Under stiff opposition from the nation’s broadcasters, the Federal Communications Commission has dropped a proposal to reallocate a significant chunk of the UHF broadcast television spectrum to wireless communications companies.

As Stop the Cap! recently reported, the wireless industry sought the reallocation to broaden the bandwidth available for wireless broadband services.  The proposal would have paid broadcasters to adopt a new “cell tower”-like model of repeater antennas to provide broadcast television in more localized areas, reducing distant signal reception.  This would permit stations to be packed closer together with less chance of interference with each other.  Broadcasters reacted angrily to the proposal, suggesting it would limit reception and the launch of additional channels and communications services available from their new digital television service.  It would also cause a nightmare for consumers less than a year after the end of most analog television transmissions.

For now, the FCC will adopt a voluntary strategy allowing stations to relinquish spectrum and receive compensation.

The wireless industry was not happy with the decision, and the industry’s trade and lobbying group weighed in.

“The record overwhelmingly demonstrates there’s a need for additional spectrum for mobile broadband services,” said CTIA President and CEO Steve Largent. “We continue to believe that all spectrum should be on the table for potential reallocation, including the almost 300 MHz allocated for broadcast television use, which is spectrum most favorable to mobile broadband. We look forward to working with the Commission and the broadband team to consider mechanisms to put spectrum to its highest use.”

Robert F. McDowell

Two Republicans serving on the Federal Communications Commission told attendees at Saturday’s Tech Policy Summit that “usage-based pricing” for wireless broadband could be a solution to congested cell phone data networks.

“Pricing freedom has to be essential, because a small number of users take up the majority of bandwidth. So charging some of the heavy users for that bandwidth makes sense,” Commissioner Robert McDowell said during a panel discussion at the 2010 Consumer Electronics Show.

“I think it’s time to let that happen,” he added. “Net neutrality proponents say it should be an all-you-can-eat price. But that will lead to gridlock.”

The discussion, Inside the FCC’s Communications Agenda, focused on the FCC’s agenda in light of the Obama Administration’s new policy initiatives and the current the impact technology has on regulatory policy.

McDowell was responding to industry reports that Verizon was prepared to abandon all-you-can-eat pricing for wireless data on its forthcoming 4G LTE wireless network, even though it doesn’t actually have such a plan in place at the time the panel discussion was held.

McDowell believes that since private money is constructing the networks capable of delivering LTE service, the company has a right to charge what it pleases for service, reducing demand with a correspondingly higher price for those who use the network more than others.

Meredith Atwell Baker

Consumer advocates argue that current profits in the wireless industry provide ample resources to build and upgrade networks without overcharging consumers with expensive usage based pricing designed to make customers think twice before using the service they pay good money to receive.  Unlimited use pricing is favored by consumers as well.  Most providers abandoned “all you can eat” plans at least a year ago.  Every wireless broadband plan carries some limitations somewhere in the fine print, particularly for plans that are designed for mobile netbooks or laptops.  Virtually all of them either limit usage to 5GB per month or throttle the user who exceeds that amount down to dial-up speeds for the rest of the month.

Meredith Attwell Baker, the newest Republican FCC Commissioner, seemed slightly out of her element in discussing the issue of consumption billing.

As panel moderator Kim Hart reported for The Hill newspaper, Baker has some novel ideas for easing congestion on wireless broadband networks.

“Maybe we move back to a world where people pay for roaming,” she said.

Phillip Dampier

Verizon Wireless’s next generation LTE wireless broadband network threatens to bring expensive “usage-based billing” to millions of Americans using technology products that depend on wireless networking to communicate  — from the handheld tablet you use to enjoy USA Today over morning coffee, the car that delivers news, weather and traffic reports to and from work, to the portable television you use to catch up with the game while running around town.

At the Consumer Electronics Show, Verizon chief technology officer Dick Lynch warned that Verizon is likely to abandon any notion of flat rate usage pricing, particularly when Verizon doesn’t get a piece of the action from the sale of the devices that connect to their network.

Instead, Verizon Wireless will adopt a wireless version of Internet Overcharging — usage-based billing that isn’t entirely “usage-based.”

A true consumption billing system charges consumers only for what they use — don’t use the service that month and customers would pay little or nothing for service that billing period.  Instead, providers maximize revenue with arbitrary “usage allowances” which are part of the steep monthly service fee.  The unused portion of the allowance typically does not roll over, in effect lost at the end of the month.  That means you pay for not using their network.  Imagine if your electric company charged you for leaving the lights on 24/7, but you were out of town that month.  If you exceed your allowance, the overlimit penalty kicks in, and most providers set those prices high enough to sting you while rewarding them.

