Wireless Carriers Archives » Page 8 of 14 » Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer on Wireless Siting & Law

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…

CPUC to Review AT&T&T Proposed Merger

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

The California Public Utilities Commission will launch an investigation into the pending AT&T/T-Mobile merger.

The Commission, which is now populated by a majority of members appointed by Gov. Jerry Brown, will evaluate whether to propose conditions on the merger. The Commission will be taking public testimony, and moving its review along a fast track which may result in a Commission action in October of this year.

Here are two links with additional information on the pending CPUC review:

The Los Angeles Times article: http://latimes.com/business/la-fi-puc-att-20110609,0,2964962.story

The CPUC Press Release: http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/word_pdf/NEWS_RELEASE/136944.pdf

T-Mobile’s “Truly Unlimited” Plan is Truly Limited

Posted on May 6, 2011May 27, 2011 by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

Here’s a cute little Now-You-See-It-Now-You-Don’t bit of advertising slight-of-hand: T-Mobile’s current “Truly Unlimited” marketing campaign.

Here’s a part of the current advert on T-Mobile’s web site (and paralleling the TV ads currently running):

But once you’re wowed by the big pinkish letters at the top, your eyes may not wonder down to the fine print above, which says “Includes 2 GB of full-speed data.”

Huh? How can something “Truly Unlimited” have a full speed data transfer limitation? Later in the ad, also in mouse type is this little gem: “T-Mobile’s plan includes 2 GB at full speeds; reduced speeds for remainder of bill cycle.”

Reduced Speed is, ah, “Truly Unlimited”?

Then, buried down in the page is this little gem:

Data: Data speeds slowed after 2000 MB per billing cycle. Capable device required to achieve 4G speeds. Your data session, plan, or service may be slowed, suspended, terminated, or restricted if you use your service in a way that interferes with or impacts our network or ability to provide quality service to other users, if you roam for a significant portion of your usage, or if you use a disproportionate amount of bandwidth during a billing cycle. You may not use your plan or device for prohibited uses. Messaging: You will be charged for all messages you send and that are sent to you even if they aren’t received. Length/size of messages may be limited.

Now that’s “Truly Unlimited” in my book!

Click here for a PDF of T-Mobile’s “Truly Unlimited” ad as it appears on its web site.”

You’ve got to love those marketing types…And the clever attorneys who write disclaimers for them.

Jonathan

PS: Does anyone know what the ‘reduced speed’ is? 300 baud? (Sorry…dating myself…) jk

When (Wireless) Worlds Collide…Will Site Landlords Get $quashed?

Posted on April 15, 2011April 15, 2011 by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

Today’s (4/15/11) AGL Bulletin carries a buried-lead story about Sprint’s deployment of new, flexible base stations that are multi-modal, multi-band, and potentially multi-user.

Faced with Data Surge, Carriers to ‘Feed the Beast’ with Base Station Innovation

Noting the importance of scale, spectrum and innovation, representatives of Sprint Nextel and Clearwire discussed how the growth of wireless data traffic must result in the complete modernization of cell site equipment on a panel on March 22 in Orlando, Fla. They spoke at the Raymond James Breakfast, which was moderated by Ric Prentiss, managing director at Raymond James & Associates.

“We must keep feeding the beast, or we are just going to turn our customers away. We must innovate around the cost. Technology allows it,” said Iyad Tarazi, vice president, network development and engineering, Sprint Nextel. The carrier expects 10x growth every three years for the foreseeable future.

The challenge for Sprint Nextel is to keep up with the pace in a cost-effective manner. To do so the carrier has unveiled Network Vision, which is a blueprint for enhancing data speeds by consolidating multiple network technologies into one, seamless network.

Today, Sprint uses separate equipment to deploy services at 800 MHz, 1.9 GHz and, through Clearwire, 2.5 GHz. The Network Vision concept features the use of software to bring together multiple spectrum bands on a single, multimode base station.

