Sprint’s Network Vision Project – A Game Changer

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…

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Senate Bill 911: Would Require Mandatory Collocation

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):

S.911 Could Result in THIS!(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.)

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

San Mateo CA Grand Jury on Muni Cell Siting Policies

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.

 

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

CPUC to Review AT&T&T Proposed Merger

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

AT&T&T LogoThe 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

 

 

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

AGL Denver Conference

The AGL regional Conference in Denver was AGL Magazine Logosimply outstanding in content and value.

I’m not just saying that because I was a speaker.  Frankly, I attend a fair number of conferences where there’s little new for me to learn, but not so at this event.

AGL is known for its down-to-earth approach for useful written content in the magazine, and the conferences have proven to be of even greater value due to the frank viewpoints of the speakers and attendees.

If you have a chance to attend either (or both) of the upcoming AGL regional conferences in Illinois and Florida, don’t miss the opportunity.

Over the next week or so I’ll be posting a few of the most interesting nuggets of valuable information from Denver, similar to what I posted last Thursday.

-Jonathan

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

AGL Denver Conference Update 8:50 AM MDT

Brian Allen, Business Development Manager – West, TowerCo says the average monthly revenue per cell site is about $52,000; Predicts that the number of tower sites will double over the next 9 years (to about 525,000), but growth could be substantially greater than that based on other published reports. Lots of outstanding industry stats. More during the day.

Jonathan Atkin, RBC Capital Markets gives he AT&T&T merger a 65% chance of gaining all required regulatory approvals.

Mobilitie’s Keith Plaglusch talking about that firm’s expansion into DAS (in building and outdoors).

More to follow.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

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

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):

 

T-Mobile's Truly Unlimited plan?  I think not!

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

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

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

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 $$multimillion dollar issue$$.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

AGL Bulletin: With GPS Complications, Short-Term Site Growth May Elude LightSquared

From today’s (4/15/11) AGL Bulletin.

With GPS Complications, Short-Term Site Growth May Elude LightSquared

The tower industry’s dreams of being a part of LightSquared’s plans to deploy 40,000 high-power transmitters may have to wait. Given the potential for interference to its spectrum neighbor, GPS, the proposed nationwide broadband network may not trigger significant site leasing activity in the near term, according to RBC Capital Markets.

LightSquared’s system proposes to operate in the 1525-1559 MHz band, right next to the GPS downlink frequencies in the 1559-1610 MHz band.

“Given LightSquared’s current spectrum impairment (GPS interference in one of its L-band slots, and Inmarsat clearing requirements in the other slot that are not slated for resolution until 2013) and the availability of spectrum in other bands, we believe a conservative stance is appropriate with respect to LightSquared actually building out a significant network, even if it were to reach an agreement with Sprint,” RBC Capital Markets wrote in its April Equity Research Industry Comment.

In January, RBC first voiced uncertainties about LightSquared, even though it had its funding in place, because it noticed the carrier was slowing its build out. Then the National Telecommunications and Infrastructure Administration sent a letter to the FCC warning it about possible GPS interference.

“LightSquared significantly slowed its network planning and site acquisition activities near the turn of the year, and we are aware of continuing progress in only three markets,” RBC noted.

The aviation industry is very concerned about the possibility of interference to GPS receivers, which provide planes with navigation, according to Aviation Week. Manufacturers and users are currently testing GPS receivers for susceptibility to interference from the planned nationwide broadband wireless network. The FCC’s waiver grant required LightSquared and the U.S. GPS Industry Council to work together to investigate the possibility of interference and to identify ways to prevent that interference to GPS, if necessary.

However, in an ex parte teleconference presentation to the FCC on Jan. 19, the U.S. GPS Industry Council already presented the potential for LightSquared service to cause severe interference to GPS users.

“Simply put, the U.S. GPS Industry Council’s testing discloses that LightSquared’s very high output power from its planned 40,000 sites, coupled with its proximity in frequency to the very weak GPS downlink band, forms a witch’s brew for catastrophic interference to GPS receivers,” Jonathan Kramer, principal, Kramer Telecom Law Firm, wrote in his blog. “LightSquared has stated that it can take care of the potential interference to GPS users using filters. It’s unclear whether the filters are sufficient, or who would be expected to pay for the cost of the filters.”

All eyes will be on that receiver testing with those filters, which will be completed at the end of May with a final report due to arrive at the FCC on June 15.

If you don’t already subscribe to AGL Magazine and the AGL Bulletin and you’re a wireless professional…you’re not really. Subscribe today.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail