It has been revealed that the latest WiMAX-equipped Android Smartphone from Motorola, The Photon 4G, has gone to through to be filed by the FCC (Federal Communications Commission), proving itself to be on schedule for a later summer release.
The FCC documents have named this handset as model P56MD1. The Photon is similar to the Motorola Atrix, which is available on AT&T. Revealed last month, the Photon will certainly prove stiff competition for other 4G models around at the moment. The device features a dual-core Nvidia Tegra 2 processor, Android 2.3, 4.3-inch qHD display (a similar resolution to that of the Atrix model), 1GB of RAM, 16GB of internal memory, a front VGA and rear 8MPcamera, and a kickstand.
An approximate price or date of release is yet to be disclosed
AT&T, America’s second largest wireless network, announced in March its intentions to purchase T-Mobile for a purported $39 billion. T-Mobile is the nation’s fourth-largest network, and the joint company would be the largest in the country and, together with Verizon (currently the largest wireless provider but soon to be the second, assuming the deal goes through) will control over 80 percent of the US customer base. This announcement was a cause of concern for many, particularly Sprint Nextel, who is the third-largest provider and now has to contend with a significant loss of competition in the market. The Department of Justice is looking into possible trust violations, but AT&T broadcasted that they expect to receive the go ahead from the DOJ within 12 months.
Now it appears the wait may be a little longer than that.
Bloomberg reported that the DOJ has extended its review of the merger and has sent two investigative demands to AT&T and T-Mobile competitors. The Federal Communications Division is also investigating whether or not the deal is worthy of their approbation.
States, not just the federal government and private entities, can file antitrust actions, and this reality is adding to AT&T’s merger woes. Sprint recently contested AT&T’s filing in West Virginia, which was the first state they targeted, and New York’s Attorney General, Eric Schneiderman, has announced his intention to thoroughly scrutinize the matter, which may lead to New York and other states being involved in making demands of AT&T. Sprint has declared that it will continue seeking the support of State public services commissions to aid them in this epic wireless battle.
AT&T, T-Mobile, and the DOJ have not officially commented on the proceedings.
]]>The proposed AT&T – T-Mobile transaction poses a conflict and a challenge for the Obama Administration. Both the President and the FCC’s National Broadband Plan promote the goal of rolling out next generation wireless broadband service to 95 percent of the nation. Proponents of the transaction claim that the AT&T acquisition of T-Mobile’s spectrum licenses is the best way for the company to meet the nation’s broadband goals.
The Obama Administration has also made job-growth the key focus of it policies. The acquisition of T-Mobile by AT&T will almost certainly result in a significant loss of jobs, at least in the short term. Moreover, the joining of the nation’s second and fourth largest wireless companies is likely to put Sprint (the third largest) at risk, resulting in an AT&T-Verizon Wireless duopoly. Opponents also warn that the concentration of market power in two entities will result in higher prices and reduced incentives for innovation. Consumers of wireless services, including large volume users like businesses and governments, should consider filing comments and assert the need for consumer protections in the FCC review process.
The jobs issue is not an easy one to analyze. AT&T laid off workers after acquiring BellSouth; and the proximity of AT&T and T-Mobile stores in many communities (some on the same blocks) makes a net job-loss likely. On the other hand, T-Mobile is German-owned and non-union. Expect AT&T to promise the growth of American jobs as a result of this transaction. The Communications Workers of America is already publicly in favor of the transaction.
AT&T is confident that the deal will be approved by federal regulators. It will owe Duetsche Telekom a break-up fee of $3 billion if the deal does not close. AT&T has a highly skilled, well-respected management team leading the effort to gain regulatory approval in Washington. The Department of Justice will focus its review on market dominance and antitrust issues, and if it approves the transaction it is difficult to imagine a different result from the FCC, which is focused on whether the transaction is in the public interest. At this early stage, odds favor approval, albeit with some substantial conditions to sweeten the public interest side of the equation, and with divestiture of AT&T holdings in certain markets where the resulting duopoly would be immediately apparent.
It could take about a year for the review process to be complete – which puts us right in the middle of the 2012 election.