“The technologies that we are deploying in the Network Vision project allow us to modernize our cell sites in a way that gives us a lot of flexibility with the types of technologies we put on it,” Tarazi said. “In the future, with the Network Vision project, we will build spectrum at 40 megahertz to 60 megahertz at a time, and we will build it once.”

The Network Vision project will play a role in increased network sharing, according to John Saw, chief technology officer, Clearwire, which has been sharing networks for some time with Sprint Nextel on a limited basis at sites. Saw envisions much more sharing in the future because of the benefits in cost, time, speed and flexibility.

“One of the things we are excited about, looking at network sharing, is that you actually get to leverage all of these capabilities for customers,” Saw said. “That buys us time. That buys us some cost savings with the leases and some of the common services that we share with Sprint. The Network Vision project brings network sharing to a whole new plateau.”

Network sharing, according to Saw, means virtually all of the physical components of the base station can be used by multiple carriers, including the radio, the backhaul, the access equipment, the utilities and other services.

“The key difference with network sharing is being able to share the radio at the network level. In the past, it was mostly cell site sharing. If we are able to share the same floor space, the same common equipment, the same switching, the same backhaul, potentially even the same radio where you can run multiple technologies, that’s what we’re talking about,” Saw said.

In interview with AGL Bulletin, Ted Abrams, president, Abrams Wireless, reacted to statements made at the session, applauding the move toward network sharing saying network operators will be able to increase overall efficiency of bandwidth and infrastructure through the new technology.

“Multi-modal equipment connected to big backhaul pipes can transport payload from end users through the cloud across retail platforms branded differently,” Abrams said. “Most of the attributes of a wireless network are fungible, readily adapted to exchange on par. Antenna physics and other band-specific requirements continue to require consideration. As infrastructure providers are able to increase the density of sites supporting these new technologies, the rate of broadband deployment can be accelerated.”

As an attorney representing wireless site owners (landlords), the question that instantly comes to my mind is this: As Sprint deploys it’s wireless upgrade, how will ‘electronic collocations’ be accounted for in legacy wireless leases?

Huh?

Go back now and carefully reread the following excerpt from the AGL Bulletin report, above:

The Network Vision project will play a role in increased network sharing, according to John Saw, chief technology officer, Clearwire, which has been sharing networks for some time with Sprint Nextel on a limited basis at sites. Saw envisions much more sharing in the future because of the benefits in cost, time, speed and flexibility.

“One of the things we are excited about, looking at network sharing, is that you actually get to leverage all of these capabilities for customers,” Saw said. “That buys us time. That buys us some cost savings with the leases and some of the common services that we share with Sprint. The Network Vision project brings network sharing to a whole new plateau.”

Network sharing, according to Saw, means virtually all of the physical components of the base station can be used by multiple carriers, including the radio, the backhaul, the access equipment, the utilities and other services.

“The key difference with network sharing is being able to share the radio at the network level. In the past, it was mostly cell site sharing. If we are able to share the same floor space, the same common equipment, the same switching, the same backhaul, potentially even the same radio where you can run multiple technologies, that’s what we’re talking about,” Saw said.

Okay, back to reality for landlords.

Historically, savvy landlords have received incremental income from collocations and their tenants sublease to other wireless providers.

In Sprint’s future world of electronic collocation, site landlords won’t know when Sprint has subleased a portion of the use of the site to another company. Legacy leases don’t usually specify that collocation must be ‘physical’ in nature, so those same savvy landlords (and I assure you, their attorneys, including yours truly) are likely to reasonably take the position that that if Sprint has subleased the electronic use of a wireless site to another, then that revenue should be shared with the site landlord pursuant to the existing lease agreement.

Landlords and their attorneys should be on the lookout for proposed lease amendments for legacy sites and sublease terms in new leases that might try to draft around this $$multimillion dollar issue$$.

