Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer on Wireless Siting & Law » Page 22 of 48

Will T-Mobile or Dish Eat a Bug?

Posted on July 8, 2013July 8, 2013 by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

Is Leap Wireless a tasty bug?

According for FierceBroadbandWireless, which has a good eye for such things, T-Metro (really, T-Mobile and its recent meal, MetroPCS) might be getting hungry again. This time it may be looking to eat a bug, namely a Cricket (Wireless), which is the trade name for Leap Wireless.

Oddly, I’ve been saying about the same thing about T-Mobile and MetroPCS for a while, now.

Of course, your parent(s) taught you not to eat off the floor, so it’s possible Dish might make a running Leap to eat the same bug.

For T-Mobile, this meal would squarely in the middle of its favored food groups.

Leap’s PCS system–and as importantly its customers’ handsets–are generally compatible with T-Metro’s network. Better yet, there very little overlap between the MetroPCS and Cricket networks.

How do I know about the minimal overlap?

Using home coverage maps available on the web as a yardstick, I imported Cricket’s and MetroPCS’s maps into Photoshop and overlaid then one atop the other.

Using the Photoshop Multiply tool, it was easy to see that the only basic overlap between the two networks is in central California with much lesser overlaps in Las Vegas, small parts of Georgia, and even smaller parts of Texas.

Who says everything is bigger in Texas? Oops. Sorry…

In the map, purple is MetroPCS’s home coverage; green and orange belong to Cricket; the dark green shows the overlap of the two networks.

Now you can see why Cricket’s frequencies (remember, this is all about frequencies for 4G+ uses, not about pops) complement MetroPCS’s. Both complement T-Mobile’s footprint.

But wait!

What about Dish…the recent near-spoiler of the Softbank-Sprint-Clearwire deals?

I just don’t see it.

Yeah, Dish has a whole boatload of money burning holes in the bottom of their satellite receivers, but why spend the cash on little green dots and orange when the purple’s already dished on to on someone else’s plate (or dish)?

The smarter move would be for Dish to make a run on mama T-Mobile herself, with a pretty good national network already in place, and Deutsche Telekom an apparently willing on-again, off-again seller.

While I don’t rule out Dish, I simply don’t think it makes much sense for them to be a buyer of this bug.

Perhaps Dish will be a spoiler, again.

Time will tell. Just listen for the gurgling stomachs.

Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon Signs Wireless Siting Degreg Bill (HB 331) into Law

Posted on July 6, 2013July 6, 2013 by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

Missouri local government and their residents will now be largely silenced as to the placement of wireless towers in communities.

Yesterday, Gov. Jay Nixon signed HB 331, including its “UNIFORM WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS INFRASTRUCTURE DEPLOYMENT ACT” provisions.

HB 331 was lauded by the wireless industry and strongly opposed by the Missouri Municipal League and many local governments.

Gov. Nixon’s office released a very brief statement on Friday saying that HB 331 and HB 345 together “will provide the opportunity for expanded access and improved broadband and wireless service through more rapid deployment” of wireless and wired infrastructure.”

The Missouri Municipal League urged Gov. Nixon to veto HB 331, as did the Missouri Association of Counties.

According to published reports, the Missouri Telecommunications Industry Association said the bill will “allow the industry to improve service more quickly and standardize a sometimes slow and plodding approval process.”

As summarized by the state legislature, the UNIFORM WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS INFRASTRUCTURE DEPLOYMENT ACT will have the following effects:

UNIFORM WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS INFRASTRUCTURE DEPLOYMENT ACT

The bill establishes the Uniform Wireless Communications
Infrastructure Deployment Act to encourage and streamline the
deployment of broadband facilities and to help ensure that robust
wireless communication services are available throughout Missouri.
The bill:
(1) Prohibits an authority as specified in the bill with
jurisdiction over wireless communications infrastructure from
taking specified actions that could result in a non-uniform market
for wireless service in Missouri. The prohibition does not include
state courts having jurisdiction over land use, planning, or zoning
decisions made by an authority. The prohibitions include:

