CTIA - The Wireless Association® Blog - Spectrum

CTIA Statement on the FCC's Approval of a "Shot Clock" for Tower Siting

Wed, 18 Nov 2009 10:52:00 -0500

Today, I issued the following statement after the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted to approve a "shot clock" for tower siting applications:

"On behalf of CTIA and the wireless industry, I would like to thank the Commission for moving ahead with this item. The Chairman's leadership and the efforts of the other Commissioners have given us a foundation for our continued deployment of wireless broadband.

"Tower siting is a vital piece of our industry. It enables mobile services, including voice and broadband, for consumers, public safety, and businesses. Both Congress and the Supreme Court recognized the importance of taking concrete steps to ensure that the zoning process does not become a barrier to the reasonable deployment of, and competition among, diverse wireless networks.

"In early October at our International CTIA WIRELESS I.T. & Entertainment Show, the Chairman declared his support for CTIA’s request for a tower siting 'shot clock' that would require state and local zoning authorities to act within a reasonable, fixed timeframe on wireless tower siting requests. Fast forward to today's meeting when the Commission provided much-needed certainty to the process by setting a reasonable review period and clarifying that a zoning authority may not deny an application filed by one provider based on the presence of another wireless provider in the area. We sincerely appreciate the Commission and the Chairman for quickly acting to fulfill this promise.

"CTIA and the wireless industry look forward to continuing to work with the Commission, state and local zoning authorities and others involved in tower siting to provide more Americans with the most advanced wireless services and technology on the planet."

CTIA's FCC Reply Filing Summary on Wireless Industry's Innovation and Investment

Tue, 10 Nov 2009 10:43:00 -0500

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.

Policymakers Say It's Time for a Tower Siting Shot Clock

Tue, 27 Oct 2009 09:56:00 -0500

While we have a fierce net neutrality debate within the wireless telecom and technology industries, the one thing we all agree on is that America’s appetite for mobile broadband services is increasing at a rapid pace. At CTIA, we like to call it the “virtuous cycle” where the multiple players within our ecosystem (such as a device manufacturer or network provider or app developer) are constantly investing, innovating, and competing in order to keep up with consumer demand.

But, all of the cool apps, faster speeds, new devices and other innovations from the wireless industry are in jeopardy unless we get more spectrum and improve the tower siting process.

We’ve heard a lot about the brewing spectrum crisis, but why is tower siting just as important? To expand their service offerings and meet consumer demand for “always-on” broadband, wireless carriers need to be able to build out their networks, which involves constructing new towers or adding new equipment to already existing structures.

Today, there is no timeframe for local zoning authorities to act on tower siting applications. CTIA surveyed our members and found that they collectively had more than 3,300 wireless siting applications pending before local jurisdictions. Of those, approximately nearly a quarter have been in queue for more than a year, and more than 180 such applications have been awaiting final action for more than 3 years. That’s just silly in a country that wants to expand broadband access and put people to work.

To remedy this problem, the industry is asking for a common-sense, reasonable solution that would establish 45 and 75 day “shot clocks” for zoning authorities to act on tower siting applications. You can read our petition with the FCC on the matter here.

During FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski’s keynote remarks earlier this month at International CTIA WIRELESS I.T. & Entertainment 2009®, he pledged his support and commitment for getting the industry more spectrum and a tower siting shot clock. These are big – and complementary – steps that will help ensure that the U.S. maintains its world leadership in wireless.

Last week, U.S. Representatives Jay Inslee (D-WA) and George Radanovich (R-CA), Co-Chairs of the House Wireless Caucus, sent a letter to Chairman Genachowski commending his commitment to setting a shot-clock on tower siting and calling on the Commission to act as quickly as possible on this petition. We applaud Representatives Inslee and Radanovich for staking out this pro-broadband, pro-investment, pro-jobs position, and we look forward to working with them and Chairman Genachowksi to get it done.

CTIA asks FCC: More Spectrum Please

Thu, 01 Oct 2009 09:03:00 -0500

It’s been a busy time for us at CTIA this week with FCC filing deadlines, Hill activities, Distracted Driving Summit and of course, our International CTIA WIRELESS I.T. & Entertainment show next week.

But on Tuesday, we submitted a very important ex parte filing to the FCC requesting more spectrum because, to put it simply, it is the backbone of our industry.

It’s not something that most people think about, but it’s what allows the wireless industry to create and develop the great things that you and I take for granted everyday. As Steve said in his statement about the filing, spectrum drives the innovation and competition.

In our filing, this was the first time we had suggested a specific amount of spectrum to be identified and allocated. We said that the goal should be at least 800 MHz of additional spectrum over the next six years. We also requested policymakers to meet short-term spectrum needs by pairing and allocating readily-available spectrum.

To read the filing, please click here.