]]>Last month the FCC sought comments on whether the Universal Service Fund (USF) should support broadband. Earlier this month the FCC announced plans to modernize and drive tougher accountability measures into the Lifeline/Link Up program, which is the part of the USF that provides low-income households with discounts on monthly phone bills and initial installation charges. Lifeline provides discounts of approximately $10 per month on telephone service for low-income households; Link Up provides discounts of up to $30 per household on wired or wireless connection charges. The program has grown significantly, having provided $1.3 billion in support in 2010, compared to an inflation-adjusted $221 million in support to low-income households in 1997. Lifeline/Link Up does not, however, currently support broadband, so the FCC is considering, among other things, whether it should amend the Lifeline definition to explicitly allow support for broadband.
Touted as “steps to comprehensively reform and modernize the programs for 21st century communications needs,” the FCC proposes to create a National Accountability Database and national framework to verify and validate consumer eligibility, ensure that Lifeline only supports services that consumers are actually using, allow discounts for bundled voice-broadband service plans, launch broadband support pilot programs, and evaluate a cap on the program.
But giving USF, specifically Lifeline/Link Up, a facelift to support broadband presents several thorny issues. How should “broadband” be defined and measured for universal service purposes? How can regulators promote broadband availability in unserved and underserved areas, and structure a Lifeline discount for broadband services? Does the statutory principle that consumers have access to quality services at “just, reasonable, and affordable rates” mean that consumers should have affordable broadband? Should Lifeline customers be able to apply Lifeline discounts on all calling plans offered by an Eligible Telecommunications Carrier (ETC) with a local voice component, including bundled service packages that include broadband? Should the FCC set a specific numerical target for narrowing the gap in penetration rates for broadband between low-income households and the general population? If so what should that target be, and over what particular time period must it be met? Should there be any minimum performance requirements for Lifeline broadband offerings? For example, should consumers be free to use discounts for any broadband services, or only for higher-speed offerings? The FCC’s pilot test broadband, Lifeline/Linkup-supported program will hopefully provide some answers to these and other questions.
We welcome your thoughts.
Initial Comments to the FCC are due April 21, 2011. Reply comments vary by section per the FCC’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking issued March 3, 2011 (FCC 11-32).
© 2011 Technology Law Group. Technology Law Group LLC, is a Washington-based law firm specializing in telecommunications, transactional, litigation and regulatory issues. The attorneys at Technology Law Group can be reached by phone at +1 202 895 1707 and by e-mail at mail@tlgdc.com. TLG is dedicated to personal service and to providing high quality legal and consulting services that enable clients to meet their business objectives.
]]>Until now, customers of Sprint’s 4G WiMax network have had precious few devices with which to valiantly navigate the speedy mobile broadband terrain offered them. The HTC Evo 4G and Samsung Epic 4G have performed admirably in the kingdom of next-generation wireless, so you’d think consumers would be content wielding their net surfing phones in the most perilous situations where a blazing fast connection is all that stands between them and certain doom–or in this case the important text message they need to respond to. Sure those devices do the trick just fine, but in this era where having just two options is akin to insanity, Sprint customers may soon get a third– their very own “Knight” in shining armor.
The FCC has just approved HTC’s latest 4G WiMax-enabled handset with an impressive set of specs for Sprint to tack onto a growing roster of 4G-ready hotspots, modems, laptops and phones The smartphone, presently dubbed the “HTC Knight,” is equipped with Froyo, an 8-megapixel camera, 1GHz processor, 3.7 inch display and a most appealing sliding QWERTY keyboard.
Several blogs are predicting the latest member of the Sprint 4G WiMax phone family will get to stores in time for the holiday rush. We’re not so optimistic as that day as fast approaching, but it could make for a nice present for those last-minute shoppers. If it does hit the stores in the next few days, keep your eyes peeled for a few different monikers, as the ” HTC Knight” name is not set in stone strong enough to keep Excalibur. The alternate names are thought to include the “Sprint HTC Desire Z,” “HTC Speedy,” and the “HTC Evo Shift 4G.” We prefer the “Knight” if only because it brings a certain amount of valor to the act of using our cell phone for something as common as downloading a ringtone. … Read the rest
]]>Until now, customers of Sprint’s 4G WiMax network have had precious few devices with which to valiantly navigate the speedy mobile broadband terrain offered them. The HTC Evo 4G and Samsung Epic 4G have performed admirably in the kingdom of next-generation wireless, so you’d think consumers would be content wielding their net surfing phones in the most perilous situations where a blazing fast connection is all that stands between them and certain doom–or in this case the important text message they need to respond to. Sure those devices do the trick just fine, but in this era where having just two options is akin to insanity, Sprint customers may soon get a third– their very own “Knight” in shining armor.