More on Substantial Evidence (YAT-MC) (T-Mobile v. City of Margate)

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

In T-Mobile South LLC v. City of Margate (Florida) decided on April 4, 2011 (SD FL Case No. 10–cv–60029), District Judge Alan Gold discussed the topic of substantial evidence in several interesting lights.

In granting summary judgment to T-Mobile, Judge Gold said

d. “Substantial Evidence”Looking beyond the text of the written Resolution to the transcript of the December 9 Hearing, T–Mobile argues that the City Commissioners’ ultimate decision denying its Application was not supported by “substantial evidence” as required by 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iii). T–Mobile asserts that the only opposition voiced against its Application was “purely generalized objection, with no specific evidence or support” and “unqualified, unscientific opinion of the City Commissioners and lay members of the public.” [ECF No. 24, p. 13]. T–Mobile concludes that such generalized opposition may not qualify as “substantial evidence” under the TCA.

*10 The City responds to this argument with two short paragraphs in which it outlines the definition of “substantial evidence” and notes that T–Mobile bears the initial burden of proof on this issue. [ECF No. 33, p. 8]. This response raises no disputes of material fact and offers no reasons why the Commissioners denied the Application, much less any explanation as to why those justifications for denial should qualify as “substantial evidence” under the TCA. As T–Mobile notes, the City also incorrectly argues that T–Mobile must present “substantial evidence” whereas the TCA actually requires that relevant State or local governmental denial decision be supported by substantial evidence. 47 U.S.C. § 332(7)(B)(iii).

Although I could hold in T–Mobile’s favor alone on the basis of the City’s inadequate response on this point, I am also obligated to consider the record in its entirety when reviewing a dispute governed by § 332(c)(7)(B)(iii). Thus, I look once more to the transcript from the December 9 Hearing because the City’s official written decision provides no reason for the denial. As reflected in that transcript, the City Commissioners’ votes to deny the Application were not accompanied by any contemporaneous comments from the Commissioners offering reasons for their votes. [ECF No. 26–1, pp. 86:11–87:11]. Elsewhere in the transcript are certain complaints voiced by City residents against T–Mobile’s Application. Some residents indicated that they opposed the plan because they preferred that T–Mobile place the new tower in its neighboring town of Coral Springs.14 But as noted above, the City concedes that a significant coverage gap exists in the City of Margate, and it advances no arguments that the heart of that gap was in Coral Springs, or a neighboring town, or any place else other than Margate. Likewise, the City Attorney responded to these comments by informing the residents that Margate’s ordinances prohibit using residents’ preferences to place the tower in another town as a basis to deny such an application.

Another city resident cited health concerns such as radiation as a reason for his opposition to the Application. [ECF No. 26–1, pp. 64:24–65:22]. Again, the City Attorney responded that the “federal courts have specifically ruled that radiation cannot be the basis for turning this down.” [Id. at 66:2–4].16 It does not appear that the City Commissioners were concerned with the aesthetics of the proposed WCF. When T–Mobile representatives offered to show pictures or designs of their proposed “flag pole” design, at least one City Commissioner responded: “We don’t need to see it. We know what it looks like.” [ECF No. 26–1, p. 24–27]. Likewise, when the City Attorney asked the City’s independent consultant to comment on the proposed idea, a City Commissioner stated “No, I don’t want to hear anymore.” [ECF No. 26–1, pp. 71:25–72:1]. Several other aspects of the December 9 Hearing transcript provide the distinct impression that the City Commissioners denied T–Mobile’s application in order to appease a crowd of local residents who had gathered to attend the hearing and oppose the Application.

*11 Eleventh Circuit case law provides certain guidelines about the types of reasons a State or local government may rely on in order to deny an application under the TCA. For example, a “blanket aesthetic objection does not constitute substantial evidence under § 332.” See Michael Linet, Inc., 408 F.3d at 761. But aesthetic objections “coupled with evidence of an adverse impact on property values or safety concerns can constitute substantial evidence.” Id. Similarly, denial may be based on testimony of local realtors that the proposed cell tower would adversely impact home resale values or if the site may have a negative effect on nearby air traffic or to the safety of school children. Id. at 760; City of Huntsville, 295 F.3d at 1208–09. But “generalized objections with no articulated reasons” and “rationalizations constructed after the fact” do not constitute “sufficient evidence” under the TCA. Preferred Sites, 296 F.3d at 1219–20 & n. 9.

