What U.S. Cellular, Ericsson Millimeter Wave Fixed Wireless Test Shows

Ericsson, Qualcomm Technologies and U.S. Cellular say the companies have successfully demonstrated the first extended-range 5G NR millimeter wave broadband connection in the United States, on a commercial network, at a distance of five kilometers, delivering speeds of 100 Mbps. 

You might not find that remarkable. The networks are supposed to work, after all. But the test suggests that millimeter wave 5G, often thought to be a tool for urban, high-density applications, also can be used in many lower-density geographies as well. The test implies a single 5G millimeter wave cell can serve an area of 10 km diameter, or about six miles. 

Three miles might not seem such an important distance, but it roughly mimics the reach of a fixed copper network from a central office or remote node. The point is that 5G NR using millimeter wave spectrum might work in many medium-density rural areas. 

As Ericsson has argued, fixed wireless is feasible in at least three basic situations. Where density if high enough, fixed wireless can support speeds between 100 Mbps and 1 Gbps and where customer spend is between $50 and $100 a month.

In some other cases, depending on the competitive situation, fixed wireless could supply 50 Mbps to 200 Mbps speeds at prices between $20 to $60 a month.

In highly rural areas, where fixed network costs are prohibitive, fixed wireless could supply broadband access at speeds between 10 Mbps and 100 Mbps for monthly retail rates between $10 and $20. 

The “sweet spot,” most might agree, is suburban markets with medium density. Urban areas generally have access to fixed network access from two or more providers where fixed wireless might not have value proposition advantages. 

Rural markets might have reach issues which make fixed wireless difficult. Many suburban markets, though, might have competitive settings where fixed wireless would be a competitive offering for much of the market where there is significant demand for service between 50 Mbps and 200 Mbps and recurring prices between $20 and $60.

In the U.S. market, where cable operators have 70 percent of the customer base, and are getting virtually all the subscriber growth, there may no longer be a sustainable business case for telco fiber to the home. In that case, 5G and all next generation mobile platforms might be the only sustainable option for mobile or fixed network providers who want to compete with cable company offers.

What No Fixed Network Telco Exec Will Ever Say; and What they Will Say

You are likely never to hear the CEO of any large U.S. telecommunications company with a fixed network, and serving consumers, ever admit that the fixed network actually has no hope of reversing the lead cable operators have in fixed network broadband.

What you will hear are mobile executives, and executives from firms with both fixed and mobile operations, talking up the ability to use 5G networks as a functional substitute for a fixed network. There is a reason that happens. There arguably is no chance telcos now can recapture market leadership in fixed network broadband.

And the simple fact is that cable companies have been the market share and installed base leaders for more than 20 years, with a lead that likely cannot be reversed by the leading telcos, and possibly not sustainably by many other fixed network competitors at scale, operating without public subsidies of some sort.

U.S. mobile operators are optimistic about both 5G and future networks past 5G because their futures rely on expanding the range of use cases for mobile connectivity and the extent to which mobility can become a platform of sorts. For legacy providers AT&T and Verizon, both of which have mobile and large fixed footprints, 5G matters because it drives revenue growth for each of them. 

Consider that a global strategic imperative as well. By 2020, mobile accounted for more than half of all of Internet access revenue in more than 75 percent of countries, researchers at PwC said early in the year. Some analysts noted mobile Internet access revenues already had surpassed fixed network broadband revenue as early as 2013 or 2014.

That trend is expected to continue. By 2024, consultants at PwC say, mobile revenue will account for 68 percent of global Internet access market revenues. In other words, more than two thirds of all internet access revenue globally will be generated by mobile internet access. 

source: PwC 

For attackers such as Dish Network and new incumbent T-Mobile, 5G and future platforms will matter for a couple of reasons. Both Dish and T-Mobile are “mobile-only” providers, while AT&T and Verizon have both fixed and mobile assets. So the ability to leverage 5G and future networks to create substitutes for fixed network services is a major opportunity to enter a whole set of markets previously unavailable to them. 

There is more. At this point, there seems little chance for telcos to actually reverse their fortunes in the fixed networks broadband business. As they continue to lose market share, the economics of the broadband business get worse, as more assets are stranded, forcing the recovery of capital investment from an ever-smaller number of customers. 

And since broadband now has become the single most important service offered by any fixed network, for business or consumer customers, the largest fixed network providers are in something of a box. 

To compete with cable operators would require more capex than they can hope to recoup. In other words, in the U.S. market, it appears too late to regain leadership from the cable operators in broadband services offered by the fixed network. 