(a) Requiring an applicant to submit information about or evaluate
an applicant’s business decisions with respect to its designed
service, customer demand for service, or quality of its service to
or from a particular area or site;

(b) Evaluating an application based on the availability of other
potential locations for the placement of wireless support
structures or wireless facilities including, without limitation,
the option to add wireless infrastructure to existing facilities
instead of constructing a new wireless support structure or for
substantial modifications of a support structure or vice versa;

(c) Dictating the type of wireless facilities, infrastructure, or
technology to be used by the applicant by requiring an applicant to
construct a distributed antenna system in lieu of constructing a
new wireless support structure;

(d) Requiring the removal of existing wireless support structures
or wireless facilities, wherever located, as a condition for
approval of an application;

(e) Imposing environmental testing, sampling, or monitoring
requirements or other compliance measures for radio frequency
emissions on wireless facilities that are categorically excluded
under the Federal Communications Commission’s rules for radio
frequency emissions under 47 CFR 1.1307(b)(1) or other applicable
federal law;

(f) Establishing or enforcing regulations or procedures for RF
signal strength or the adequacy of service quality;

(g) Rejecting an application in conformance with 47 U.S.C. Section
332(c)(7)(b)(4), in whole or in part, based on perceived or alleged
environmental effects of radio frequency emissions;

(h) Imposing any restrictions with respect to objects in navigable
airspace that are greater than or in conflict with the restrictions
imposed by the Federal Aviation Administration;

(i) Prohibiting the placement of emergency power systems that
comply with federal and state environmental requirements;

(j) Charging an application fee, consulting fee, or other fee
associated with the submission, review, processing, and approval of
an application that is not required for similar types of commercial
development within the authority’s jurisdiction. Fees imposed by
an authority for or directly by a third-party entity providing
review or technical consultation to the authority must be based on
actual, direct, and reasonable administrative costs incurred for
the review, processing, and approval of an application. In no case
should total charges and fees exceed $500 for a collocation
application or $1,500 for an application for a new wireless support
structure or for a substantial modification of a wireless support
structure. An entity with jurisdiction or any third-party entity
cannot include within its charges any travel expenses incurred in a
third-party’s review of an application, and in no event can an
applicant be required to pay or reimburse an authority for
consultation or other third-party fees based on a contingency or
result-based arrangement;

(k) Imposing surety requirements, including bonds, escrow
deposits, letters of credit, or any other type of financial surety,
to ensure that abandoned or unused facilities can be removed unless
the authority imposes similar requirements on other permits for
other types of commercial development or land uses;

(l) Conditioning the approval of an application on the applicant’s
agreement to provide space on or near the wireless support
structure for authority or local governmental services at less than
the market rate for space or to provide other services via the
structure or facilities at less than the market rate for the
services;

(m) Limiting the duration of the approval of an application;

(n) Discriminating or creating a preference on the basis of the
ownership, including ownership by the authority, of any property,
structure, or tower when establishing rules or procedures for
siting wireless facilities or for evaluating applications;

(o) Imposing any requirements or obligations regarding the
presentation or appearance of facilities including, but not limited
to, those relating to the kind or type of materials used and those
relating to arranging, screening, or landscaping of facilities if
the requirements are unreasonable;

(p) Imposing any requirements that an applicant purchase,
subscribe to, use, or employ facilities, networks, or services
owned, provided, or operated by an authority, in whole or in part,
or by any entity in which an authority has a competitive, economic,
financial, governance, or other interest;

(q) Conditioning the approval of an application on, or otherwise
requiring, the applicant’s agreement to indemnify or insure the
authority in connection with the authority’s exercise of its police
power-based regulations; or

(r) Conditioning or requiring the approval of an application based
on the applicant’s agreement to permit any wireless facilities
provided or operated, in whole or in part, by an authority or by
any entity in which an authority has a competitive, economic,
financial, governance, or other interest, to be placed at or
connected to the applicant’s wireless support structure;

