Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer on Wireless Siting & Law » Page 5 of 48

House and Senate to FCC: Did the Commission REALLY…

Posted on January 31, 2019January 31, 2019 by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

Yesterday (1/30/19) Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) wrote to FCC Chairman Pai asking for information regarding allegations that FCC staff tried to game the federal judicial system in connection with the current litigation over the Commission’s 5G orders.

The letter opens with the following:

Dear Chairman Pai,

As you know, reports have surfaced that Federal Communications Commission (FCC) staff may have encouraged wireless carriers to file suit against the September 2018 FCC rule on 5G small cell deployment. It has been alleged this was done with the goal of moving litigation out of the Ninth Circuit. What’s worse, there are also allegations that FCC staff may have implicitly threatened licensees that were not helpful. If true, this represents an unprecedented level of coordination between an oversight agency and the entities it regulates for the express purpose of preventing a federal circuit court’s review. We therefore ask you provide additional information about these cases and the FCC’s role in them.

This Senate inquiry follows a 1/24/19 letter to Chairman Pai from the House’s Committee on Energy and Commerce’s Chairman, Frank Pallone, Jr., (D-NJ) and the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology, Mike Doyle (D-PA). That letter included the following:

It has come to our attention that certain individuals at the FCC may have urged companies to challenge the Order the Commission adopted in order to game the judicial lottery procedure and intimated the agency would look unfavorably towards entities that were not helpful. If true, it would be inappropriate for the FCC to leverage its power as a regulator to influence regulated companies to further its agenda in seeking a more friendly court.

Both letters start to dig into what appear to be the hallmarks of a captured federal agency; an agency that may have lost its independence, objectivity, and duty to protect the public in favor of coordinating and protecting with those the agency is charged with regulating, here wireless, telephone, and cable firms.

The allegations, if true, are likely to shake the FCC from top to middle, and also impact (read: scare) other regulated-friendly federal agencies.

The two letters are linked below:

1/30/19 Senate Letter to FCC Chairman Pai

1/24/19 House Letter to FCC Chairman Pai

-Jonathan

Mo-Mobilitie and Two Major Bob Announcements

Posted on January 29, 2019 by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

Back in October I had a few (or more) rather critical words to say about a Mobilitie presentation at AGL/Kansas City. Here’s a link to the post: Mobilitie: Fake News; FCC Fines; and Churchill’s Barking Dog. My aim in that post was clearly on Mr. Jason Caliento, the Executive Vice President of Network Strategy at Mobilitie.

Last week I had the pleasure of attending the AGL/Newport Beach conference, where Mr. Caliento spoke once again.

Things last week were a bit different. Mr. Caliento’s comments were focused on the progress made by Mobilitie, and a renewed commitment to working with local governments.

I found Mr. Caliento’s comments at AGL/Newport Beach this time to be more subdued, heartfelt, and informative. More importantly, since October, I’ve seen a continuing positive change and improvement in how Mobilitie staff is addressing planning cases with our clients. That change and improvement are welcome, and I’m pleased to acknowledge it. I intended to say those things to Mr. Caliento directly during the Q&A portion of his presentation, but time ran out.

Here’s the first announcement: I’m going to be starting a wireless regulation podcast in coming month. That podcast will be a mix of information and interviews of industry and government wireless policy and thought leaders. The goal of the podcast is to inform without stooping to a ‘gotcha’ approach. For that reason, I’ll be providing guest with questions and subjects in advance to give the quest time to think about and then provide complete and thoughtful answers. Of course, follow-up questions come as they may.

There’s no name for the podcast yet, so if you have any ideas you’re willing to give to me without strings please send them on to me. In the meantime, I’ll simply refer to the podcast as “Bob.” That’s the name I tend to use for all new projects that have yet to settle on a final identification.

Here’s the second announcement, and I’m particularly pleased about this: Mr. Caliento has agreed to be my first guest on the initial podcast.

I’ll be posting Bob updates here as we get closer to the initial podcast. The podcast will immediately be available here, and eventually on one or more of the well-known podcast platforms.

Jonathan

PS: If you’ve got some ideas for people I should interview on Bob, please send them along to me. -jlk

Is it Really a Small Wireless Facility?

Posted on January 15, 2019 by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

Yesterday was January 14, 2019, the day that the bulk of the FCC’s Small Wireless Facility (SWF) rules went into effect. Here’s a short video about information you’ll need to know if the applicant is REALLY proposing a SWF! It’s just a tad over 4 minutes in length.

HUGE! 10th Cir Denies Stay in FCC Case then Xfers to 9th Cir.

Posted on January 10, 2019January 10, 2019 by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

In the ongoing sage of local governments trying to bring sense back to cell siting after the FCC’s industry-driven September Small Wireless Facilities Order, the 10th Circuit today ORDERED that (a) it would not issue a stay of the FCC’s order, but then (b) ORDERED the case to be transferred to the 9th Circuit!

