Comments Off

Minorities should seek a bigger slice of new media pie

The digital divide argument, that there is a disparity between non-whites and whites when it comes to broadband access, is losing its mojo for me. While broadband access for minority households via hard line may fall behind that of white households, since the mid 2000s, access via mobile wireless devices by minorities has been on par or exceeded that of whites. Stroll into the Starbucks near I-285 and Cascade Road and see every Black American patron connecting their lap tops to WiFi while checking messages on their smart phones. Even our kids have at least two wireless devices and we parents brace ourselves annually for our teenager’s request for the latest phone even when the one they currently own is still pristine.

Plenty of politicians and civil rights groups have been pushing for greater access to high speed broadband, making the argument that more broadband facilities should be deployed in communities of color especially since Black Americans and Latinos have been spearheading the “cut the cord” movement and going 100% wireless over the past 15 years or so. Minority leadership is demonstrating, however, that it has not been paying attention to changes in business models that would provide entrepreneurs in communities of color exposure to more lucrative opportunities versus following the same consumption of end-use product model that has been plaguing communities of color for decades.

Broadband access providers such as AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon are leveraging their customer data in order to attract advertising dollars. Verizon’s recent disclosure that it lost 307,000 subscribers in the first quarter of 2017 in part due to competition from Sprint and T-Mobile has some analysts on Wall Street wondering if Verizon is up for merger. Bloomberg has reported that the wireless company has considered Comcast, Walt Disney, or CBS for corporate marriage.  Ironically the aforementioned companies are content providers who could probably do well leveraging Verizon’s wireless infrastructure to get content out including use of the company’s spectrum.

While Black Americans and Latinos are, unfortunately, known primarily for providing entertainment content, both communities should consider exploring creating and investing in content storage and content delivery systems. Constructing these facilities in neighborhoods with large numbers of Blacks or Latinos means access to short term and long term employment. High tech labor will be needed to design, construct, and operate server farms and other facilities that result from the decision to do more than buy another cell phone or activate some unlit fiber from the old MCI days.

This is an opportunity for a young Black or Latino entrepreneur or engineer to break from the herd mentality and not wait for permission from the Jesse Jackson posse on whether or not it should be done. One would think that the old heads from the civil rights movement would have the capital or access to capital that would assist outside-the-box minority entrepreneurs in getting capital, but since these leaders have not demonstrated that they even understand the emerging business models in communications, this may be a closed avenue.

In the end, the minority entrepreneur should be prepared to abandon the collective mindset that has communities of color thinking only about the next smartphone and form new, smaller, leaner, profit seeking collectives that generate ideas of value and use these ideas to create their own data and media companies.

Comments Off

Driver-less cars and the nanny state on steroids

Posted May 12th, 2016 in spectrum, unlicensed spectrum, Wi-Fi, wireless communications and tagged by Alton Drew

I’m not a fan of the driver-less car concept. What’s the fun of a driver-less car unless the car itself is not fun to drive to begin with. What’s not so fun is a brewing fight over the best uses for unlicensed spectrum as driver-less car producers bump heads with communications providers. In this article from The Washington Post, there is a discussion about a proposal from Transportation secretary Anthony Foxx that would require all new cars be equipped with car-to-car communications devices. These devices would operate within 75 Mhz of the 5,9 Ghz band. Groups, like the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, argue that spectrum is running out and unlicensed spectrum needs to be made available to fill the gap.

Unlicensed spectrum has been touted as a space for technology and communications innovation. It’s the area in the electromagnetic spectrum where certain wireless devices play including WiFi hot spots, medical equipment, wireless headsets, remote car door openers, wireless keyboards, and cordless phones. With cognitive radio technology, unlicensed spectrum’s vulnerability to interference can be addressed making unlicensed spectrum an emerging alternative for carrying communications.

The only long-term benefit I see from driver-less cars is that flowing to companies like Zip Car. Uber drivers should be scared shitless because why get in a car with a driver with a criminal record when all you have to do is call up a driver-less car from Google. And while the State makes an argument that driver-less cars can reduce the number of non-alcohol related accidents by 80%, shouldn’t drivers (and the insurance companies that issue policies) be prepared to take on the costs of accidents?

