General Archives » Page 16 of 23 » Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer on Wireless Siting & Law

Helos Over Westwood (Off Topic)

Posted on February 9, 2012 by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

Los Angeles is the home of many, many news helicopters. This morning looking out of my office window, I saw five of them hovering over one of the LAPD choppers, which was, in turn, orbiting above a suspect on the roof of a home in Westwood.

In the photos, below, the new choppers are indicated with red arrows; and the LAPD chopper is at the end of the blue arrow. The inset is from KTLA’s chopper coverage over the scene. Click on the image to enlarge it.

The suspect, who spent hours on top of several roofs in Westwood, was chased in what was reported to be stolen car. Apparently he likes his audience, since he repeated waived to the cameras and to the LAPD.

DAS Beware of Bright House’s Bright Idea

Posted on January 12, 2012January 12, 2012 by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

Bright House, a major cable TV “multiple system operator” (MSO) is joining other cable operators by deploying 2,000 WiFi nodes in its Florida systems. Following the usual MSO model, Bright House is offering its service for fee to its subscribers, and on a paid basis to others. It seems likely that BelAir Networks will be the equipment vendor of choice.

Not so clear is whether Bright House will allow its WiFi customers to roam on the WiFi systems being built by Cablevision Systems, Time Warner Cable and Comcast.

Not only are Cablevision Systems, Time Warner Cable and Comcast all building WiFI networks in high-density areas of their system footprints, but they also have an agreement in place to allow their customers to roam on any of the three WiFi networks.

With CableLabs already working on a common standard for cable system WiFi roaming, its only a matter of (a little) time before the national roll-out of cable’s WiFi, which will then set the stage for cable’s provision of 3G/4G/xG services from these same nodes.

As I’ve already discussed in this bog, the entire DAS sector will be marginalized (or worse) by the national deployment of cable-based wireless services, starting with WiFI and moving to xG contract nodes for wireless carriers.

Bright House’s deployment is just another step along the path of DAS marginalization.

The Spectrum Dilemma: What’s a Carrier to do?

Posted on January 5, 2012January 5, 2012 by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

AT&T’s intended takeover of T-Mobile was supposed to give AT&T access and control of badly needed spectrum. The demands on spectrum are growing faster than Apple can sell iPhones. Unfortunately, while AT&T was busy trying to consume the 4th largest wireless provider in the United States and fighting with the Department of Justice, Verizon was quietly moving to buy up the undeveloped spectrum held by the major cable providers (a completely different bedtime story for the DOJ to dream about…as they apparently are starting to do).

The result? Verizon’s spectrum purchases have gobbled the available spectrum that might have otherwise been available for an AT&T purchase.

T-Mobile, the long-suffering ‘we don’t have enough spectrum’ player, also missed out on the opportunity to buy spectrum from the cable providers.

Both AT&T and T-Mobile are desperate for spectrum, so what are they to do?

The DOJ, as we have all learned, has a big problem when the number 2 and number 4 providers attempt to merge (something having to do with a little thing called Antitrust).

Might the next baby step for AT&T be to acquire MetroPCS? Maybe that’s T-Mobile’s next bid, too.

It makes sense for both AT&T and T-Mobile to be interested in acquiring MetroPCS because it has a nationwide PCS footprint that is only growing with its all-you-can-eat, no contract approach.

Or maybe the next step is more of a LEAP (Wireless, that is, which has been rumored to be an acquisition target).

Two things are for sure: First, AT&T needs more paired frequencies, and they need them yesterday Second, T-Mobile either has to mate with one or more smaller regional carriers, or try mating with Sprint. AT&T’s parting gift to T-Mobile of $4B for the failed marriage would make a lovely trousseau.

New Photos in Cell Tower Gallery

Posted on January 2, 2012January 1, 2012 by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

Last month I traveled to Santa Fe and Albuquerque, New Mexico to participate on a wireless law panel and to visit with friends. While there I had a chance to take a series of new site photos in Santa Fe, and to add to the Twisted Tower photo collection.

Here are a few examples that are available for full size viewing in the celltowersites.com/gallery/

Santa Fe High School Light Standard Site

Twisted Tower in Albuquerque — The Twisted Tower of Albuquerque

With over 1,400 cell site and cell tower photos, our photo gallery is perhaps the finest online collection available anywhere. To visit the gallery, just CLICK HERE.

Jonathan

“Siri, where is Steve Jobs now?”

Posted on October 31, 2011 by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

Today I got my hands on a brand new iPhone 4S.

One of the staff members is an early adopter, and was showing her shiny new phone around the office. When she handed me the phone and showed me how to access Siri, I thought about what my first question to Siri should be.

