Category: General

Can. You. Throttle. Me. Now?

Can. You. Throttle. Me. Now?

Posted on by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

By now you’ve probably read published stories or seen the news videos about Verizon Wireless throttling (throttle) data rates of firefighter phones in California.  See, for example, this Ars Technica article.

Some call this a net neutrality issue.  I don’t see it that way.

I see this as a public safety issue, and ripe for a thoughtful California legislator to step up and introduce legislation to establish a statewide public safety users database (“PSUD”) that would contain the phone numbers of all registered public safety user (firefighters, police, etc.).  Let’s lasso the carriers to get them back under the mantle of public safety.

Plan A: The legislation I envision will prohibit a wireless carrier–any wireless carrier–from throttling data rates or disconnecting a registered user during federally or state-declared emergencies once notice is sent to the carriers by a designated state office.

I suspect the wireless carriers will say that they can’t do this for one reason or another, or they are somehow unable to act quickly on anti-throttle notices sent from state officials, thus the legislation should not move forward.

If the carriers do say it can’t be done as I’ve set out in Plan A–really, when they say it–I have a splendid Plan B:  The alternative version of the law I envision will prohibit throttling or data caps for any registered device at any time, and require that the carrier send no fewer than 5 texts over 10 calendar days, plus a 10-day letter, warning in advance of account cut-off.

If the carriers are truly concerned about public safety–which sometimes I wonder–then they should embrace legislation like I propose.

It’s about life and property safety, not data caps and profit.

I’ll be talking with some friendly California legislators about this legislative initiative.

-Jonathan

PS: Perhaps the California State Firefighters Association and the California Peace Officers Association #CalPeaceOfficer would like to cooperate to add this to the top of their legislative agendas.  I suspect they might like my little initiative.  I’d be happy to help them write the draft legislation with real teeth at no charge. -jlk

PPS: It seems like this idea would be easy to spread to other states for adoption.  Hummmm.  -jlk

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Coronado, California Adopts New Wireless Ordinance

Coronado, California Adopts New Wireless Ordinance

Posted on by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

Last night, August 21, 2018, the City of Coronado, California adopted a new wireless ordinance. In fact, it was their first wireless ordinance, and it focuses on 5G and beyond.

During the hearing, I presented a short PowerPoint presentation on 5G and why the wireless industry moves in seemingly mysterious ways.

If you’d like to learn about the new ordinance, and listen to my lecture to and discussions with the City Council, please visit:  https://coronado.12milesout.com/meeting/council/8-21-2018  and select item 8b.

Jonathan

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
The Wireless Sky is Falling!

The Wireless Sky is Falling!

Posted on by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer
The wireless sky is NOT falling!
The Wireless Sky is Falling! The Wireless Sky is Falling…

Yes, the wireless sky is falling according to various firms who want landlords to hire them to sell their Sprint leases.  Our landlords are receiving letters and emails from various firms wanting to buy Sprint leases, with justifications such as:

‘Once the T-Mobile-Sprint deal is done, the value of your Sprint Site will drop to $0.’

‘Sprint will lay off 70+% of its staff.’

‘Sprint will shutter half of its cell sites.  Yours will be one of the sites they shutter.’

‘Your Sprint site is surrounded by [insert any number] of T-Mobile sites.’

‘You’ve got a narrow and closing window to act before the FCC and DOJ green-light the merger.’

Once they have set their end-of-the-world table, these firms then suggest that now is the time to hire them to help sell the soon-to-be-worthless Sprint lease.

Wait, I don’t get it…

Why would any buyer be interested in buying a worthless site owned by a company that’s going to shed the better part of its staff, and shut down half of its sites?

Yes, why indeed!?

If history is any indicator, post-merger (by a couple of years), there will be some site shut downs, but many will survive. Not all the sites to shutter will belong to Sprint…some T-Mobile sites will be goners, too.

The lowest hanging fruit for shut downs will be where Sprint and T-Mobile are collocated on the very same tower or property.  Next will likely Sprint and T-Mobile sites nearby to each other (blocks).  Finally, sites further separated will get the evil eye.

