Top 10 Things the Wireless Industry Doesn’t Tell You about Small Cells

By Ken Schmidt, Omar Masry, and Rick Edwards

Are you a homeowner who's recently received a notice indicating that a new small cell antenna is going to be erected on or near your property? Or a lawmaker who has received one of the industry's new opinion papers about small cell antenna regulations? Or an FCC Commissioner who is considering small cell rule-making? Before you start citing from or buying into the pretty pictures and bright-eyed economic projections in the opinion papers below, you should know that these industry-commissioned studies do not tell the whole story:

    1. CTIA – Enabling the Wireless Networks of Tomorrow

    2. CTIA – How 5G Can Help Municipalities Become Vibrant Smart Cities

    2. WIA – Small Cells on Pole Facilities

What's wrong with them, you ask? Plenty. Here are the top 10 things the wireless industry doesn't tell you about small cell antennas:

#1: Despite the wireless industry's calls for collocation using shared infrastructure, in practice, carriers apply for individual small cells instead of shared infrastructure like DAS.

Small cells are standalone individual cells that can be installed separately. They're like miniature cell towers but without the tower. Like towers, a small cell requires both an antenna and equipment. Unlike towers though, the wireless industry likes to place the transmission equipment on the utility or other support structures. In effect, this means that the installation of small cells must either increase the visual blight of the pole or increase the diameter of the pole if the equipment is put inside.

Distributed Antenna Systems, in contrast, typically require less substantial infrastructure attached to each pole and can be more easily made to resemble street lights and signs (like the examples in #2). Common equipment can be placed within a centralized hub conveniently located underground or outside of view. Whereas small cells are single user installations, carriers can share DAS nodes. Multiple wireless service providers can share a DAS node, and multiple frequency bands (Carriers) can be facilitated on each node. This reduces the total number of sites needed and makes each site more attractive because most of the transmission equipment sits in a shared offsite DAS hub.

Given the benefits of DAS, you might wonder why the industry would prefer to build small cells instead of a constructing a DAS? There are 5 reasons – some of which are legitimately problematic for wireless carriers and some of which just require increased investment or time but aren't beneficial to the bottom line.

Reason 1: Each wireless provider has different objectives and may not need the same locations.

Reason 2: Each wireless provider has different deployment times and requiring DAS may force one carrier to wait if others are not ready.

Reason 3: DAS systems cost more because they're designed for the requirements of the most advanced user. So if carrier A needs feature X, even if carrier B doesn't, then the system will include feature X.

Reason 4: DAS systems require a concentrated, coordinated effort and someone to lead it.

Reason 5: Small cells are easier to deploy. DAS applications are reviewed in total – meaning that an objection to any part of the DAS application holds up the entire request.

The result: Providers submit applications for small cells even in downtown, urban core areas where DAS makes more sense. In some cases, providers apply for permits on adjacent poles where it's obvious that a DAS system would reduce visual clutter. Or even submit for new poles adjacent to other light/utility poles of similar height to avoid paying the rate schedules published by municipalities.

The map below shows the actual number of small cell application locations within the City of Houston by four different wireless entities. In a dense urban area like this – why not propose DAS nodes that all entities can share and decrease the number and impact of these facilities on the community?

The wireless industry needs to actually collocate rather than just talk about collocation. Furthermore, the FCC and cities themselves should mandate collocation when multi-carrier small cells are technologically feasible.

#2. The wireless industry associations want standardized federal, state, and local rules but don't even standardize themselves.

The wireless industry demands standardization of state and local government laws related to the erection of small cells. Their opinion papers suggest that without standardization, wireless applicants will be hit with a patchwork of wireless siting regulations. So they're putting forth a multi-pronged approach:

    1. Distributing Industry-Friendly Sample Ordinances

    2. Lobbying Heavily at State Level (see ALEC)

    3. Submitting a Petition for Relief to the FCC (see Mobilitie)

    4. Lobbying Heavily at the Federal Level

The wireless industry alleges — without providing any quantitative analysis — that most municipalities are applying costly, antiquated macrocell regulations to small cell applications. While many smaller municipalities do not have small cell policies in place at this time, that is because the wireless carriers aren't building many small cells in smaller towns and villages. But many larger municipalities (and those where 90% of small cell deployment are occurring) have begun to implement small cell regulations or will do shortly.