I thought…and I thought…and I thought, then I asked:

“Siri, where is Steve Jobs now?”

I waited she pondered my query. It was as if I could feel here electrons and programming parsing my words and looking for the hidden meaning or message.

It took Siri about 25 seconds to consider and then compose her thoughtful, and thought-provoking reply. No doubt the millennium of computing time was consumed by Siri searching through all of knowledge and wisdom of Appledom, the web, and then one to the cosmic beyond all to find her creator.

Her job complete, she ever so curtly replied in her clipped speech, “Steve Jobs is not in your address book.” It was a clear and definitive statement that left no room for interpretation. No room for doubts or double meanings.

If you ask Siri the same question but get a more definitive answer, please do share it.

I think I’ll ask the same question of the next Siri when I try out an iPhone 5 sometime in late 2012. Who knows whether she’ll have evolved by then to divine a more complete answer.

-jlk

Is Clearwire Heading to Bankruptcy?

Posted on October 12, 2011 by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

Five days ago I wrote about Sprint effectively casting off Clearwire to sink or swim on its own. Perhaps I could have said, “sink or sink.”

Yesterday, October 11th, David Sterman (writing at SeekingAlpha.com) strongly suggested in a well-reasoned piece that Clearwire could go bankrupt by next year.

Mr. Sterman’s arguments about a possible (if not likely) Clearwire bankruptcy ring true in my ears. He said in part,

In 2011, things got messier. Clearwire had always counted on generous financial support from its largest customer, Sprint Nextel (NYSE: S). (Sprint has made serial capital injections in Clearwire and now owns 48%, controlling 54% of the voting stock.) But Sprint has begun to express regret about pinning its 4G hopes on Clearwire’s network. Once Sprint started to make its own 4G network — using the stronger LTE technology — it was almost a matter of time before it announced a public divorce. In a meeting with analysts on Friday, Oct. 7, Sprint said it would soon stop selling phones that work in conjunction with Clearwire’s 4G network. This caused Clearwire’s stock to fall 30% that same day. And the selling may just be beginning…

Mr. Sterman’s focus on the numbers tells the test of the (sad) story:

Where does this leave Clearwire? The company had 7.7 million customers at the end of the second quarter, of which 80% came through Sprint’s enterprise-level relationships. Clearwire has also been pursuing retail customers through its direct sales efforts (at a cost of about $300 per subscriber in marketing expenses). This summer, management spoke of a full-year target of 10 million customers. But now, after Sprint’s announcement, it’s not clear how Clearwire intends to draw the additional 2.3 million customers. In addition, the retail wireless business is fiercely competitive, which is why other Clearwire partners such as T-Mobile are also looking for an exit strategy.

Well, at least Clearwire’s frequencies will have some value in a buy-out before BK, or to an auction winner in BK.

Go read Mr. Sterman’s post. Make up your own mind.

(Thanks for John Pestle, Esq. of the Varnum Law Firm for pointing me to Mr. Sterman’s article.)

It’s the Money, Stupid!

Posted on August 13, 2011August 13, 2011 by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

In a copyrighted story that appeared in the 8/11/11 edition of Wireless Week, Maisey Ramsay wrote about an AT&T/T-Mobile merger document that appeared on the FCC’s web site, and then disappeared few hours later.

According to Maisey’s story, the interesting AT&T document showed that if the Commission approves the proposed T-Mobile merger, AT&T will expand its high speed data network to rural areas beyond that which they’ve already agreed to serve.

This is an interesting revelation given that the wireless carriers have claimed that its local governments that have stymied their growth through right-of-way regulations that they assert block deployment.

Yeah, right.

Of course we know that those carrier-claims are hollow, and that smaller communities go begging for modern celular/PCS/LTE/AWS services and high speed wireless internet

According to the article:

“AT&T senior management concluded that, unless AT&T could find a way to expand its LTE footprint on a significantly more cost-effective basis, an LTE deployment to 80 percent of the U.S. population was the most that could be justified,” AT&T counsel Richard Rosen stated in the letter.

The company said its merger with T-Mobile would spread the cost of the LTE expansion over a larger revenue base, allowing it to “better absorb the increased capital investment and lower returns associated with deploying LTE to over 97 percent of the U.S. population.”

Thanks, Richard… You’ve confirmed what we’ve known, and what the Commission needs to know.

It’s all about the money…the carriers’ money…

…and not about claims that it’s the local governments are blocking deployment. It’s the money, stupid!

-Jonathan

Sprint’s Network Vision Project – A Game Changer

Posted on July 30, 2011 by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

I’ve already typed a bit about Sprint’s Network Vision project from the perspective of landlords, but this topic certainly deserves much more coverage.

