If you take a look around state legislatures and administrations next year, you’re probably going to see a lot of new faces. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 11 states changed or tied party control in the 2008 election. This influx of “new blood” combined with the experienced veterans will be faced with large challenges and opportunities, including health care, infrastructure, energy and economics.

We all have a unique opportunity to play a central role in developing solutions to these pressing concerns, but wireless devices and services are a vital part of the equation. Wireless is essential to the way we work, play, and keep in touch with family and, now, even the way we participate in democracy. For example, some municipalities use wireless to save time and money in waste management, businesses use wireless to cut costs through telecommuting and remote operations management, and I’m sure you’ve seen how the campaign of President-elect Barack Obama used wireless services to effectively fuel its success.

To give you an idea, just check out this video of the Paulding County School District in Atlanta, GA that uses wireless to manage its bus fleet by tracking buses in real time and managing its drivers.

We welcome the opportunity to work with all state policymakers in the coming year. The association's web site, www.CTIA.org contains resources you and your staff may need in considering how the wireless industry can play a large role in providing solutions to your state’s biggest concerns. Additionally, this Blog is a great way to learn more about policy positions, engage our leadership, and receive answers to your questions about the latest industry developments.

The wireless industry looks forward to working with all policymakers to continue expanding the benefits of wireless to everyone through common sense policies that benefit consumers and allow your state’s government and businesses to harness the power of wireless.

There has been some discussion lately about spectrum caps, which to us seems to be a policy at odds with reality and at war with other deeply desired policy objectives.

Capping spectrum would be much like doing the same with computer speed. Being generous, we won’t compare it to a Commodore Computer Cap, and only say it would be like setting a computer cap based on a 1992 computer's specs - it would be like adopting a cap of 4 MB RAM and a 40 MB hard-drive and saying that no new applications can be written requiring more than that.

Or you can compare it to limiting the number of lanes for a highway – like saying no highway should be more than two lanes, no matter how many people need to use it.  Two lanes for the Beltway, anybody?

Spectrum caps ignore the fact that capacity (and speed) are a function of not only technology, but of applications, demand, and spectrum. Are spectrum cap advocates eager to limit the speed of downloads and uploads? Do they favor preventing the development of new applications that are - heaven forbid - more spectrum intensive? Should service providers and developers only introduce applications that will appeal to a very few customers, so that more spectrum won't be required since demand is so low? 

Another way of thinking about spectrum caps is to compare it to restricting the number of coffee shops a company could have in a given city. No matter how good their coffee was and how much people wanted it, you could only go to one or two places to get it. The lines and wait would be long, and many people who wanted that great coffee would be denied. Coffee drinkers certainly wouldn't stand for that, and wireless consumers shouldn't have to tolerate the inferior climate spectrum caps could create, either.

Analog AMPS-based cellular service was a limited application - voice only - but even there demand wildly exceeded expectations, and new technologies, and more spectrum, wound-up being required to meet the number of would-be users and deliver the wide variety of applications people proved to want.

In fact, a key question should be: is a spectrum cap compatible with the desire for universal broadband service?

Spectrum caps sound great in theory, if you assume every possible application can be done for everyone with a fixed resource. But with reality in mind, a spectrum cap is a rigid constraint. And while the genius of wireless has been innovation, the harder you make it to do things, the more  investors look elsewhere.

“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”

-Albert Einstein

If we are to judge M2Z’s broadband proposal in the AWS 3 proceedings by Einstein’s criteria, then someone is clearly missing the point. We’ve seen publicly-financed broadband wireless networks fail again and again.    See San Francisco.  See New Orleans.  See Philadelphia.   In fact, the Philadelphia Inquirer just wrote an article on the subject. (link)

It’s not that free broadband isn’t an intriguing idea:  it is.  And companies should have the latitude to voluntarily provide such a no-cost service.  There’s just one problem: it’s not a feasible, working model.  Many have already tried and failed. That we know for sure.    

Forget the basic economics of the proposal, and how one of its fundamentals is the significant role bonds would play in the business funding. My guess is that financial interest in this kind of risky venture might have waned somewhat given our recent economic turbulence. That in itself is a substantial factor which the FCC should take into account. But when looking at the M2Z proposal in terms of pure policy, I think before we start to tailor policy to pursue a specific end, we need to dispassionately assess the status quo: What’s the problem with broadband in America today? 