At the same time, the wireless industry's applicants can't even submit consistent small cell applications to their municipalities. It's blatantly hypocritical. For example, some cities report receiving location maps showing new small cells in the middle of ponds or on footbridges or in areas that are under another city or county's jurisdiction. Some applicants are not even submitting site-specific applications – instead submitting the same drawing over and over. If the wireless industry believes that standardizing the permitting process is necessary, they should be willing to standardize their own small cell antenna configurations and requests as well. All applications should provide for and include the same information so that the municipality does not have to ask multiple times for the applicant to complete the basic information. Every application should include a structural analysis wet-stamped by a state licensed engineer demonstrating that the new pole or existing pole is structurally sufficient for the current loading. Plans should include where power is coming from and how power will be metered, or better yet be subject to an unmetered wireless rate or utilize wireless smart metering

The WIA and CTIA should encourage standardized applications and requirements among their member constituents. But we believe their approach should not just consist of lobbying states, the FCC, and local governments. These organizations should work towards drafting common application requirements and best practices for their constituent members. They should then discipline or reprimand those members that do not follow such practices. Most importantly, wireless industry associations should focus on assisting member entities in developing and using shared infrastructure.

 

#3. What the industry installs looks vastly different than what they say is possible.

You may remember this article that went viral where Buzzfeed compared the fast food company photos of their food vs. what the consumer actually received.

Similarly, the wireless industry's glossy pictures show an idealized implementation that is far different from reality. Their reports showcase integrated poles with small cells contained within or Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS) nodes with an off-site equipment hub. These appear slim and attractive (relatively speaking). However, when these same wireless carriers or small cell companies submit the actual drawings and applications, the installations do not look anything like those pretty glossy pictures. Or, after they install the attractive poles, they bloat the view with additional equipment, creating a visual blight.

For example, below are photos promoted in the WIA Small Cell document. (Note these pictures are DAS nodes- not Small Cells – see #4 below)

Compare those to photos of actual small cell installations. They are nothing like the photos shown in wireless industry propaganda.

      

The reason for this is twofold: First, the industry likes to show pretty photos of DAS nodes because they are actual possibilities, even though the wireless carriers and tower companies are increasingly abandoning them. Wireless carriers are instead building small cells which usually have more equipment on the pole than DAS's central hub. Second, in many cases, the applicant omit to mention a part of the equipment that's to be mounted near or on the pole either because they're rushed or because they don't want to answer objections. The municipality is left holding the bag – inspecting each constructed small cell in order to confirm whether the applicant exceeded what they were authorized to install. Don't believe this actually happens? Look below to see what the industry submitted as a photo simulation versus what was eventually installed.

  

 

#4.  Once a site is erected, they can go back and increase its size ad nauseam provided that the changes do not exceed federal standards.

Once a small cell or DAS node is attached to a pole, the wireless carriers have the right under Section 6409(a) of the Middle-Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act to expand their equipment. In other words, once a site is built, municipalities have little power to restrict further expansions of the pole's small cell antenna equipment if the applicants stay within the limits of 6409(a). Moreover, wireless companies can request to expand an unlimited number of times. So even if a small cell starts off looking small and svelte – it could be expanded in size immediately without the municipality being able to stop the expansion. And this can happen over and over again.

A GIF showing steps in a tower being expanded
How a small cell can be expanded into a mini cell tower.

Below is a photo showing what a small cell looks like after multiple expansions.

 

#5: The industry claims that wireless development will not occur without major policy changes. But in fact, wireless development has occurred and will continue to occur even without those changes.

Historically, the industry has made the same argument over and over again: that they will not be able to deploy infrastructure if wireless siting laws aren't loosened. They suggest that most any regulation that slows down wireless deployment limits technological advancement. The industry puts out derisive blacklists of cities and counties that one or more wireless company believes make it difficult or expensive to deploy wireless infrastructure. They label these cities as technologically backward and lobby decision makers to convince them that their city will not grow with such technological restrictions. For example, see this quote from Gary Jabara of Mobilitie about municipalities or counties who aren't receptive to Mobilitie's proposals to erect 120' mini-macro small cells in their city or county.

Nonetheless, even in expensive markets with incriminating reviews like the one above, small cell deployment still occurs. Wireless companies still build towers or even find private locations for rooftop cell sites. A quick examination of Verizon or AT&T's coverage map will show very few holes in urban or suburban areas.

