Sprint, Dish Network to Test Fixed Wireless

Sprint and Dish Network will develop and deploy a fixed wireless broadband service, on a trial basis, in Corpus Christi, Texas, available in the middle of 2014. 

The service will initially be available in limited areas of Corpus Christi with a plan to expand into additional markets in the future.

The irony here is that the frequencies used originally were used for fixed wireless (educational TV), before those frequencies were viewed as potential ways to provide fixed local access service. In testing the concept again, Sprint and Dish Network are revisiting a concept that about the turn of the century was viewed as a way to compete, using a facilities approach, with wired access networks.

Depending on a customer’s location, DISH will install either a ruggedized outdoor router or an indoor solution to deliver the best possible broadband service to that site. Both solutions will feature built-in high-gain antennas to receive the 4G TDD-LTE signal on Sprint’s 2.5 GHz spectrum.

Dish Network already owns 40 MHz of assets in the 2 GHz range. 

EE Now Supports AT&T Customer 4G Roaming in United Kingdom

The U.K.’s EE has become the first U.K. mobile service provider to launch inbound 4G roaming for travellers on international networks visiting the United Kingdom. The first deal allows AT&T 4G users to roam on the U.K. EE 4G network, with additional agreements with other carriers expected in early 2014.

Such roaming is quite important for travellers who frequently travel outside their home country, and is useful even when existing roaming agreements for 2G or 3G services already are in place, since Internet access has become a more important mobile application.

The announcement did not specify what roaming rates will be, though. Data roaming typically is an expensive proposition, one reason the European Commission has been mandating wholesale rate reductions for EC roaming rates.

The European Union’s plan to lower the cost of mobile roaming within the EU featured a July 1, 2013 limit on prices for use of roaming data that declined by about 36 percent.

Data roaming now is as much as 91 percent cheaper in 2013, compared to 2007, the EU says.

The EU also has mandated price caps on voice roaming and text messaging as well. As a result of the wholesale price caps retail price reductions of over 80 percent have happened since 2007.

The new price caps set maximum service provider wholesale rates at new lower levels.

Roaming data charges now are set at 45 cents per megabyte, down 36 percent from 2012 levels.

Placed roaming calls are capped at the wholesale level of 24 cents a minute, a 17 percent reduction from 2012 levels.

Charges for receiving a roaming call call dropped to seven cents a minute, down 12.5 percent compared to 2012.

The cost of sending a roaming text message declines to eight cents, an 11 percent reduction compared to 2012 levels.

On July 1, 2014, another planned price reduction will happen, dropping roaming data charges to 20 cents per megabyte, while initiated voice calls will decline to 19 cents a minute.

The cost of receiving a roaming call will dip to five cents a minute. The cost of sending a text message will drop to six cents.

Though the rates do not specifically pertain to 4G roaming, new wholesale rate reductions already are hitting mobile service provider revenues.

Over the last three years, for example, those mandatory rate reductions have accounted for about 75 percent of the revenue decline at Vodafone. At the very least, that means the lower roaming rates will cease to put pressure on overall revenues.

4 and 3: Why Sprint Purchase of T-Mobile US Faces Challenges

Regulators do not like the idea of mobile markets dominated by three carriers, preferring the number of four. So it is that Telefonica's proposed €8.6bn purchase of E-Plus, the German arm of The Netherlands' KPN, which would create Germany's largest cellco, is getting close scrutiny.

That likely will be an issue for Sprint as well.

Australia NBN Will Miss Target of 25 Mbps to All by 2016

Australia's National Broadband Network will miss its original target of providing 25 megabits per second service to all Australians by 2016. Plagued by construction delays, the timetable slippage is not unexpected. 

A strategic review of the program also will rely more substantially on upgrades to cable TV hybrid fiber coax networks, and substitutes fiber to node for fiber to home connections for as much as a third of the network access connections.

According to the new strategy, about 26 percent of premises will be connected using fiber to home networks. Some 30 percent will be reached by cable TV hybrid fiber coax connections, while 44 percent will get fiber to the node drops, moves intended to reduce the overall cost of the NBN and also likely speed deployment times, at the cost of immediate speed upgrades.

Spectrum Exhaust? Not Likely

Though some problems are difficult to solve, access bandwidth seems not be among those problems. 

Whether looking at fixed network speeds, mobile network speeds or coverage in developing nations, Internet access availability, as tough as it might be, is a problem human ingenuity is able to solve. Consider spectrum sharing.