Here are a few of the media stories on our filing:

mobihealthnews, CTIA to FCC: More spectrum for mHealth
WIRED, Wireless group tells FCC: Show us the spectrum
Broadcasting & Cable, CTIA wants more spectrum
WirelessWeek, CTIA Petitions FCC for More Spectrum
mocoNews.net, CTIA To FCC: Without More Wireless Spectrum, ‘Demand May Outpace Supply’

Spectrum: The Backbone of Wireless

Wed, 23 Sep 2009 16:54:00 -0500

There has been a lot of media coverage on the wireless industry recently, but there's a story that few are talking about which is vital for all of us. It's spectrum -- or the backbone of the industry.

And unless we get more spectrum, we are facing a crisis. All of the apps, speed, devices and other innovations from the wireless industry are in jeopardy unless we get more spectrum.

But what is spectrum? It's defined simply as frequencies that are designated for specific uses, such as personal communications services and public safety.

A few weeks ago, GigaOM's Stacey Higginbotham wrote a great story outlining the issue and what's at stake. We also developed a very simple graphic that clearly shows the integral role spectrum plays in wireless -- we call it the "virtuous cycle."

What this diagram shows is that as long as more spectrum is available, the industry will continue to invest in networks to handle more capacity, device manufacturers will continue to develop new capabilities for handsets and content developers will continue to create new apps and content – which ultimately benefits the consumers who continue to want and expect more from their mobile devices. This is a cycle that never ends, BUT only if spectrum is made available.

So what is the industry asking? We are asking for:

1. Congress to pass the bipartisan Senate (S. 649) and House (HR 3125) Radio Spectrum
Inventory Act which would tell us who's using what and where there's spectrum available.

2.  Tower siting policy which would establish a "shot clock" -- 45 days for collocation (meaning
      where towers already exist) and 75 days for other facilities -- for zoning authorities to respond to
      applications. Right now, there is no "shot clock."

Towers are vital to the industry to expand coverage for consumers.
Of the 3,300 tower and antenna applications pending in the spring of 2008 for 7 wireless carriers, 760 were pending for more than 1 year.
180 were pending for more than 3 years.
135 of the 180 applications pending for more than 3 years are collocation applications where towers have already been approved.

Unless the U.S. gets more spectrum, there will not be enough bandwidth to continue to provide the apps, speed, devices and other innovations from the wireless industry that we all enjoy and have come to expect.

Insider Interview: CTIA President & CEO, Steve Largent

Wed, 02 Sep 2009 10:26:00 -0500

The FCC is interested in learning more about the wireless industry's competitiveness, innovation, and billing practices. CTIA President & CEO Steve Largent discusses the association's eagerness to share the great wireless story with the Commission, and emphasizes the need for additional spectrum to satisfy the growing consumer demand for wireless data services. To learn more watch this segment from our September installment of our Wonder of Wireless webcast, and take a few moments to see what else we have to offer in our September WOW.

(Video clip removed from RSS feed - click blog entry link above to view)

/div>

CTIA Talks with Media on the New FCC

Tue, 25 Aug 2009 09:32:00 -0500

Over the last few weeks, I've been talking with reporters and bloggers about the new FCC and its focus on the wireless industry. As you've probably read, we are looking forward to educating the FCC (and policymakers) on the facts about the industry. We have a great story and we look forward to the opportunity to share this information with them.

Since the agenda for the August 27th meeting has been released, many of those interviews have touched on the three NOIs (notice of inquiry). Specifically, there are two that are focused on the wireless industry – one on innovation and investment and the other on competition. The third is focused on truth-in-billing across numerous industries, including wireless.

Here are a few of the stories that have been published based on these interviews:

8/24 - ComputerWorld -- Wireless industry defends itself against mounting criticism
8/21 - CNET -- FCC takes a closer look at wireless industry
8/21 - Forbes -- Telecom facing more active FCC
8/17 - GigaOM -- For better mobile broadband, the U.S. needs more spectrum

Wireless Industry's Substantial Contributions to U.S. Economy

Thu, 09 Jul 2009 13:16:00 -0500

This morning we filed an ex parte with the FCC to highlight the significant contributions the wireless industry is making to aid the revitalization of our short and long-term economic health.

President Barack Obama has made it very clear that broadband is vital for the U.S. In a Washington Post column on February 5, 2009, President Obama said “now is the time to create jobs that remake America for the 21st century by rebuilding aging roads, bridges and levees; designing a smart electrical grid; and connecting every corner of the country to the information superhighway.”

Indeed, as our nation struggles in a fiercely competitive global marketplace to revitalize once unchallenged industries, mobile broadband services bring opportunities, increased productivity and represent a beacon on the path toward renewed economic prosperity.

Highlights of the filing are:

In 2007, U.S. wireless services delivered nearly $100 billion in “value added” contributions to the U.S. Gross Domestic Product (“GDP”).
Going forward, estimates place productivity gains from wireless broadband services at almost $860 billion between 2005 and 2016.