Furthermore, in most states (35 or more) wireless companies have access to utility poles which are subject to pole attachment rates prescribed by the federal government. These pole access rates are fairly reasonable; they are typically less than $500/year per pole. However, working with the utilities can be time-consuming, which is why the wireless industry is pushing for easier access to municipal poles. Isn't it odd that wireless carriers claim to be utilities but aren't actually using utility poles?

Even in markets like Baltimore, MD where the small cell rates are somewhat high compared to other US cities, Baltimore is still receiving small cell applications at a pace comparable to communities with closer-to-average rental rates. In other words, while the industry claims that higher rates impede technological advancement for a city, the reality is that wireless carriers still build small cell sites and many of them. While small cell deployment would likely happen quicker with revisions to regulation and cheaper access to municipal structures, make no doubt about it, the development would occur either way.

 

#6: The industry labels any request for cost reimbursement or rents by a municipality as a "money grab" all while the industry itself is generating $60 billion in profit per quarter.

We participated in a meeting between one city and members of one of the national wireless trade groups. The trade group decried the city's rent requests for access to taxpayer-funded infrastructure as a "money grab." Meanwhile, each of the wireless carriers has generated 20% profit margins or better in recent years – with at least one generating margins over 40%. The Big 4 wireless carriers alone are generating nearly $60 billion a year or more in EBITDA margin while the wireless industry combined generated $85 billion.

To argue that municipalities are money grabbing by charging a reasonable price for access to publicly-funded infrastructure by for-profit entities is disingenuous at best.

If one assumes the industry is constructing 20,000 new small cell antennas a year, even if each pole fee was $3,000/year, the wireless industry AS A WHOLE would only lose out on $60 million or less than .1% of their annual profit. Yes, you read that right,- less than 1/10th of 1 percent of their annual profit.
To put in perspective, Verizon and AT&T alone spent half that amount on lobbying alone in 2016. (see Open Secrets for AT&T and for Verizon)

These arguments seem even more duplicitous when you see the headlines put out by the wireless industry that extol the tremendous revenue opportunities from 5G and other advancements. For example:

The Qualcomm "survey," says the 5G future will support up to 22 Million Jobs and $12 trillion dollars of goods and services.

Cisco says 50 billion things will connect to the internet. Read this article on why the hype on the number of connected devices is overblown.

CTIA citing an Accenture analysis suggests that 5G stands to create 3 million jobs in the US while yielding investment of $275 billion and encouraging GDP growth of $500 billion.

Simply put, the industry has every right to attempt to negotiate with municipalities for cheaper access to taxpayer funded and maintained municipal poles. But if they insist on making it about money, we believe those same taxpayers and municipalities should be prepared to point out the hypocrisy in their claims.

 

#7: The wireless industry wants to pay less for their small cell permit applications yet still receive faster review timelines from understaffed cities and counties.

Historically, we estimate that most cities rarely received more than 50 applications for new wireless sites per year from 2000-2015. Even in the boom years of 2008-2010, cities may have received just 150 applications for new wireless facilities. Contrast that to today: we have confirmed that the City of Houston received over 700 applications in 2016 alone for small cell infrastructure.

On the one hand, the wireless industry politely (or not so politely) asks for a quick turnaround on small cell antenna applications (complaining to the FCC and state representatives when they don't get it) but then on the other begrudges municipalities for charging fees to review the applications. For those of you not entrenched in the minutia of municipal red tape, these requests for the use of infrastructure or placement of equipment are rarely identical from one application to the next. Some companies are very good at drafting thorough and complete applications, but most are not. No matter what size the project is, the items to review in each application are the same. Each site still needs to be reviewed for structural, electrical, and physical safety.

Without standardization by the industry, these applications can't be reviewed easily. This, in turn, increases the cost to the municipality for reviewing such applications. The industry wants the best of all worlds – to submit hundreds of applications simultaneously, have those applications reviewed quickly regardless of their quality, and pay as little as possible for the city to review them.

Some members of the wireless industry have suggested that cities do not need to review the applications thoroughly as the wireless entities already do so internally. For proof of how ineffectively self-regulation works in the wireless industry, look no further than the 2007 Malibu Canyon fire which was caused by utility poles that were physically overloaded with telecommunication company antennas and equipment. Apart from safety concerns, the proliferation of poorly designed small cells can also degrade historic districts and draw noise complaints from neighbors when a carrier with loud cooling fans is mounted on a pole a few feet from a bedroom window.