The FCC has just approved HTC’s latest 4G WiMax-enabled handset with an impressive set of specs for Sprint to tack onto a growing roster of 4G-ready hotspots, modems, laptops and phones The smartphone, presently dubbed the “HTC Knight,” is equipped with Froyo, an 8-megapixel camera, 1GHz processor, 3.7 inch display and a most appealing sliding QWERTY keyboard.
Several blogs are predicting the latest member of the Sprint 4G WiMax phone family will get to stores in time for the holiday rush. We’re not so optimistic as that day as fast approaching, but it could make for a nice present for those last-minute shoppers. If it does hit the stores in the next few days, keep your eyes peeled for a few different monikers, as the ” HTC Knight” name is not set in stone strong enough to keep Excalibur. The alternate names are thought to include the “Sprint HTC Desire Z,” “HTC Speedy,” and the “HTC Evo Shift 4G.” We prefer the “Knight” if only because it brings a certain amount of valor to the act of using our cell phone for something as common as downloading a ringtone.
]]>By Craig D. Dingwall
The FCC recently proposed rules that would require mobile service providers to provide usage alerts and information to assist consumers in avoiding unexpected charges on their bills. Specifically, the FCC’s proposed rules would require mobile service providers to inform their customers about their usage, such as by voice or text alerts when a subscriber is approaching or begins incurring overage or roaming charges, and provide clear disclosure of the available tools subscribers can use to limit usage and review their usage history. The FCC’s recent Bill Shock Survey found that 30 million Americans have experienced unexpected increases in their monthly bills that are not caused by changes in their service plans.
Predictably, industry commenters contend that mandatory usage alerts and cut-off mechanisms are unnecessary because 1) the wireless industry currently provides consumers with usage controls and alerts, text messages, and dialing shortcuts to check account balances to avoid bill shock, 2) an industry-wide regulation will harm consumers by limiting choice and diminishing incentives to develop additional tools, and 3) it would be costly to adjust existing billing systems to implement any new usage alert requirements. State and consumer commenters contend, however, that mandatory requirements are necessary because currently available tools are limited by additional fees, self-enrollment requirements, active monitoring requirements, and they are applied inconsistently.
The FCC seeks comments on the scope and limits of the proposed rules. For example, should prepaid mobile services, in which customers pay in advance, be exempt from any usage alert requirements? Should the rules apply to all communications services provided by mobile wireless providers, including voice, text, and data services? Should exclusively mobile data service providers be exempt? Does the FCC have the authority to establish the proposed rules? For example, several Title III provisions of the Telecommunications Act authorize the FCC to establish license conditions in the public interest. Even if the FCC does have the authority to implement such regulations, should it do so? Are such regulations appropriate or even necessary for competitive mobile services? Will they avoid mobile service bill shock or just shock the competitive mobile service industry with costly regulation? We welcome your thoughts.
Comments to the FCC (CG Docket No. 10-207) are due 30 days after publication of the NPRM in the Federal Register and reply comments 30 days thereafter.
© 2010 Technology Law Group. Craig Dingwall is an attorney with the Technology Law Group, a Washington, D.C.-based law firm specializing in telecommunications transactional matters, complex litigation and intellectual property issues. Craig can be reached at cdingwall@tlgdc.com, at 202-895-1707, or at our website: www.tlgdc.com. The views in this article are those of the author and do not necessary represent those of the Technology Law Group.