“The problem we have today with flat-based usage is that you are trying to encourage customers to be efficient in use and applications but you are getting some people who are bandwidth hogs using gigabytes a month and they are paying something like megabytes a month,” Lynch said. “That isn’t long-term sustainable. Why should customers using an average amount of bandwidth be subsidizing bandwidth hogs?”

Lynch

The first step to broadband pricing enlightenment is to recognize the only true “hog” here is the broadband provider with an endless appetite for your money.  Usage-based pricing schemes carry the one-two punch for consumers, with no pain for providers:

1. They discourage usage, as consumers fear using up their monthly allowance and getting socked with an enormous bill filled with penalties and overlimit fees;
2. The corresponding reduction in usage lowers the providers’ capital spending requirements to meet consumer demand, and increase profits dramatically from those who find allowances too limiting and are willing to pay the exorbitant pricing providers charge those who exceed them.

Does Verizon actually believe that $60 a month for their wireless broadband service represents a fair price for someone using “something like megabytes a month?”  Can Verizon show it is losing money on its wireless broadband service?  I think not.

Predictably, Lynch provides a “between-the-lines” slap at government intervention to force open wireless networks to additional competition in the equipment marketplace:

“The whole paradigm of how we sell devices into the public is changing,” Lynch said. “At the same time that we announced LTE, we announced an open development initiative where we encouraged third-party developers to deploy devices on our network.”

That initiative was hardly the result of a sudden change of heart from Verizon.  It came from pressure Washington applied over the “closed network” practices the American wireless industry has followed for years.  Handsets and the applications that run on them have traditionally been closely controlled by providers.  Features built into smartphones and other handsets were disabled or limited by providers before the phones were sold to the public.  Usually, this forced customers to use the services either provided directly by their wireless company, or one of their “affiliated partners.”

Verizon Wireless is signaling the consequence of a more competitive, open market for wireless products and services: usage limits and a higher bill. That’s because you didn’t buy that device at a Verizon store at their asking price, and you’ve been using it too much.

Consumers would make a grave mistake in blaming a more activist watchdog role by the federal government to force open the wireless industry to competition and innovation by third parties.  Despite Verizon’s hints that those pesky regulators in Washington are to blame for your usage being limited and your bill being higher, the blame really belongs with the carriers pocketing those proceeds.

Since regulators will get the blame regardless, isn’t it time to go all out for American consumers by transforming the wireless provider marketplace?  Here are our suggestions:

1. An end to the ongoing consolidation of existing wireless players into a shrinking number of what will soon be two or three “too big to fail” national providers;
2. Insistence on additional competition coming from new, independent players, not simply those directly affiliated with the dominant four carriers (Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, and T-Mobile);
3. Justification for confiscatory data pricing made possible from the highly concentrated wireless marketplace, particularly in smaller cities and communities.

Verizon and AT&T have both engaged in a lot of scare talk about usage and their costs to manage it.  We’d believe them, except we read their financial reports and neither company is hurting.  We’d even be willing to meet them halfway and advocate additional allocations of spectrum to provide the bandwidth an increasingly wireless world will demand, but not at their asking price with those pesky terms and conditions that ration service to consumers at top dollar prices.

Just six months after the transition to digital television in the United States, proponents for the wireless mobile industry are back before the Federal Communications Commission asking the agency to “free up” additional frequencies by forcing major changes to local television stations.

The CTIA – The Wireless Association, a trade group representing big mobile providers like Verizon, Sprint, and AT&T, and the Consumer Electronics Association have suggested high power television broadcasting should be replaced with networks of lower powered regional relay transmitters serving smaller areas.  With considerably reduced power and antenna height, the groups argue, stations can be compacted into a smaller range of available channels, opening up new opportunities for wireless broadband services.

The number of available channels for television broadcasts has been shrinking since the early 1980s, when UHF channels 70-83 were largely reassigned for mobile phone use.  Today’s UHF band ends at channel 51, as channels 52-69 are reassigned to several interests, including first responders and other public safety uses.  With further compacting of the UHF band, up to 100-180 MHz of spectrum may be freed for mobile broadband use across the country.