The  2012  President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology on spectrum reform report, known as the  PCAST Report, if implemented, would represent a major innovation in assignment and use of spectrum, with some significant advantages for spectrum efficiency.

The PCAST “reforms” would  end the practice of clearing government spectrum for auction to the private sector in the form of exclusive licenses, opting instead for the creation of a government-managed spectrum commons.

That is a big change.

The PCAST report proposes that perhaps 1,000 MHz of spectrum currently in government hands could be shared by commercial users.

The study also suggests current license holders might agree to share their spectrum in exchange for revenue sharing or pay-for-prioritization schemes.

PCAST is important as it represents one more way, aside from actual auctions of new spectrum, better air interface technology, new network architectures and use of offload mechanisms, that future spectrum and bandwidth issues can be addressed.

As was true for digital subscriber line technology, which some knowledgeable technologists suggested would never work in volume deployment, former technological barriers fall over time when enough effort is put into overcoming such barriers.

It seems inevitable that “spectrum exhaust” likewise will be finessed.

If Price Were No Object, Would Most People Buy iPhones?

If price were no object, would most people in the United States buy Apple iPhones? A study of small business adoption suggests the answer is "yes."

In the first 10 months of 2013, Intermedia users activated around 190,000 Apple devices. This accounted for 76 percent of total device activations on our service.

Despite Android’s overall lead in market share, the overwhelming bulk of mobile devices activated by Intermedia’s small- and medium-sized business customers were from Apple.

At least in part, that mirrors U.S.  user preference for Apple devices, at least among users with more discretionary income.

But business devices also might be considered “subsidized” devices, in that the business defrays, subsidizes or pays for the devices used. In other words, if price were not a significant obstacle, iPhone seems to be the preferred choice.

Could a Merged Sprint-T Mobile US Change 600 MHz Auction Rules?

If Sprint eventually makes a bid to buy T-Mobile US and ultimately is successful, what does that mean for the upcoming auction of 600 MHz former TV broadcast spectrum?

Both carriers have asked for “set asides” that would prevent AT&T Mobility and Verizon Wireless from bidding on some percentage of the spectrum, to prevent those carriers from buying most of the new spectrum.

T-Mobile US and Sprint are in favor of "pro-competitive" auction rules for upcoming 600 MHz spectrum for good business reasons: both lag in ownership of lower-frequency spectrum with better propagation capabilities. The bulk of those mobile assets are owned by AT&T Mobility and Verizon Wireless.

According to the Justice Department, AT&T and Verizon control 78 percent of low-frequency spectrum, defined as spectrum below 1000 MHz.

Even a merger of Sprint and T-Mobile US would not change the disadvantage in lower-frequency spectrum, even though the the merged entity would, before the auctions, have the biggest amount of spectrum.

There now is greater focus on the “quality” of spectrum, as well as its “quantity.” Simply, both T-Mobile US and Sprint argue they will be at a disadvantage, compared to market leaders AT&T Mobility and Verizon Wireless, unless they are assured of access to about a third of the proposed spectrum to be auctioned, presumably under rules that would bar the two largest carriers from bidding for those blocks.

But some economists argue that barring the largest market contestants, or possibly even using set asides, could have negative impact. Basically, the argument is that the largest spectrum holders are able to more efficiently harness the spectrum than firms with smaller holdings.

Others argue that it'd be more fair to adopt a rule that enforces the same limit on all the participants, regardless of their existing holdings. Such symmetric caps would not take into account current market share or spectrum asset holdings.

Others (including Sprint and T-Mobile US) argue for “asymmetric” caps that take into account current market share and spectrum quality issues

As always, “efficiency” and “equity, ” “competition” and “investment” issues exist.

Regulators and policymakers often use set aside rules to encourage competitors. But, over the long term, markets still become more concentrated. And, as European regulators have discovered, competition can reduce the climate for investment.

Those arguments still will be made, even if Sprint and T-Mobile US become one company, but the resolution of that possible merger, one way or the other, could affect the construction of bidding rules for the 600 MHz auction.

If the new company has the largest amount of spectrum going into the auction, and has 28 percent market share, compared to Verizon’s 34 percent and AT&T’s 33 percent, is there still an argument for set asides?

To be sure, the disparity in ownership of lower-frequency spectrum still would exist, but not so much the argument that the two smaller carriers are so much smaller they need spectrum set asides to level the playing field.

And the argument about amount of spectrum owned would tip further in favor of the new entity, compared to AT&T Mobility and Verizon Wireless, before the auction.