Be sure to check out the May edition of our Wonder of Wireless (WOW) webcast. This month we're featuring the Paulding County (GA) School District's novel use of wireless technology to better manage its massive bus fleet, and an insider interview with CTIA Chairman and Verizon Wireless CEO and president Lowell McAdam.

Just ran back from this morning’s keynote. This one was great.  While the topics of discussion were very often only tangentially related to wireless, I think there are some good lessons in the words of both Senator Edwards and Senator Thompson.

Senator Edwards discussed the role news coverage plays in shaping perception.  He talked about how it is the coverage of something that shapes one’s perception, and how that coverage can sometimes ignore the reality of a situation.  I think there is a wireless tie-in here.  So often, the only news we hear about wireless is negative – but the fact is that people are happy with their wireless service. According to a recently released poll, more than 9 out of 10 consumers are satisfied with their wireless service. I mean, a 90% success rate on anything is impressive. It’s even more so when you consider that the industry is serving hundreds of millions of Americans every day. The fact and reality is that the wireless industry has an impressive record of delivering to meet the demands of the American consumer.    

Then Senator Thompson came to the stage. He discussed a number of issues, but what really resonated with me  was Senator Thompson’s message with regards to “Disagreeing without being disagreeable” – this message has real application in the current, and evolving wireless policy ecosystem.  As the wireless space evolves, we are facing more and more issues that get people more and more energized.  That’s simply the reality.  Net neutrality is a perfect example of this energized environment.  Very often NN proponents are so emotionally involved in the issue that it’s difficult for them to step back and have a more low-key dialogue.  In order to have constructive discussions about the merits and facts of this issue, those on both sides need to consider those facts objectively.   You can be impassioned without being unreasonable, but it’s tough to do that when the volume is turned up loud.  I think we all would do well to “turn down the volume” in order to ultimately sit across the table from one another and seriously discuss the facts.

Just came from the tax policy panel.  A few thoughts:

1) The fact that wireless tax rates average more than twice the average tax rate of other goods and services is simply unfair to the 255+ million American wireless consumers.

2) Wireless taxes are regressive.  That means that they affect lower-income users more than they affect those who are better-off.  What it also means is that these taxes disproportionately discourage wireless use by those that stand the most to benefit from them.

3) There is something of a disconnect between the wishes of some state governments to see wireless broadband build-out in their respective states and the necessary tax incentives/ removal of disincentives that would encourage such build out. If states’ are really serious about promoting the continued deployment of next-generation networks, their tax code should reflect that priority.

4) State tax codes are old – they were developed for the manufacturing economy of the early 20th century.  States should revamp their tax systems in order to acknowledge the shift to this new, information economy. In doing that, they would promote the well-being of these new 21rst century businesses as well encouraging their proliferation. 

That’s it from me for the day – see you all tomorrow for Day 3.

After a fun and interesting Day 1, I thought I might provide some thoughts and reflections on my experience.
 
Some of the most thought-provoking experiences from yesterday included two policy panels that I attended, "Mobile Industry Hot Topics" and "US Wireless and the World."
 
A common theme that I heard explicitly discussed at the Hot Topics panel, and as an under-current in the “US and the World” panel, was that of wireless national framework.
 
CTIA has researched international regulatory systems, and according to our findings, the US's system of both federal and state-by-state wireless regulatory authority is unique. 
 
The possibility of expanded state regulatory authority over wireless is one that simply doesn't make sense. Wireless’ defining characteristic is its mobility -- because of that, wireless is inherently an interstate, not intrastate service. I certainly appreciate the need for state governments to enforce the generally applicable laws and look out for the best interest of their citizens. But, that being said, to allow expanded state-specific regulatory authority over a mobile, interstate service might bring with it unintended consequences.
 
By subjecting wireless carriers to 50 different regulatory systems, we potentially jeopardize the incredible levels of investment and innovation that have characterized our industry.
 
Think about that -- the innovation and investment of the domestic wireless industry is among the most impressive in the world. The regulations of today might not be relevant to the technological realities of tomorrow. To allow short-sighted regulatory preferences to potentially affect this evolving, constantly-changing industry brings with it the possibility of short-changing the American wireless consumer by depriving them new services and technologies.

Click here to listen to our "US Wireless and the World" podcast!

Ok  -- I just got back from this morning’s keynote. Among the big announcements, we at CTIA unveiled our latest wireless metrics. Some highlights: More than 255million wireless users in the US as of YE07. Those 255+ million  folks used more than 2 trillion minutes (roughly the equivalent of total traffic on the landline networks around 1992 – the pre-dial-up days), and more than 360 billion text messages were reported by the carriers for 07.  Moreover, data usage continues to see dramatic increases—more and more people are using differentiated wireless data applications more often.  Along this line, the FCC’s High Speed Report was released about a week or two ago. It showed that not only have wireless broadband connections continued to grow at a rate that dwarfs both DSL and cable, but wireless now accounts for more than 30% of the total broadband lines in the US.  Now, this is obviously a great thing for everybody – but are there larger implications here?  