(2) Allows authorities to continue to exercise zoning, land use,
planning, and permitting authority within their territorial
boundaries with regard to the siting of new wireless support
structures, requirements, and with regard to applications for
substantial modifications of wireless support structures. The
authority must review, within 120 days of receiving an application
to construct a new wireless support structure or within the
additional time as may be mutually agreed to by an applicant and an
authority, the application as to its conformity with applicable
local zoning regulations and advise the applicant in writing of its
final decision to approve or disapprove the application.
Applications will include a copy of a lease or other agreement from
the property owner evidencing a right to pursue the application.
The authority must, within 120 days of receiving an application for
a substantial modification of wireless support structures, review
the application as to its conformity with applicable local zoning
regulations and advise the applicant in writing of its final
decision to approve or deny the application. Procedures for
extending these deadlines and fixing deficiencies are also
specified in the bill. A party aggrieved by the final action of an
authority or its inaction may bring an action for review in any
court of competent jurisdiction;

(3) Requires an application for additions to or replacement of
wireless facilities to be reviewed for compliance with applicable
building permit requirements. Applications will include a copy of
a lease or letter or agreement from the property owner evidencing
the applicant’s right to pursue the application. The authority
must, within 90 days, review the application as to its conformity
with applicable building permit requirements and consistency with
the provisions of the act and advise the applicant in writing of
its final decision to approve or deny the application. However,
procedures for expediting or extending the deadline and for fixing
deficiencies are also specified in the bill. With regard to
collocation applications the overall deadline is 45 days with
procedures for notification and remedy of deficiencies specified in
the bill;

(4) Specifies that the provisions of the bill do not authorize an
authority, except when acting solely in its capacity as a utility,
to mandate, require, or regulate the placement, modification, or
attachments of any new wireless facility on new, existing, or
replacement poles owned or operated by a utility or expand the
power of an authority to regulate any utility;

(5) Prohibits an authority from instituting a moratorium on the
permitting, construction, or issuance of approval of new wireless
support structures, substantial modifications of wireless support
structures, or attachments to existing facilities of wireless
communication infrastructure if the moratorium exceeds six months
and if no good cause is shown. A moratorium must not affect
pending applications;

(6) Prohibits an authority from charging a wireless service
provider or wireless infrastructure provider any rental, license,
or other fee to locate a wireless support structure on an
authority’s property in excess of the current market rates for
rental or use of similarly situated property. An authority may not
offer a lease or contract to use public lands to locate a wireless
support structure on an authority’s property that is less than 15
years in duration. A process for the resolution of any disputes
over fair market value lease payments using appraisers appointed by
both parties is also specified in the bill; and

(7) Prohibits applicants for wireless facility permits from having
the power of eminent domain or the right to compel any private or
public property owner, the Department of Conservation, or the
Department of Natural Resources to lease or sell property or locate
wireless facilities on existing structures.

Here is a link to the full text of the Bill: CLICK HERE.

I know of no other enacted legislation so far reaching to exclude local participation in the wireless siting process.

It’s Official: FCC Approves the Marriages of Softbank+(Sprint+Clearwire)

Posted on July 5, 2013July 5, 2013 by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

To nobody’s surprise, the FCC has approved the Softbank+(Sprint+Clearwire) deals. Here’s the press release just sent by Sprint…or should I say, SoftSprint:

Federal Communications Commission Approves SoftBank’s Investment in Sprint and Sprint’s Acquisition of Clearwire

OVERLAND PARK, Kan., BELLEVUE, Wash. & TOKYO (BUSINESS WIRE), July 05, 2013 – The Federal Communications Commission announced today that it has voted unanimously to approve the applications filed by SoftBank (TSE: 9984), Sprint (NYSE: S) and Clearwire (NASDAQ: CLWR) related to their transactions announced last year.

This decision completes all Federal government reviews of both SoftBank’s investment in Sprint and Sprint’s acquisition of Clearwire. Sprint’s shareholders approved the SoftBank transaction with Sprint on June 25^th. Clearwire’s shareholders are scheduled to vote on the Sprint transaction with Clearwire, which has been recommended by Clearwire’s Board of Directors, on July 8^th.

