Carriers Already Spending Billions to Harden Networks, They Tell FCC
Wireless carriers have plenty of incentives to protect their own networks, without additional government rules, CTIA said in a filing at the commission in docket 11-60 (CD July 11 p7). Industry comments due last week, but posted by the FCC Monday, largely agreed that the FCC need not step in and should not impose overly prescriptive rules for making networks more robust and able to survive disaster.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
"There is no incentive that the Commission could give that would be greater than a wireless broadband service provider’s existing incentive to protect its significant network investment and customer confidence,” CTIA said (http://xrl.us/bkzpzm). “In addition to the individual efforts undertaken by carriers, the wireless industry has worked collaboratively to develop industry best practices, and CTIA and its members have coordinated closely with Federal, State and local government officials to develop strategic plans for maximizing service continuity and reliability.” If the FCC steps in to mandate a network survivability strategy carriers must embrace, “the end result is nearly certain to be either too specific to be relevant to many network operators or too vague to be useful for all,” CTIA said.
Verizon and Verizon Wireless together spend an estimated $17 billion “to build, maintain, and protect the health of” their networks, they said in joint comments (http://xrl.us/bkzpzu). Verizon said the carrier already works closely with the government on disaster preparation, through such groups as the National Coordinating Center for Telecommunications and the Communications Security, Reliability, and Interoperability Council (CSRIC). But mandated best practices don’t make sense, Verizon said: “(a) potential disasters evolve and prescriptive practices will be overcome by evolving threats; (b) mandates may discourage open participation and collaboration in future CSRICs; and (c) mandated implementation of best practices is not consistent with their intent.” AT&T similarly cautioned the FCC to adopt a light-handed approach. “The remarkable resiliency of the Nation’s communications infrastructure is a direct result of fierce competition in both the consumer and enterprise markets, which drives service providers to protect their networks and prepare for and mitigate the effects of emergencies,” AT&T said (http://xrl.us/bkzp3b).
PCIA focused on possible backup power mandates at cell towers and other wireless facilities, asking the FCC to allow flexibility (http://xrl.us/bkzp2t). “Any rigid ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach to backup power threatens to make wireless facility siting extremely burdensome and could potentially reduce the number of cell sites by subjecting them to federally-mandated backup power that cannot meet local, state, and federal obligations,” PCIA said, in a filing with the Distributed Antenna System Forum. Just because a site has backup power doesn’t mean that it is “hardened” against disaster, PCIA said: “There are myriad other issues that the Commission must consider first; for example, availability of fuel and access to roads are also serious gating issues.” Carriers and infrastructure providers themselves “are in the best position to determine which sites could provide the most effective service if equipped with backup power,” the group said. In 2008, the Office of Management and Budget rejected the backup power requirements for cell sites established in the FCC’s Hurricane Katrina order (CD Dec 2/08 p1).