(Source: JVC)

The National Association of Broadcasters (NAB), a trade association and lobbying group representing many of the nation’s television stations, says claims by wireless carriers of a nationwide spectrum crisis are troubling and counterfactual.  That conclusion comes in a new report issued by the NAB this morning that wants the FCC to keep its hands off UHF broadcast channel spectrum the agency wants to sell off to improve mobile broadband.

The paper, “Solving the Capacity Crunch: Options for Enhancing Data Capacity on Wireless Networks,” written by a former FCC employee, suggests claims by wireless carriers that they will “run out” of frequencies to serve America’s growing interest in wireless services are simply overblown.

Many wireless companies own spectrum they are not using, the report argues, and other licensed users are holding onto spectrum without using it either, hoping to make a killing selling it off at enormous profits in the future.  Besides, the federal government holds the largest amount of underutilized spectrum around — frequencies that could easily be allocated to wireless use without further reducing the size of the UHF broadcast TV band.

Many of the ideas in the NAB report emphasize the need for carriers to deploy innovative technology solutions to increase the efficiency of the spectrum they are already using.  Those ideas include additional cell towers to split traffic loads into smaller regional areas, and improving on network channel-bonding, caching, and intelligent network protocols.

But the NAB report has some obvious weak spots the wireless industry will likely exploit — notably their recommendations that seek a reduction in wireless traffic — ideas that would suggest there is not enough spectrum to handle every user.  Among those recommendations:

• Implementing Internet Overcharging schemes like “fair use” policies and consumption-based pricing to discourage use;
• Migrating voice traffic to Internet Protocol;
• Migrating data traffic to a prolific network of “femtocells” — mini antennas that provide 3G service inside buildings, but deliver that traffic over home or business wired broadband connections;
• Offering wider access to Wi-Fi networks in public areas;
• Encouraging the development of bandwidth sensitive devices and applications.

The National Broadband Plan’s conclusion of a spectrum shortage is based on little more than a wish list by wireless carriers, says the paper. Its author, Uzoma Onyeije, cites contradictory statements by high-ranking corporate officials to show the Plan’s calls for making 500MHz of spectrum available for broadband in ten years is a gross overestimate of the actual need.

“There is no denying that the corporate imperative of mobile wireless carriers is to obtain as much spectrum as they can,” Onyeije wrote. “However, the fact that wireless carriers cannot find a unified voice on the amount and timing of their spectrum needs suggests that this advocacy is more strategic gamesmanship than factual reality.”

The NAB has heavily lobbied Washington officials on the issue of spectrum because their members — broadcast television stations — are facing the loss of up to 120MHz of what’s left of the UHF dial, already shrinking because of earlier reallocations.  The FCC proposal would resize the UHF dial to channels 14-30 — 16 channels.  In crowded television markets like Los Angeles, up to 16 stations would be forced to sign-off the public airwaves for good, because there would be insufficient space to allow them to continue a broadcast signal.  Instead, the FCC proposes they deliver their signal over pay television providers like cable or telco-provided IPTV.  Or they could always stream over the Internet.  But that would mean the decline of free, over the air television in this country.

Considering the millions of dollars many stations are worth, it’s no surprise broadcasters are howling over the proposal.

Onyeije’s report suggests AT&T and Verizon, among others, are grabbing whatever valuable spectrum they can get their hands on.  What they don’t use, they’ll “warehouse” for claimed future use.  By locking up unused spectrum, potential competitors can’t use it.  The proof, Onyeije writes, is found when comparing claims by the wireless industry with the FCC’s own independent research:

AT&T predicts 8-10 times of data growth between 2010 and 2015 and T-Mobile forecasts that data will have 10 times of growth in 5 years. Yet, the Commission’s assessment that 275MHz of spectrum is needed to meet mobile data demand is premised on data growth of 35 times between 2009 and 2014.

The Data Tsunami Debunked

Some providers are sitting on spectrum they already own.

The NAB also takes to task the “evidence” many providers use to claim the zettabyte era is at hand, where a veritable exaflood of data will force America into a widespread data brownout if more capacity isn’t immediately made available.

[…] The [industry claims rely] on suspect data. In arriving at its conclusion, OBI Technical Paper No. 6 relies heavily on forecast data from Cisco that is both wildly optimistic about data growth and unscientific. In a blog entry entitled, Should a Sales Brochure Underlie US Spectrum Policy?, Steven Crowley states that “[t]here is overlap between the people who prepare the forecast and the people responsible for marketing Cisco’s line of core-network hardware to service providers. The forecast is used to help sell that hardware. Put simply, it’s a sales brochure.”