 

#8: The wireless industry extols the wide-ranging benefits of the Internet of Things (IOT), smart cities, and self-driving cars, but fails to mention that many of these benefits can be obtained using current LTE-based technologies.

First, let's be clear that there are absolutely many wide-ranging benefits from 5G and small cell densification. Truly mobile IOT won't happen without wireless industry investment. No other private or public entity can or will develop sufficient wireless infrastructure in the US to enable pervasive low latency communications. Without wireless industry investment, remote control of sensitive machinery or vehicles simply won't occur. Self-driving autonomous cars will be possible but without the gains in safety and efficiency that would occur from a truly smart network of connected cars.

However, you can get the benefits of low bandwidth, non-essential IOT or smart city sensors and functions without small cells at all (or at least with fewer of them). The CTIA (Accenture) study above cites the benefits using smart meters and smart lighting. These include traffic management systems, public transportation location-based tracking, real-time public parking information, and gun-shot recognition. These are all benefits to be gained from IOT. However, neither Accenture nor the wireless industry makes any attempt to quantify or distinguish which smart city and IOT initiatives require wireless industry involvement and which don't.

Furthermore, these studies don't even remotely acknowledge which IOT benefits can happen on today's LTE networks versus those that need more robust densification of sites to occur. The wireless industry leads you to believe that you need the innovations they want to sell you to get any of these advances of the future. That is inaccurate.

 

#9: While the wireless industry claims densification of small cells is needed to enable smart city and IOT functions, they don't tell you that mobile video is the primary use of small cells both now and in the future.

Cisco, in its 2017 Global Mobile Data Traffic Forecast Update, indicated that video currently makes up 60% of mobile data traffic. Moreover, they forecast that three-quarters of the world's mobile data traffic will be video by 2021. Ericsson's own study states that mobile video traffic represents 55% of LTE/5G data traffic now, but is expected to grow to 95% (yes- 95%) of mobile data traffic by 2021.

Cisco states further that 50 billion IOT devices will be connected to the internet within 5 years. However, only 1.5 billion of these devices will have cellular connectivity. We have seen forecasts from other sources that IOT mobile data use will grow to 8% of total network mobile data use by 2021. In other words, IOT functionality only drives less than 10% of the bandwidth need for small cell densification.

This raises the question: how many small cells are necessary to enable Smart City and IOT initiatives versus how many are really needed to densify networks for the next generation of fixed wireless to home and mobile video?  For further information on why mobile and fixed wireless video is so important to AT&T and Verizon, see this article on the wireless industries efforts to compete with the cable companies.

To be clear, we aren't suggesting that mobile video or fixed wireless are inconsequential. Without the revenue generated from mobile and fixed wireless video, the wireless industry would not have the incentive to invest as much Capex in their wireless networks to enable some of the truly amazing IOT and smart city use cases – especially those that require low latency or secure and ultra-reliable communication.

We are, though, suggesting that any indication by the wireless industry that 5G and small cell densification is primarily about IOT and smart city functions is a half-truth at best. The reality is that small cells densification is more about paid consumer and commercial video than it is about IOT or smart cities.

 

#10.  The industry is willing to push select information about small cells but not willing to respond to substantive questions from municipalities.

Before a recent meeting began between one city and 20+ representatives of wireless and tower companies, each side exchanged questions. The wireless industry provided 30-40 questions to the city, and the city provided a list of 15-20 questions to the industry. The city's questions were fairly straightforward:

What do the wireless providers see in terms of other cities that require rental payments?

How many small cells does the industry contemplate installing in the city over the next 5 years?

What type of infrastructure/antennas does the wireless industry expect to need on the poles?

The city responded to all the industry's questions with substantive detail. In return, only ONE company responded to the city's questions. And most of those responses were cop-outs – claims that they couldn't answer due to competitive concerns. CTIA/WIA provided a glossy presentation that discussed all of the overarching benefits of IOT and 5G, but failed, for the most part, to provide any substantive and direct answers to the questions posed by the city itself.

At the end of the day, the wireless industry wanted to poke holes in the city's effort, but was unwilling to answer important questions that would have helped the city review and revise its own policy.

How can any city reasonably be expected to plan and prepare adequately for small cell infrastructure when the wireless industry continues to provide limited substantive information?