How can this be done when the FCC believes many large urban regions of the country have used every available channel?  By reducing the coverage area of individual transmitters.  The wireless association claims interference problems come from high powered transmitters using soaring television antennas to give most television stations 30-40 miles of coverage area from a single transmitter site.  By dramatically reducing both the power and antenna height, and instead using a network of relay transmitters serving smaller areas, television stations can cover their local communities and reduce distant signal reception.  It’s these distant signals, and their capacity to interfere with other stations which requires the FCC to keep stations occupying the same or nearby channels far apart.

KATV-TV Little Rock's transmission tower

The CTIA suggests that with proper engineering of a low-powered network of transmitters, the Commission could reallocate UHF channels 28-51 for wireless communications instead, leaving UHF stations sharing channels 14-27.

The wireless lobby is selling this plan as a “win” for broadcasters, even though they will need to construct a network of lower powered transmitters and antennas to serve essentially every town in their existing service areas.  For most, that would involve constructing 15-20 new transmitter sites.  The wireless group says a more localized ‘cell-tower’ like approach to television transmission would serve areas currently not able to receive reception because of obstacles between the main high powered transmitter and a viewer’s set.  Proper placement of transmission antennas would maximize reception for each transmitter.  The wireless industry is even willing to bear the expense of purchasing transmitters, estimated at up to $1.8 billion dollars nationwide, to help broadcasters make the transition.  That’s actually a cheap price to pay considering the frequencies converted for their use are worth tens of billions more.

The plan got a boost of sorts from the Justice Department, who filed their own comments with the FCC suggesting adding frequency spectrum for wireless-based broadband should be a top priority for the Commission.

“Given the potential of wireless services to reach underserved areas and to provide an alternative to wireline broadband providers in other areas, the Commission’s primary tool for promoting broadband competition should be freeing up spectrum,” Justice officials wrote.

The Justice Department believes handing over additional frequency spectrum will promote competition, increase wireless broadband speeds, and lower prices, despite no evidence that wireless broadband competition would suddenly appear on the scene, or that the prevailing wireless carriers would actually reduce pricing and relax usage limits.

Broadcasters are not thrilled with the wireless industry plan.

The National Association of Broadcasters, to paraphrase, knocked the wireless industry for getting too greedy with its spectrum requests.  The NAB believes wireless providers like Verizon, AT&T, Sprint and T-Mobile are sitting on frequencies already allocated, but not yet used, for mobile communications networks, and they should use them before they come knocking looking for more.

Even more concerning to the NAB is the disruption the CTIA plan would cause for Americans still watching over-the-air free television.  Channel numbers would almost certainly have to be reassigned… again, at least for UHF stations.  That created significant confusion for viewers on the final date of the DTV transition in June when many stations either moved their digital signal back to their original analog channel number or relocated somewhere else on the dial.  Many Americans lost reception until they were taught to re-scan their televisions or converters to find the channels gone missing.

The NAB also questions the reception improvement a network of low power television transmitters could provide, particularly for those just on the edge of one relay transmitter and another.  Anyone trying to watch a low power television station today more than a few miles from the transmitter site can testify it’s not a pleasant experience.  Even greater concerns impact those “distant viewers” who may live between two or more cities, each with their own local stations.  Those viewers, using external antennas, can often watch television from several cities depending which direction their rooftop antenna is pointed, but could end up receiving no signals at all if CTIA’s plan is approved.

Broadcasters are also concerned about the impact lower powered transmitters will have on the forthcoming Mobile DTV service, which will bring programming to devices on-the-go.

The war over frequencies continues, as the broadcasters and mobile providers fight over who ultimately controls airwave real estate estimated to be worth $36-65 billion dollars.

Person County, North Carolina

For north-central North Carolina, it’s often not a matter of how many choices you have for broadband service — it’s whether you can obtain any service at all.

Person County, located just south of the Virginia border, is a good example.  The county’s 36,000 residents technically reside in North Carolina’s Research Triangle, a high-tech growth area.  You wouldn’t know it from the broadband options available in many parts of the county, however.

The dominant phone company, CenturyLink (formerly EMBARQ), offers DSL service in the larger communities in Person County, but wide areas remain without any service at all.

Randy King

A Roxboro-based computer store and Internet Service Provider decided that with CenturyLink unwilling to expand into low population density areas to supply service, they would, with the help of broadband stimulus funding available from the Obama Administration.

Randy King, president of Electronic Solutions, Inc. (ESI), planned to expand broadband into 26 previously unserved Person County areas, and filed a stimulus application requesting $3 million in funding to begin construction.