Onyeije takes apart the oft-repeated claim that a data explosion will be unyielding, unrelenting, and will be the wireless industry’s biggest challenge for years to come.  It also speaks to issues about broadband use in general:

In particular, the paper appears to be premised on the highly suspect assumption that the high demand curve for mobile data will not slow. While smartphone growth is significantly increasing now, it will no doubt plateau and slow. It has been widely accepted for decades that the process of technological adoption over time is typically illustrated as a classic normal distribution or “bell curve” where a phase of rapid adoption ends in slowed adoption as the product matures or new technologies emerge.

As recently reported, Cisco now projects that U.S. mobile growth will drop by more than half by 2015. As Dave Burstein, Editor of DSL Prime, explains: “The growth is clearly not exponential.”  Mr. Burstein went on to say “Every CFO and engineer has to plan carefully for the network upgrades needed, but the numbers certainly don’t suggest a ‘crisis.’” Jon Healey of the Los Angeles Times Editorial Board similarly explains that “Much of the growth in the demand for bandwidth has come from two parallel forces: a new type of smartphone (epitomized by the iPhone) encourages people to make more use of the mobile Web, and more people are switching from conventional mobile phones to these new smartphones. Once everyone has an iPhone, an Android phone or the equivalent, much of the growth goes away.” AP Technology writer Peter Svensson echoes this concern and explains “AT&T’s own figures indicate that growth is slowing down now that smartphones are already in many hands.” Thus, the assumption that data demand will continue to grow unabated is deeply flawed.

Internet Overcharging is About Rationing and Reducing Use

Although the NAB favors Internet Overcharging to drive down demand for use, Onyeije’s report inadvertently provides additional evidence to the forces that oppose data caps, meters, and speed throttles: they are designed to monetize usage while driving it down at the same time:

While unlimited data plans on mobile phones were once the standard, there is now more focus on using pricing as a network management tool. As AT&T Operations President John Stankey put it, “I don’t think you can have an unlimited model forever with a scarce resource. More people get drunk at an open bar than a cash bar.”  In the past year, AT&T and Virgin Mobile abandoned unlimited data plans. In 2010, T-Mobile announced that it would employ data throttling and slow the download speeds of customers that use more than five GB of data each month. And Bloomberg reported on March 1, 2011 that “Verizon Communications Inc. will stop offering unlimited data plans for Apple Inc.’s iPhone as soon as this summer and switch to a tiered pricing offering that can generate more revenue and hold the heaviest users in check.” Usage-based smartphone data plans substantially reduce per-user data traffic. As a result, data growth is likely to slow over time. And companies, including Cisco, are marketing products to carriers to help make tiered data plans easier to implement and help carriers “increase the monetization of their networks.”

AT&T has a deal for first responders.

Where cell service is wiped out in a natural disaster (or doesn’t provide adequate coverage even when it does work), the phone company is willing to sell emergency officials their own AT&T mini-cell-tower site — for up to $45,000, not including ongoing monthly service fees.

The Remote Mobility Zone is a briefcase-sized portable cell tower that will typically provide service for a dozen or more concurrent callers over AT&T-licensed spectrum.  The company sells the equipment, but buyers still have to pay a monthly service charge, users must have a qualifying AT&T voice plan, and the data service that comes with it operates at slower-than-3G speeds.

“In the pivotal first minutes of a natural or man-made disaster, AT&T Remote Mobility Zone provides a solution to help maintain critical mobile communications,” said Chris Hill, vice president, Advanced Mobility Solutions, AT&T Business Solutions.  “With AT&T Remote Mobility Zone, users can set up a cell site in less than 30 minutes.”

That’s much faster than AT&T can fix their own cell sites when they go offline in a disaster.

A consultant to first responders, Jim Davis, tells Stop the Cap! the portable cell tower may sound like a good idea, but will meet resistance because of the “optics” of taxpayers paying for private cell phone company equipment.

“You are effectively asking taxpayers to pay for AT&T cell towers, and that is going to present a political problem in a lot of areas,” Davis tells us.  “What is even harder to justify is the fact AT&T charges monthly service fees from the moment the device ships, whether you use it or not — and the service only works with AT&T GSM cell phones, which is fine as long as fire and EMS rescue services are equipped with those phones, and many are not.”

Davis tells us Sprint/Nextel has a significant portion of the cell-phones-for-emergency personnel-market, especially in the east.

