When Congress tasked the FCC with developing a National Broadband Plan that includes “a plan for the use of broadband infrastructure and services in advancing . . . energy independence and efficiency,” we were pleased that the Commission identified “smart grids” – the integration of information and communication applications with the electric power grid – as a promising way to achieve these objectives. 

Then, late last month, President Obama announced $3.4 billion of stimulus grants that will be allocated to 100 smart grid projects tasked with modernizing America’s energy efficiency and increasing reliability on renewable resources (e.g. wind and solar power). 

Clearly, smart grid technology has captured the nation’s attention for its numerous benefits and promising potential. 

In our comments  to the FCC last month, we highlighted wireless communications as a critical component of smart grid deployments. Commercial wireless networks can satisfy, and are currently satisfying, the communications requirements of smart grid applications. 

The benefits of smart grid technology can be profound, and wireless is an important part of the equation. A joint report by Accenture and Vodafone  found that wireless technology can be used to:

• Reduce carbon emissions in European Union (EU) member countries by 113 metric tons per year in carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e).
• Cut energy cost by £43 billion (approximately $70 billion), with more than 80% of these savings attributable to machine-to-machine communications.

But when thinking about deploying wireless communications for smart grids, we ask policymakers to consider these two points:

• If net neutrality rules were applied to wireless, it is an open question regarding how a non-discrimination regulation would impact devices like smart meters or supervisory control and data acquisition (“SCADA”) system equipment. Further, if a provider or vendor devises an innovative smart grid communications technology or transmission algorithm to limit the impact of network congestion, would such a technology be permissible under new rules? If so, must the details be fully disclosed? It also is entirely plausible that certain communications in a smart grid solution will require prioritization. An overreaching network management policy may jeopardize the innovation for smart grid development and deployment.
• With the increasing demand for more spectrum, it would be inefficient to dedicate spectrum for smart grid-specific networks when commercial networks can and are already satisfying smart grid systems. 
  

In my blog post yesterday, I mentioned the misleading OECD Mobile Communications Outlook report that claimed U.S. consumers pay some of the highest prices for mobile services in the world. While we clearly explained what the problems were with the study, we were pleased to see others engage and refute its findings. 

Another telecommunications expert who debunked the study is the Phoenix Center’s Chief Economist, Dr. George Ford. Dr. Ford commented on the OECD’s mobile price metrics in a recent policy perspective report. 

Here are some of Dr. Ford’s recommendations to improve the OECD’s analysis:

• At a minimum, the OECD should expand the number of pricing baskets to reflect usage levels across countries. The high-usage basket should be at least 2,000 total voice minutes per month.
• To the extent possible, the OECD should incorporate the full distribution of usage (or usages) in Member Countries rather than looking at a few customer types.
• The OECD should include a sufficient number of carriers to adequately represent the best prices available in a given country for all usage levels, instead of its current practice of limiting only to a few arbitrarily selected carriers in each Member Country.
• The OECD should explicitly recognize the complexities of comparing mobile prices across countries, including economic, cultural, and regulatory differences that affect demand and prices. As Dr. Ford explains, for “the data to be used wisely and effectively, the report should clearly disclose the limitations of reported statistics to enable accurate interpretation.”
• Finally, Dr. Ford recommends that the OECD should primarily document the variety of pricing plans offered in each country, “rather than create price indexes of dubious merit.” In so doing, the OECD can “serve as a useful and policy-relevant provider of data, rather than a purveyor of ‘filtered’ data of questionable credibility.”

CTIA agrees with Dr. Ford’s conclusion that Americans do not pay higher prices for wireless service. 

As avid readers of this blog know, we’ve written numerous posts using information from well-respected third party influentials and organizations on how the U.S. wireless industry is the world’s leader in overall satisfaction, value, competition and innovation. We’re pleased everyone from Former Vice President Al Gore to Consumer Reports magazine has recognized the industry’s numerous benefits. To learn more about what others are saying about us, check out this independent assessment.  

In yesterday’s blog post, I summarized our FCC reply comment filing  on the wireless industry’s continued innovation and investment.

Despite overwhelming evidence from independent organizations that clearly prove the U.S. wireless industry is a worldwide leader in innovation, investment and meeting consumer demands, there are still some naysayers out there. So for those critics, today’s post is for you.

You may recall the flawed OECD Communications Outlook report released in August by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) that claimed U.S. wireless consumers have the highest mobile phone costs. We issued a statement that outlined why the OECD figures are wrong. 