Expect companies like MD7, BlackDot, and other so-called site lease optimizers to be pulled in to push landlords to cut their rents, extend their terms, and other fun stuff (wait for: ‘Hello landlord…Now that T-Mobile and Sprint have merged, they have too many sites. T-Mobile is considering terminating your lease, but if you give them a big fat kiss in the way of a long-term rent reduction, an elimination of other terms favorable to you, they’ll stay…’).

If the T-Mobile/Sprint deal is done, we’re in for interesting times.  Before that, however, don’t get suckered into selling your Sprint (or T-Mobile) lease until you get competent counsel that help you understand your legal position.

Competent counsel does not come dressed like a little bird, nor does competent counsel cry out that the wireless sky is falling.

Jonathan

 

 

 

 

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Most Favored Wireless Lessee Clause?

Most Favored Wireless Lessee Clause?

Posted on by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

One of the big wireless carriers has added an interesting new ‘standard provision’ in its lease template.  It’s a clause that makes that particular lessee the ‘most favored lessee’ over the decades-long life of the agreement.

Some of you will recognize this type of contract provision as a Most Favored Nation (“MFN”) clause.

In the wireless leasing context, a wireless landlord granting this MFN might be called a “Most Flagrant Numskull.”

I’ll review the meat of the MFN clause. Then I’ll you how we’re handling this odious little clause for our wireless landlord clients.

Paraphrased, major elements of the MFN cause require the Lessor to guarantee to its wireless carrier tenant that if the Lessor does any subsequent lease deal…not just for wireless…with another entity at the same property — or even at an entirely different property anywhere in the world — then the wireless tenant gets to decide whether they want those same better deal points

The elements of the MFN include rent, contract benefits, as well as the terms and conditions for any deal the lessor does for identical or even similar land deals.  Essentially, every deal point comes into play. The MFN also requires that the landlord timely disclose every one of  those lease deals to the carrier, but the carrier reserves the right to reject any or all of the other terms if it doesn’t like them.

Oh, yes, through the MFN, the carrier reserves the right to independently dig into every deal the landlord does. Arguably, this means that any type of similar deal the landlord does anywhere else in the world has to given to the wireless tenant to pick and choose to see if they want also, some, or none of the terms retroactively.

Also, there’s no limit to the number of times or deals that the MFN can be used to favorably tweak its wireless lease.

What’s a landlord to do?

Well, there are two obvious answers to the MFN issue.

The answer I particularly like is to AGREE to the MFN clause and…

wait for it… wait for it…

…the landlord requires that the carrier mirror the MFN clause so that the wireless carrier has to give the very same bundle of rights to landlord. Yeah, like that’s going to fly with the carrier.

Okay, you can probably guess the better second answer: We recommend our clients strike the clause and tell the carrier to keep their hands inside their own ride at all times.

Do I chide the wireless companies for overreaching clauses like this?  Of course not.

The legal duty owned by management to its wireless company shareholders is to enrich the shareholders regardless of the legal and financial devastation they might do to the unknowing landlord.  There are no morals involved here. It’s simply the way of business.

It’s also why we enjoy working with wireless site landlords to point out the obvious and not-so-obvious legal landmines buried in wireless site leases.

Jonathan

(Base photo: By Reedhawk – Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=36811331)

 

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Sprint Uses My Photo of Mobilitie to Promote Small Cells

Sprint Uses My Photo of Mobilitie to Promote Small Cells

Posted on by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

I guess Sprint really, really likes my cell site photo collection, and photos I use in my lectures.  So much, in fact, that they they included one of my annotated photos of a Mobilitie ‘pox-on-a-pole’ site in Los Angeles as a presentation tool in an Ex Parte meeting with 9 staff members at the FCC on October 23, 2017.  Here’s my annotated photo, used by Sprint in its Ex Parte presentation:


Did Sprint bother to ask me for permission to use my intellectual property in its Ex Parte presentation?

Of course not.

Does my annotated photograph above, used by Sprint without my permission, look like the type of cell you’d want in front of your residential balcony?

I suspect not.

Hey, Sprint (and specifically Keith Buell), the next time you’d like to use my intellectual property, please consider giving me a call first.

Here’s a link to Sprint’s Ex Parte 4-page filing containing MY photo: CLICK HERE.

jlk

 

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
SB 649 VETOED BY GOV. BROWN!

SB 649 VETOED BY GOV. BROWN!