According to the FCC’s latest data, there were more than 100 million high-speed connections in the US as of June 2007 – and that data is now more than year old.  Estimates peg June 2008 broadband subscribership at more than 130 million – that’s an impressive number, and one that is assuredly going to grow as wireless service providers continue to expand their 3G networks.   

While it is critically important that all of those wanting broadband access receive it, it's also interesting to note that many of those citizens who don’t have broadband connections aren't clamoring for them.  According to the Pew Internet & American Life Project, 19% of dial-up users say “nothing could get them to switch to broadband.”

Wireless companies spend billions of dollars annually improving and expanding broadband networks.  There is wireless broadband in places today that there wasn’t yesterday, and there will be wireless broadband in places tomorrow where there isn’t any today.  Service providers will continue to expand their networks, but 100% broadband adoption is an unrealistic goal because there just isn't a market for it. Selling spectrum subject to heavy conditions to benefit a specific business model, which has repeatedly failed in the past, is a terrible waste of taxpayer money and valuable spectrum. The failed Muni WiFi experiments were based on false assumptions, and giving the concept another shot in the form of M2Z is just... well...  Einstein was a pretty sharp guy, wasn't he?   

It's been some week, huh?  There's an awful lot to process on the financial front... the Dow down 777 points yesterday  (I'll be working until I'm 70), then up more than 300 so far today (okay, maybe 68). It’s  assuredly an uncertain time, and in some respects, more than just a little scary.  

After we take a collective breath, and look around, we’ll see that while there are real reasons for concern and real problems to be solved -- but it’s not all “doom and gloom.”  For example,  consumer  confidence actually rose August to September.  And while we might not have a “bailout” plan in place just yet, I believe one will ultimately be passed. 

But instead of reading this for my quick take on the economy, I'd like you to think about how wireless fits in this picture. I have no doubt that the  wireless telecommunications sector will be a leader in our economic recovery.  According to Ovum, wireless productivity gains will generate more than $860 billion over the next 10 years , generating millions of new jobs and creating impressive advances for American business. New, high-speed 4th generation technology, such as Sprint’s WiMAX service  which is becoming commercially available within the next week,  is going to enable applications and services that at once seemed “Jetson-esque” .  AT&T and Verizon have also committed to the LTE – a 4G wireless standard – and expect to make it available in the next 24 months. 

The continued deployment of these 4th generation technologies, and the sustained growth in wireless broadband subscribership (about 70% of new broadband lines between June 2006 and June 2007 were wireless subscriptions), will enable increased productivity and efficiency in the enterprise community and truly life-style changing developments for the public.  Business users and consumers alike require a wireless high-speed internet experience akin to that they find on their desktops.  The industry is working hard to meet that demand , and the promise of the wireless future is fantastic. 

Right now, it’s easy  (and understandable) to look around and be  a little scared – but before we get too worked up, let’s take a dispassionate, measured look at  the big picture. Yes, times are tough. Our 401K accounts and overall confidence are taking hits. But wireless is a positively life-changing technology that is a critical key to the solution, and that should factor into every policymakers' mindset when looking at rules and regs that pertain to this dynamic facet of America's economic rebound. 

A hearing by the House Domestic Policy Subcommittee on whether there are health risks associated with using a cell phone just wrapped up a few hours ago, and it was noted during the session that CTIA had been invited to attend the session, but did not. That's true. We respectfully declined the invitation because the association has consistently deferred to the science on this topic, and we believe that any and all discussions on the issue should be based on that, and not on speculation or unproved hypotheticals. I've attached our press statement we distributed yesterday in advance of the hearing, which I think clearly explains our reasonable and rational position. It is as follows:   
   
“CTIA and the wireless industry take the health of our customers very seriously. That is why the wireless industry has supported scientific research on these issues, and also supports the Federal Communications Commission's strict safety guidelines that apply to all wireless devices that are sold or marketed in the U.S.  
 
