Static isn't just for the UHF dial, it's for powerhouse lobbying groups, too.

While surface reporting on “white space” broadband and “super Wi-Fi” seem to suggest the United States is on the cusp of opening up much of the UHF television dial to wireless broadband, behind the scenes broadband advocates are fretting about being outmaneuvered by the powerful broadcast lobby.  The theory behind “white space” broadband seems simple enough.  Anyone who has flipped channels up and down the UHF dial sees a lot of unused real estate.  While most cities receive 5-10 UHF TV channels, there are dozens of apparently empty channels filled with what seems to be nothing at all. Can’t we make more efficient use of the UHF dial and open the excess to other uses?

The FCC has been studying just that, with the proposition that broadcasters could be relocated closer together or agree to sell their broadcast license and sign off the air for good.  Theoretically, the UHF dial would be reduced to channels 14-30.  Stations on channels 31-51 would have to relocate down the dial to make way for broadband.

That was the plan anyway

Naturally, the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB), the broadcast industry lobbying group, was not happy to learn of this plan, which is still heavily promoted by wireless telecommunications companies.  They quickly argued there were not enough UHF channels left to accommodate every TV station on the air today, and some cities bordering Canada faced losing major stations if the plan was adopted.

In the clash of the lobbying titans, it appears broadcasters have at least temporarily won the upper hand.  Legislation authored by the powerful House Communications Subcommittee Chairman Greg Walden (R-Ore.), would grant the FCC authority to conduct spectrum horse-trading and auctions, but only if the sales take “all reasonable efforts to preserve” the coverage area of impacted broadcast stations.

In the minds of several wireless broadband advocates, “reasonable efforts” kills it. That key passage is open to wide interpretation, which in Beltway language means a full employment program for Washington law firms who will end up letting a judge decide what “reasonable” really means.

Blair Levin

Blair Levin, an attorney who served as chief of staff to FCC Chairman Reed Hundt from 1993 to 1997, where he oversaw the implementation of the disastrous 1996 Telecom Act, is all sour grapes about the latest developments in Congress.  That is to be expected — he was once considered the Obama Administration’s chief “broadband czar.”

“The legislation ties the FCC’s hands in a variety of ways,” Levin tells TVNewsCheck. “It opens it up to litigation risk, which then, in conjunction with the other handcuffs, makes it difficult to pull off a successful auction. The nature of the bill dramatically increases the probability that there will be less spectrum recovered and less money for the [U.S.] Treasury.”

Broadcasters have been legitimately worried about where they might fit within the new, slimmed-down UHF dial.  The more broadcasters packed closer together, the greater the chance of interference and reduced signal coverage for those who happen to live between two cities sharing the same channel number.  The NAB has consistently opposed forcing station-owners’ hands and wants stations compensated for their costs and inconvenience.

Before the first “white space” broadband signal takes to the airwaves, the government will have to set aside at least $3 billion to defray expenses incurred by television stations moving down the dial.  With language that guarantees broadcasters won’t have to suffer from an interference nightmare, FCC engineers will have a much harder time finding enough channels for the number of stations that need to move.  That could mean fewer channel positions up for auction.

Blair believes stations can extract even more by playing the litigation threat card.

“Nobody wants to go to an auction when there is the threat of a judge anywhere having the ability of holding it up,” Blair said. “I believe a good lawyer could find a way to get the question of  whether the FCC took all reasonable efforts in front of a judge. If you are designing the auction and a big law firm shows up and says, ‘If you don’t take care of my single broadcaster, we are going to find a way to get to court.’ That’s a real threat.’’

The Lady Gaga problem

Lady Gaga's wireless microphone malfunction.

Assuming Washington can fling enough cash to soothe the nerves of worried broadcasters, impediments to white space broadband don’t stop with the local Fox station.  The next complication is the wireless microphone issue.  When you see Lady Gaga in her latest outrageous outfit, you probably are not noticing her wireless microphone.  Performers of all kinds use these low power devices that often work over unused UHF spectrum.  Only it may not be unused for long.

Spectrum Bridge, a “white space” database administrator charged with coordinating who is using what frequency for what purpose, understands the challenges of trying to keep track of TV reporters, bands on tour, and other wireless microphone users, who all expect an interference-free experience.  Electric companies and municipalities also plan to utilize white space spectrum to manage smart city and smart grid communications.  A year later, Super Wi-Fi applications that deliver longer distance Wi-Fi service are expected to arrive.

It’s becoming a crowded neighborhood.

Congress’ NAB-friendly, Republican-sponsored bill may be modified substantially in a Democratic-controlled Senate, and there is still plenty of time for lobbyists to work their magic.  But it’s safe to say that those who have waited at least seven years for white space broadband to become a reality will have to wait a little longer.

As long as your life stops after 5GB per month.

Asian wireless operators are learning from their North American counterparts that artificially limiting wireless broadband consumption with usage caps and metered pricing can deliver enormous new profits companies can use to satisfy shareholders and attract higher dividend-seeking investors.

DoCoMo, Hong Kong’s CSL, and South Korea’s SK Telecom have all announced a shift towards usage-limited plans even as they launch new 4G networks that have at least three times the capacity of the older 3G networks they will eventually replace.  In fact, as Dow Jones reports, usage capping 4G wireless Internet access has little to do with congestion.  Instead, it’s a “revenue booster.”

Limiting data use and charging subscribers for excessive Web browsing on mobile devices may help boost carriers’ return on their investment at a time when many operators in the region have seen their earnings pressured due to falling voice revenue and hefty smartphone subsidies.

With the shift to charging subscribers for extra data usage, the region’s carriers are hopeful that they can boost their revenue.

While last generation 3G wireless broadband networks do face congestion issues, providers have maintained unlimited data plans until very recently.  But solving the 3G capacity crunch by upgrading to 4G has not removed the excuse to engage in Internet Overcharging.  It has only shifted the rationale for usage based pricing towards attracting increased revenue and investment.

Hong Kong-based CSL began offering 4G services in November last year for $44.85 for 5GB with an overlimit fee of $12.72/GB. At least CSL retains an unlimited use option, charging customers $60 a month for all-you-can-eat wireless broadband, a much better deal if you expect to exceed CSL’s 5GB limit.

Rogers Communications has mailed letters to rural Canadians announcing it will cease operation of its Portable Internet wireless broadband service effective March 1, 2012.

The service, which uses the Inukshuk Wireless network, delivers Internet access to over 150 communities across mostly rural-northern Canada, where DSL and cable broadband is simply unavailable.  Customers were paying $45 a month for up to 3Mbps service with a 30GB usage cap.

Rogers’ decision will now force most of those customers to use the company’s far more expensive 3G wireless network, which runs far slower and has substantially lower usage allowances.  How much more expensive?  Rogers’ 3G customers choosing the company’s 3G Flex data plan will pay between $94-104 a month (depending on speed), for a plan with a 15GB usage allowance.  Overlimit fees run $10/GB. Customers using 20GB on Rogers’ 3G Flex will pay the company $144-154 a month for slower service.

“The price disparity is absolutely enormous,” says Stop the Cap! reader Ted who uses Rogers Portable Internet service in Val Caron, Ont., located north of Sudbury.  “You might as well not bother using the Internet at all at these prices.”

Ted says Rogers Portable Internet was never a perfect solution, but it was priced similarly to what larger city residents pay for broadband.

“It’s not really WiMax, which came after Rogers introduced the service, and the speeds and ping times can be appalling if you don’t have good reception, but it was affordable,” Ted says.  “Using 3G service means even slower speeds and lower caps at double the price, which is typical for Rogers.”

Ted points out the 30GB one receives on the Portable Internet service for $45 would correspond to a bill for $25o on 3G — five times the price for worse service.

“I am talking to my wife about buying the Rocket Hub [Roger’s device for mobile broadband] so we have something, because Bell has told us not to expect DSL anytime soon,” Ted notes. “Rural Canada cannot catch a break.”

The other option rural Canadians have is satellite Internet access, but providers like Xplornet have faced withering criticism from customers for poor speeds, network speed throttling, and usage caps.