]]>By Craig D. Dingwall
Last month the FCC modified the E-rate program to bring fast, affordable Internet access to schools and libraries through the National Broadband Plan. Formerly called the Schools and Libraries Universal Service program, the E-rate program, which provides up to $2.25 billion annually to support schools and libraries telephone and Internet connections, was adopted 13 years ago to help ensure that almost every school and library across America has Internet access. The E-rate program has, however, not kept pace with technological advances or funding requirements in the broadband era. Accordingly, on September 28th the FCC upgraded the program by:
- allowing participants to use E-rate funds to connect to the Internet in the most cost-effective way possible, including via unused fiber optic (dark fiber) lines;
- opening the door to “School Spots” — where schools have the option to provide Internet access to the local community after students go home;
- launching a pilot program that supports off-campus Internet connectivity for mobile learning devices such as digital textbooks and other wireless devices; and
- indexing the cap on E-rate funding to inflation, supporting connections to the dormitories of schools that serve students facing unique challenges (such as Tribal schools or schools for children with physical, cognitive, or behavioral disabilities), codifying competitive bidding requirements, clarifying ethics obligations, and streamlining the E-rate application process for educators and librarians.
Perhaps the most significant and controversial part of the FCC’s Order from the service provider’s perspective is the FCC’s conclusion that “eligible schools and libraries should be free to meet their communications needs by leasing fiber from entities other than telecommunications carriers that are able to provide schools and libraries the same services that a traditional telecommunications carrier can provide a school or library over a fiber network.” This means that schools and libraries can now lease E-rate eligible fiber from any provider—including research and education networks, regional, state and local governments, non-profit and for-profit providers, and utility company—purportedly giving schools and libraries “more flexibility to select the most cost effective broadband solutions” and allow them to “pay less for the same or greater bandwidth . . ” While the FCC claims that the competitive bidding process will help protect against waste, fraud, and abuse of the E-rate program, non-public entities raise fairness concerns about competing with taxpayer-funded entities such as state and local governments.
Others raise concerns regarding … Read the rest
]]>By Craig D. Dingwall
Last month the FCC modified the E-rate program to bring fast, affordable Internet access to schools and libraries through the National Broadband Plan. Formerly called the Schools and Libraries Universal Service program, the E-rate program, which provides up to $2.25 billion annually to support schools and libraries telephone and Internet connections, was adopted 13 years ago to help ensure that almost every school and library across America has Internet access. The E-rate program has, however, not kept pace with technological advances or funding requirements in the broadband era. Accordingly, on September 28th the FCC upgraded the program by:
- allowing participants to use E-rate funds to connect to the Internet in the most cost-effective way possible, including via unused fiber optic (dark fiber) lines;
- opening the door to “School Spots” — where schools have the option to provide Internet access to the local community after students go home;
- launching a pilot program that supports off-campus Internet connectivity for mobile learning devices such as digital textbooks and other wireless devices; and
- indexing the cap on E-rate funding to inflation, supporting connections to the dormitories of schools that serve students facing unique challenges (such as Tribal schools or schools for children with physical, cognitive, or behavioral disabilities), codifying competitive bidding requirements, clarifying ethics obligations, and streamlining the E-rate application process for educators and librarians.
Perhaps the most significant and controversial part of the FCC’s Order from the service provider’s perspective is the FCC’s conclusion that “eligible schools and libraries should be free to meet their communications needs by leasing fiber from entities other than telecommunications carriers that are able to provide schools and libraries the same services that a traditional telecommunications carrier can provide a school or library over a fiber network.” This means that schools and libraries can now lease E-rate eligible fiber from any provider—including research and education networks, regional, state and local governments, non-profit and for-profit providers, and utility company—purportedly giving schools and libraries “more flexibility to select the most cost effective broadband solutions” and allow them to “pay less for the same or greater bandwidth . . ” While the FCC claims that the competitive bidding process will help protect against waste, fraud, and abuse of the E-rate program, non-public entities raise fairness concerns about competing with taxpayer-funded entities such as state and local governments.
Others raise concerns regarding the services that are ineligible for E-rate support, including wireless Internet access applications such as those that could be used on school buses to transmit emergency information, track students, and locate buses with global positioning service technology.
Will the E-rate program modifications live up to their promise of enhancing the speed and availability of high speed Internet and broadband access for schools and libraries? Will the competitive bidding process really protect against waste, fraud and abuse of the E-rate program, or are more protections necessary? Is the competitive bidding process based on a level playing field where all bidders have equal or comparable access to funding? Does the e-Rate program exclude key services and applications that should be eligible for E-Rate funding? We welcome your thoughts.