This case law provides no support for local governments that deny a provider’s Application on the basis of health effects or a preference to place the relevant cell tower in a neighboring town. Construing this evidence in the light most favorable to the City, I can only conclude that there are no disputes of material fact that the City did not provide sufficient evidence for its denial of T–Mobile’s Application, and a reasonable mind could not accept the evidence in the record as adequate to support the City’s denial.

(Emphasis added.) T-Mobile S. LLC v. City of Margate, No. 10–cv–60029, 2011 WL 1303898, 9–10–11, Slip Copy (S.D. Fla. Apr. 4, 2011).

“YAT-MC” = “Yet another T-Mobile Case”

T-Mobile v. City of Newport News VA – Substantial Evidence, Not.

Posted on April 11, 2011April 12, 2011 by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

In T-Mobile Northeast LLC. v The City Council of the City of Newport News, VA et al (EDVA Case No. 4:10cv82), the magistrate judge (Hon. T. Miller) spent a fair amount of time in his opinion discussing what constitutes substantial evidence in the way of claims of property devaluation resulting from the proposed installation of a cell tower.

Judge Miller said, “[a]lthough the Court is aware of the Fourth Circuit’s charge to not hold citizens to a standard which requires them to come armed with a slew of experts to defeat any CUP, the Court finds that such a nonspecific claim as to a possible decrease in property values for the general community falls closer to the “speculative” nature of comments less likely to be considered substantial evidence by the reasonable legislator.” T-Mobile Ne. LLC v. City Council of Newport News, Va., No. 4:10cv82, 2011 WL 1086496, at *6 (E.D. Va. Feb. 4, 2011).

In her decision adopting the recommendations of the magistrate judge, Judge Rebecca Smith made it clear that, “[ ] unsupported statements about fears of some possible reduction in home value without further evidence cannot form the basis of substantial evidence.” (Emphasis in the original.) T-Mobile Ne. LLC v. City Council of Newport News, Va., No. 4:10cv82, 2011 WL 1103004, at *1 (E.D. Va. Mar. 23, 2011).

AGL Bulletin: Lawsuit Tests Mettle of FCC Shot Clock

Posted on April 4, 2011 by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

The following is from today’s edition of the AGL Bulletin. A subscription link is below the article.

Verizon Wireless has filed a lawsuit against the Town of Irondequoit in the U.S. District Court, Western District of New York, concerning inaction on a proposed cell tower in the upstate New York town. It appears to be a good test case for the FCC’s shot clock, which is designed to ensure municipalities don’t drag their feet in processing cell tower applications.

“I was at the FCC when the shot clock order was issued, and I know that the sincere intent was to spur broadband deployment by creating a more efficient tower siting and collocation review process. Companies prefer to work things out with zoning authorities and lawsuits really tend to be a last resort,” said Monica Desai, Patton Boggs, former FCC official.

Back on June 18, 2010, Verizon Wireless filed an Application for Special Permit with the Town Board to replace an existing 20-year-old tower and equipment shelter at a local fire department with a new monopole and shelter, which could be used for collocation of the fire department and county public safety. The original tower is 62 feet in height with an antenna that reaches 82 feet AGL.

Seven months into the process, Feb. 11, 2011, the Town filed a positive declaration under New York’s State Environmental Quality Review Act, which triggers the time-intensive development of an environmental impact statement. A little more than a month later, Verizon Wireless filed its suit.

Verizon Wireless accused the Town of “unreasonably and repeatedly delaying” it from providing service where a gap currently exists. The carrier noted language in the Telecom Act requiring municipalities to act on requests to build wireless facility in a “reasonable time period,” and the FCC’s definition of that time period at 90 days for collocations and 150 days for new builds.