Comcast, Time Warner Cable, and Bright House Networks sold AWS spectrum in areas shown here to Verizon Wireless, virtually guaranteeing the cable industry will not compete in the wireless phone business.

Two years ago, Cox Communications was hungry to get into the wireless phone business.  It announced it was launching “unbelievably fair” wireless — an oasis in a wireless desert of tricks and traps on offer from competing wireless companies.  No more expiring minutes, the option of affordable flat rate service, and no hidden fees or surcharges were all supposed to be part of the deal.

“Our research found that value and transparency are very important to consumers when choosing a wireless service plan, but they are not finding these qualities in the wireless plans offered today,” Stephen Bye, vice president of wireless said back in 2010, introducing the service. “Total loss of unused minutes as well as unforeseen overage charges on bills are just two examples of what our customers have told us is just unfair.”

Those same issues still exist for wireless customers today, but Cox won’t be a part of the solution.  The company announced this past May it was exiting the competitive arena of wireless and would simply resell Sprint service instead.  Last month, it announced it wouldn’t even bother with that, and will transition its remaining wireless customers directly to Sprint.

What changed Cox’s mind?  The cost of building and operating a wireless network to compete with much larger national companies.  It simply no longer made sense to build a small regional wireless carrier and rent the rest of your national coverage area from other providers, who set wholesale prices at a level high enough to protect them from would-be competitors.

The lesson Cox learned first has now been taught to America’s largest cable operators Comcast and Time Warner Cable (and its sidekick Bright House Networks).

All three cable operators have effectively signed a non-aggression treaty with Verizon Wireless, agreeing to sell their unused wireless spectrum acquired by auction in 2006 at a 50% markup to Big Red.  In return, Verizon will market cable service to wireless customers.  It’s the ultimate non-compete clause so wide-reaching, Verizon stores will soon be selling Time Warner Cable right next to Verizon FiOS, something unheard of in the telecommunications marketplace.

It’s a win for Verizon Wireless, which accumulates additional wireless spectrum and peace of mind knowing the cable industry will not enter the wireless communications business.  Cable companies get to profit from their purchase of the public airwaves and see the potential of a dramatic reduction in customer poaching, as cable and phone companies stop fighting each other for customers.  Ultimately, it means customers could eventually pay the cable or phone company for all of their telecommunications services from television and broadband to wired and wireless phone service.  What consumers enjoy in one-bill-convenience may eventually come with higher rates made possible from reduced competition.

Verizon Wireless' currently unused AWS spectrum favor the east coast, but not for long.

Verizon will pay $3.6 billion to Comcast, Time Warner and Bright House Networks for the spectrum.  The deal has stockholders cheering because that payment represents a tidy profit for cable operators who did absolutely nothing with the spectrum they purchased five years ago.  It also makes AT&T even more intent on completing its own spectrum merger with T-Mobile USA.

The agreement has concerned consumer advocates because it seems to signal Verizon is content making money primarily from its wireless business, and will repay the favor from the cable industry by pitching phone customers on cable service.  That could ultimately spell big trouble for Verizon’s stalled FiOS fiber-to-the-home network.  Verizon may find it easier and cheaper to end its aggressive entry into Big Cable’s territory by simply reselling traditional cable television products.  It can still market wireless products and services to cable subscribers and not endanger the new atmosphere of goodwill.  Rural broadband, where cable never competes, could be served through wireless spectrum, for example.

For now, Verizon says it intends to continue competing with its FiOS network, but the company stopped deploying the service in new areas nearly two years ago.

The deal will go before regulators at the Justice Department and the Federal Communications Commission for review.  What will likely concern them the most is the appearance of collusion between the cable companies and Verizon.

“A flag is raised when two rival networks move to start selling each other’s services,” a person familiar with the concerns of federal antitrust officials told the Washington Post. “They lose their desire, impetus, to compete. That is a big antitrust flag.”

Mark Cooper, the director of research for the Consumer Federation of America, expressed serious concern as well.

“Verizon was supposed to be the great competitor for Comcast in the video space, while Comcast has been looking for a wireless play to match the Verizon bundle,” he said. “The deal signals bad news for consumers, who can expect higher prices for video, fewer choices and higher prices for wireless.”