“Sprint aggressively prices their services to this market, and their phones won’t work on AT&T’s cell site.”

Davis says the Remote Mobility Zone is likely to present a better fit in the corporate world, especially in the energy sector.

“This device makes sense if you are hydrofracking for natural gas in Pennsylvania, or drilling for oil in Wyoming, or even on an oil drilling platform,” Davis says.  “Those installations are up and running for longer periods of time and are in relatively narrow spaces, perfect for AT&T’s half-mile service area using this device.”

“AT&T is going to have to market this very carefully, because the company is effectively selling a product to cover gaps that AT&T has created themselves either through inadequate coverage or damaged cell towers they should be responsible for fixing fast enough to negate the need for this product.”

Signal boosters use an outdoor antenna to reach distant cell tower sites, while using an indoor antenna your mobile device can lock onto for improved reception.

If the Federal Communications Commission has its way, Americans annoyed with lousy cell phone reception will soon be able to purchase a new generation of signal boosters capable of delivering service to fringe reception areas ignored or bypassed by providers.  And unlike home cell-phone extenders, they won’t use your home broadband connection while also eating up your voice and data allowance.

A signal booster, not to be confused with a “femtocell” some wireless carriers sell or give to customers, acts like an amplified super-antenna — giving a boost to phones and mobile broadband signals in difficult reception areas.

This devices have been around and legal to use for a several years in North America, much to the consternation of cell phone companies and some public safety officials who deal with occasional interference problems created by misused or malfunctioning equipment.  The FCC is trying to find ways to mitigate interference problems while still allowing customers to benefit from signal boosters.  There are documented cases of rescuers relying on the equipment in remote disaster areas, and rural residents have managed 911 calls that would have been impossible without signal boosting technology.

Despite the agency’s efforts, several cell phone companies — particularly AT&T, object to the Commission’s plans to allow the independent use of signal-boosting equipment on “their” frequencies and networks.  Because cell phone boosters agnostically enhance every company’s signal within its frequency range and does not require users to pre-register phones to get access, AT&T stands to lose revenue if they are not the exclusive authority on selling, approving, and registering the use of miniature relay stations that boost their network’s coverage area.

AT&T currently sells customers femtocells which reduce dependence on the carrier’s overburdened 3G network — offloading traffic onto home and workplace wired broadband connections, which includes both voice calls and data.  But only a small percentage of customers get the equipment for free, often extending their contracts in the process.

Some providers and emergency responders have documented instances where these devices have created interference problems for cell tower sites and for emergency radio traffic that co-exists on the same frequency bands signal boosters occupy.  In some cases, inappropriate use of signal boosters has blocked emergency traffic, shut down cell sites, or reduced their coverage.  That is why the FCC wants the next generation of signal boosters to be able to intelligently interact with cell sites and other traffic users and reduce their power or discontinue service if they begin to create interference problems.

AT&T’s suggested safeguards go well beyond what most other carriers want from the FCC:

First, AT&T proposes that wireless licensees have “ultimate control” over any signal boosters operating on their networks under a presumptive authorization.  Specifically, signal booster operators must activate their devices with the licensee prior to initial use. In addition, the booster must possess technology to permit the licensee’s network to identify the device as a booster and identify its location at all times. Further, the licensee must have “dynamic control over the boosters’ transmit power” and have the authority and ability to turn off the booster for any reason at any time. Alternatively, AT&T proposes that the booster have “automatic gain control functionality that adjusts the power provided to the booster based on distance to the relevant base station.”

Second, AT&T proposes that signal boosters may only be operated on a channelized basis on the frequencies authorized for use by the wireless licensee whose signal is being boosted. AT&T suggests that manufacturers could meet this requirement by selling carrier-specific narrowband boosters or by designing “intelligent” boosters that limit transmissions to the spectrum licensed to the carrier whose signal is being boosted.

Third, AT&T proposes that signal boosters be designed with oscillation detection and will terminate transmission when oscillation occurs.

Fourth, AT&T proposes an expanded certification process for signal boosters that are to be used pursuant to a presumptive authorization. Specifically, the booster would be subject to (1) the Commission’s equipment certification process; (2) an industry-driven certification process;105 and (3) individual licensee approval to ensure compliance with the licensee’s proprietary confidential network protocols.

Fifth, AT&T proposes that any presumptive authorization standards be applied prospectively and that the Commission bring enforcement action against parties that sell, market, or use devices that do not meet the presumptive standard.

Wilson Electronics is a major manufacturer of cell signal boosters.