© 2010 Technology Law Group. Craig Dingwall is an attorney with the Technology Law Group, a Washington, D.C.-based law firm specializing in telecommunications transactional matters, complex litigation and intellectual property issues. Craig can be reached at cdingwall@tlgdc.com, at 202-895-1707, or at our website: www.tlgdc.com. The views in this article are those of the author, and do not necessary represent those of the Technology Law Group.
]]>By Craig D. Dingwall
Last week the FCC adopted the Second Memorandum Opinion and Order (Second MO&O) to make vacant airwaves between TV channels—so called “white spaces”—available for unlicensed broadband wireless devices. Touted as the first significant block of “prime real estate” spectrum made available for unlicensed use in more than 20 years that will create jobs, investment, innovation and unleash a host of new technologies such as super Wi-Fi and other diverse applications, this spectrum is attractive because it allows signals to reach farther with better penetration of structures. According to the FCC, this spectrum could promote “super Wi-Fi hot spots” with extended range and speed while improving broadband access to schools, rural areas, and campus networks to promote streaming video and other applications. But will it live up to these promises and, if so, under what terms and conditions? The MO&O provides additional details and addresses several technical and legal issues. Specifically, among other things, the FCC through the MO&O:
- Modified the protection criteria for low power auxiliary stations such as wireless microphones to reduce the required separation between such devices and unlicensed personal/portable devices that rely on geo-location and database access to determine available channels at its location;
- Modified the definition of the receive sites entitled to protection outside of a television station’s service area to include all multi-channel video programming distributors as defined by its rules;
- Reserved two vacant UHF channels for wireless microphones and other low power auxiliary service devices across the country;
- Allowed operators of event and production/show venues using large numbers of unlicensed wireless microphones that cannot be accommodated in the two reserved or other available channels to register those venue sites on TV bands databases to receive the same geographic spacing protections afforded licensed wireless microphones;
- Restricted fixed TV bands devices from operating on locations where the ground level is more than 76 meters above the average terrain level;
- Eliminated the requirement that TV bands devices incorporating geo-location and database access must also listen (sense) to detect the signals of TV stations and low power auxiliary service stations (wireless microphones);
- Adopted power spectral density limits for unlicensed TV bands devices;
- Modified the rules governing measurement of adjacent channel emissions;
- Restricted fixed TV bands devices from operating at locations where the height above average terrain of the ground level is greater than 76 meters;
- Required that communications between TV bands devices and … Read the rest
By Craig D. Dingwall
Last week the FCC adopted the Second Memorandum Opinion and Order (Second MO&O) to make vacant airwaves between TV channels—so called “white spaces”—available for unlicensed broadband wireless devices. Touted as the first significant block of “prime real estate” spectrum made available for unlicensed use in more than 20 years that will create jobs, investment, innovation and unleash a host of new technologies such as super Wi-Fi and other diverse applications, this spectrum is attractive because it allows signals to reach farther with better penetration of structures. According to the FCC, this spectrum could promote “super Wi-Fi hot spots” with extended range and speed while improving broadband access to schools, rural areas, and campus networks to promote streaming video and other applications. But will it live up to these promises and, if so, under what terms and conditions? The MO&O provides additional details and addresses several technical and legal issues. Specifically, among other things, the FCC through the MO&O:
- Modified the protection criteria for low power auxiliary stations such as wireless microphones to reduce the required separation between such devices and unlicensed personal/portable devices that rely on geo-location and database access to determine available channels at its location;
- Modified the definition of the receive sites entitled to protection outside of a television station’s service area to include all multi-channel video programming distributors as defined by its rules;
- Reserved two vacant UHF channels for wireless microphones and other low power auxiliary service devices across the country;
- Allowed operators of event and production/show venues using large numbers of unlicensed wireless microphones that cannot be accommodated in the two reserved or other available channels to register those venue sites on TV bands databases to receive the same geographic spacing protections afforded licensed wireless microphones;
- Restricted fixed TV bands devices from operating on locations where the ground level is more than 76 meters above the average terrain level;
- Eliminated the requirement that TV bands devices incorporating geo-location and database access must also listen (sense) to detect the signals of TV stations and low power auxiliary service stations (wireless microphones);
- Adopted power spectral density limits for unlicensed TV bands devices;
- Modified the rules governing measurement of adjacent channel emissions;
- Restricted fixed TV bands devices from operating at locations where the height above average terrain of the ground level is greater than 76 meters;
- Required that communications between TV bands devices and TV bands databases, as well as between multiple databases, are secure.
- Required that all information required by the Commission’s rules to be in the TV bands databases be publicly available; and
- Amended the FCC’s rules to protect Canadian and Mexican stations in the border areas by including those stations in the TV bands database as protected services.
Critics of the FCC’s actions argue that unlicensed wireless devices using this spectrum will cause interference problems, particularly to incumbent communications. Others argue that that there is no need for the spectrum sensing requirements and request that they be eliminated, particularly the requirement to sense wireless microphones. Other concerns relate to the time and expense of detecting low power auxiliary signals at extremely weak levels, and possible delays because unlicensed device operators must first access a database to obtain a list of the permitted channels before operating and then re-check the database at least once daily. This database will be established and administered by a third party, or parties, to be selected through a public notice process to solicit interested entities.
Will making “prime real estate” white spaces available for unlicensed broadband wireless devices foster super Wi-Fi, create jobs, spur innovation and promote broadband access? While it is too early to tell, making this spectrum available is a critical step toward this end. We welcome your thoughts.
© 2010 Technology Law Group. Craig Dingwall is an attorney with the Technology Law Group, a Washington, D.C.-based law firm specializing in telecommunications transactional matters, complex litigation and intellectual property issues. Craig can be reached at dingwall@tlgdc.com, at 202-895-1707, or at our website: www.tlgdc.com. The views in this article are those of the author, and do not necessary represent those of the Technology Law Group.
]]>
This Bill was introduced on January 27, 2010, and was referred to the Committee on Agriculture, and the Committee on Energy and Commerce “for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker.” This Bill amends the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 to establish in the Department of Agriculture the Office of Rural Broadband Initiatives, to be headed by the Under Secretary for Rural Broadband Initiatives. If enacted, this Bill would give the Under Secretary the power to administer rural broadband-related grant and loan programs, conduct rural outreach, foster development of a comprehensive rural broadband strategic vision, assess technologies (including WiFi, WIMAX, DSL, cable, satellite, fiber, and broadband over power lines), serve as a single information source and provide technical assistance to develop broadband deployment strategies. The Bill also requires the Under Secretary to submit a comprehensive rural broadband strategy report to the President and to Congress, and it establishes a National Rural Broadband Innovation Fund of $20,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2012. The Fund is to be used for experimental and pilot rural broadband projects and applications, including WiFI, WIMAX, DSL, cable, satellite, fiber, and broadband delivery over power lines.
This Bill was introduced on January 27, 2010, and was referred to the Committee on Agriculture, and the Committee on Energy and Commerce “for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker.” This Bill amends the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 to establish in the Department of Agriculture the Office of Rural Broadband Initiatives, to be headed by the Under Secretary for Rural Broadband Initiatives. If enacted, this Bill would give the Under Secretary the power to administer rural broadband-related grant and loan programs, conduct rural outreach, foster development of a comprehensive rural broadband strategic vision, assess technologies (including WiFi, WIMAX, DSL, cable, satellite, fiber, and broadband over power lines), serve as a single information source and provide technical assistance to develop broadband deployment strategies. The Bill also requires the Under Secretary to submit a comprehensive rural broadband strategy report to the President and to Congress, and it establishes a National Rural Broadband Innovation Fund of $20,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2012. The Fund is to be used for experimental and pilot rural broadband projects and applications, including WiFI, WIMAX, DSL, cable, satellite, fiber, and broadband delivery over power lines.
© 2010 Technology Law Group. Craig Dingwall is an attorney with the Technology Law Group, a Washington, D.C.-based law firm specializing in telecommunications transactional matters, complex litigation and intellectual property issues. Craig can be reached at dingwall@tlgdc.com, at 202-895-1707, or at our website: www.tlgdc.com. The views in this article are those of the author, and do not necessary represent those of the Technology Law Group.
]]>