Following up on my posts on the subject, I had the opportunity to discuss FCC Commissioner Tom Wheeler’s announcement of a new Net Neutrality proposal with Colin O’Keefe of LXBN. In it I explain why the FCC wouldn’t really regulate the Internet like a utility and answer a few other key questions.
At the CES Conference earlier this month, Chairman Wheeler signaled the FCC would adopt net neutrality rules, including a ban on paid prioritization, consistent with President Obama’s blog post from November. These remarks were noteworthy because the Chairman stated he would circulate a draft net neutrality order for adoption at the February Commission Meeting that would rely on Title II of the Communications Act as authority for the anti-blocking and anti-discrimination rules that the D.C. Court of Appeals struck down last January in Verizon v. FCC.…
Continue Reading Draft Legislation Targets Title II-Based Net Neutrality Rules
As 2015 begins, the FCC has reportedly chosen Title II with forbearance as the basis for targeted Net Neutrality rules. Other headline issues are the incentive auction, re-assessing whether the Communications Act empowers the FCC to pre-empt state laws limiting municipal broadband networks, and redefining broadband as 25 MBPS downstream/3 MBPS downstream. …
Few FCC issues have elicited the sustained attention of the general public, public interest groups of all persuasions, the media, and the cable, telco and wireless industries as Net Neutrality. It is one of those rare issues that can drive a united front among the major Internet services providers.
In parallel, the Commission, guided by the Chairman and with the Office of Strategic Planning & Policy Analysis doing the heavy lifting, is in the midst of significant, though less widely reported, efforts to address a far more pressing issue for many of the country’s rural communities: For all intents and purposes, these communities do not have broadband services and find themselves on the wrong side of the “Digital Divide.”…
Continue Reading FCC Broadband Policy: More than “Fast Lanes” and “Title II Regulation”— Part I
The manner in which many enterprises procure wireless services needs to be reassessed. For those interested in deploying M2M networks or experiencing in-building wireless reception challenges (or concerned such challenges may arise), the standard procurement approach is no longer viable.
Wireless procurements typically focus on service and device pricing (with two-year refresh cycles) for generally-available…
Wireless reception, DAS, Property Owners, Wireless carriers, Wi-Fi networks…
Continue Reading Improving In-Building Wireless Reception: Property Owners Are Not the Enemy
At the end of March, Intel, IBM, AT&T, GE and Cisco announced the formation of “the Industrial Internet Consortium (IIC), a nonprofit organization dedicated to the Internet of Things, to ‘improve the integration of the physical and digital worlds.’ ”
The Industrial Internet means different things to different people, but most would agree the concept encompasses wireless connectivity supporting the transfer of data from machines to software applications on a real time or near-real time basis and, possibly, directing operation of the machines; and, potentially, the analysis of this data to determine useful correlations, trends and anomalies (“big data analytics”).…
Continue Reading The Industrial Internet: The Emerging M2M Colossus
A confluence of factors confirms the FCC’s 2013 Wireless Signal Booster Report and Order is best viewed as a “first-step” in addressing wireless in-building reception challenges.
Significant “gaps” in wireless reception within multi-story buildings and large complexes are likely to persist as long as wireless carriers can decide whether and on what terms to allow property owners to install “industrial signal boosters”–operated in connection with in-building distributed antenna systems (DAS) or not–even though wireless carrier discretion and control are central themes of the Report and Order.
Several trends strongly suggest carrier discretion could prove problematic for persons living or working within multi-story buildings.
• The growing number of individuals under 35 years of age that rely exclusively on wireless for voice communications is unprecedented, as noted in the Sixteenth Mobile Wireless Competition Report: “Approximately half of all adults aged 18-24 and aged 30-34 lived in wireless-only households in the first half of 2012, while nearly 60 percent of adults aged 25-29 did so.”
• For the foreseeable future, new home construction and new household formation will occur predominantly in the multi-family, MDU sector, as opposed to single family construction and homes, particularly among millennials.
• In many multi-story buildings (residential and commercial), access to the outside of the buildings is not feasible; terraces are not commonplace in “high rise” developments. Thus, consumer signal boosters will not be a solution because their antennas are intended to be mounted on the outside of buildings.
• The commitment of property developers to Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (“LEED”) materials and practices, including Low-E windows that are both extremely energy efficient and extremely effective in blocking wireless signals.
A “carrier-driven” solution that could overcome these challenges is small cell technology. While internal cabling is still required, the costs and time to deploy small cells reportedly compare very favorably to DAS deployments. One drawback to small cell technology, which also may be WiFi-enabled, is that this technology likely will be deployed on a carrier-specific basis. Thus, the so-called “neutral host” DAS may prove preferable for many in-building environments because all carriers can be accommodated by these systems. This is particularly critical in MDUs and multi-tenant commercial buildings.
Even though the carriers hold many “of the cards” for addressing in-building wireless reception challenges, developers and property owners will have to “ante up,” as well. These challenges will require their engagement and dollars to deliver viable solutions to their residents and tenants. The “wild cards” include near-by construction and development that can impair wireless reception at a given property and other changes in the macro wireless environment, requiring flexibility and resources from both carriers and property owners.
For the preferred multi-carrier, in-building solutions, the costs typically run well into six figures or more per property; the design and planning of the solution, securing approval from each wireless carrier, and implementing the solution can take upwards of one year. Unfortunately, not all carriers agree to participate in every project. While carrier agreements with property owners and enterprises are terribly one-sided, a threshold concern is that the carriers typically demand these agreements be limited to five-year terms and that they have the unilateral right to renew or not, thereby putting at risk the property owner’s infrastructure investments.
These property-specific negotiations also have broader implications. FCC proposals to promote the efficacy of wireless handset indoor location accuracy for 9 1 1 calls (text or voice) in multi-story buildings will prove to be an academic exercise if wireless signals cannot be transmitted from these locations, even if slightly distorted by in-building wireless reception solutions.
The 2013 Report and Order is a positive first step. Its utility and success are open questions at this time. If it falls short, the Commission may be compelled to limit carrier discretion in regard to industrial signal boosters and impose an affirmative obligation on wireless carriers to support in-building wireless reception solutions.…
Continue Reading Significant Challenges to In-Building Wireless Reception Remain, Despite the FCC’s Signal Booster Report and Order
This is the first in a series of entries on Machine-to-Machine (“M2M”) communications. One definition for M2M is “RF devices associated with/connected to physical assets, communicating information to or from the physical assets and, potentially, directing or controlling operation of the physical assets or processing a transaction.” Leading M2M consultants include ABI Research and Yankee…
The real surprise of the D.C. Circuit’s opinion in Verizon v. FCC was not that the anti-discrimination and anti-blocking rules of the Open Internet Order were vacated, but that the court found the FCC has jurisdiction to regulate Internet access services providers under Section 706 of the Act. Chairman Wheeler has made clear the FCC will exercise this authority as required, though the manner for so doing remains an open question. Legislation has been introduced to resuscitate the largely vacated order, but the odds for enactment are slim.…
Continue Reading It’s Not Just Verizon v. FCC–Other Obstacles to an Open, Competitive Market for High Speed Internet Access Services Need to be Cleared