King believes wireless broadband is the most cost-effective way to reach parts of the 400 square mile county that are simply too rural to upgrade wired service.  Today, that’s nearly 40 percent of the county that still does not have access to broadband service. The Person County High Speed Internet Committee and the County Commissioners endorsed ESI’s proposal.

But CenturyLink would have none of it, despite the fact it was not willing to provide service to those unserved areas either.  The phone company filed an objection with the agency administering the stimulus program claiming ESI would be overbuilding a competing broadband provider in its service area:

CenturyLink can certify that its affiliates currently offer broadband service in some or all of the applicant’s proposed service areas. We attach a representative sample of areas where the application overlaps our existing broadband deployment. This data is not exhaustive; the application may include other areas also currently served with broadband by CenturyLink or other providers. We will provide additional information on request if that will further assist the agency’s review.

CenturyLink also provides data showing broadband availability in local telephone exchanges within the proposed service areas. This includes areas served by CenturyLink and/or other broadband providers. This data further shows the applicant would duplicate and overlap existing broadband services in the proposed service areas.

Connected North Carolina's map shows large areas in grey that suggest broadband service is already available. (click to enlarge)

Because the government will judge the merit of applications based, in part, on reaching the unserved, map data purporting to illustrate who does and who does not have access to broadband service is critically important to applicants.  Some providers have used map data produced by a politically well-connected group filled with telecom industry executives that has spent millions of taxpayer dollars and produced maps that are less than illustrative of the true nature of broadband service.  When a map from Connected Nation’s North Carolina chapter can show citizens have access to broadband, even when they do not, what’s a regulator to do but consider that stimulus grant application unnecessary.

Randy King, President of ESI, has responded to the CenturyLink opposition:

“We are extremely disappointed that CenturyLink has opposed the Person County project. The project would provide high speed Internet (broadband) in areas that currently do not have service in our county. CenturyLink as recently as April 2009 met with county officials and members of the public and stated that they did not intend to expand DSL in low density areas which do not make economical sense.  We are now aware that CenturyLink is not only not going to serve these areas but is attempting to block anyone else from serving these areas.”

ESI claims its wireless system could deliver more capacity to Person County’s rural unserved than CenturyLink provides its more urban counterparts.

“It should be noted that the wireless system will have at minimum 50-100Mbps capability at each tower site which far exceeds current DSL speed of 1-10Mbps. This allows customers to have sufficient bandwidth to have services such as VOIP, IPTV and streaming capabilities whereas DSL is not capable,” King writes.

King is also concerned that CenturyLink won’t provide true detailed maps of exactly what service it provides in what areas.

Person County and area residents have been requesting street level coverage maps from CenturyLink and Charter (the city’s cable company) for years without success. King wants the ability to review these maps, preferably in color with speed capabilities identified down to the 911 address location.  That way, he says, he can work on building capacity to areas not getting service at all.

Providers have traditionally been loathe to disclose this information to the public, and even government regulators, claiming it represents proprietary, competitive information.  That leaves everyone but providers guessing about what broadband service really looks like across America.

The more credible e-NC mapping project shows large swaths of southern Person County without any broadband options at all. (click to enlarge)

Kevin McCarter, CenturyLink’s general manager for central North Carolina seems primarily concerned with potential government funding of his competition.  McCarter told The Courier-Times CenturyLink “interpreted that” the towers King proposed to place in order to provide wireless service “would cover 95 percent” of the entire county. King explained that his intent was not to cover the whole county with wireless access, but to place towers so that those living in areas of the county not currently served by DSL lines would have the option of wireless broadband. He said he never intended his service to replace the DSL lines CenturyLink has in place.

That ESI doesn’t seem intent on competing directly with CenturyLink may have resulted in a breakthrough this month.  The two companies met December 15th to discuss their respective broadband plans for Person County, and may have come to an agreement that could divide up the unserved and get them broadband service from one company or the other, but likely not both.

Jamie Averett Mitchell, spokesperson for CenturyLink, issued the following statement Monday:  “On Tuesday, Dec, 15, representatives from CenturyLink met with Randy King, president of Electronic Solutions, Inc., to review broadband coverage for Person County. Maps detailing both existing and planned coverage areas were presented and reviewed by both parties. Areas that were not covered on either company’s maps were discussed and both companies are aware of those sites. CenturyLink and ESI are working together to determine the most efficient way to provide 100 percent of the population in Person County with the best broadband coverage possible.”

So it seems that broadband applications that do not challenge incumbent providers are acceptable, but those that could expand the quality of service to those living with rural, slow speed DSL service are not.