Who owns what

Four years into the deal, consumers may not know what company they are dealing with, as cable operators will be able to market Verizon Wireless service under their own respective cable brand names.

The deal is also trouble for lagging Clearwire, which had been providing wireless broadband service to both Comcast and Time Warner Cable.  Under the agreement, both cable companies will end their relationship with Clearwire, which is particularly bad news for the wireless company because of its ongoing financial distress.  Sprint, which has heavily invested in Clearwire, may ultimately find itself with an investment gone sour, troubling news for the third largest wireless company manning the barricades against a nearly-complete duopoly in wireless service between AT&T and Verizon Wireless.

Cable stock cheerleader Craig Moffett from Sanford Bernstein seems thrilled with the prospect.  In a research note to his Wall Street clients, Moffett says AT&T could benefit from the Verizon pact with Big Cable by ending up in a “more duopolistic industry structure without paying for it.” If the FCC approves the non-aggression pact, the deal “would amount to an unmistakable step towards the duopolization of the U.S. wireless market, inasmuch it would leave T-Mobile, once again, stranded without a 4G strategy.”

Cable investors, he adds, are likely to be excited the cable industry won’t spend billions of dollars in capital building a wireless venture, and instead has agreed to work with competitors to cross-sell products and services.  With little competitive pressure, prices won’t be falling anytime soon.

That’s great news for investors, even if it is “unbelievably unfair” for consumers.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg Verizon to Buy Wireless Spectrum for 3-6 Billion 12-2-11.flv[/flv]

Bloomberg News explains the deal and its implications in the wireless industry spectrum battle.  (2 minutes)

Wireless operator (and cable company) Rogers Communications likes to spend big dollars pushing the message Canada is in the midst of a wireless spectrum crunch — a big reason why it wants “equal treatment”-bidding in upcoming spectrum auctions that may include “set-asides” exclusively for emerging Canadian wireless competitors.

But apparently the spectrum shortage only impacts areas outside of the province of Quebec, because Rogers plans to experiment with a new LTE wireless video on demand service it plans to pitch Quebecers, perhaps as early as next year.

Rogers CEO Nadir Mohamed told the Montreal Gazette the cable company intends to enter the Quebec market with an “over-the-top” on-demand video service, distributed over Rogers’ growing LTE wireless broadband network.  While Mohamed was quick to say this doesn’t mean Rogers intends to launch a full-scale competitive invasion against provincial providers Videotron, Ltd., and Bell Canada Enterprises, it is pre-emptively getting into the business of serving cord-cutters who drop traditional cable packages to watch online video.

The new service is expected to be accessible on phones, tablets, and Internet-enabled televisions and video game consoles, presumably through a wireless Internet adapter.

Mohamed

“Video for wireless has huge potential for growth,” Mohamed told the Gazette. “It’s sort of the mirror image of (how cable evolved), which went from video, to data to voice.”

Nothing eats bandwidth like online video, and Rogers traditionally caps this and other usage on their mobile wireless network, citing spectrum and capacity shortages. But Rogers sees few impediments serving up certain kinds of online video: namely their own.

That’s not a message the company continues to deliver consumers on its “I Want My LTE” website, part of a robust lobbying effort to get its hands on as much new spectrum as possible, even if it means locking out would-be competitors.  In fact, leaving the impression the company has spectrum to spare is so politically dangerous, Mohamed took the wind out of his own announcement by mentioning, as an aside, their networks still don’t have enough capacity to deliver full-motion video to a large number of customers at the same time.

“I think wireless networks in the foreseeable future will not have the capability to deliver full-motion video to a large number of customers at the same time, even with LTE,” he said. “So what you will see is an integration of wired and wireless, where the wireless network will off-load the traffic to a wired network.”

Rogers’ decision to limit the service, both in scope and range, is also designed to protect itself (and other cable operators) from unnecessary competition.  Rogers won’t offer a full menu of video services outside of its traditional cable system areas in Ontario, New Brunswick, and Newfoundland, and only Quebec residents (where Rogers doesn’t sell cable TV) will have the option of signing up for the wireless video-on-demand service.