Both the Town Board and the Town Planning Board met in workshop sessions, followed by a public hearing last July at which the public voiced its concerns. The application was addressed again in a Town Board workshop in August, and a wireless consultant was subsequently hired to review the proposal’s technical aspects. A week later, Verizon Wireless supplied supplemental information, and another public hearing was held at which, according to Verizon Wireless, the same group of residents voiced the same concerns as they had at the earlier hearing.

In September, Verizon Wireless performed two days of crane/transmitter testing to fulfill requirements of the consultant’s report. The tower was scheduled for a vote in September but a supplemental report by the consultant caused an adjournment until October. Two more public hearings were held in October, but the vote was postponed to November because Verizon Wireless had not completed the analysis of its testing.

Also in October, the consultant supplied two supplemental reports requiring additional information from the carrier, a repeat of the crane/transmitter testing by an independent party, the effect of the tower on property values, the structural stability of the tower, sound levels from the on-site generator, title issues on adjoining property and the provision of data services on the tower in addition to voice.

On March 18, 2011, Verizon filed suit against the Town. “The defendants have engaged in unnecessary delays and have unreasonably failed to take final action on the application,” Verizon Wireless wrote in its complaint. “The delays … have put the fire district site application into its 273rd day as of the day of this complaint; far more than the 150-day limit previously prescribed by the FCC.”

But Verizon may face a Shot Clock Order problem of its own making, according to Jonathan Kramer, a lawyer and RF engineer representing governments.

Kramer notes that Section 332(c)(7)(B)(v) of the Telecom Act allows an aggrieved party to file suit “within 30 days after such … failure to act” by a State or local government.

The FCC’s Shot Clock Order clarified when the 30 days begins. Kramer cites that portion of the Order, which says “Specifically, [the Commission finds] that a ‘reasonable period of time’ is, presumptively, 90 days to process personal wireless service facility siting applications requesting collocations, and, also presumptively, 150 days to process all other applications. Accordingly, if State or local governments do not act upon applications within those timeframes, then a ‘failure to act’ has occurred and personal wireless service providers may seek redress in a court of competent jurisdiction within 30 days, as provided in Section 332(c)(7)(B)(v).”

Kramer points out that Verizon admits in its complaint that it waited 273 days from the date of its initial application filing to commence the lawsuit against the Town. Under the shot clock order, the lawsuit should have been filed on or before the 180th day. The delay in filing its lawsuit, according to Kramer, may deal a knockout-blow to Verizon’s shot clock claim.

If you are involved in wireless and tower siting/planning issues and don’t already subscribe to Above Ground Level (AGL), then you should subscribe today at http://www.agl-mag.com/subscribe.html

AT&T&T Likely to Have to Divest Portions of Networks

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

Reuters is reporting that AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson believes that his company will have to divest portions of its existing wireless network to secure federal permissions to acquire T-Mobile. Stephenson’s comments were made in New York at a Council on Foreign Relations event held on March 30, 2011

My suspicion is that T-Mobile will be similarly required to divest portions of its existing wireless network in the same or adjoining areas as those assets that AT&T will shed to make the deal work for the Feds.

The shed assets will help strengthen the remaining, small competitors, who will then become known as current take-over targets for other major players.

Stephenson also said at the same event that he expected consumer prices for wireless services to continue drop as a result of the proposed merger. His comments came just hours before April Fools Day.

AT&T&T?

Posted on March 21, 2011 by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

It’s no surprise that T-Mobile will soon cease to exist in the U.S. What is a surprise is that AT&T is claiming the prize, rather than the widely-rumored suitor, Sprint/Nextel.

What is more of a surprise is that T-Mobile lasted so long before giving up the ship. T-Mobile has always played a game of the catch-up wanna-be to the legacy national carriers in the U.S.

