AT&T today announced it has agreed to lease exclusive rights to its nearly 9,100 cell sites and sell outright an extra 600 towers to Crown Castle International Corp. for $4.85 billion in cash, filling the wireless company’s coffers for possible acquisitions, especially in Europe.

Under the terms of the deal, Crown Castle will lease and run the towers for an average of 28 years, after which the company will be able to buy them outright for around $4.2 billion.

Crown Castle will gain more than 9,000 AT&T cell towers available to lease to other providers.

AT&T is seeking to monetize its extensive portfolio of cell towers while protecting rights of access. The cell phone company is guaranteed subleases on the towers for at least a decade for $1,900 per month per site, with annual rent increases of 2 percent, with a right to renew for up to 50 years total. AT&T will also have access to reserve capacity on the towers for future use.

The money will help AT&T’s balance sheet as it undertakes a $14 billion network upgrade and plans a shareholder-friendly stock buyback that may top $11 billion.

After the deal closes, Crown Castle will become the nation’s largest provider of shared wireless infrastructure, operating more than 40,000 communications towers in the United States alone. This is not the first deal Crown Castle has done with major wireless carriers. In November 2012, Crown acquired exclusive rights to lease and operate 7,100 T-Mobile USA cell towers.

In the past, many wireless carriers refused to share tower space for competitive reasons. Today, the demand for wireless data is forcing carriers to increase the number of cell sites to improve coverage and capacity. Many carriers now share cell sites to cut costs and avoid the regulatory burdens and citizen objections that often come with a proposed new tower. Crown Castle’s acquisition is likely to boost leasing of the AT&T cell sites. At present, AT&T’s towers only have 1.7 tenants per site, including AT&T. Crown Castle towers average 2.8 tenants per site. Potential clients for the AT&T towers include the three other major carriers: Verizon Wireless, Sprint, and T-Mobile.

Verizon Voice Link

Verizon’s wireless solution for landline infrastructure damaged during last year’s Hurricane Sandy has not been a runaway success for the phone company, only attracting 120 customers on New Jersey’s barrier island.

After Hurricane Sandy damaged the telephone network on the peninsula, Verizon announced it would reinstate telephone service using Verizon Voice Link — a wireless landline replacement that works over Verizon Wireless’ network. The announcement was not well received by New Jersey residents — customers don’t want the service and after Verizon Wireless experienced a major service outage in Ocean County, N.J. in September, many don’t trust the service to be as reliable as the landlines it replaced.

Mantoloking resident Peter Flihan thinks Verizon delivered its own blow to the island, post-Sandy. Flihan has Voice Link, but after using it he says he wants his old landline back and is very unhappy with the performance of Verizon’s wireless replacement.

“They told us this was the greatest thing in the world,” Flihan told the New York Times.

But the service takes away more than it provides, argue consumer groups including the AARP. Flihan’s old landline worked during power outages, Verizon Voice Link only has two hours of backup battery talk time. Landlines reliably reach 911. Verizon is less confident about Voice Link, going out of its way to disavow any responsibility if a customer cannot reach the emergency number because of technical problems or network congestion. Data services of all kinds don’t work with Voice Link either, even the venerable old dial-up modem. Neither will fax machines, medical monitoring equipment, or home security systems.

Flihan complains Verizon’s Voice Link can’t even reliably manage the function it was designed for — making and receiving voice phone calls.

Flihan told the newspaper roughly 25 percent of the calls he makes through the landline replacement do not go through the first time he dials, or sometimes the second or third. Other times, calls are disturbed with unusual clicking sounds, static, and other voices breaking into the line.

Fire Island residents report Voice Link also misses incoming calls, refuses to ring phone lines and often sends callers straight to voice mail. Others get recordings or busy signals.

Verizon disclaims legal responsibility for failed 911 calls in its Voice Link terms and conditions.