“We would like to thank Acting Chairwoman Clyburn, Commissioners Rosenworcel and Pai, as well as the staff of the FCC for their thorough review of these transactions,” said Sprint CEO Dan Hesse. “Just two years ago, the wireless industry was at the doorstep of duopoly, but with these transformative transactions, we are one step closer to a stronger Sprint which will better serve consumers, challenge the market share leaders and drive innovation in the American economy.”

“We appreciate the forward thinking, consumer focused stance the FCC has taken by approving the proposed transaction. As the company that built America’s first nationwide 4G network, Clearwire looks forward to joining Sprint and deploying an even faster and richer 4G experience for consumers across the country,” said Clearwire CEO and President Erik Prusch. “This is the right transaction at the right time to best deploy Clearwire’s spectrum to create a broadband network that will bring additional services and alternatives to wireless consumers.”

“The FCC’s thoughtful review and approval of these transactions represents an important step toward creating a more competitive U.S. wireless marketplace,” said SoftBank Chairman & CEO Masayoshi Son. “SoftBank’s investment in Sprint will bring innovation and increased customer focus, which will enable us to begin creating a true competitor in a market dominated by two companies. We look forward to leveraging the significant talent and resources of the New Sprint to bring innovation and better service to U.S. consumers.”

Sprint, Clearwire and SoftBank anticipate that the transactions will close in early July 2013, subject to the remaining closing conditions.

Kramer’s FCC Intergovernmental Advisory Committee Presentation 7/1/13

Posted on July 4, 2013 by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

On June 5, 2000, following nearly two years of work, the FCC released its national guidance, “A Local Government Official’s Guide to Transmitting Antenna RF Emission Safety: Rules, Procedures, and Practical Guidance” (the “Local Official’s Guide”).

The Local Official’s Guide was developed at the behest of the FCC’s Local and State Government Advisory Committee (the “LSGAC”), which was the predecessor of the current FCC Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (“IAC”).

As set out in preface to the Local Official’s Guide, that document was developed to serve and educate state and local governments officials and the public by providing “basic information, in a form accessible to officials and citizens alike, that will alleviate misunderstandings in the complex area of RF emissions safety.”

I had the distinct privilege of being one of the primary authors of the Local Official’s Guide, and I also served as an editor and the illustrator of that document.

Since the release of the Local Official’s Guide some 13 years ago, it has been relied on and used by thousands of state and local government agencies throughout the United States to help them understand RF emissions in the context of local land use, permitting, and zoning matters.

The Local Official’s Guide has well-served the public, yet given the feedback I’ve received from governments and the public since the Guide was first published, there is keen public interest in accessing more information on and related to RF emissions.

On March 29, 2013, the FCC released its “First Report and Order Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making and Notice of Inquiry” (Click to read: FCC 13-39).

In the Order, the FCC said of the Local Official’s Guide,

The Local Official’s Guide provides a framework for local and state governments and wireless service providers to cooperate in the determination of compliance with the Commission’s RF exposure limits. We request comment on what additional information should be provided to consumers and in what format to assist in making decisions about reducing exposure. We also specifically seek comment on how we can ensure that such information is presented in formats that are accessible to
people with disabilities.”

(R&O at ¶ 231)

Given of the pending Rule Making at the Commission, the current version of the Local Official’s Guide will soon be outdated from a rules/technical standpoint. This opens the door to an opportunity for the FCC to revise, expand, and update the Local Official’s Guide.

FCC Intergovernmental Advisory Committee meeting on July 1, 2013. Click to enlarge.

On Monday of this week (July 1, 2013), I was an invited speaker at the FCC’s Intergovernmental Advisory Committee meeting at the Commission’s headquarters in Washington D.C. I was asked to provide the IAC with my thoughts regarding a path forward to reaching a new edition of the Guide.

I presented the IAC with a deck of slides regarding how the Local Official’s Guide came into existence; why it now needs to be overhauled; and my recommendations for a work plan to achieve a revised, expanded, and even more useful and accessible Guide for Local Government Official’s and the public.

If you would like to see the slides I presented to the IAC, you may CLICK HERE to download them in PDF format from the Commission’s web site.