So Where Does this Leave Us?

Municipalities need to realize that wireless investment in small cells should be encouraged and reasonably managed and that doing so requires investment in staff and resources. They can no longer put their heads in the sand because it isn't a question of if, but of when and of how many small cells are coming. Reactionary policies and moratoriums almost always rushed and neither encourage thoughtful technological expansion nor protect the constituents.

Wireless carriers, tower companies, and industry associations need to provide better substantive guidance to their member constituents including model applications and construction/design criteria. They should truly encourage shared infrastructure use especially in dense areas where multiple providers want access to existing poles. These groups and companies should also be more forthright in their marketing materials and in answering legitimate questions and concerns by public entities.

We, as advisors to landowners and municipalities, will continue to help educate the public about the small cell leases and policies. Most landowners and municipalities are underrepresented and ill-informed when it comes to responding to the wireless industry's requests and/or demands. We hope that by highlighting the top 10 things the industry doesn't tell you about small cells, that you can better decide how to accomplish your goals. That small cell deployment will not be allowed to grow unchecked and unabated by an uninformed populace.

 

Immaculate Cellular Reception: How Cell Phones Work at the Big Game

Superbowl Cell Phone Use Infographic
How your cell phone connects at the Big Game

 

Article-images-slice_02The Super Bowl LI fans streaming into NRG Stadium in Space City expect to witness a game-winning touchdown that will go viral. However, seeing it once won’t be good enough – not in this retweet world. If you turn back the calendar to July 1969, there was a different type of touchdown trending. The brains at mission control in Houston’s Johnson Space Center conversed with men on the moon nearly 239,000 miles away via a prehistoric wireless system. According to NASA, half a billion people huddled around television sets to watch a grainy live stream video of the space travelers walk on the lunar surface as if it was an end zone. They weren’t just pioneers in space exploration; they were perhaps the first to engage in genuine social media.Article-images-slice_05Not much has changed since then about a person’s innate desire to chat and share an experience while at a really cool place. And humans, especially cheering Falcons and Patriots fans on February 5th, will share nearly 20 Terabytes of Snapchats, Tweets, Instagram images, Facebook posts, and texts before, during, and after the Big Game.

HO-HUM. ANOTHER RECORD DAY FOR DATA USAGE.

Article-images-slice_09 - Copy

Tethered to their wireless devices, more than 72,000 fans inside NRG Stadium, along with several thousand enthusiastic tailgaters around the venue, are expected to surpass the nearly history-making 9 terabytes of cellular data consumed at the 2016 Super Bowl on the Levi Stadium Distributed Antenna System. They devoured another 10.1 terabytes of data while using the free stadium WIFI network. To satisfy the communication needs of this magnitude, the nation’s four major wireless carriers have been dissecting digital data since Broncos coach Kubiak was showering in Gatorade.
Before you get too excited about data use records being broken year after year at large sporting events, remember that it takes both a strong network and insatiable demand to set the record. As manufacturers continue to make dramatic advancements in their devices and wireless companies work feverishly to increase network capacity, the customer feels more empowered and demands greater amounts of data at events like these. And the nation’s carriers have no choice but to provide lightning-fast networks that will enhance the user’s social media experience. This vicious cycle will continue to generate new data records year after year which the wireless companies will not hesitate to crow about.

 

FANS EXPECT FAST, SEAMLESS CONNECTIVITY. 

WIRELESS CARRIERS MAKE SURE IT IS AVAILABLE.

Why be at the most coveted sporting event of the year if you can’t remind people that you are there? It’s a high-stakes day not just for the referees making the calls; if the carriers fail to transmit selfies, videos, Facebook likes, and Tweets faster than the speed of light, the natives will grow restless. Not to mention Facebook Live and other live video feeds, the gargantuan data-grabbers.  This could translate into a major marketing blunder, not only in the eyes of the customers but also their competitors. For them, the data relay race on Super Bowl Sunday is their wireless Super Bowl and they don’t want to be forced into taking a defensive position.

Article-images-slice_13

So how do the wireless carrier masterminds orchestrate this stellar technological achievement without a hitch? Collaboration, teamwork, along with lots of data and mega bucks. Wireless carriers like AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile, and Verizon have each invested anywhere from $10 million to $100 million to improve their cellular infrastructure. From a revenue perspective, it may not make sense to invest this much capital into their networks for this single event – but they will. Even if they could opt-out, the providers place immense value on their customers’ loyalty; the elite big four dread being roasted on social media for days if disgruntled fans complain of stuttering videos and mention them by name. So to prevent self-inflicted PR damage, the carriers will be on site to protect their brand and ensure customers are connected and content.