Equipment manufacturers are not impressed with AT&T’s ideas.  One tells Stop the Cap! if adopted, signal boosting equipment would cost more than double today’s average price of $200-400.

“AT&T has built so many requirements into their proposal, they know the result will be a product too expensive to sell to consumers,” the source tells us.  “And the part where AT&T wants the right to authorize and register the equipment gives them the option of charging a fee for doing so, turning the product into yet another way for AT&T to make money.”

Equipment manufacturers agree that there have been instances of interference problems, and they are willing to work with the Commission to find solutions, but not at the risk of adopting proposals some suspect are designed to destroy the signal booster business.

“AT&T is a control freak, plain and simple,” the source says.  “If they don’t own it or control it, it’s offensive to them.  It must be eliminated.”

More than one equipment manufacturer has noted, not for attribution, they find AT&T’s complaints a bit ironic.

“This is the same company that is already notorious for dropping calls,” said the source.  “You would think they would look favorably on anything that could deliver ‘more bars in more places,’ because AT&T sure isn’t doing it these days.  Just ask their customers.”

Here in West Virginia, cell phone reception is often by the grace of God.  The incredibly mountainous state makes “line of sight” communications a real problem when the nearest cell tower is blocked by a gigantic shale rock formation someone blasted through to build a road decades earlier.

AT&T probably still delivers the largest coverage of rural areas in the state because its towers expand beyond the major highways other carriers cover. But even with that expanded service, using a smartphone indoors is going to be a problem in many places.

Recently, AT&T sent letters to approximately 7.5 percent of their customers in the rural areas most likely to have reception problems, offering a free “MicroCell,” which is comparable to a mini cell tower inside your home or office.  The equipment works with your existing broadband connection to expand “coverage” inside your home.  For data purposes, the MicroCell doesn’t deliver anything your personal Wi-Fi connection couldn’t, but if you rely on a cell phone, having signal bars makes all the difference if you are waiting for an important call.

A considerable number of those letters reached families in West Virginia, and that is no surprise considering the state is by far the most difficult to blanket with wireless coverage in the eastern half of the country.

A letter to AT&T customers inviting them to receive a free MicroCell

But the problem is, some families are receiving the free offers, while others are not, and that is creating reception envy.

AT&T 3G MicroCell

Charlotte, who lives in Whipple, W.V., outside of Oak Hill, was visiting with her neighbor Joy last week and noticed her husband fiddling with the latest gadget on his computer desk.

“It looked odd because of the way it spread out on the bottom, so I asked Joy what in the world he was installing,” Charlotte says.

“It’s a cell tower thing AT&T gave us to get better reception,” Joy responded.

Despite the fact the two families live only a few homes apart and signed up for AT&T service with the exact same phones within weeks of each other, Charlotte was never offered AT&T’s MicroCell.

AT&T notified qualified customers with a letter containing a personal reservation code, and the offer was not transferable.

“Maybe you got it and threw it away,” Joy offered.

“No, ever since the credit card companies started changing terms on us, we open every envelope that comes into this house,” Charlotte replied.

Assuming it must be an oversight, Charlotte dropped by her local AT&T store to inquire about the offer.

“We quickly learned we were not the first family to bring up this issue with AT&T as the store manager told us he was fielding complaints from all over town about the highly-selective offer,” Charlotte said.

Even worse, there was nothing the manager could do to rectify the situation.

“His hands were as tied as my patience was tried,” Charlotte tells Stop the Cap!

“The store manager offered to sell me the MicroCell for around $100 with a rebate, but why should I pay AT&T for better reception they should already be providing?” Charlotte asks.  “It seems to me if they are giving away these things to some people in a neighborhood, they should be doing it for everyone, because we pay the same bill our neighbors do.”

The seemingly random offers of MicroCell units are not limited to West Virginia.  We’ve noticed complaints from residents in northern California, the Pacific Northwest, and northern New England from others who get reception while outdoors or on the go, but find their phones useless for making and receiving calls at home.

In most cases, irate customers seeking redress from AT&T run into a bureaucratic brick wall.

Rick McGee, commenting on Engadget’s website:

I have talked to Marketing, Technical Support, and my local store, and nobody can tell me who to contact to qualify for a MicroCell. I have been an AT&T Mobility customer for over four years, with four family plan phones and two more phones on corporate contracts. The reception at my house is usually zero, at times maybe one bar, but never enough to maintain an incoming call or make an outgoing call. I guess I am a glutton for punishment, but this is the last straw.

