An AT&T representative met with an aide to Commissioner FCC Geoffrey Starks to oppose a handset unlocking mandate as proposed in a July NPRM (see 2407180037). “This proposal is based on questionable legal authority,” the carrier said in docket 24-186: “AT&T offers an array of affordable options for handsets, including subsidized pricing and zero-interest rate financing” and “handset locking facilitates the offering of such options.” The company previously met with aides to Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel and Commissioners Brendan Carr and Anna Gomez raising similar concerns (see 2411130008).
Industry groups widely opposed an FCC notice of inquiry seeking comment about the impact of broadband data caps on consumers and potential regulatory steps the agency could take. In comments posted Friday in docket 23-199 (see 2410150069), many warned the proceeding was a step toward rate regulation and potential consumer harm should the FCC limit the use of data caps. Some public interest groups urged the commission to proceed, however.
The Biden administration is making progress on each of the five bands it's studying as part of the national spectrum strategy (see 2311130048), Shiva Goel, NTIA senior adviser-spectrum policy, said during a Center for Strategic and International Studies webinar late Thursday. Other speakers said the government must make available more high-powered licensed spectrum to ensure the nation doesn’t fall behind China and other competitors.
Oppositions to the reconsideration petition that the Texas Coalition of Cities filed in May on the FCC's "all-in" video service pricing order are due Nov. 18, according to a correction in Wednesday's Federal Register. Replies are due Nov. 29. Oppositions and replies should be filed in docket 23-203. The petitioners are seeking clarification that payments used for capital costs of public, educational or governmental facilities that are required by a franchise agreement don't count as franchise fees.
Network availability remains an issue for many consumers worldwide, with more than 30% of households reporting access issues in a recent Ernst & Young Global (EY) survey. It was the same figure as reported four years earlier, speakers said Wednesday during a Mobile World Live webinar. “Consumers are very alert to service guarantees” and 42% of households think that Wi-Fi performance promises, such as whole-home coverage, are misleading or inaccurate, said Adrian Baschnonga, EY lead analyst-technology, media and telecommunications. Predictable pricing “is very much in focus” and 72% of respondents think carriers should do more when offering pricing guarantees, he said, adding that North American respondents led that sentiment. Brand-trust is playing a bigger role in purchasing decisions for streaming platforms and smart home technology, and is now the top driver for connected-home devices, overtaking attractive pricing, Baschnonga said. For streaming, brand-trust ranks fourth, up from seventh last year, he said. More than half of consumers express concerns that broadband monthly subscription rates will increase and nearly as many believe they pay too much for content they don’t watch. EY found that 44% of households would be willing to pay more for content aggregation services, up from 40% last year, and “a rising proportion would also be willing to pay more for broadband that comes with better customer service or a backup option in case of outages.” EY found that when assessing value consumers get for their money, mobile and broadband connectivity scores best, while smart home technologies “lag.” Consumers are also increasingly willing to stop paying for streaming services, he said.
Altice USA and WideOpenWest (WOW) took Q3 hits to their broadband subscriber numbers from the June end of the affordable connectivity program, though both would have lost subscribers regardless of ACP, the companies said. Announcing results after the market's close Monday, WOW said it expected Q3 to mark the end of its ACP-related losses. Last week, Comcast and Charter said that if not for ACP losses, their Q3 broadband subscriber numbers would have been in the black (see 2410310013 and 2411010006).
The American Consumer Institute (ACI) questioned whether the FCC has legal authority to impose handset unlocking rules on carriers, as proposed in an NPRM that commissioners approved 5-0 in July (see 2407180037). “The FCC relies on dubious legal authority to justify unsupported economic assertions, which threaten to undermine the pro-competitive consumer benefits the Commission seeks to achieve,” said a filing posted Monday in docket 24-186. “Instead of empirically validating its claims with a cost-benefit analysis about pro-competitive market conditions from the rule, it simply asserts its conclusions as fact and then works backward from preordained outcomes to justify its decision,” ACI said.
With more than $1.8 billion in federal cash from the broadband equity, access and deployment (BEAD) program on the line, USTelecom asked the California Public Utilities Commission to reconsider its rules for implementing the state’s BEAD initial plan volume 2. In a rehearing application (docket R.23-02-016) posted Friday at the CPUC, the national ISP association said it “cannot stand by and risk the Commission’s adoption of a collective set of requirements that will severely limit participation in and the overall effectiveness of California’s BEAD Program.” The commission should deny USTelecom's application, a consumer advocate urged.
As states gear up to spend tens of billions on subsidizing broadband network expansions, some also plan on designating public funds for "wraparound services," such as transportation and childcare for the broadband deployment workforce. Our analysis of states' broadband equity, access and deployment (BEAD) program volume 2 plans found many states saying they will prioritize subgrant applicants that provide such services. Wireless Infrastructure Association President Patrick Halley told us states that anticipate or potentially could have funds remaining from BEAD deployment activities must begin thinking about using that money, including putting it toward workforce development needs.
Missing in many spectrum policy discussions during events and conferences is a unified "spectrum voice for enterprise," technology analyst and founder of the U.K.’s Disruptive Analysis Dean Bubley wrote on LinkedIn. There should be an alliance of companies "like Boeing, John Deere, Walmart, Tesco, Marriott, Coca Cola, Shell and Johnson & Johnson that takes a collective stance on licensed, unlicensed and shared spectrum," he noted in a post this week. Such companies "are at the forefront" of wireless connectivity, communications and sensing through use of public 4G and 5G networks, private 4G and 5G and wireless in their facilities, and specialized wireless applications such as microwave links and industrial mesh, he wrote. "They collectively see the need for, and relative benefits of, different spectrum regimes, and complex landscapes of service providers and vendors." Yet they are represented only indirectly. "There is no coordinated 'Enterprise Spectrum Advocacy' group, either to give the collective voice of business users at conferences, or to respond to initiatives such as FCC, NTIA, Ofcom or EU consultations and national spectrum strategies." Technology-specific industry associations often avoid discussing multi-technology systems, he added.