just to show you how crazy this is, we again face a situation where a new technology is being touted as superior to upgrading the networks to fiber optics, even though 5G doesn’t exist yet as advertised, may never fulfill its projected destiny and requires fiber optics. But now, the FCC is giving companies the ability to dismantle the state utilities and hand them over to an affiliate company — wireless. And there are no commitments of any sort that once they get deregulated they will do what they say.

Based on history… this needs to be stopped. Where are the audits of the financial books? The FCC is now ‘weed-whacking’ them to cover over the cross-subsidies.

And if you think there are no similarities to the fiber promises of the past and the ‘wireless’ promises of today (that ironically require the fiber to be deployed…)

Compare:

Brendan Carr’s 2018 statement about 5G claims that there will be a $500 billion dollar boost to the economy.

“Deploying 5G, the next-generation of wireless service, could mean 3 million new jobs, $275 billion in private sector network investment, and $500 billion added to the GDP.”

To this:

In 2001, when what is now Verizon et al. wanted to prove to America that increasing broadband deployment (their way, of course), could add $500 billion to the US economy, Verizon hired the Brookings Institute to prove the case.

“While the great broadband debate rages on at Capitol Hill, a new study released yesterday said widespread use of high-speed Internet service in the near future could pump as much as $500 billion annually into the U.S. economy.

“The study, conducted by the Brookings Institute in Washington, D.C. and titled ‘The $500 Billion Opportunity: The Potential Economic Benefit of Widespread Diffusion of Broadband Internet Access….”

This 2001 study and others helped to create the Net Neutrality issues. They were used, in part, to convince the Republican FCC (and Congress) our fiber optic future was just a few years away — and we needed to get rid of competitors, including small ISPs. This was done by combining the broadband service and the internet service and calling it broadband-internet.

I note that by the end of 2017, about $500 billion has been overcharged in the name of broadband in the US; ($400 billion extended from 1992 through 2014, and this accounting process started in 1998.) And this is the low number based on our uncovering that the wireline customers have been charged for the wireless deployments.

Verizon Says No Way On San Jose Model

— Verizon bristled at the notion that other cities should try to ape its deal with San Jose, Calif., to contribute to a digital inclusion fund in exchange for streamlined access to install small cells. FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel highlighted San Jose’s agreements with Verizon, AT&T and Mobilitie on Wednesday, but Verizon’s Will Johnson wrote in a blog post Thursday that suggestions the agreements be replicated around the country are “off base and would threaten both the speed and the ultimate reach of 5G deployment.”

— The path to reaching an agreement with San Jose was “not quick or easy,” Johnson said, arguing that changes to facilitate small-cell deployment in cities are still essential. The FCC is expected to tackle the issue as part of its focus on barriers to wireless infrastructure. Johnson said what worked with San Jose would not work for all cities. “It would be a mistake to take such an arrangement — negotiated by a locality with significant leverage and particular unrelated needs and challenges — and treat it as a model nationwide,” he wrote.

Source: POLITICO Morning Tech

Carriers Clamor For FCC Oversight Of State and City-Level Small Cell Fees

The nation’s wireless carriers continue to petition the FCC to issue guidelines to states and cities about how much they should charge for small cell deployments and other network upgrades.

“Many municipalities unfortunately continue to demand exorbitant fees for access to rights-of-way and structures within them, including, for example, attachment fees that exceed $4,000 per year,” Verizon wrote in a recent filing. “Some cities, where providers may have a competitive necessity to offer service, continue to use their considerable leverage to seek fees that far exceed their costs.”

Full Article is HERE, which concludes.

Already, some FCC commissioners appear to be in lockstep with the wireless industry on the topic. For example, Commissioner Michael O’Rielly said in May that the FCC next plans to look at city and state rules that are hindering the rollout of small cells. He said the agency would move against “bad actors”: cities and states that are seeking to charge wireless operators unreasonable fees to deploy small cells or are moving too slowly on the topic. “We’ve tried the nice approach,” O’Rielly said at the time. Now, “we’ll have to take the aggressive route, and I’m completely comfortable in doing so.”