Following my formal presentation, the IAC Members posed a variety of thoughtful and targeted questions regarding the Guide and my proposed work plan. Commission staff also provided their input to the Committee regarding the utility of the current Guide, and the value to the public for a new guidance. Finally, I suggested to the IAC that the new Guide be revised on an as-needed basis perhaps every 3 to 5 years to reflect new wireless technologies and deployments.

I’m very pleased to report that at the end of the Q&A following my presentation, the IAC unanimously directed me to proceed with the drafting of the revised, updated, and expanded Guide. I’ll be working with Commission staff and other subject matter experts as I proceed forward through the drafting process.

A common question I anticipate is, ‘When will the new Guide be released?’

Much of my drafting can and will proceed in advance of the finalization of the Commission’s new rules. The goal is to have the new Guide ready for release right after the new federal RF emissions rules are adopted by the Commission. Given, however, that I will not be privy to the Commission’s final new rules in advance of the public adoption date, the new Guide will not be ready for public release by the Commission until just after the new rules are approved by the Commissioners.

Jonathan

FCC Approves SoftSprintClear deals…Apparently

Posted on July 3, 2013 by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

According to a Bloomberg report today citing unnamed sources, two of the three sitting FCC Commissioners have approved the big TwoFer: Clearwire’s takeover by Sprint, and Sprint’s sale of itself to Softbank.

The decision, if in fact it has been made, has not yet been posted to the FCC’s web site.

Presuming the truth of the Bloomberg story, no one should be surprised by this massive frequency consolidation given Sprint’s Network Vision project. These deals have been about access to bandwidth.

Bandwidth is everything.

Bye-bye then, Nextel iDEN

Posted on June 30, 2013June 28, 2013 by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

Exactly 1 minute ago, at 12:01 a.m. , Sprint decommissioned Nextel’s iDEN service.

It pulled the big plug. Flipped off the lights. Took its toys and went home.

No more beep-beep-beep. No more programming of weird handset codes to identify group users.

In fact, no more service if you have a Sprint iDEN boat anchor and didn’t switch over to Sprint or another carrier prior to 60 seconds ago.

Hey, Sprint warned you this was happening, so don’t act surprised. That said, if you woke up today and find your beep-beep-beep going annnnnn-annnnnn-annnnnn, well, good luck.

Goodbye Nextmai ®… goodbye Chirp®… goodbye Priority Connect®…goodbye all those other cute Nextel registered trademarks!

iDEN we hardly knew ya.

T-Mobile’s Clever Way to Camo a Polish Cell Site

Posted on June 26, 2013 by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

What better way for T-Mobile to promote its wireless service than to turn a cell site into a billboard advertisement for T-Mobile’s wireless service. It’s kind of a ‘two-fer.’

This billboard/cell site is located west of the Morawica area of Poland, just west of John Paul II International Airport (the Krakow, Poland Airport) on E462.

You can click on the photograph to enlarge it to full size. I shot this photo during my trip to Central Europe in September, 2011.

Shameless promotion: I have thousands of high resolution photographs of wireless communications sites and components online at CellTowerPhotos.com. My wireless site photographs regularly grace magazine covers and illustrate articles. They also served to illustrate the National Geographic Magazine article on camouflaged cell tower sites, “Cell Phonies” (September 2007).

-Jonathan

Bye-bye Sprint Nextel…Hello SoftSprint!

Posted on June 25, 2013 by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

softsprintlogo — Yes, this is a parody logo. You wondered?

Sprint Nextel is now a part of SoftBank.

Sprint reports that about 98% of its shareholders voted for the deal. The FCC approval seems like it will be pro forma.

Now, with the SoftSprint and SprintClear deals done, I suspect Dan Hesse is considering when and how he’ll exit SoftSprint, if he hasn’t already already worked out the details of that deal with Masayoshi Son.

Actually, I’d bet Dan’s exit plan is already set down on paper, and it says something like, ‘Dan, thanks for the hard work. We’ll have you stay on as a special consultant to SoftSprint for the next three years…yeah, we’ll call it a consulting gig. You’ll start about two weeks after the FCC approves the deal. Something like $5M a year, plus a really nice parting gift.’

