CTIA filed an ex parte today with the FCC that examines how the U.S. wireless industry measures up in the global marketplace. Using data from Merrill Lynch, the filing shows in detail how the U.S. leads the market for wireless services among 26 of the largest OECD countries. Once again, wireless in America is at the forefront in overall value, competition and innovation. Specifically, the U.S. continues to lead the world in minutes-of-use, has the lowest revenue per minute, has the least concentrated wireless market and is the global frontrunner in efficient use of spectrum resources.

Last year we began taking an in-depth look at how wireless in America stacks up against the rest of the world. This came in response to OECD broadband rankings that didn’t include wireless broadband. Our initial research last year found the U.S. leads the world in wireless providing more services for less per minute-of-use than any of the OECD’s top ten countries. Nonetheless, there continues to be a lot of discussion and debate on the state of U.S. wireless service. Today’s filing features clear-cut facts to dispel some of the more popular myths. This ex parte is an update to our prior filing in 2008 and expands the comparisons to 26 countries.  

Here are some of the U.S.-focused highlights:

• The price-per-minute of service is the lowest of the 26 OECD countries tracked by Merrill Lynch.
• Consumers have the highest minutes-of-use per month of the 26 OECD countries tracked y Merrill Lynch.
• The U.S. has the least concentrated market, and accordingly, the lowest HHI.
• At least 33 companies manufacture wireless devices for the U.S. market. 
• Consumers can choose from nearly 630 wireless devices.
• In the last year alone, six different companies have launched or announced application stores, giving consumers access to over 60,000 applications.
• Subscriber counts for high-speed wireless lines more than doubled and advanced wireless service lines more than tripled in the last year. 
• The percentage of consumers actively using mobile Internet capabilities is higher than any other country according to Nielsen.

Additionally, wireless broadband has been the fastest growing segment of the broadband industry according to the latest FCC data.  In 2007 alone, the number of wireless broadband subscribers more than doubled!

Ultimately, this means that U.S. wireless consumers enjoy an unparalleled value in service, driven by the competition and innovation in the wireless industry.  

For more information and to access the entire filing, click here.  

Remember the old 'The Who' song, Goin' Mobile?  "I can pull up by the curb, I can make it on the road, goin' mobile. I can stop in any street and talk with people that we meet. Goin' Mobile. Keep me moving. Out in the woods, or in the city, it's all the same to me........ the world's my home when I'm mobile".  It was a great tune when it was released back in 1971, and it certainly could be the wireless industry's anthem today! Find out how AT&T wants to help you go mobile, everywhere, all of the time, in this interview with Glenn Lurie, the President of Emerging Devices and Resale,  AT&T. Glenn tells us about his new position at AT&T and their mission of introducing wireless capabilities into a whole host of emerging devices far beyond just mere handsets in a segment from our  January edition of the CTIA Wonder of Wireless webcast.

Congress is contemplating what should be included in an economic stimulus proposal which could likely be sent to the Obama Administration by the first week of February. When considering all of the possible areas to which those important funds could be dedicated, there's no question that directing a significant portion to wireless telecom  makes sense and would be a major step toward achieving a successful outcome. CTIA President and CEO Steve Largent sent a letter this week to congressional leadership, making the rational and sensible case for wireless to be a part of the stimulus proposal, highlighting the short and long-term economic benefits that will result from that. Steve makes the point that broadband incentives in the package should be technologically neutral, and that wireless broadband investment now will facilitate faster network build-outs, create more jobs sooner, inspire tremendous and widespread gains in productivity and economic vitality, and recognize the realities of 21st century telecommunications and the incredible and superior value wireless affords all of us.

Speculation is rampant about what might be included in the package. However it takes shape, as Steve's letter points out, it certainly makes sense that the stimulus proposal should encourage wireless broadband investment and deployment. Consumers are the ultimate beneficiaries, as they'll be provided even faster mobile services, sooner and in more places than would otherwise be the case. New, high-paying, permanent jobs will also be created well-ahead of schedule, and a gain of as much as $186 billion in the Gross Domestic Product that can be realized by an investment of about $17 billion in wireless broadband is a much-needed shot in the arm for our nation's economy.

Numerous industry sectors are turning to wireless as an integral part of their growth and service strategies, and in this time of great need, it's clear support for the innovation and value that are hallmarks of this industry and provide such tremendous upside to consumers and businesses is the right call.

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. 

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.  

On today’s keynote stage CTIA and Harris Interactive released some great new data on the teen market.  Below you can check out our respective takes on teen wireless use. 

High Hopes for Teens and Wireless

Tomorrow's Wireless More Versatile
 

Teens in the Wireless Driver's Seat

Just because we’re in San Francisco this week doesn’t mean the work in Washington stops.  Today CTIA filed an FCC ex parte on behalf of hundreds of  companies expressing united opposition to the adoption of any "free" broadband mandates in the AWS 3 proceeding.

Our position: while any company should be free to voluntarily provide a "free" advertising-based service to consumers, a regulatory mandate for such a service will harm consumers and potentially delay access to next generation broadband services, especially in rural areas. 

A free service will harm consumers?  How?

Think about it:  At best, given a “free” service’s limited revenue opportunity in any market – a case exacerbated in rural areas – the licensee would have little incentive to invest and build-out the service, thereby defeating its original purpose.  At worst, having to compete with a “free” service could potentially drive most competitors out of any market, which means a reduction in broadband choice and availability.  The FCC will have essentially provided a disincentive for other companies to deploy broadband networks at a time when it should be promoting broadband build-out. 

We know that tailoring auction rules to a specific company's business plan won’t increase broadband adoption in the United States – recall the recent D Block debacle.  The US broadband market is already intensely competitive and is characterized by intra and intermodal competition, multiple business plans and innovative service packages.  

If the Commission wants to see further US broadband adoption, it should seriously consider the multiple currently pending proceedings aimed at doing just that. 

A recent  New York  Times op-ed compared U.S. broadband providers to OPEC.  OPEC?!   Seriously? Tim Wu's oil cartel comparison is absurd, and is clearly based on narrow-mindedness rather than facts.

Let's just deal with the basics. OPEC, like all cartels, relies on producers agreeing to restrict output to artificially inflate prices. In contrast, U.S. broadband service providers are aggressively investing and building new capacity as prices drop and broadband speeds increase.  And how has that shown? The cost of bandwidth in the US is about 1/5th the price of what it was ten years ago, while the cost of oil is about 12 times as much as it was in 1998. So, scratch Wu's argument that consumers are getting gouged at the 'bandwidth' pump.  

Wireless carriers have paid billions to the US Treasury to buy spectrum, and billions more building better and faster networks to serve America's 260 million U.S. wireless subscribers.  In fact, according to an upcoming paper by Jeffrey Eisenach, Criterion Economics and George Mason University Law School, for the Committee for Economic Development of Australia, "in 2007, the U.S. Federal government invested a total of about $57 billion in all U.S. transportation infrastructure, including roads, bridges, ports, airline infrastructure and railroads; the Wall Street Journal reports U.S. telecom firms invested $70 billion in the telecom infrastructure alone." Private investment in communications in the US is impressive by any standard. Further, one-third of America's broadband customers use competing wireless providers to access the Internet. Mr. Wu conveniently ignores such consumer choice.

A national broadband policy is essential to our country's future, but it must be grounded in reality. It's ironic that Mr. Wu claims to oppose a command and control solution (to a non-existent problem), while supporting government-enforced mandates.  The wireless industry welcomes dialogue on how communications can be provided to all Americans, but such discussion will only be constructive and productive if everyone involved has both feet firmly on the ground, and just as sure of a grip on the facts.