Verizon’s attempt to retire landlines in high cost areas has proven to be a public relations debacle for the phone company. More than 1,700 negative comments have been received by the New York Public Service Commission about Voice Link’s performance on Fire Island. Politicians also delivered repeated lashings to the phone company, claiming Verizon was abdicating its responsibilities by seeking to offer second-rate phone service.

In New Jersey, residents at least have a choice. Verizon maintains a monopoly on Fire Island, but in New Jersey it competes with Comcast, which also provides phone service.

Lee Gierczynski, a Verizon spokesman, noted Verizon’s landline business suffered even before Hurricane Sandy arrived. The FiOS-less island has left Verizon with a 25 percent market share. Verizon Voice Link’s numbers are even lower. Gierczynski admitted Verizon Voice Link has only 120 (out of 540 affected customers) signed up on the island.

While Verizon has refused to invest in an upgraded network for impacted customers, Comcast issued a press release announcing major upgrades for the New Jersey shore.

Comcast upgraded 144 miles of infrastructure supporting the hardest hit communities, reopened renovated service centers with increased staffing and extended hours, increased the number of available service technicians, and provided free access to an expanded Wi-Fi network.

“We know that Hurricane Sandy complicated life for millions of people, and many of our employees and facilities were affected by the storm,” said LeAnn Talbot, senior vice president of Comcast’s Freedom Region. “We were here for the Jersey Shore during and immediately after Sandy, we have been here to support since then and will remain as a partner tomorrow and beyond as people and communities work to rebuild.”

This summer, Comcast introduced its X1 set-top platform, rolled out a new Wireless Gateway, added a home security option, and opened thousands of additional Wi-Fi hotspots across coastal New Jersey. Customers were also given a dedicated phone number to reach Comcast regarding its rebuilding efforts.

Comcast invited Verizon customers to switch to its telephone service and noted it works fine for faxing, security systems and medical devices.

But Mantoloking resident Christine Wilder still isn’t happy.

“I didn’t want Voice Link,” Wilder told the Asbury Park Press last summer. Wilder signed up for Comcast, but would rather have her copper landline back.

Unfortunately for Flihan and Wilder, although Fire Island residents’ loud displeasure drowned Verizon’s plans for Voice Link in New York, those affected in New Jersey are fewer in number. To date, their criticism of Voice Link has not made Verizon uncomfortable enough to change course as they have on Fire Island and bring a FiOS fiber network solution to Mantoloking and other affected boroughs.

That face “troubles” New Jersey Rate Counsel Stefanie A. Brand.

“I am not sure why New Jersey is not getting the same level of service as New York from Verizon,” Brand told the newspaper in September. “It’s not enough to simply say there is cable in Mantoloking; therefore we don’t need to meet our obligation. Why are they not willing to do it for similarly situated customers in New Jersey?”

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Verizon Voice Link A Reliable Alternative 10-3-13.mp4[/flv]

Verizon produced this video defending Voice Link as a reliable alternative to customers experiencing persistent problems with their landline service. (2 minutes)

A joint venture between Verizon, Comcast, and Time Warner Cable to explore the development of innovative new services delivered across cable and wireless networks has been terminated, according to Fran Shammo, Verizon’s chief financial officer.

Speaking on a quarterly results conference call, Shammo acknowledged the companies still have a cross-marketing agreement selling Verizon Wireless service to Comcast and Time Warner Cable subscribers and pitching cable service inside Verizon Wireless stores. A Verizon spokesperson admitted the parties abandoned the effort to co-develop new products and services at the end of August.

Shammo pointed to Verizon’s recent buyout of Vodafone’s share in Verizon Wireless as one of the market changes that led to dissolving the partnership with the two cable companies. Shammo indicated bringing Verizon Wireless under the full control of Verizon Communications allows the company to develop, market, and distribute its own products and services across both Verizon Wireless and fiber optic FiOS platforms.

Had the joint venture continued, Verizon’s FiOS network might have suffered a competitive disadvantage, being unable to capitalize on the exclusivity of new services developed by Verizon to better compete against the two cable companies that share many Verizon service areas.

