“AT&T applauds Senator Schumer for reintroducing legislation to help deter the theft of wireless communications devices.  The Mobile Device Theft Deterrence Act is a critical component in helping law enforcement and wireless carriers address the growing issue of stolen devices.  Last year, we launched a website to help educate our customers on how to protect their wireless devices, and we created a stolen phone database which prevents devices reported stolen by our customers from working on our network. We thank the Senator for his tireless efforts in this area and we look forward to working with him and his colleagues as this legislation moves forward.”

“On behalf of AT&T I want to congratulate Danny Sepulveda for his nomination to become Ambassador for International Communications and Information Policy. We have had the pleasure of working with Danny on many important issues, and he possesses the experience, expertise and commitment to expanding communications services that will serve him well in this important position. We look forward to working together.”

The TV broadcast spectrum incentive auction proceeding raises some of the most difficult engineering challenges the FCC has ever faced.  One thing is clear:  a successful auction must start with an effective band plan.  A band plan must seek to mitigate interference challenges to the greatest extent possible while offering blocks of spectrum best suited for deployment by U.S. wireless carriers.  Otherwise, it will drive down the value of the spectrum and likely undermine the auction’s success.

With that in mind, broadcasters, wireless carriers and equipment manufacturers have spent an enormous amount of time, energy and expense reviewing and commenting on the optimal framework for the 600 MHz band.  Hundreds of pages of comments have been filed, two industry consensus letters have been submitted and the FCC just recently convened a day-long workshop to discuss this issue.  The result is growing consensus for adoption of a “down from 51” framework that seeks to maximize paired allocations and build guard bands only to meet engineering necessity.  This approach reflects the best collective engineering judgment of the companies most affected by the auction, including those that will spend billions of dollars to purchase 600 MHz licenses at auction and billions more to develop and deploy the spectrum in U.S. wireless networks.

Despite these significant advances, on Chairman Julius Genachowski’s last day, a Public Notice was released seeking comment on two alternative band plan frameworks, one reversing the uplink and downlink allocations and one featuring time division duplex (TDD).  The first has absolutely no support in the record and the second adopts a technological approach contrary to the one proposed by the majority of U.S. carriers.  A fair reading of the Public Notice suggests that the FCC feels the consensus approach constrains its ability to adjust the band plan to meet market-by-market variations.  We believe, however, that this notice will consume resources better spent on dealing with other critical and as-yet-unanswered questions in this proceeding, such as how co-channel interference concerns could undermine the variability of any band plan and how the FCC plans to conduct an effective re-packing.

Each of us of course will respond to the notice, but we don’t anticipate any fundamental shift in positions we’ve already taken in the record.  In the meantime, we are concerned about the apparent disconnect between the FCC and the various industries that will be critically affected by this auction.  Nothing about this auction will be easy, and, if we are to succeed, we must all work together to find solutions best designed to respond to broadcast industry concerns while meeting wireless industry requirements.

“Earlier this month, the FCC adopted an initial order on Text-to-911 services that addresses the requirement for automatic bounce-back messages where Text-to-911 service is not available. Consistent with our voluntary commitment, AT&T supports this critical public safety functionality as a necessary consumer protection and believes the FCC got it right by imposing this requirement on all providers of those services irrespective of the technology underlying the service.  The FCC has clear authority to implement the recommendations of the Emergency Access Advisory Committee, and these rules fall within that authority.

“The Commission must provide guidance so that the industry can determine what types of consumer protection regulations will apply to different types of next-generation services (i.e., those that will replace POTS).   Although those services should remain largely free of regulation, we recognize that there will be requirements on some IP services, such as those adopted earlier this month, that are necessary for consumer protection purposes.  Knowing what will be expected and what will not is critical to those who are contemplating investment in this space.

“We hope that the Commission’s VoIP numbering proceeding will provide the platform from which the agency can lead that broader discussion and help to create a path towards accomplishing an efficient, comprehensive transition from POTS to an IP world as well as an appropriately limited, 21^st Century Smart Regulatory framework for that world.  Without that discussion, I fear that the current regulatory framework will continue to lag behind the natural evolution of these services in the marketplace and slow investment, innovation and the National Broadband Plan’s mission to create a broadband-enabled, high-performance America.”