But don’t just take our word for it. Check out this Forbes.com article by former U.S. Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs James Glassman, who simply states:  “Don’t believe it.” 

Mr. Glassman continues saying that the OECD report is "deeply flawed" and "its startling conclusion essentially worthless."

He concludes his piece with, “Despite the findings of the flawed OECD study, what European consumers need is more rigorous, American-style competition in telecommunications.” 

We couldn’t agree more, Mr. Glassman.

Last Thursday (11/5), CTIA filed reply comments  to the FCC on the wireless industry’s innovation and investment.    

As we have seen in the last 18 months, the U.S. wireless ecosystem has experienced tremendous change. The industry has embraced the evolution of networks to 3G and now 4G technologies, the explosion of innovative devices, the emergence of application stores, and new machine-to-machine communications.

Specifically, we’ve seen:

• 3G technology has been deployed to more than 92% of the U.S. population;
• At least 33 companies manufacture wireless devices for the U.S. market, and consumers can choose from nearly 630 wireless devices.
• More than 85% of all devices on carriers’ networks are Web-capable and 20% of new devices are equipped with Wi-Fi capability. According to Nielsen, the percentage of consumers actively using mobile Internet capabilities in the U.S. is higher than any other country.
• Well over 100,000 mobile-specific applications have come to the market from six different stores;
• Reported minutes of use (“MOUs”) amounted to 1.16 trillion for the six months ending in June 2009, which is the highest minutes-of-use per month and the lowest price-per-minute of service of the 26 OECD countries tracked by Merrill Lynch.
• Reported SMS messages for the six-month period totaled more than 740 billion, nearly doubling the 385 billion reported for the same period in 2008;
• For the twelve months ending June 2009, providers reported making capital investments totaling $19.5 billion;
• Providers added over 25,000 new cell sites, up 11.5% over the prior year.

CTIA’s most recent data confirms that, despite these challenging economic times, wireless carriers continue to invest and innovate in their networks while consumers adopt and demand the latest wireless services, devices, and applications. This aggressive consumer adoption only serves to fuel the continued virtuous cycle of the wireless ecosystem.

In a Hillcon Valley blog post on Monday, Ruth Milkman, FCC's Wireless Bureau chief said, "There is tremendous agreement that wireless is vibrant and contributes to the economy. It’s a phenomenal set of services and applications."
 
We couldn't agree more. While we may be a bit biased, I think all of us have been impressed by some wireless app, device, technology, etc. As I mentioned in yesterday's post on our filing to the FCC on innovation and investment, this is an industry that is responsive to consumers and fiercely competes with one another for each customer. 
 
In CTIA's wireless competition filing to the FCC , we highlight numerous examples of how the wireless ecosystem (made up of carriers, infrastructure suppliers, device manufacturers, operating system providers, and applications developers) remains competitive at every level.
 
This means that consumers and businesses are benefiting from the lowest prices, highest minutes of use, most innovative services and devices, most robust mobile broadband networks, and least concentrated wireless market among our global competitors.
 
But this fiercely competitive state of the mobile industry was no accident: it emerged from long-standing, market-driven policies, embraced on a bipartisan basis, favoring flexibility over command-and-control and competition over economic regulation.
 
Finally, we also highlighted additional steps (starting on page 77) that the Commission can take to facilitate on-going competition and ensure that consumers will continue to reap tremendous benefits from the mobile wireless sector. 
 
After all, as John Donovan, AT&T’s CTO said in his keynote at CTIA WIRELESS I.T. & Entertainment Show last week, “It’s a customer’s world; we’re just a part of it.”

With policymakers focusing on healthcare, wireless devices and services are an important part of the solution for improving medical care while reducing costs. Kent Dicks, CEO of MedApps, a remote health monitoring solution, discusses the potential for mHealth. Take a listen.

Wireless technology can provide both traffic management systems & drivers with real-time data to better identify highway congestion & to ultimately save time, money & reduce emissions. Nokia's Quinn Jacobson talks about his company's efforts to help drivers & traffic specialists better handle our crowded highways. Take a listen.

mHealth is a main theme here at International CTIA WIRELESS I.T. & Entertainment 2009® and we wanted to highlight some of the interesting and innovative ways wireless is playing an increasingly important role in the pursuit of wellness through the constant connectivity mobile technologies provide. Aaron Goldmuntz, CarioNet, Inc.’s Dir. of Business Development, shares innovative real-world uses of mHealth products & services.