Verizon FiOS has already garnered a 39% market share with room to grow in major cities like New York City, Philadelphia, and Washington where Verizon has not yet completed its fiber optic buildout.

Some Clearwire customers remain unhappy when speeds are throttled to “manage” the network.

Clear (formerly known as Clearwire) has announced a general rate increase of about 10 percent for customers using its legacy 4G WiMAX broadband service.

As a result, most customers will pay about $5 more per month for fixed wireless or “on the go” broadband service.

“We instituted this to remain competitive and manage our costs,” a Sprint representative told Broadcasting & Cable. “Like our competitors, we must respond to customer trends, and provide a good user experience, and as a result we will make adjustments to fees and services from time to time. Our offer is still comparable to other offerings in the marketplace.”

Some customers would argue with Sprint’s definition of a “good user experience,” as complaints continue about heavy-handed throttling of Clear’s service that makes high bandwidth applications painful or impossible to use in the evening.

Stop the Cap! reader Akos contacted us this week to complain Clear still advertises and contracts for “unlimited data and top speeds,” while not exactly being upfront about targeting certain traffic for a prime time speed throttle that effectively keeps customers from streaming video.

“They openly admit their service is being throttled by software at each tower site that activates when it detects streaming video services like Netflix, reducing speed from 1.3Mbps to as little as 20kbps, rendering it unusable,” said Akos.

The speed throttle is usually active from 8pm-1:30am daily, when traffic is anticipated to be highest. Clear speaks about its network management speed throttle in the fine print: its Acceptable Use Policy.

Akos complains Clear’s speed throttle makes it easy to blame the streaming service, not Clear itself, because customers running speed tests will not see throttled speeds.

“It fools people to think the problem is on their end or with the streaming service, so customers don’t complain to Clear,” says Akos.

As a result, people using streaming video services get about 30 seconds of uninterrupted video before the throttle kicks in bringing extensive buffering delays.

Clearwire’s Speed Throttle Subject of Lawsuits

Clear’s own 2010 marketing promises unlimited usage with no speed reductions, like those “other” providers.

Clearwire’s speed throttle has been a part of life with the wireless service since 2010. Clearwire had significant legal exposure over its choice of network management because the company routinely advertised “unlimited service” with no speed throttles or overlimit fees. At least three lawsuits were filed against the company for its undisclosed throttling practices, eventually condensed into a single class action case that was finally settled last month.

Under the terms of the settlement, Clear admits no wrongdoing, but will clearly disclose it uses “network management” practices — a term that generally means usage caps and/or speed throttles — and will give customers information about the speeds they can expect when the throttle is active. As of today, Clear has not done that. Clear also volunteered to suspend term contracts and waive early termination fees for customers complaining about speed issues.

At least seven law firms handling the case will split a total award fee of $1,887,792.91 and expenses of $62,207.09. Individual representative plaintiffs each receive up to $2,000. Everyone else identified as part of the class action case that returned a claim form prior to Jan. 3, will receive an average of less than $30:

• a 50% refund of any early termination fee charged after a customer canceled service because of speed throttling;
• a rebate of $14 for customers signing up for Clearwire before Sept. 1, 2010 and experiencing speed throttling or a rebate of at least $7 for Clearwire customers signing up on or after Sept. 1, 2010;
• plus varying amounts for each month of service prior to Feb. 27, 2012 during which Clearwire’s records show it throttled a customer’s Internet speed. Customers throttled at 0.25Mbps will receive $5.00 for each month throttled, 0.60 Mbps: $3.00, and 1.0 Mbps: $2.00.

Court documents reveal of the 2,733,406 customers identified in Clearwire’s records as being speed throttled, only 83,840 submitted timely claims as part of the class action case. This represents a claims rate of about 3.1%. Of those, 76,199 were for speed throttling, 2,331 were requests for reimbursement of early termination fees.