What does make sense is that AT&T, rather than Sprint/Nextel looks like the winner: Sprint/Nextel certainly needs access to more sites and licenses, but AT&T can make better use of T-Mobile’s assets, specifically the AWS-Band frequency assignments around 2100 MHz.

AT&T went the other direction when it focused, rightly, on gaining new 700 MHz frequencies for its LTE data (and later, voice) deployments. By taking T-Mobile, AT&T gains more spectrum in the 1900 and 2100 MHz bands to add to its existing 700 and 860 MHz assignments. Sweet. AT&T’s recent purchase of the national 700 MHz band license from the ill-conceived and now all-but-defunct MediaFLO/FLO-TV operation of Qualcomm makes even more sense given the pending marriage with T-Mobile. Sweeter.

Sprint could not have benefited to the same degree as AT&T given that it does not have 860 MHz band assignments (yes, I’m discounting the Nextel assignments for this discussion since those have turned out to be such a poor deal for Sprint).

IF THIS DEAL GOES THROUGH, and there’s certainly a big IF in there, I suspect that the even-newer AT&T will be forced by the DOJ/FTC/FCC to sell off chunks of the existing networks of both firms. This has been the trend in prior mergers/buy-outs, and it’s unlikely that this deal will not see sales of major network assets in the name of competition.

What’s next?

For site landlords, in about a year it will be time to take out their AT&T and T-Mobile lease contracts and look at those transfer terms. It’ll be a really interesting time for site lessors with both AT&T and T-Mobile currently collocating at the same site.

For other wireless carriers, this deal will force some shotgun marriages.

I predict that Sprint/Nextel will now look to MetroPCS. Verizon will look at MetroPCS, too. This may also be the start of the end-game for Cricket Wireless.

Finally, many of the roaming contracts between the biggies and the smaller regional PCS and cellular carriers contain buy-out options (the biggie can for the sale of the small fish). We’ll see Verizon continue its aggressive campaign of Roam-to-Buy as a first step of blunting the AT&T/T-Mobile deal.

For now I think we should start calling the new network: “AT&T&T”!

VZ, VZW Steps Up For Japan

Posted on March 14, 2011 by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

Verizon Offers Free Calls to Japan From March 11 to April 10

Verizon Wireless Customers Can Text to Japan for Free

NEW YORK – March 14, 2011 – To help its customers contact loved ones in the aftermath of Japan’s devastating earthquake and tsunami, Verizon is enabling most wireless and residential customers to make free calls to Japan through April 10.

All Verizon Wireless post-paid customers will receive free calling to Japan from March 11 through April 10. Post-paid customers are those who receive a monthly bill from the company. In addition, Verizon Wireless post-paid customers will receive free text and multimedia messaging to Japan for the same time period.

Verizon Wireless has also made it easy for customers to text donations to a host of nonprofit organizations responding to the earthquake and subsequent tsunami. Customers can easily make a $10 donation by simply sending a text message and may choose from nine organizations aiding those in need in Japan.

All calls made from a Verizon residential landline to Japan will be rated at $0.00 per minute, from March 11 through April 10. Customers with Verizon World Plan (300, 500 or unlimited minutes of long-distance calling) can call Japan without using any minutes from their time-allotment blocks.

Additionally, Verizon Prepaid Phone Card charges for all long-distance calls placed to Japan from the U.S will also be waived from March 11 until April 10.

The company is also providing FiOS TV customers who are not subscribed to TV Japan with free access to the channel, through March 17. The channel location is 1770.

* Only long-distance usage charges associated with calls made from residential landlines terminating to wireline or wireless destinations in Japan will be waived from Mar. 11 – April 10. All other fees including taxes, surcharges, monthly recurring charges (MRCs), minimum spend levels (MSLs), monthly minimum charges (MMCs), etc will continue to apply. Post-paid calling card charges to Japan will also be waived.

** If long distance calling fees were charged, credits will be issued in a future bill statement.