There is a bit of an analogy in the U.S. fixed network internet access market. U.S. cable operators have 70 percent of the installed base or market share, telcos and all others just 30 percent, according to researchers at Leichtman Research. 

Moreover, cable continues to get virtually all the new net account or subscription gains, and cable operators have been the market share growth leaders (net additions) and installed base leaders (total accounts) since at least 1999. 

source: NTIA

source: NTIA 

In other words, U.S. cable operators actually have been the market share leaders (growth) and installed base leaders (total accounts) for more than 20 years. Put another way, telcos and others have been searching for some way to create a platform that could compete with cable sustainably. 

One might think the answer always is “fiber to the home,” but that is where the business model becomes an obstacle. Given the lead cable has, it is unclear whether telcos could ever catch up, as cable continues to grow and invest in features of the hybrid fiber coax network that competes well with what FTTH provides, and does not have an insurmountable business sustainability issue.

And all that is why both legacy and attacking mobile service providers are betting so heavily on 5G and beyond. Having lost the ability to catch up with cable in fixed network broadband, they are forced to hope that the wireless and mobile platforms can emerge as functional substitutes for fixed network broadband.

PTC Frictionless Business Webinar Series Launches

PTC has launched a new webinar series on the theme of Frictionless Business™. The first session is today, Tuesday, 15 September 2020, from 14:00-15:00 Hawaii Standard Time, and looks at the impact of Covid-19 on data centers and networks. Register here.

Business friction is anything that prevents a potential customer from buying your product or service. 

As a practical matter, if frictionless business were possible, it should lead to outcomes such as higher lead-to-customer conversion rates, lower churn and higher account retention, plus higher renewal rates, as well as enhanced productivity (the ability to produce and sell more while reducing the cost of doing so). 

And that is why PTC’s new webinar series will focus on frictionless business, examining from many angles key strategy, product development, technology, distribution channels, marketing, customer service, governance, human resources, capital resources, information technology, customer segmentation and supply chain issues, all with the objective of helping attendees understand how to operate more effectively.  

The kickoff session will examine the impact of COVID-19 on data centers and network infrastructure, looking at opportunities and challenges. 

The following event will focus on network evolution, while the third installment will look at finance and investment issues. Frictionless business is the theme that unified all the sessions for a fundamental reason. 

As the second law of thermodynamics and second law of motion suggest, all business efforts to achieve a result are resisted. Obstacles might be lack of human or capital resources, competitor market domination, inefficiencies in supply chains or sales channels. 

So an unstated objective of every organizational action in support of its mission and goals is the effort to to overcome inertia and friction. A frictionless business might use artificial intelligence or machine learning to achieve:

• 100-percent efficiency and knowledge of buyer demands, preferences, tastes

• complete understanding, in real time, of the state of a firm’s supply chain

• as-good-as-can-be-expected employee productivity, based on knowledge of actual behavior

• full effectiveness of all information technology systems, devices and software

• real-time knowledge of any legal or regulatory compliance issues

• Robust feedback loops and intelligence gathering that aids in the development process for new products and features 

Additional installments might look at stakeholder issues, applied machine learning, internet of things, edge and cloud computing and changes in industry business models and opportunities.

Frictionless business is the sum total of all actions any business can take to create and keep customers, increase the volume of products sold to those customers with acceptable profit margins, maintain or grow market share with superior return on investment. 

Frictionless business reduces every barrier to business success, allowing firms to operate more effectively--doing the right things--as well as efficiently, with minimal waste and maximum productivity. 

Companies that operate with less friction are able to achieve superior results with less resource intensity. And that is why PTC’s webinar series is about frictionless business. 

Work from Home Winners and Losers?

Most technologies are complementary to others. We have a need for transportation, but many modes to fulfill that need. 

But one can always get a vigorous debate about the degree to which conferencing platforms can permanently replace face-to-face interactions. Nearly two thirds of all current jobs cannot be done remotely, a study by the U.S. National Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates. Other studies also estimate that about 34 percent of jobs could be done entirely from home. 

That probably is not the point. Most people seem to agree that information and office workers will continue to do some work from home, some of the time, and likely more in the future than they have in the past. A related issue for firms and organizations is the degree to which conferencing can permanently replace travel and face-to-face meetings.

It might be fair to note that “Zoom fatigue” reflects the preferred communications methods workers express. A study sponsored by Adobe found that in-person communications by far tops videoconferencing, by about a 28:1 margin. 