The Future of Clear’s WiMAX and Sprint’s 4G

Sprint purchased the assets of Clearwire Corporation in July, rebranded the network “Clear,” and as of the end of August, stopped selling WiMAX devices to customers. Although Clear will still activate existing equipment, potential new customers are being marketed broadband plans on the Sprint network instead.

Former Clear dealers have received word Sprint plans to eventually decommission its acquired WiMAX network as early as 2014, most likely by gradually converting portions of the 2.5GHz spectrum Clear’s WiMAX service now uses in favor of Sprint’s 4G LTE service in urban and high congestion areas. Clearwire itself was in the process of adopting a variant of 4G LTE technology that would gradually replace the outdated WiMAX standard when Sprint acquired the company.

Although Sprint runs its own 3G network, it partnered with Clearwire to provide 4G WiMAX for Sprint customers. In 2011, Sprint announced it would stop selling devices with built-in support for WiMAX and announced it would launch its own 4G LTE network. Sprint will adopt the same version of LTE other North American carriers are using: FD-LTE, or Frequency Division LTE, which requires one transmit channel and one receive channel. But it will also support and continue Clearwire’s upgrade to TD-LTE, or Time Division LTE, a slightly different standard that supports receiving and transmitting signals on a single frequency at slightly different time intervals, providing enhanced spectrum efficiency. At least 5,500 towers should be active with TD-LTE service by the end of this year. End users will care only to the extent their devices support one or both standards.

Sprint’s 4G LTE rollout will depend primarily on higher frequency spectrum that is disadvantageous indoors and over extended distances. Sprint’s competitors AT&T and Verizon Wireless primarily depend on lower 700MHz frequencies that penetrate buildings better and can serve a larger coverage area. But a combination of Sprint and Clearwire’s spectrum assets give Sprint the most wireless spectrum of any U.S. carrier, which means potentially faster speeds and more capacity.

• 1900MHz: Sprint’s primary 4G FD-LTE service is now available in 151 cities on more than 20,000 cell towers;
• 2500MHz: Now used by Clear’s legacy WiMAX network, will see a transition towards Sprint’s TD-LTE service which will be targeted to urban and high congestion areas from “small cell” sites;
• 800MHz: The former home of now-shuttered Nextel, Sprint will eventually launch FD-LTE service on this band which will offer better indoor and marginal area reception.

Customers can expect devices that support both FD-LTE and TD-LTE in 2014.

A new research report issued by Time Warner Cable concludes cell phone companies like AT&T and Verizon Wireless cannot meet the future data demands of customers over their 4G LTE wireless networks without punitive usage caps and high fees to deter usage, even with new spectrum becoming available for the wireless industry’s use.

The report, authored by Michael Calabrese of the New America Foundation, finds an answer to this problem in Wi-Fi, which can offload wireless traffic and deliver wireless service customers already prefer:

There is simply not enough exclusively licensed spectrum to meet the rapidly rising demand for wireless data, to sustain a competitive market, and to keep prices at an affordable level.

Major mobile carriers are increasingly coming to grips with this reality. The Wireless Broadband Alliance, a global industry group, reports that Wi-Fi offloading has become an industry standard as “18 of the world’s top 20 largest telcos by revenue have now publicly committed to investing in deploying their own Wi-Fi Hotspot networks.” The industry is shifting steadily toward what it calls heterogeneous networks (HetNets)—i.e., a combination of licensed and unlicensed infrastructure—in order to meet their customers’ insatiable demand for data while keeping costs down.

Alcatel-Lucent forecasts an increase of “87 times [the current] daily traffic on wireless networks” over the next five years, with 50 percent of that traffic on cellular networks “while the remaining 50 percent will be offloaded to Wi-Fi.”

Cisco’s own studies back Calabrese’s findings on consumer preference towards Wi-Fi.

“Given a choice, more than 80 percent of tablet, laptop, and eReader owners would either prefer Wi-Fi to mobile access, or have no preference,” Cisco concluded. “And, just over half of smartphone owners would prefer to use Wi-Fi, or are ambivalent about the two access networks.”