Posted on by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

Very late last night (October 15, 2017), Governor Jerry Brown VETOED Senate Bill 649 (Hueso).  Thank you Gov. Brown!

SB 649 was nothing more than an obscene transfer of wealth away from California citizens to wireless industry and cable TV industry shareholders by way of grossly reduced site rental fees, far below their fair market value.  A diversion of funds that currently goes to offset public safety costs like police and fire services.

The pig is dead!

What did the industry promise in SB 649 to do for the incredible gifts of public funds and public property?

Perhaps a duty to provide 5G services anywhere in California?  Nope, not in SB 649.

Perhaps a duty to provide 4G (or even 3G) services to under- and un-served areas of California? Nope, not in SB 649.

Maybe some duty to provide an earthquake early warning system, which the carriers told legislators could only be provided by 5G?  Nope, not in SB 649.

Maybe some duty to close the ever-widening digital divide in California?  Nope, not in SB 649.

Maybe a duty to provide a non-actionable report to the Legislature?  Yup.  This was the only actual duty on the industry in SB 649.  One that was truly meaningless in the grand scheme of things.

SB 649 was a multi-billion dollar sham almost perpetrated on Californians by Sen. Hueso and Asm. Quirk, the co-sponsors, on behalf of their patrons, the wireless industry and the cable TV industry. A sham that would have caused local government to raise taxes to replace the non-tax revenues paid by the wireless industry for fair-market site rentals.

SB 649 was opposed by nearly 300 local governments and government associations representing over 95% of the citizens of California who knew that they were being taken for a ride. It was also opposed by the AARP and the Teamsters.

It took the vision and courage of Governor Jerry Brown to VETO this horrible bill, and all local governments and their citizens in this Golden State thank him for his leadership and courage to buck the will of the wireless industry!

My partner, Robert (“Tripp”) May points out that Governor Brown sent us all an important message in his veto statement. Governor Brown said in relevant part:

There is something of real value in having a process that results in extending this innovative technology rapidly and efficiently. Nevertheless, I believe that the interest which localities have in managing the rights of way requires a more balanced solution than the one achieved in this bill.

Tripp notes that this is a value proposition: Each side should get real value.  SB 649 had no real value for the people of California because there were no real duties on the part of the wireless industry.  Value isn’t found in a blatant wealth transfer that results in the reduction in police and fire funding.  When the wireless industry gets that key point, and is prepared to discuss a true small cell bill (sorry…35 cubic feet is not small) they will find willing negotiators in California’s local government community, and among our partners.

Jonathan

To read Governor Brown’s veto message, click on the following link: Sb_649_Veto_Message_2017

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Sprint, T-Mobile, Cable TV, Mobilitie, and Removal Bonds

Sprint, T-Mobile, Cable TV, Mobilitie, and Removal Bonds

Posted on by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

Months ago I was pondering the society news pages talking about Sprint pursuing a marriage with the cable TV industry.  Today the society pages say the off-again, on-again romance between Sprint and T-Mobile is back on-again, and may well lead to their marriage.  If that marriage is consummated, I think it’s likely that T-Mobile will force Sprint to breakup with Mobilitie.  (Think Diana, Charlie, and Camilla.  One too many.)

Ricochet node hanging below a street light arm.

I’m sure that many–especially Mobilitie–hoped that the Sprint/Mobilitie relationship would blossom into a love that could survive the test of time. Alas, I don’t think that is in the cards, or the stars.  Cable TV and T-Mobile both seem to prefer fiber backhaul over wireless backhaul because, well, it just makes more speed and capacity sense over the long term.

From a local government perspective, this sad evolving ‘left-after-the-alter’ story (that might involve Mobilitie) strongly suggests that we must more carefully consider requiring small cell/DAS providers to post removal bonds as a condition of approval of new right-of-way installations.  It seems likely that some providers of small cell services and backhaul will survive, while some with less robust and less saleable networks will not.

What we in local government service must avoid is a repeat of the Metricom (Ricochet) fiasco in 2001.  That radio backhaul internet firm went belly-up, bankrupt, and abandoned thousands of their wireless nodes on street lights in major cities across the U.S.  For years many of those nodes sucked street light power until the local power entity manually disconnected the ballast/photocell tap above the cobra head.  Many of those abandoned nodes can still be seen on street lights today.