 

HOW THEY DO IT

For over a year, the City of Houston has been responding to requests and issuing building permits to the carriers authorizing the installation of hundreds of large and small cell sites, cell towers, temporary cell on wheels, distributed antenna systems (DAS) antennas and antenna equipment in preauthorized locations. Each site type has a very specific objective in the network. If all goes as planned, they will perform flawlessly, much to the delight of fans, carriers, and citizens of the host city. How does it all work? The image below shows how these various components interact to form what the industry refers to as a heterogeneous network or Het-Net.

Article-images-slice_17

To accommodate the data demands of outdoor users, a complex interwoven network of large (macrocell) and smaller cellular network sites (small cells and DAS) have been strategically placed along the routes leading to NRG. They have also been staged at various other venues in Greater Houston in anticipation of thousands who will be anxious to join friends and family on social media. To guarantee their jubilation won’t be short-lived, carriers have rounded up just under 100 COWS, cell sites on wheels. These trailer trucks or mobile cell sites are equipped with powerful antennas and radio transceivers to generate extra juice for the cheering fans. The data-hungry partiers who thirst for greater capacity may never even notice the massive, elaborate infrastructure that was designed especially for them. However, they will appreciate it, nonetheless. After the event, the wireless companies can simply pack up this extra capacity and move it to the next event.

As motorists approach the stadium, they are in a steady lane of traffic on highways and roadways to the big event. Along their route, macrocells on towers, rooftops, and other structures are the first to transmit and receive cell phone signals to and from mobile phones. And inevitably the traffic gets congested, which naturally means more people are in the same concentrated area using their wireless devices. This is a call to action for small cell sites; they are deployed to “densify” or increase the capacity of the overall network. A small cell is an individual cell site that is smaller in size, power and coverage radius. The macrocells, small cells, and COWS are part of an incredibly smart network; engineers are able to adjust the capacity according to the density of users. With a click of a mouse, they can redirect multiple smart antennas on multiple sites to refocus on areas of congestion.   

Article-images-slice_21

As the countdown clock ticks closer to kick-off, festive fans begin to arrive at the stadium. Some may congregate at a pregame event or join tailgaters. Still, others may gather with friends and family at a hotel or nearby park. Outside the stadium, wireless carriers have installed a “Het-Net” of rooftop and tower macrocells, small cells, COWS, and powerful Outdoor Distributed Antenna Systems. This infrastructure will provide the capacity boost for the fans. Wherever the fans are, the system must be ready and able to handle the migration and respond with precise accuracy to any media request they are making. By layering small cells and DAS nodes under the macrocells, the wireless carriers make sure that you have coverage wherever you go and capacity whenever you need it.


Article-images-slice_25

 

A BIRD’S EYE VIEW OF THE CELLULAR INFRASTRUCTURE NEAR THE STADIUM

So how and where does this infrastructure get deployed? Steel in the Air, Inc. examined its proprietary cell tower/infrastructure database to determine the amount and location of wireless infrastructure in the area of NRG Stadium.

Below is a map showing the wireless infrastructure.

NRG Stadium Cell Tower Map copy

graphIf you examine the map, you will see that the towers and rooftop sites are taller and farther apart and provide wider area coverage over the surrounding areas. Underlying the towers and rooftop macrocells are Distributed Antenna System nodes and small cells (both of which are labeled as small cells for simplicity). While this map only includes the area surrounding NRG stadium, similar tower and small cell development permeates all of Houston. To the right is a chart showing how many cell sites are within 2 miles of the Stadium and our estimate of all sites in the Houston metropolitan area.

