Wireless Is Different, Should Be Subject to Unique Net Neutrality Rules, Say AT&T, CTIA
The FCC should not impose net neutrality rules on mobile similar to those for fixed broadband, CTIA said in reply comments filed in docket 14-28 Monday at the FCC. Net neutrality rules and the likelihood that wireless will be subject to a tougher standard than in the 2010 rules was a key topic last week at CTIA and the Competitive Carriers Association meetings in Las Vegas (CD Sept 11 p1). CCA is not filing reply comments, a spokeswoman said.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
The record in the net neutrality proceeding “explains in great depth how mobile broadband presents unique technical challenges that demand far more complex and aggressive network management than fixed broadband requires,” CTIA said (http://bit.ly/1tWZaos). The association said wireless carriers must subject customers to “differentiated treatment on a constant basis” to maintain the integrity of their networks and also argued that wireless is “fiercely competitive” with carriers “introducing ever more innovative mobile broadband product offerings."
CTIA said a single fiber strand can carry 1,000 times more bits per second than a 10 GHz radio channel. “Extensive evidence has been submitted explaining the distinct challenges of mobility -- limited spectrum resources, varying numbers of users at any one time, and each user’s constantly changing channel conditions, to name a few,” CTIA said. Managing networks just becomes more difficult as the volume of data increases at an “exponential” clip, the group said.
AT&T, meanwhile, dedicates more than a fourth of its 111-page reply comments to arguments that mobile is different and is flourishing under a light-handed regulatory regime. The wireless market is more competitive than it was in 2010, AT&T said. “Hardly a day goes by without the announcement of new, better service plan options, lower prices, and special promotions, while providers are pouring resources into their networks as they race to improve data speeds and network capacity,” the carrier argues.
Mobile Future also weighed in, saying there’s “wide agreement” among commenters that additional regulation for mobile is unnecessary. “As the FCC concluded in 2010, mobile is fundamentally different from wireline networks,” the group said in reply comments (http://bit.ly/1m6pSc3). “On a basic engineering level, mobile broadband networks are unique technically and differ from their wireline counterparts.”
Mobile Future also released a report Friday, by Rysavy Research, arguing that wireless is different and should face different net neutrality rules (http://bit.ly/YMiOGV). “Subjecting wireless broadband networks to rules that dictate how wired broadband networks are designed and operated would be a mistake given the inherent capacity limitations of radio spectrum and the resulting differences in how mobile networks are designed and managed,” the paper said.
Broadband for America, meanwhile, is not staking out a position on whether wireless should be treated differently by the FCC than wireline, former Sen. John Sununu, the group’s honorary co-chair, said on a call with reporters Monday. The main thrust of the call was that the FCC should not reclassify broadband as a Title II service.
Reclassification would be “very intrusive and burdensome” and impose rules designed for the “monopoly provider of the 1930s, ‘40s and ‘50s” in a broadband age, Sununu said. If the rules give regulators power “they're going to use that power,” he said. “There’s no problem to be solved,” said Bryan Tramont of Wilkinson Barker, general counsel to the coalition. “Our thrust here is to preserve the Title I approach that the commission has taken thus far.”
"The light regulatory touch has worked,” said Grant Seiffert, president of the Telecommunications Industry Association, also on the call Monday. “We are concerned about future investment in wireless networks” and don’t want to see the same rules imposed on mobile, Seiffert said.
Sununu was asked if there’s a “face-saving approach” or compromise that could still keep the FCC from imposing net neutrality rules mostly opposed by industry. “I'm sorry we don’t have a psychic on the line,” he said. Sununu said FCC probably will address paid peering agreements, but shouldn’t do so as part of the net neutrality rulemaking. Peering agreements are necessary so companies “can bring their traffic to the Internet backbone in a way that’s organized and disciplined and efficient,” he said. “I know that the commissioners understand that as well.”
The paid peering discussion “muddles this debate a little bit and conflates issues that really should not be conflated,” Tramont said.(hbuskirk@warren-news.com)