“Today’s public notice is a step forward, though we are disappointed the FCC still appears tentative about dealing with the IP transition, especially when compared with the bold and visionary goals of the National Broadband Plan.  Certainly, this notice might yield some interesting information, and we will of course cooperate fully with the FCC.  We also intend to provide further detail on our proposed geographic trials as requested today, though we are puzzled it took the FCC six months to decide it needed such information.  We continue to believe that controlled, comprehensive geographic trials will more likely identify problems and allow the crafting of solutions.   We also believe that further delays by the FCC in moving to such trials, which they themselves would control, creates more investment uncertainty.  We hope the FCC will consider today’s notice as a first step, one that will ultimately be followed by the more thorough exploration of issues that its own National Broadband Plan challenges us to undertake.”

When the FCC created the lower 700 MHz Band Plan, it placed mobile broadband A, B and C Block spectrum adjacent to spectrum used for broadcast television, most significantly, Channel 51 stations.  This created substantial interference issues (as well as build out issues due to exclusion zones created around Channel 51 license areas), particularly for A Block license holders, due to the presence of high powered broadcast signals in nearby spectrum. 

At auction, markets being what they are, those disadvantages impacted the value of the A Block spectrum, which was sold at a significant discount to other available spectrum.  While many regional and smaller competitors purchased A Block licenses, AT&T avoided the A Block and instead purchased licenses at auction and in the secondary market in the B and C bands.  Almost immediately after the auction ended, however, the purchasers of the A Block licenses began arguing that any handset used by AT&T to receive B or C Block signals should also be capable of operating on the A Block as well, making all of the spectrum bands “interoperable” – thus the name for our proceeding.  Those carriers asserted that handset manufacturers would never make devices just for them, and that the only way they would be able to obtain the latest and greatest technology would be if they could piggy-back on AT&T’s supposedly greater purchasing power.

As we have explained in this space before, however, there is no credible evidence to support those assertions.  Indeed, US Cellular has deployed in the A Block and has brought a number of devices to market in that band including the latest, greatest “must-have” products like Samsung Galaxy S4.

But there is an even larger problem with their argument; the thorny issue of interference.  AT&T did not bid on A Block spectrum at auction specifically because of the interference issues posed by Channel 51 broadcasters and others.   AT&T has conducted rigorous testing and engineering analyses, and those tests and analyses make very clear that at typical real-world power levels, Channel 51 transmissions would substantially degrade our LTE service – creating LTE “no call” zones – if AT&T were required to use chipsets that enabled A Block reception.  In other words, we have spent billions of capital dollars deploying the best LTE network in the world, which would be significantly degraded and less efficient if “interoperability” were mandated by the FCC without addressing these interference issues first.

Fortunately, there is a solution to the interference problems on the horizon.  As a result of the incentive auction legislation passed last year, the FCC is empowered to conduct two auctions that, if successful, will enable willing broadcasters to surrender spectrum currently devoted to broadcast television.  The first swath of broadcast spectrum cleared post-auction is the aforementioned Channel 51 spectrum which will once and for all resolve the Channel 51-related interference issues (as well as the exclusion zones that prohibit mobile broadband build-out in some areas).  That auction could occur as early as next year.  To be clear, there would still be other interference issues that would need to be resolved – in particular, those related to the approved power levels with respect to the E Block spectrum.  But the FCC has the power to harmonize those power transmission levels to resolve those additional interference issues.  So, we are relatively close in time to a real solution to this problem.

What’s more, as part of our acquisition of Qualcomm’s D Block spectrum (where we also voluntarily agreed to harmonize the power limits of that spectrum to ease additional interference issues), we made the commitment to support interoperability no more than two years after all of these interference issues are resolved subject to caveats on supply-side device availability.  Our full commitment is here. 

Interference, however, remains a real issue today.  And we don’t have to look any further back than the Lightsquared  situation to understand the problems caused by not fully addressing interference issues before we move ahead with policies that negatively impact existing consumer services and devices.  Unlike Lightsquared though, here we have a path forward that can create a win-win for all consumers of mobile broadband services — more spectrum capable of delivering lightning fast mobile broadband and continued global leadership in LTE infrastructure.  Hopefully policymakers will take the path towards problem solving here.