 

IT DOESN’T END ONCE YOU ENTER THE STADIUM

Outdoors, mobile devices are connected to the cellular network. But once inside the stadium, it’s a whole new ballgame as your device connects to the stadium’s WiFi. And this is where the focus has been intensified. Stadiums built in recent years are constructed with reinforced concrete columns, tons of steel and energy-efficient windows. They, like the 1.9 million square foot NRG Stadium, are nearly impenetrable fortresses daring any wireless signal to enter. However, the nation’s wireless providers are up to the challenge of providing enough capacity to appease approximately 100,000 individuals. Getting enough fiber and bandwidth past all the barriers to end users in the centermost parts of the venue presents an even bigger obstacle. It requires installing nearly 1,300 access points throughout the venue, even placing them underneath seats. That is one access point for every 61 one fans expected to attend the game. Saturating the stadium with WiFi should prevent guests from enduring the frustration of being in a wireless dead zone. For the stadium owner, it gives them the ability to provide catered information and services to their attendees. More importantly to the wireless carriers, it saves them from having to build out a more robust (read expensive) Distributed Antenna System. In most cases, WiFi is cheaper to deploy than cellular connectivity.

Article-images-slice_37

The providers have already spent lavish amounts of money to obtain access – simply for the unique right to be there. Wireless Week states that Verizon, the official wireless provider of the Houston Texans and NRG’s major tenant, has invested $40 million on its Distributed Antenna System.

The return on the investment? According to Verizon, fans will enjoy a capacity increase of 450%. {This link has a nice photo.} AT&T matched that amount, and T-Mobile and Sprint also made significant investments to boost LTE capacity. Their goal is to provide seamless WiFi connectivity for the users, so they won’t use their normal data plans. Otherwise, there would be a data overload.
According to GeekWire, users at the golden anniversary Super Bowl last year consumed 63% more data over the WiFi network than at the prior year. And since records are made to be broken, the stats for 2017 may well eclipse Levi’s Stadium’s 10 TB record.

 

GAME PLAN
TO HANDLE THE PEAKS AND VALLEYS

Meanwhile, at the command center, hundreds of radio frequency engineers and technicians from all four wireless carriers and from the stadiums WiFi vendor will be monitoring network performance. Armed with data and experience, they can project the peak and valley data usage locations in and around NRG. And they dare not forget that many people will bring more than one device. Even before the coin toss, the nation’s major providers will have their eagle-eyes trained on computer screens. Data requests will be rising, as well as the rhythm of their hearts. Everything in and around this day is built and designed for peak usage; it is the cornerstone. It is those critical levels when a network is most vulnerable. The first moonwalker, Neil Armstrong, reflecting back on the lunar landing remarked,"…there were just a thousand things to worry about." The carriers know the feeling.
There’s nothing like a touchdown to bring fans to their feet. Simultaneously, they are seizing data as fast as they can to capture the event and send their Oscar-worthy video to family and friends. As they post either their joy or disgust on Facebook, watch an instant replay on their device, or snap celebratory selfies, those at the command center plan to keep boosting network performance. The halftime festivities are also times of intense peaks. If fans aren’t watching the activities on the field, they are active on social media, either in their seats or as they wait in a long line for refreshments of relief.

The carriers will start to breathe a collective sigh of relief after the champions hoist the Vince Lombardi Trophy, but their work isn’t quite finished. Departing fans will still be active on social media. Geekwire stated that at the 2016 Super Bowl, Facebook was the most active social app. And to think that when Houston last hosted the Super Bowl in 2004, Facebook was still three days away from being launched. And Twitter didn’t earn its wings until 2006.Article-images-slice_40

One major, continuous event during the week-long Super Bowl festivities is the NFL Experience. This massive interactive display provided by the National Football League is located a few miles away at the cavernous George R. Brown Convention Center. One of the main attractions will be personalized digital photos. Again, the four major providers have revved up WiFi’s infrastructure to provide enough capacity for thousands of attendees to share their adventures on social media. The NFL Experience is designed to allow fans to enjoy an exhilarating atmosphere with others who share the passion for football. They can even be dazzled by viewing the prized Lombardi Trophy on display. Those who lack a ticket to the Super Bowl, may use their imaginations to transport them to a front row seat inside NRG.
Once the NFL has exited NRG stage left, a steady stream of other events will converge on the stadium. So the millions of dollars invested by the providers will benefit the millions who will visit the venue and the surrounding area shortly. In fact, the Houston Livestock Show & Rodeo will begin setting up for the world’s largest rodeo event, running March 7–26. The average daily attendance is 2 million, all of whom will salute Verizon, T-Mobile, Sprint and AT&T for enriching their experiences, which they will no doubt, share on social media.

Article-images-slice_43

Is T-Mobile intentionally “throttling data” or just feeding the beast?