Jobs/Compensation:

Economic contributions of wireless services have grown significantly faster than the rest of the U.S. economy, averaging over 16% growth vs. less than 3% for the remainder of the economy.
Wireless jobs command compensation that is more than 50% higher than the national average of other production workers.
Wireless carriers directly employ more than 268,000 people, a number that has grown more than 6% year-over-year for the last four years.
Beyond direct carrier employment, more than 2.4 million American jobs are either directly or indirectly dependent on the U.S. wireless industry.

Equipment/Network Investment:

Total wireless expenditures on structures and equipment from 1998-2007 amounted to more than $217 billion.
Carriers responding to CTIA’s Semi-Annual Survey reported an average combined investment of more than $22.8 billion per year to upgrade their networks from 2001 through 2008.
As of December 2008, wireless carriers have deployed over 240,000 cell sites across the country.
Clearly, wireless voice and broadband services are major contributors to the U.S. economy through the massive capital investments of wireless providers, by creating high-paying, skilled jobs across the country and with billions of dollars of direct and indirect benefits flowing from the innovative wireless services and applications consumers demand.

To view the filing, please click here .

CTIA Applauds Senate Commerce Committee's Passage of Radio Spectrum Inventory Act

Wed, 08 Jul 2009 15:20:00 -0500

This afternoon, the Senate Commerce Committee approved the Radio Spectrum Inventory Act (S. 649), a bill sponsored by Senators John Kerry (D-MA) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME). I issued the following statement in response to the Committee's action:

"I applaud Senators Kerry and Snowe for securing Committee approval of the Radio Spectrum Inventory Act. As the wireless industry continues to invest to meet consumers' increasing demand for broadband services, we appreciate Senator Kerry and Snowe's commitment to work with stakeholders to fashion a bill that identifies where the next allocation of spectrum for commercial use will come from. We look forward to working with Senators Kerry and Snowe, Chairman Rockefeller and their colleagues in the House to enact inventory legislation this year."

CTIA Response to Introduction of Spectrum Relocation Improvement Act of 2009

Thu, 25 Jun 2009 11:14:00 -0500

Last night, Representatives Jay Inslee (WA-01), Fred Upton (MI-06) and Rick Boucher (VA-09) introduced Spectrum Relocation Improvement Act of 2009 (H.R. 3019), which would update the spectrum relocation process. This morning, I issued the following statement in response to the introduction of the House bill:

          "We look forward to working with Congressmen Inslee, Upton and Boucher on this matter.
          With the lessons learned from the AWS-1 auction, we believe this is a good time to review the
          process to see where improvements can be made."

Rysavy Research Says More Licensed Spectrum is Needed To Meet Demand

Thu, 02 Apr 2009 17:45:00 -0500

You’ve heard (and read) us talk about how the U.S. is the most efficient and effective commercial users of spectrum in the world. We do more with less than anyone else.

But we are at a very important crossroads – and we must figure out how we are going to continue to encourage and foster innovation while recognizing that there is a finite amount of spectrum available.

We commissioned a report , conducted by Rysavy Research, which essentially laid out the current situation we are facing and what needs to happen now. It also said that without more spectrum, all users will find themselves with a slower connection on wireless devices which will impact everything from text messaging to mobile broadband. The report said it was vital that the conversation starts now because the 700 Mhz auction took a decade or so for a conclusion.

Both WIRED and New York Times bloggers wrote about the paper and both had an interesting take on what this means for the industry.

But my favorite line comes from Professor William Webb, Head of Research and Development, Ofcom (British communications regulator) who wrote the report's forward. He said, "...it is also worth noting that while innovation occurs in commons it also happens in licensed bands, and indeed many of the most important innovations of the last decade such as GPS, wireless email, mobile TV, texting and more have all occurred in licensed spectrum."

CTIA Applauds Introduction of S. 649: Radio Spectrum Inventory Act

Tue, 24 Mar 2009 12:42:00 -0500

On March 20th, CTIA-The Wireless Association® President & CEO Steve Larget issued the following statement on the introduction of the “Radio Spectrum Inventory Act” (S. 649) in the U.S. Senate:

“I applaud Senator John Kerry (D-MA) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME) for their sensible spectrum inventory legislation. We know that additional spectrum will be needed for commercial providers to meet consumers’ increasing appetite for mobile broadband services, and the Kerry-Snowe bill is a good first step toward identifying where that spectrum will come from. Given the long lead time that is often involved between identifying spectrum for commercial use and moving it to market, this is a very timely proposal.”

Hats Not Off to Spectrum Caps

Fri, 07 Nov 2008 15:55:00 -0500

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.

Brilliant Men and Bad Ideas

Thu, 30 Oct 2008 09:48:00 -0500

“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?

AWS 3, Tailors and Poorly Fitting Policy

Wed, 10 Sep 2008 18:57:00 -0500

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.