I’ve known Tom Wheeler for many years, and he is an inspired pick to lead the FCC.  Mr. Wheeler’s combination of high intelligence, broad experience, and in-depth knowledge of the industry may, in fact, make him one of the most qualified people ever named to run the agency. 

Mr. Wheeler will face daunting challenges at the FCC.  Already the pace of technological change is clashing with outdated laws, antiquated rules, and approaches more rooted in the past than the present.  The dedicated career staff at the FCC are grappling with these challenges now.  If the pace of change is to continue, along with the investment and job creation that fuel it, the mission of the FCC in the 21st Century must be re-examined, and its rules and methods modernized.  In this situation, I can think of no nominee more talented or whose leadership skills are more needed. Moreover, Mr. Wheeler will be joining a complement of fellow commissioners who are equally formidable and well suited for this important moment in the FCC’s history.

On behalf of AT&T, I’d like to congratulate Tom Wheeler on his nomination. We look forward to working with him once he is confirmed by the Senate. I also want to congratulate Mignon Clyburn, who will take over as interim-chair of the FCC. She’s an experienced and independent policymaker, passionate about public service, who will lead the agency over the coming months with a steady hand.

A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

Lao-Tzu, The Way of Lao Tzu

Over the last few years, discussion of the FCC’s role in IP interconnection has generated lots of heat, a little light, and virtually no progress. On April 18^th, the FCC took matters into its own hands and began the transition to all-IP interconnection with not one, but two steps. First, the FCC began a process to authorize IP-based providers to obtain telephone numbers directly from the numbering administrator. Second, and perhaps more importantly, the FCC sought comment on database and routing issues that must be resolved in order to enable the transition to all-IP interconnection.

It is almost impossible to overstate the importance of these database and routing issues. Numbering databases may seem like the driest of telecom issues, but they are the key to enabling this transition. The existing databases, principally the Local Exchange Routing Guide (LERG) and Number Portability Administrative Center (NPAC), lie at the heart of the existing system of TDM interconnection for local and long distance telephone calls. Virtually every telephone call between customers of different service providers is interconnected on the basis of information from these databases. In order to move to IP interconnection, there must be a database that associates IP routing information with telephone numbers.

Once service providers begin to populate IP routing information into the NPAC or some similar database, the momentum for all-IP interconnection will gather into an irresistible wave of innovation and progress. Unlike TDM interconnection, which enables only a homogenized service with a limited and strictly defined set of features, IP interconnection will open the door to higher quality (like HD audio), new capabilities (like video), and a host of new features that will enable consumers to control which modes of communications they will engage in at particular times with particular parties.

With a database in place, service providers will be free to figure out all of the details needed to move to a world of all-IP interconnection. With all due respect to lawyers, let’s hope those details are worked out by engineers. The solutions they develop should not be limited to traditional voice service, but should be open to all real-time communications. They should be flexible to meet the traffic management needs for all such services. And they should be significantly more efficient than the existing TDM arrangements that exist in every LATA.

Given the powerful incentives service providers will have to interconnect, suggestions that IP interconnection should be shoe-horned into the framework established under the 1996 Act for interconnection of local phone calls are entirely misplaced. It is simply too early in this transition to decide that a highly regulatory framework is required.  No such framework was needed to bring about the global interconnection that supports the Internet. And as we saw last year when European ISPs sought to use the WCIT to obtain compensation from content providers, demands for regulated interconnection frequently represent little more than rent-seeking.

So, congratulations to the FCC for beginning this thousand mile journey! I look forward to the many steps (and occasional stumbles) to come.

The full letter may be accessed here.

“It never ceases to amaze me how some executives can go to Wall Street and brag about their unique and massive spectrum position, then come to Washington and claim the exact opposite.  And then demand the government allocate spectrum to them rather than auction it in an open bidding process as Congress directed.  Particularly when that company has failed to even bid in previous auctions of lower band spectrum.  This is nonsense, and would simply lead to a failed auction as anyone with sense understands.  Moreover, it’s not the government’s job to give to any company advantages it’s been unable to win from consumers in a free market.”