YouTube spokesperson said today that T-Mobile’s new BingeOn video streaming service, which it offers to subscribers for free, is interfering with and reducing the quality of YouTube video traffic.

According to The Internet Association, an Internet advocacy group, “T-Mobile’s new ‘streaming optimization’ program appears to involve throttling of all video traffic, across all data plans, regardless of network congestion.” T-Mobile justifies its new offering by stating that BingeOn uses 1/3 the amount of data, and thus is overall beneficial to congested networks. [Read more…]

T-Mobile’s BingeOn™ Lemonade Stand Satiates Shareholder Thirst

1. At heart, it’s all about network anti-congestion strategies.

We’ve got to hand it to T-Mobile – they’ve been trying hard to market their shortcomings, such as network gaps and spectrum position relative to other wireless service providers, as advantages. T-Mobile was the first of the Big Four telecoms to offer WIFI calling, connecting phone calls via local WIFI networks instead of using its cellular LTE infrastructure. In mid-November T-Mobile unveiled Binge On™, a video streaming platform that would allow its customers unlimited streaming for free. In areas where T-Mobile’s LTE service is not already up and running, the innovative company has pledged to install LTE CellSpots (femtocells) into users’ homes – also for free. [Read more…]

Why Google’s MVNO “Nova” is just what the Wireless Industry Needs

Google has signed a deal with Sprint’s CEO Masayoshi Son, and is in negotiations with T-Mobile, to launch a Mobile Virtual Network Operator (MVNO) service using Sprint and T-Mobile wireless networks. Google has stated that its new wireless service, known as “Nova”, will be “experimental” and that the end-goal is to provide best-case seamless connectivity to consumers. According to the Wall Street Journal, an unnamed source stated that Google has been working on the project for over a year, perhaps in hope that the FCC would have looked more kindly on a Sprint/ T-Mobile merger. [Read more…]

T-Mobile’s VoWiFi is more than just a band-aid. It’s strategic.

The Big Four Wireless Carriers (Verizon, AT&T, Sprint and T-Mobile) are in the business of churning customers from another service provider to their own network.  The price of monthly plans rivals a fast and reliable connection when it comes to subscriber satisfaction.  Verizon, AT&T, and most recently Sprint have broadened their service offerings by packing wireless bundles with home-based Broadband TV. [Read more…]

Cable operators are rapidly deploying Wi-Fi hotspots resulting in a decrease in WSP’s ARPU.

The driving force behind this is the monetization of video-based demand, which relies on providing consumers the best user experience – both indoors and on-the-go. The installation of Wi-Fi also opens the door to revenue-sharing opportunities through location-based advertising and related analytics and big data. [Read more…]

Uncarrier 7.0 – Yay or Nay?

T-Mobile’s solution to capacity issues (eg: too many people placing heavy demands on the network)?  Free femtocell coverage aka “Uncarrier 7.0”.  Recently, T-Mobile has been receiving a deluge of customer complaints, particularly regarding in-building (indoor) service.   Without the low frequency spectrun that other wireless providers have, T-Mobile’s indoor network is at a disadvantage.   To compensate, its offering femtocells coverage to its user-base (free Wi-Fi calling).   During the past year or so,  John Legere, CEO of T-Mobile has been exceptionally successful at adding subscribers to the network, yet deployment hasn’t kept pace, resulting in overall performance gaps. To put a fine point on this – out of the 1,000+ client leads Steel in the Air has had this year from landowners who’ve received inquiries from wireless carriers regarding new site builds,  only a handful have been from T-Mobile.  This doesn’t necessarily mean that T-Mobile cell sites will be decommissioned; it just means that Wi-Fi offloading will be an even more prominent player in the T-Mobile network as opposed to AT&T and Verizon.

 

https://www.yahoo.com/tech/t-mobile-free-wifi-calls-on-your-iphone-and-your-own-97178506734.html

Are U.S. carriers throttling Wi-Fi offload until after next year’s spectrum auction?

Are U.S. carriers holding out on Wi-Fi offloading until after next year’s spectrum auction?

WiFi offloading is when carriers use WiFi hotspots as an accessory to support the demand placed on cellular networks.  Internationally, top-tier carriers are relying heavily on Wi-Fi hotspots to augment skyrocketing mobile device usage, especially in Asia, due to limited spectrum and infrastructure. [Read more…]