If AT&T does not magically send me one of the MicroCell coupons, I will total up my termination fees and determine the earliest date I am willing to dump AT&T and try another carrier. In addition to the cell phones, I have two AT&T land lines, plus an AT&T internet account, so I am likely in the top tier of residential customers. With no reception at my house, I don’t see how I would fail to qualify for a MicroCell, but AT&T has no process to help individual customers with bad reception. Everyone I talk to claims ignorance. I’ve done my part, AT&T — either step up, or I am gone.

Others find similar experiences — apologies from in-person sales staff about the corporate roadblocks even they cannot navigate around.

But every once in awhile, one does.  Casey Robinson’s neighborhood lost all AT&T cell phone service when their local cell tower was destroyed in a storm.  The replacement redirected most of its signal elsewhere, leaving them with no bars.

After arguing with corporate phone support in the AT&T store for 2 hours they told me pay the $149 [for a MicroCell] or tough luck. I responded by telling them to take my family plan +2 lines, my roommates family plan +3 lines, and our Uverse U400 package with high speed internet and shove it, we will be changing carriers immediately since I have tower data from AT&T pre and post storm to show they breached our contract.

The AT&T store rep was amazing through all of this. He apologized continuously and said if it was up to them they would give out the MicroCell as soon as we walked in the door, unfortunately their computers physically block them from comping a MicroCell. While I was very distraught on the phone with AT&T, he called his manager at home and explained the situation. She drove in to the store, again apologizing for everything we had to go through, checked us out with the MicroCell then credited our account for the full purchase price and credited a month’s service to both my line and my roommate’s line for the issues we had been having. They are the only reason we still have AT&T. Of course we wrote to their district manager and AT&T corporate applauding the employee and manager, and of course from what we’ve heard they still haven’t been acknowledged for their good work.

Some others have had recent success filing complaints with the Better Business Bureau, when executive level customer service representatives come to the rescue with a free MicroCell.

Charlotte’s family intends to deal with the MicroCell Gap in their own way — by switching to Verizon Wireless, which improved service in the Oak Hill region a few years ago while they’ve been under contract with AT&T.

“We were willing to put up with the MicroCell doing the job their own cell towers should be doing, but because they don’t care about us, we’re done with them,” Charlotte says.

Customers accepting AT&T’s free offer must verbally commit to stay with the carrier at least 12 months or return the MicroCell when they depart.  If they don’t, AT&T will bill an equipment fee up to $199.

Engadget obtained this inside memo about the MicroCell offer.

Copper thieves looking for quick cash, typically to finance drug habits, continue to plague telecommunications companies who find their networks literally stripped as brazen thieves rip utility lines right off phone poles.  Although these thefts eventually cost cable, phone, and electric utility customers money in the form of higher bills, taxpayers are increasingly paying the price for copper thefts affecting wireless communications networks.

That’s because emergency responders are increasingly placing communications equipment at existing commercial cell sites and radio communications centers, and when those networks go down communities pick up the tab and argue about the bill later.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WSOC Charlotte – Copper Thefts Costing Taxpayers 11-16-10.flv[/flv]

WSOC-TV in Charlotte visits Rock Hill to see how copper thefts are costing area taxpayers plenty.  (2 minutes)

Scrap copper wire - as good as gold

In Charlotte, N.C., copper thieves are targeting copper plates that can weigh up to 70 pounds used to ground cell and radio towers to protect them from lightning strikes.

Without them, towers and the equipment used to deliver service can be seriously damaged, leading to the loss of cell phone service and a county’s emergency radio system.  That can leave dispatchers unable to talk to police and firefighters.

Because of the importance of these communications systems, when plates go missing, York County taxpayers pick up the tab for replacing them.  That costs several thousand dollars every time the plates have to be replaced.

WSOC-TV in Charlotte noted while working on a story about the thefts, just one day after plates were replaced from one tower, they were stolen again.

New legislation designed to crack down on illicitly-obtained copper sold to recycling firms should have curtailed the ability for thieves to turn tons of copper into stacks of cash.  But despite new laws in states like California, legislation is only effective when it is enforced.  In northern California, budget cuts eliminated the one officer that devoted time and energy to stopping copper thefts in the Sacramento area.  A local television station went undercover and discovered the state might as well not even have a law, because they were able to obtain quick cash for copper… no questions, or ID, asked.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KOVR Sacamento Copper Wire Rules Not Followed 11-16-10.flv[/flv]

KOVR-TV in Sacramento went undercover and discovered the futility of copper theft legislation that is not enforced.  (5 minutes)