This is HUGE, and places the case exactly where it should have been heard in the first place. The denial of the stay was by a summary action, without giving a basis. The transfer order clearly explained why the case properly belongs in the 9th Circuit.

I’ve attached both orders below.

-Jonathan

__190110 Order Denying Motion for Stay

__10th cir order granting transfer to 9th cir

NOKIA’s Phil Twist: “Choose the red pill.”

Posted on November 30, 2018 by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

RCR wireless has an interesting and quite telling post out today (11/30/2018) quoting Mr. Phil Twist, VP of Network Marketing for Nokia. Speaking at an event titled, “The Great Telco Debate” in London,

Channeling the original Matrix movie blue pill/red pill scene, Mr. Twist is reported to have said that “[t]he US operators have taken the red pill – they’re building networks, even while they’re unsure of the business case. Because one is building, they’re all building.”

Regrettably, assuming Mr. Twist is not twisted in his assessment, then we’re seeing a massive infrastructure invasion into the public rights of way throughout the U.S. on a wing and a prayer.

Perhaps a better quote would have been to channel this fantasy movie clip: If you build it…

Both movies were dark fantasies. What one will be closer to reality?

Jonathan

Mobilitie: Fake News; FCC Fines; and Churchill’s Barking Dog.

Posted on October 14, 2018 by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

Mr. Jason Caliento, the Executive Vice President of Network Strategy at Mobilitie, presented the keynote address and a follow-up discussion at the AGL Summit on September 27, 2018. That Summit was held in Kansas City as an ongoing part of AGL’s (very important for municipal officials and industry personnel alike) lecture series.

I spoke at the AGL Summit on a 5G topic, but that’s not the focus of this post.

Mr. Jason Caliento (left) with Mr. Bryan Tramont. Photo Copyright © 2018 by Dr. Jonathan Kramer

The focus of this post is a snippet of about 2 minutes and 40 seconds of the one-on-one follow-up discussion with Mr. Bryan Tramont, Esq., the Managing Partner of Wilkinson Baker Knauer, LLP. The subject of that portion of their exchange was the 2018 Consent Decree between the FCC, Sprint, and Mobilitie. That Decree was adopted and released on April 10, 2018. (CLICK HERE to download and read the Consent Decree.)

In their relatively short exchange, Mr. Caliento managed to claim that there was some sort of ‘fake news’ involvement in the story about Sprint and Mobilitie violating the FCC’s rules; that the ends justified the means; and that Mr. Caliento seems guided by Sir Winston Churchill’s quote, “You will never reach your destination if you stop and throw stones at every dog that barks.” I suppose an apparently intentional program between Mobilitie and Sprint to build sites absent required regulatory permissions is the barking dog in his odd analogy.

Please listen to Mr. Caliento’s comments responding to Mr. Tramont on this topic in its entity. Then you may decide for yourself what you think of Mobilitie’s and Sprint’s (presumably and hopefully former) approach to regulatory compliance:

Okay. I suppose that’s one way to spin intentionally violating federal regulations because the ends seem to justify Mobilitie’s and Sprint’s means. Further, as for the ends justifying the means, apparently paying the FCC an $11 million dollar fine seems a very small and economical price to Mobilitie and Sprint given the billions Mr. Caliento claims that they have saved (and presumably will save).

I opine that now we know the real fake news.

Jonathan

PS: The next AGL Summit is in Atlanta, Georgia on November 8th. Unfortunately, I won’t be able to attend, but I highly recommend this event to municipal officials who want the real story about what’s happening in the coming 5G world. -jlk

FCC’s “SWFFR” Order and 3rd R&O

Posted on October 2, 2018October 2, 2018 by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

As many of you know, last Friday the FCC released a Declaratory Order and 3rd Order and Report, mainly covering the deployment of “Small Wireless Facilities.” I’m calling these sites ‘SWFFRs’ (Small Wireless Facilities-Federal Rules).

If you haven’t seen the SWFFR order, you can download it below in WORD format.

I’ll have a lot to say about these rules, but not yet.

Jonathan

CLICK BELOW to download the FCC’s SWFFR:

FCC-18-133A1

Can. You. Throttle. Me. Now?

Posted on August 31, 2018August 31, 2018 by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-Jonathan

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

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

Coronado, California Adopts New Wireless Ordinance

Posted on August 22, 2018 by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

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

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

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

Jonathan

The Wireless Sky is Falling!

Posted on July 30, 2018 by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

The wireless sky is NOT falling! — The Wireless Sky is Falling! The Wireless Sky is Falling…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wait, I don’t get it…

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

Yes, why indeed!?

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

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

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

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

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

Jonathan