I would rather see every available piece of spectrum provided to households that pursue a self-sustainable path. For example, using unlicensed spectrum for their internal needs like monitoring electricity usage or connecting their homes to their rooftop solar panels or wind turbines. Or using unlicensed spectrum to connect with neighbors and public safety.

The Obama administration’s nanny-state approach to the use of unlicensed spectrum by going to bat for initiatives like driver-less cars is a waste of a valuable resource.

Comments Off

Is the FCC signaling political risk by not declaring wireless competitive?

Posted December 28th, 2015 in capital, Federal Communications Commission, wireless communications by Alton Drew

On 23 December 2015, the Federal Communications Commission issued a report analyzing the competitive environment of the wireless broadband market. Although the Commission found that 90% of American households have access to at least four wireless providers, the Commission failed to find that the market for wireless broadband access was effectively competitive.  The Commission’s failure to make a finding on whether the market is effectively competitive should raise some concern among investors about how far the Commission could go in creating a competitive marketplace in its own image.

For example, how restrictive would future auctions for spectrum be for incumbents should the Commission pursue policies that restrict rights by incumbents to bid on certain bands or portions of spectrum. Such restrictions may impact decisions to invest in additional base stations and other infrastructure used to deliver wireless calls. As the Commission’s report pointed out, the amount of investment a carrier makes in its network is a drawing card for subscribers.

In a report on Verizon, Morningstar strategist Michael Hodel cited concerns about the overall growth of the wireless market finding that the market for wireless services was a competitive one.[1] Pricing power of the incumbents was being squeezed by increased competition. Among analysts specific concerns was the price of spectrum:

“One of the biggest detriments to the competitive position, in our view, is U.S. spectrum policy. The AWS-3 spectrum auction demonstrates the extremely high prices spectrum can fetch given that the U.S. government ultimately determines how and when additional spectrum is made available to the industry.”

Mr. Hodel went on to say that spectrum purchases at high prices would constrain future returns on invested capital, returns that would modestly exceed the cost of capital.

If the Commission wants to see the wireless industry remain attractive to capital, a spectrum policy that creates lower prices for obtaining spectrum is a start. Unfortunately, the Commission failed to make that clear in this report.

1. Hodel, Michael. “We expect Verizon’s scale advantage will overcome a choppy wireless competitive environment.” Morningstar.

 

Comments Off

Replace “telecommunications carrier” with “broadband access provider and voila, privacy rules

The Federal Communications Commission today issued some guidance on protection of consumer privacy.  Short of any specific privacy rules, the FCC will apply provisions of Section 222 of the Communications Act to providers of broadband access services.  In other words, substitute the term “telecommunications carrier” with the phrase, “broadband internet access service provider” and we will have a template for broadband access providers to follow when determining how to use consumer information that they collect either from consumers themselves or the other broadband access providers with which traffic, data, and private information are exchanged.

Which has me asking.  Just what type of consumer information do broadband providers collect and how do they use it? To provide an example of information collected and how it is used, I took a look at the privacy agreement provided by All Points Broadband, a broadband provider located in Loudon County, Virginia.  The company collects personal information including a subscriber’s name, billing address, credit card information, service address, and the nature of the devices used by the subscriber.

Personal information provided by the subscriber to the company may be combined with other personal data gleaned from the company’s Facebook page, the company’s affiliates, third party operators, market research firms, or credit reporting firms.  All Points also collects non-personal information such as the specific device identifier for a subscriber’s device, the browser being used by the subscriber, or the page requested during a subscriber search.

The company also collects information about the use of their network including the equipment used on the subscriber’s premises, time when the service is being used, the type of data being transmitted, the content received and transmitted by the subscriber, and the websites visited by the subscriber.

And just how is this data being used?  Network information is used by the company to monitor the performance of the company’s network.  The company, using network information, assesses how the subscriber uses the company’s services including the amount and type of data beineg received and transmitted.

Personal information may be used to send the subscriber marketing and advertising messages about the company’s servivces and website.  While disclosure of personal information to third parties is provided only with a subscriber’s consent, the company reserves the right to disclose non-personal information or any other information that the subscriber decides to make public.

In an era of big data, broadband companies are sitting on a treasure chest of information that can generate up to 10% economic value, depending on the quality of analytics, both from internal and external monetization points of view.

Could the FCC’s application of Section 222 to data collected by broadband providers threaten a provider’s revenues and profits?  My answer is yes.  For example, take Section 222(c)(1) of the Communications Act.  Under this section, broadband access providers receiving customer proprietary network information would only be able to use this network information in the provision of broadband services from which the information was derived or for service necessary for providing broadband servivces.

Broadband providers would have to make the argument that network information has a distinct meaning from personal  or run the risk of losing revenues from the acquisition and distribution of this data.  Should the FCC’s network neutrality rules survive court challenge, the agency should consider making a distinction in its rules between network information and personal information.

Comments Off

Taking “toll free” to the 21st century level

If you want to see the true colors of net neutrality rule proponents look no further on their stances on zero rating.  A zero rated site is a site that a wireless carrier has exempted from its fee structure or data cap.  The company behind the site may have decided that exempting access to its site via its app may be good for attracting additional eyeballs which means more people viewing the ads that may be appearing on the site.  For a wireless carrier wanting to heat up the competition with other carriers, offering their subscribers data cap exemption when accessing popular websites like Facebook may help garner subscribers.

So far it looks like when 12 June 2015 rolls around and the Federal Communications Commission’s net neutrality rules kick in that the strategic partnership between mobile carriers and app developers in the form of zero rating may remain unharmed.  Carriers, according to published reports, are turning to zero rating because of the additional revenues that can be generated by advertisers.  And as I allued to earlier, app developers or advertisers are taking advantage of the traffic they can create by making it easy for consumers to avoid additional data charges when viewing their sites.

The FCC, in some deference to the net neutrality advocacy groups, will apply additional scrutiny to these arrangements because at the core of the net neutrality debate is whether content providers that bring better value, better marketing, or both, should be able to dominate a market against those content providers who are not able to market their content as valuable.  The FCC will, on a case-by-case basis, determine whether a consumer’s lawful access to internet content is being hindered by broadband access providers.

The “case-by-case” review will cause snarls on the way to product deployment and those delays will increase an app developers cost of deployment combined with lost ad revenues as the FCC makes up its mind as to whether a strategic partnership between app developers, advertisers, and broadband access providers violates net neutrality.  I believe that such arrangements even under the FCC’s net neutrality rule shouldn’t be viewed as violations.

First, there is apparently no blocking on the part of a broadband access provider pursuant to Section 8.5 of the FCC’s net neutrality rules.  The app providers are, by definition, edge providers and they are offering sponsorship of subscriber data as such.  Nothing in a zero rating scheme appears to prohibit any broadband access provider from visiting sites that compete with a zero rated site.

Second, zero rating a site is not the same as throttling according to Section 8.7 of the FCC’s rules.  Throttling is defined as impairing or degrading lawful internet traffic; slowing it down and negatively impacting the quality of the traffic’s flow.  Nothing in the definition of zero rating implies that a broadband provider would have to slow down traffic to site B in order to meet its zero rating promise to site A.  There would be no incentive since the company behind the app is reimbursing the broadband provider for revenues lost when exempting subscribers from data caps.

Finally, I wouldn’t equate zero rating with paid prioritization, and apparently not even net neutrality proponents are doing so.  Under Section 8.9 of the FCC’s net neutrality rules, paid prioritization sees a broadband access provider managing its network in order to favor one content provider’s traffic over another provider’s traffic in exchange for compensation.  In the case of zero rating, a content provider’s traffic is not being given any higher priority treatment.  Nothing in the definition of zero rating says that one provider’s traffic moves through a faster lane.  Neither can an argument be made that consumers are being disadvantaged.  On the contrary, the consumer benefits because they are accessing more content at a lower cost.

Zero rating is a win for consumers and content providers. The FCC, while expected to scrutinize these relationships, should not go overboard with oversight in this area.

 

 

 

http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2015/02/25/388948293/what-net-neutrality-rules-could-mean-for-your-wireless-carrier