That arguably is most important in new business relationships, where establishing trust is essential, and less important for internal company or organization meetings where relationships are well established. 

source: Adobe

We do not know the answer to the question of how effective remote work will be, in the future, compared to older patterns.

Many are optimistic about permanently changed work patterns, where many people spend more time working from home; less in the office. As always, there are likely to be winners and losers, as there always are whenever decisions are made. 

Based on prior research, it might be argued that younger workers, earlier in their career, are at greater risk than more-established workers.  “We argue that face time helps employees to receive better work and leads to career advancement,” researchers said in a 2018 study. 

“When employees are geographically distributed from managers who control the assignment of work, they are often unable to display face time,” and that can inhibit career progress, researchers say. To be sure, some might argue that videoconferencing is a form of “face time.” 

“Employees who work remotely may end up getting lower performance evaluations, smaller raises and fewer promotions than their colleagues in the office, even if they work just as hard and just as long,” said researchers Kimberly Elsbach and Daniel Cable. 

“Companies rarely promote people into leadership roles who haven’t been consistently seen and measured,” Jack and Suzy Welch have argued. “It’s a familiarity thing, and it’s a trust thing.”

“We’re not saying that the people who get promoted are stars during every ‘crucible’ moment at the office, but at least they’re present and accounted for,” the Welches say. 

To the extent that work from home becomes a full-time pattern for many workers, we should expect to see winners and losers. Younger workers and new hires might fare less well than more-established or older workers.

Financial Firms Begin Trek Back to the Office

About 50 percent of J.P. Morgan trading floor employees--especially senior staff--will return to their offices Sept. 21, 2020. 

The value of face-to-face interactions seems to be part of the rationale, as well as training of junior personnel. 

J.P. Morgan argues that staff “would lose their camaraderie and junior workers and the incoming class of analysts wouldn't get the training they need if the bank continues to operate remotely.” That is not an unfounded belief. In additional to the value of unintended employee interactions, some note that onboarding new employees is much more difficult when everyone is working from home. 

Goldman Sachs quickly followed the move and other financial firms are expected to follow as well. 

None of those trends should  be unexpected. The more people use technology as a replacement for face-to-face contact, the more they value and seek such contact.  

U.S. Courts Have Not Upheld Free Speech Censorship by Private Firms

Traditional legal doctrine has been that private actors are not constrained by the Constitution generally, under the “state action” doctrine, which holds that  “the First Amendment governs only governmental limitations on speech (Nyabwa v. Facebook, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13981, Civil Action No. 2:17-CV-24, *2 (S.D. Tex.) (Jan. 26, 2018).”

The state action doctrine holds that only the government or those acting on its behalf are subject to constitutional scrutiny. Non-governmental conduct therefore lies beyond the Constitutional protections.

On the other hand, the exercise of free speech has recently seemed to be invoked as a right by major league sports figures whose kneeling during the playing of the national anthem is said to be an exercise of free speech rights not traditionally protected by the First Amendment. 

“The time has come to recognize that the reach of the First Amendment be expanded,” says lawyer David Hudson.  

The U.S. Supreme Court recognized this reality last year in Packingham v. North Carolina (2017): 

“While in the past there may have been difficulty in identifying the most important places (in a spatial sense) for the exchange of views, today the answer is clear. It is cyberspace—the ‘vast democratic forums of the Internet’ in general, and social media in particular,” the U.S. Supreme Court has said in the case of Packingham v. North Carolina, 137 S.Ct. 1730, 1735 (2017).

The argument is that social media networking sites have become the modern-day equivalent of traditional public forums like public parks and public streets. 

“Public communications by users of social network websites deserve First Amendment protection because they simultaneously invoke three of the interests protected by the First Amendment: freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of association,” said Benjamin F. Jackson in a 2014 law review article (Benjamin F. Jackson, Censorship and Freedom of Expression in the Age of Facebook, 44 N.M. L. Rev. 121, 134 (2014)). 

“Federal courts can and should extend First Amendment protections to communications on social network websites due to the importance these websites have assumed as forums for speech and public discourse,” he argued. 

As with debates over network neutrality, where there arguably is a difference between permissible network management and other practices some argue are violations of the basic principle of free access to lawful internet apps and services. 

For example, social network websites may censor communications in order to prevent convicted criminals from preying on victims, accusers, or witnesses or prevent certain users from harassing or intimidating other users without violating free speech principles. 

Censorship of pornographic or violent materials likewise could help create and maintain an environment acceptable to users of as many ages and sensibilities. 

Also, censorship might be necessary to prevent harm to the website due to hacking and phishing attacks and comply with copyright and trademark laws.