Certainly, Sprint’s initiative to deploy a new technology scheme that allows others to sublease transmission capacity at Sprint sites changes the game for everyone, especially site landlords with legacy leases that don’t bar non-physical subleases.

With the confirmation that Sprint and LightSquared have inked a deal for Sprint to use Network Vision sites to deploy LightSquared LTE transmissions (for $9B, thanks so very much), and the in-place deal for Sprint to host Cox’s PCS services, the Network Vision project is turning out to be the vehicle that will transmute Sprint into a carrier for carriers, as as well as a competitor to its carrier customers.

I’m betting it’ll be interesting to see how the law suits pan out if Sprint’s network ever crashes for its carrier customers, but not for its own Sprint and Nextel customers.

From a planning perspective, how this type of collocation is permitted will be interesting, if it’s even disclosed to the local government. This new deployment scheme will have a huge impact on significant gap determinations and least intrusive means analysis, since it’s foreseeable that the carriers won’t want to disclose (all) relevant information about this type of shared use.

We’ll see…

Senate Bill 911: Would Require Mandatory Collocation

Posted on June 12, 2011 by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED!

U.S. Senate Bill 911, introduced by Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) would completely disrupt the process of rational tower siting for collocation purposes. Section 528(a) of S. 911 says, in relevant part:

SEC. 528. WIRELESS FACILITIES DEPLOYMENT.

(a) FACILITY MODIFICATIONS.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 or any other provision of law, a State or local government may not deny, and shall approve, any eligible facilities request for a modification of an existing wireless tower that does not substantially change the physical dimensions of such tower.

(2) ELIGIBLE FACILITIES REQUEST.—For purposes this subsection, the term ‘‘eligible facilities request’’ means any request for modification of an existing wireless tower that involves—

(A) collocation of new transmission equipment;
(B) removal of transmission equipment;
(C) replacement of transmission equipment.

Simply put, if there’s a tower there now, and another carrier (or even the same carrier) wants to collocate, remove, or replace “transmission equipment” (whatever the industry wants that term to mean), then S.911 would require that “a State or local government may not deny, and shall approve, any eligible facilities request for a modification of an existing wireless tower that does not substantially change the physical dimensions of such tower.”

Would anyone like to tell how big a change is required before it becomes a ‘substantial change to the physical dimensions of the tower?

No, I didn’t think so, but I suspect the wireless industry would suggest that a 33% to 50% change would be less than substantial.

Like so much legislation pushed by the wireless industry, the (un)intended consequences to such broad language could result in collocations that result in currently camouflaged towers losing their camouflage.

Here’s a little photo simulation I created to show you what I’m talking about (warning: This is a LARGE file so give it sufficient time to load, especially if you’re on a slow connection):

(This is a base photo of a wireless flagpole site.)

Do we really want to see wireless carriers have the federal right to do this because of mile-wide loopholes in the current language? Nope.

S.911 cleared Committee last week, and is now on the floor of the Senate.

NOW IS THE TIME TO CONTACT YOUR SENATORS TO VOICE YOUR OPPOSITION TO S.911 AS LONG AS IT CONTAINS SECTION 528(a).

To find your Senator, CLICK HERE. (Opens a NEW window.)

San Mateo CA Grand Jury on Muni Cell Siting Policies

Posted on June 11, 2011 by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

Last month, the Civil Grand Jury of the County of San Mateo, California released the results of its inquiry into municipal wireless siting matters.

The report, titled “Cell Towers: Public Opposition and Revenue Source” asked as its questions,

Do cities and the County of San Mateo (the County) have effective governing policies and/or ordinances for cell tower installations that provide the public with a clear understanding of how applications are adjudicated? Are cell tower installations a source of revenue for cities and the County?

The recommendations of the Grand Jury are:

The 2011 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury recommends to the County Board of Supervisors and the City Councils of all cities in San Mateo County the following:

1. Review and revise, if needed, the current fee structure to recoup staff costs for processing cell tower applications;

2. Negotiate lease agreements for future installations on public land that generate revenue or other tangible benefit to the community;

3. Add cell tower maintenance and removal provisions if they are not already included in existing ordinances and lease agreements;

4. Require that all new lease agreements contain a provision requiring service providers to install newer technology as it becomes commercially available to reduce the footprint of cell towers; and

5. Develop a webpage within County and city websites which clearly posts local ordinances, policies and procedures as well as federal regulations related to cell tower installations.

The Grand Jury further recommends the City Councils of Daly City, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, Portola Valley, and Woodside pursue new or amended leases for existing cell towers on public property that are not currently generating revenue or other community benefits.

To read the guts of the report, click here: 2011 San Mateo Civil Grand Jury Report on Municipal Wireless Siting Practices.