The Cisco surveys found users are choosing Wi-Fi over mobile connectivity for reasons of cost, “because it doesn’t impose data-usage caps or reduce their mobile data plan quotas.” But the primary reason for choosing Wi-Fi “is that respondents find it much faster than mobile networks.” And since Wi-Fi traffic travels over increasingly upgraded wireline networks, that speed differential may only increase as more and more homes, businesses and retail outlets upgrade to fiber optic or other high-speed connections of 100Mbps or more.

America’s largest wireless carriers have fallen far behind offering Wi-Fi services to customers compared to their overseas colleagues:

• AT&T: More than 32,000 Wi-Fi hotspots are available at partnered retail businesses, restaurants, and high-traffic areas like stadiums and major tourist destinations;
• Verizon Wireless: Verizon has an insignificant Wi-Fi presence, with a small number of unadvertised hotspots in selected venues like airports and convention centers;
• Japan’s NTT DOCOMO: Up to 150,000 hotspots, up from only 8,400 in 2o12.
• China Mobile: More than 2 million hotspots are up and running carrying 70 percent of the company’s data traffic.
• France’s Free Mobile: More than 4 million residential hotspots are available through Free’s parent – Iliad.

Comcast could soon be the nation’s largest Wi-Fi hotspot provider.

Calabrese argues it is important for the United States to set aside significant spectrum for unlicensed wireless networks like Wi-Fi to meet future wireless demands. Currently, some Republican members of Congress are opposed to significant spectrum set asides they feel could best be monetized for private use through the spectrum auction process.

It is no coincidence that Calabrese’s findings would be released by Time Warner Cable which itself is growing a Wi-Fi presence in certain cities where it provides cable service.

The wireless carriers’ collective lack of interest in an aggressive nationwide Wi-Fi deployment may have provided a strategic opening for cable operators to fill that gap with Wi-Fi networks of their own. Cable operators consider them a useful tool to retain customer loyalty — access is typically free and unlimited for current customers.

This summer, Comcast announced a “neighborhood hotspot initiative” that will turn millions of customer cable Internet connections into shared Wi-Fi hotspots using a dual-use wireless home gateway. The equipment will offer two separate Wi-Fi signals — one intended for the customer and the other open for use by any Comcast customers in the neighborhood. The cable company will provision extra bandwidth for the open Wi-Fi network to ease concerns that guest users could theoretically slow down a customer’s own Wi-Fi channel. In a relatively short period, Comcast could become the nation’s biggest Wi-Fi network offering more than 20 million hotspots hosted by the company’s own broadband customers.

Calabrese points to the future of seamless transitions between wired, wireless 4G and Wi-Fi network access without dropping calls or data connections. Many customers won’t even know the difference.

The author recommends the FCC think about reserving space for new unlicensed “citizens band” frequencies dedicated for public and private Wi-Fi networks:

• The FCC should reorganize the UHF TV band to ensure the availability of at least 30 to 40MHz of unlicensed spectrum in every media market, perhaps including Channel 37 (now reserved for radio astronomy) and eliminating two dedicated channels reserved for wireless microphones;
• Open the grossly underutilized 3.5–3.7GHz federal band for unlicensed small cell antennas delivering a ‘Citizens Broadband Service.’ This band is now mostly used for offshore naval radar, allowing both services to co-exist without mutual interference;
• Expand unlicensed access to the 5GHz band by allocating the 5.35–5.47 and 5.85–5.925GHz bands providing contiguous, very wide channels useful for the 802.11ac Wi-Fi standard that can support very high-speed wireless services.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/XFINITY Wireless Gateway Powers Connected Home Summer 2013.flv[/flv]

Comcast talks about their new X3 Wireless Gateway which is capable of providing two separate Wi-Fi networks, one for the customer and another for the neighborhood. (2 minutes)