At least Dan will be able to keep his SAG-AFTRA membership. Maybe part of the consulting gig will be that Dan keeps on making commercials for his new boss.

Here’s Sprint’s press release from this morning:

OVERLAND PARK, Kan. (BUSINESS WIRE), June 25, 2013 – Sprint Nextel Corporation (“Sprint”) (NYSE: S) shareholders voted today to approve and adopt the previously announced merger agreement providing for a substantial investment by SoftBank Corp. (“SoftBank”) (TSE: 9984). Sprint shareholders overwhelmingly approved the deal, with approximately 98 percent of the votes cast at today’s special shareholders meeting voting in favor of the merger agreement, representing approximately 80 percent of Sprint’s outstanding common stock as of April 18, 2013, the record date for the special meeting.

“Today is a historic day for our company, and I want to thank our shareholders for approving this transformative merger agreement,” said Sprint CEO Dan Hesse. “The transaction with SoftBank should enhance Sprint’s long-term value and competitive position by creating a company with greater financial flexibility.”

Consummation of the Sprint-SoftBank transaction remains subject to the receipt of the Federal Communications Commission approval. Sprint and SoftBank anticipate the merger will be consummated in early July 2013.

As previously announced, Sprint stockholders will have the option to elect to receive cash in the amount of $7.65 or one of New Sprint common stock for each share of Sprint common stock owned by them (subject to the previously disclosed proration provisions in the merger agreement). The total cash consideration available to Sprint stockholders is $16.64 billion. Pro forma for the transaction, the current Sprint stockholders’ resulting equity ownership in a stronger, more competitive New Sprint will be 22 percent while SoftBank will own approximately 78 percent. Sprint and SoftBank have previously mailed to Sprint shareholders forms of election and related instructions and established 5:00 p.m., New York time, on July 5, 2013 as the election deadline, subject to extension.

Sprint to Clearwire: How ’bout a Bigger Dowry?

Posted on June 21, 2013June 21, 2013 by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

So, in the latest chapter of the SoftSprint-Clearwire-Dish matrimonial saga, it looks like SoftSprint will indeed take Clearwire to the alter.

Yesterday, Sprint (which had sued Clearwire just three days before to block the sale to Dish) decided to up its offer from $3.40 to $5.00, topping Dish’s offer of $4.40.

Just to make sure that Clearwire doesn’t take the ring off the finger one more time, Sprint’s amended marriage proposal contract with Clearwire provides for Clearwire to pay Sprint a break-up fee of $115 million should Clearwire get cold feet…again.

I have to imagine that there were some very interesting conversations between Japan and Kansas about what would happen to the value of the SoftSprint deal if Clearwire went off and married Dish. Soft needs Clearwire’s frequency allotments to make its Sprint purchase ‘reasonable’…it didn’t need cash nearly as much. Soft so much as signed that point exactly when it made noises yesterday about making a run for T-Metro if the SofSprint deal collapses.

Lest anyone be unclear:

Clearwire is all about licensed frequencies for LTE; not WiMax, facilities or customers;
Sprint only makes sense with Clearwire’s licensed frequencies; forget about the cash;
SoftSprint only makes sense with Sprint’s sites being upgraded to Network Vision and getting control of Clearwire’s licensed frequencies.

There you go!

Dish to Sprint: Tough! We’re headed to the alter with Clearwire!

Posted on June 18, 2013June 18, 2013 by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

It didn’t take long for Dish to fire off a public response to Sprint’s compliant to block Dish’s takeover of Clearwire. Here’s what Dish had to say, short and sweet:

“Sprint’s lawsuit is a transparent attempt to divert attention from its failure to deal fairly with Clearwire’s shareholders, as well as to exploit its majority position to block Clearwire’s shareholders from receiving a fair price for their shares. DISH is confident that its superior offer, which has been unanimously recommended by the Clearwire Board, including the majority appointed by Sprint, will be upheld and Clearwire shareholders will be free to realize the 29 percent premium represented by the DISH offer.”

Link to Dish’s press release.

I’m already getting my popcorn ready to have at hand when I read Dish’s answer to Sprint’s complaint. This has all the makings of a great Lifetime Channel movie.