The Supreme Court’s reasoning in Reno v. ACLU ( 521 U.S. 844 (1997) supports treating communications on social network websites as constitutionally protected speech. 

To be sure, application of First Amendment principles to private actors would raise the issue of impairment of their property rights. To use the telecommunications analogy, that would be similar to common carrier regulation of prices and terms of service. 

There is legal precedent. Under the public function exception, “the exercise by a private entity of powers traditionally exclusively reserved to the State” constitutes state action (Jackson v. Metro. Edison Co., 419 U.S. 345, 352 (1974). That has not generally been a winning argument in the courts.

But it might be argued that social networks resemble the public spaces the Supreme Court has chosen to protect in both its public function exception (Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (1946) and public forum doctrines.

The Supreme Court has held that the private property rights of a company did not “justify the State’s permitting a corporation to govern a community of citizens so as to restrict their fundamental liberties.”

The public forum doctrine was pioneered by Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization (307 U.S. 496 (1939) and Schneider v. Irvington (308 U.S. 147 (1939). Under the public forum doctrine, restrictions on speech in public spaces that have traditionally served as a venue for free expression and debate are subject to special constitutional scrutiny.

There also is an entwinement exception, though that also would face high scrutiny. Under the entwinement concept, a  non-governmental actor might be deemed a state actor if the firm has acted together with or has obtained significant aid from state officials, beyond mere licensing,  regulation or financial aid. 

Courts have thus far rejected claims that social network websites or their parent companies  show “entwinement.” Gilmore v. City of Montgomery, 417 U.S. 556, 569 (1974);

Can Free Speech Rights be Extended to Platforms?

Perhaps ironically, political protests by professional athletes might be opening a new legal avenue by those who seek to have fairness doctrines, equal time rules or other public interest requirements on social media platforms. Up tot his point, the U.S. constitution has protected speakers only from censorship by government entities.

But widespread private firm allowance of such political speech might widen the terrain for those who believe some new expansion of speech freedoms must be extended to powerful private platforms as well.

“Speakers in the United States have few or no legal rights when platforms take down their posts,” according to Daphne Keller, director of the Program on Platform Regulation at Stanford's Cyber Policy Center. 

Some use the analogy of must carry rules once imposed on TV broadcasters. To date, lawsuits likening platforms to “public forums” have failed. 

Also, there are different issues related to content: removal of items that violate terms of service, and the way that ranking systems operate. The former deals with removed content; the latter deals with search ranking algorithms. 

The former issue is similar to the ways stories are constructed by news media, for example. Are opposing views treated fairly and with neutral adjectives? Is the amount of space given to opposing views roughly equal? 

The latter is similar to the choice of stories to run, and not the way content is treated once a “publish” decision is made. Which stories are deemed newsworthy, and which are not?

So far, U.S. courts have held that private platforms do not have a legal obligation to carry user speech. Still, some argue that dominant platforms are de facto gatekeepers, and should be regulated as “essential providers” of political speech, or even utilities, with a common carriage obligation. 

But those claims of speaker rights also bump up against the First Amendment rights of the platforms as speakers. Ranking and removal of content is an exercise of editorial judgment, in other words. 

Largely unexamined--so far--are various methods of giving more control to platform users, says Keller. It is not easy, but some advocate more end user content control settings. The problem is that people disagree about what constitutes “hateful speech.”

Some may  want platforms to carry all legal speech. Others might simply prefer more curation, allowing civil dialogue. 

“One possible approach would let platforms act against highly offensive or dangerous content

but require them to tolerate more civil or broadly socially acceptable speech,” argues Keller. 

Again, the problem is disagreement about how to identify such offensive or dangerous content, and not simply because the censoring algorithm or reviewer simply disagrees with the expression of those views. The same sort of problems arise with efforts to apply “fairness doctrines” that essentially preserve the rights of the listener, rather than the speaker. And all such rules limit free speech rights of speakers and platforms. 

Another approach distinguishes between “hosted” content (allowing anyone to speak) and “recommended” content that appears in news feeds, for example. The former is more akin to a town square, the latter more akin to the “curated” news feeds or search results. 

Yet others might prefer some form of unbundling the ranking and sorting algorithms, allowing third parties to create their own curated feeds. None of these would be simple. None would be free of some limitations on free speech. And most could negatively affect the monetization models that make the platform services possible. 

And yet we might be moving in such directions in any case. The recent issue of political protests by professional athletes raises the issue of whether constitutional free speech rights actually have standing even in the case of private firms.