“The wireless industry has always maintained that this important issue should be guided by sound science. The available scientific evidence and expert reviews from leading global health organizations such as the American Cancer Society, National Cancer Institute, United States Food and Drug Administration and the World Health Organization reflect a consensus based on published scientific research showing that there is no reason for concern.  
 
“In fact, just yesterday, the U.S. National Institutes of Health's National Cancer Institute released a statement, saying in part; ‘... [concerns] that using a cell phone may increase a person's risk of developing brain cancer are not supported by a growing body of research on the subject.’ 
 
“The public will be well served if tomorrow’s Congressional hearing focuses on the conclusions of peer-reviewed, published science.”

So, you're a wireless service provider and you want to improve and extend coverage in a service area. To do that, you need to construct a new tower, and with that comes a litany of paperwork, zoning hearings, and various licensing requirements that requires a multitude of legal diligence, perseverance, and patience.... not always in equal parts. It can be an enormously frustrating and tedious process for a carrier, that is often stymied by various zoning entities... county, city, etc., which have mastered the 'delay game'. 
  
How so? Well, there are about 3,300 pending siting applications, and according to a survey CTIA conducted of some of its membership, and about 25% of the applications have been awaiting a decision for more than a year.  And in that group, more than 180 applications have been awaiting final action for more than 3 years. That's right, three years for a simple thumbs up, or thumbs down to better coverage for wireless consumers. I know there are many considerations that go into the process, but certainly there has to be a better way.
 
And there is. The industry is seeking is a common-sense, reasonable solution – it shouldn’t take more than three years to reach a siting decision.  The industry supports 45 and 75 day “shot clocks” for siting consideration decisions.  We’ve filed a petition with the FCC on the matter, which you can read here.

The FCC is considering the petition, and we believe the proposed timeframe is ample for thorough review of applications and final decisions. There's just no good rationale for needing longer than two-and-a-half months to decide whether a service provider can move forward with its plans, as wireless service providers are sinking billions of dollars into their networks to provide upgraded services to consumers who clearly want more. Wireless data growth is impressive and Americans are increasingly turning to wireless as their preferred new path to the internet.  There’s no debate about the growing reliance and use of wireless service and it's only fair to the millions of consumers who want more that common-sense siting policies should be enacted.  

      You've heard me talk a lot here on the blog about wireless taxes and fees... about how ridiculous it is that wireless consumers are paying, on average, more than 16% a month of taxes and fees on their bills.  A lot of people in Congress agree, and in fact, tomorrow, the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee has scheduled a hearing on a bipartisan effort to stop the gouging of wireless consumers. Representatives Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) and Chris Cannon (R-UT) are co-sponsoring H.R. 5793, which will put a freeze on new, discriminatory wireless taxes and fees, and several witnesses are scheduled to talk at the hearing about the legislative proposal. As of now the hearing will be available on a webcast, which starts at 1:00 PM.  Check it out and find out why this bill should be passed, and why 114 House co-sponsors are behind it. That is an impressive number of representatives from both sides of the aisle, as 41 Democrats and 73 Republicans are standing up for wireless consumers and saying enough is enough.

       There's also a companion bill in the Senate, S. 3249, co-sponsored by Senators Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME). They, too, recognize the need to bring fairness into the equation, and should be applauded for standing up for wireless consumers. It's important to note that neither bill takes away one penny in existing state or local government revenue, and they don't prevent a jurisdiction from passing across-the-board taxes. Considering all of that, I'd like to know if anyone can come up with one good reason why wireless consumers should alone have to carry the tax loads on their backs. These proposals are a start, and very good ones at that.  

Well, we’re drawing to a close here in San Fran. I think that this show accomplished what the best ones do:  it refocused our industry on tomorrow’s consumer and business needs. 

We saw and heard the continued commitment to open networks, saw some of the preeminent companies in the mobile enterprise space – RIM and Adobe – outline their respective organizations' visions of the mobile future, and listened to an outstanding group of young people discuss tomorrow’s ideal mobile ecosystem.  

I think these shows are best when they remind and refocus the industry on wireless’s evolving, changing nature.  This Wireless I.T. and Entertainment show surely lived up to the hype!