For me, as more people turn to wireless for internet connectivity, and as the volume and variety of traffic on these networks continues to grow, carriers are obviously going to continue shaping the on-network traffic. They’ve been doing it forever, since the 1G systems were in place, and they’re great it at.  Wireless networks are amazing things – they’ve evolved impressively and will continue to.  As I said above, the two trillion minutes reported in 2007 was the approximate equivalent of the total traffic on the landline networks as of  1992 –  and almost nobody had a cellphone in ’92.  So, I guess it’s safe to assume that 2 trillion represented the overwhelming majority of voice communications.  Well, wireless did that volume of voice last year – and 360+ billion text messages, and music, and games, and mobile tv……

You get my point.  A dizzying amount and assortment of traffic is flowing over and through these networks – and that volume and array is only going to increase and widen.  Yes, the carriers will continue to spend tens of billions every year upgrading their networks so they can continue to deliver all the services we know today, and the Star Treck-esque stuff of tomorrow.  At the same time, we need to understand that in order for the ever-increasing volume and variety of services and applications to be effectively delivered, carriers need to shape and manage the on-network traffic. 

Already, network management is a hot topic within industry circles.  I expect those discussions to continue. As we talk about this subject, it’s important to consider it from an objective viepoint.

Merriam Webster defines economics as: “a social science concerned chiefly with description and analysis of the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services.”

We recently talked with economist George Ford of the Phoenix Center for a realistic, dispassionate take on the issue.  

Check it out!

Among all the technology exhibited at the show, CTIA also has multiple policy panels planned (click here for the official wrap-up). These discussions should prove interesting and the issues on the agenda are ones that could potentially affect the wireless ecosystem as we know it.  I’m going to give a brief overview of those panels and their respective topics of discussion. Again, stop by if you can – it’s always interesting to hear a policymaker’s take on our industry.

US Wireless and the World
This should prove a provocative discussion. There have been calls for the US to revamp the domestic wireless model, and (wrongful) claims that other countries lead the US in innovation and wireless service provision. This panel will try to tease that out and get to the heart of this issue. 

Taxation of Wireless in the Mobile Broadband Era
Plain and simple – wireless taxes average about twice the tax rate for other good and services.  Wanna find out why?  Me too. 

Market Realities
How do consumers interact with the wireless market place? How might different levels of oversight (Federal, State, etc.) affect that interaction?

Wireless Innovation at the Network Edge and Core
Where, and how does innovation take place in wireless networks?  What implications might innovation within and on the periphery of the network carry for the larger wireless industry?

Network Management
A candid talk about network management in today’s mobile ecosystem.

Wireless Industry Policy Hot Topics
A discussion of some of the most salient wireless issues policymakers are currently considering.

State policymakers are engaging in an important debate concerning wireless governing philosophy.

To date, many state legislators and regulators have believed that adopting standards for wireless service in their state, regardless of the standards in other states, would ultimately benefit their consumers. Now, many state legislators and regulators are concluding that the national wireless framework  partly established by Congress back in 1993 has been a windfall to consumers in reducing rates while increasing the variety and use of wireless services such as voice, text and data. Rather than supporting a state by state approach to wireless consumer laws and regulations, policymakers are seeing the need and opportunity for a set of uniform national wireless standards that will consistently benefit consumers across the country. 

CTIA President & CEO Steve Largent recently spoke to the winter meeting of the National Association of Regulatory and Utility Commissioners to share his thoughts on how the wireless industry continues to respond to consumer demand, and why a comprehensive national framework makes sense. The NARUC telecommunications committee  voted to adopt a resolution supporting state enforcement of a national wireless framework, established by the FCC and enforced by state regulators. However, NARUC's board requested that the Telecommunications Committee review it further at its summer meeting in Portland, Oregon.

Also, at its fall forum, the National Conference of State Legislators (NCSL) adopted a Twenty-First Century Communications policy which urged state and federal policy makers to work together to ensure that  industry-related consumer protections can be applied within a national framework and enforced by state attorneys general.

Currently, Congress is also considering the national wireless framework. It is likely that NCSL and NAURU will play integral roles in the ultimate outcome of the federal effort.

Clearly, there are still disagreements regarding which state body should enforce national standards. However, I think these state organizations are having a  positive and critical debate. The right approach for wireless is to have a set of uniform national standards that will be consistent for consumers no matter if they are in Manhattan, New York or Manhattan, Kansas. What do you think?