It is not the bonds of wireless matrimony that count anymore; it is indemnification provisions and the performance bonds (or even the irrevocable letters of credit) to ensure removal of otherwise abandoned equipment that count.

That’s my opinion.  What’s yours?

Jonathan

 

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
A Modest Proposal to 'Shake Up' SB 649

A Modest Proposal to ‘Shake Up’ SB 649

Posted on by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

California is a part of the Pacific Rim’s earthquake ring of fire, as the wireless industry likes to remind our State Senators and Assembly Members.  In fact, as part of its full court press on California legislators to pass SB 649 into law, one of the more commonly-heard arguments in legislative offices is that 5G small cell sites are necessary to give cell phone users, hospital, police and fire stations, and others advance warnings of earthquakes.  In fact, without 5G there is no earthquake early warning system.

(Not surprising is that the wireless industry assertion is a factual hoax from a technology standpoint, but let’s not let facts confuse wireless industry puffery.)

What is surprising, given the industry chest-pounding claims about the need for 5G small cells for an earthquake warning system, is that SB 649–which was written by the wireless industry–is absolutely devoid of any mention of any requirement to make earthquake early warnings a reality, much less a wireless industry obligation.

Essentially, the wireless industry’s claims that we need 5G for earthquake early warnings is good old fashion fear-mongering without even an iota of an industry solution.

Well, folks, I’m here to help suggest a once-for-forever solution to the wireless industry’s concerns about the need for earthquake early warning!

Let’s start with an insane reality connected to SB 649.  As ghost written by the wireless industry, SB 649 will result in billions of dollars of wireless industry shareholder value by requiring that municipalities rent publicly owned and paid-for property at far below fair market value. Those under-market value rents will be in place for at least 50 years.

Here’s another insane reality: Historically, the state and federal governments have been unwilling to come up with the relatively modest funding required to deploy and maintain a fully effective earthquake early warning system in this Golden State.

Given  that:

  1. California has unsuccessfully struggled to get adequate state and federal funding to fully deploy and activate a statewide early earthquake warning system, much less one that is integrated into the wireless and broadband wired networks, coupled with the need to fund maintenance and improvements over decades, and

  2. the wireless industry has repeated told our legislators that 5G small cell deployment is necessary for them to provide the pubic with early warnings of earthquakes, and

  3. the wireless industry will be given nearly free access to billions of dollars of public property and funds by the cost caps built into SB649, and

  4. Mexico’s early earthquake warning system just provided up to a full minute of early warning time before the 8.1 magnitude waves hit…

I think the wireless industry should be funding and building a world-class earthquake early warning system to save lives paid out of their wallets to be grossly fattened by SB 649. The wireless industry lobbyists say that 5G is needed for earthquake early warning, and SB 649 is needed to lower wireless industry site rental costs? Okay, then I’m sure you’ll amenable to amend SB 649 to require the very same concerned wireless industry to fund the statewide research, deployment, maintenance, and upgrades of the world’s finest and most effective earthquake early warning system.

That would be a fair concession, at least in part, for the billions of dollars of financial benefits the wireless industry and their shareholders will receive from SB 649.  I’m sure my industry friends will agree to this modest proposal.  I expect your next amendments on this within, say, the next 7 days.

I’m waiting to hear from you…  I’m sure @DrLucyJones and her scientists will quaking in their boots waiting, too! (Sorry…I had to have a bad pun in this post somewhere!)

Jonathan

PS: If the wireless industry needs help writing an amendment to achieve this modest proposal, just ask.  I’m ready.

PPS: Here’s my industry-friendly slogan for this proposal,

“Save a life, save a revenue unit!“

 

 

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
New SB 649 Amendments: Lipstick On a Pig

New SB 649 Amendments: Lipstick On a Pig

Posted on by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

I’ve just seen the latest set of 61 amendments to SB 649. They’ll be published tomorrow (Thursday). Most of them are word corrections. A few are substantive and make SB 649 even worse for the citizens of California. No fix to the wireless digital divide. No fix to the unfunded state mandate. No fix for the gift to cable TV operators. No fix to the gift to wireless and cable TV company shareholders. In essence, the most current round of amendments can best be described thus:

SB 649 remains the “Gift of Public Funds and Public Property to the Communications Industry Act.”

JLK

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail