US Has Poor Cellular Video

Opensignal recently published a report that looks around the world at the quality of cellular video. Video has become a key part of the cellular experience as people are using cellphones for entertainment, and since social media and advertising have migrated to video.

The use of cellular video is exploding. Netflix reports that 25% of its total streaming worldwide is sent to mobile devices. The new Disney+ app that was just launched got over 3 million downloads of their cellular app in just the first 24 hours. The Internet Advertising Bureau says that 62% of video advertisements are being seen on cellphones. Social media sites that are video-heavy like Instagram and Tik-Tok are growing rapidly.

The pressure on cellular networks to deliver high-quality video is growing. Ericcson recently estimated that video will grow to be almost 75% of all cellular traffic by 2024, up from 60% today. Look back five years, and video was a relatively small component of cellular traffic. To some extent, US carriers have contributed to the issue. T-Mobile includes Netflix in some of its plans; Sprint includes Hulu or Amazon Prime; Verizon just started bundling Disney+ with cellular plans; and AT&T offers premium movie services like HBO or Starz with premium plans.

The quality of US video was ranked 68 out of 100 countries, the equivalent of an F grade. That places our wireless video experience far behind other industrialized countries and puts the US in the same category as a lot of countries from Africa, and South and Central America. One of the most interesting statistics about US video watching is that 38% of users watch video at home using a cellular connection rather than their WiFi connection. This also says a lot about the poor quality of broadband connections in many US homes.

Interestingly, the ranking of video quality is not directly correlated with cellular data speeds. For example, South Korea has the fastest cellular networks but ranked 21st in video quality. Canada has the third-fastest cellular speeds and was ranked 22nd in video quality. The video quality rankings are instead based upon measurable metrics like picture quality, video loading times, and stall rates. These factors together define the quality of the video experience.

One of the reasons that US video quality was rated so low is that the US cellular carriers transmit video at the lowest compression possible to save on network bandwidth. The Opensignal report speculates that the primary culprit for poor US video quality is the lack of cellular spectrum. US cellular carriers are now starting to implement new spectrum bands into phones and there are more auctions for mid-range spectrum coming next year. But it takes 3-4 years to fully integrate new spectrum since it takes time for the cellular carriers to upgrade cell sites and even longer for handsets using a new spectrum to widely penetrate the market.

Only six countries got an excellent rating for video quality – Norway, Czech Republic, Austria, Denmark, Hungary, and the Netherlands. Meanwhile, the US is bracketed on the list between Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan.

Interestingly, the early versions of 5G won’t necessarily improve video quality. The best example of this is South Korea that already has millions of customers using what is touted as 5G phones. The country is still ranked 21st in terms of video quality. Cellular carriers treat cellular traffic differently than other data, and it’s often the video delivery platform that is contributing to video problems.

The major fixes to the US cellular networks are at least a few years away for most of the country. The introduction of more small cells, the implementation of more spectrum, and the eventual introduction of the 5G features from the 5G specifications will contribute to a better US cellular video experience. However, with the volume of US cellular broadband volumes doubling every two years, the chances are that the US video rating will drop more before improving significantly. The network engineers at the US cellular companies face an almost unsolvable problem of maintaining network quality while dealing with unprecedented growth.

Seattle Tackles MDU Broadband

TR007241

Our industry takes it as general wisdom that urban areas have better broadband than rural areas, and as a general premise it’s true. But within urban areas, the segment of the community with the widest range of broadband coverage are apartment buildings. I think you can go to every big city and find some apartments with gigabit speeds while other apartment buildings have little or no broadband.

There are several reasons for the wide variance in broadband coverage. First, landlords have always had a say about what carriers they will allow in their buildings. I’ve seen numerous cases of landlords that include slow broadband into the rent and don’t let faster ISPs into their building. Some buildings don’t have broadband due to what can only be described as redlining where ISPs avoided poor or troubled neighborhoods. Finally, some older apartment buildings are expensive to rewire due to the way they were originally constructed.

The City of Seattle is tackling the issue in an interesting way. Over half of the living units in the city are in MDU’s (multi-dwelling units), meaning apartments, condominiums, and townhouses. In 2019 almost 81% of new units built in the city are in MDUs. The city views the ability of MDU tenants to have the same broadband quality and options as single family homes as a digital equity issue.

The city has been gathering facts about MDU broadband for several years and came to understand the wide variance of broadband in different buildings. They found that MDUs routinely don’t have the same broadband options as nearby single-family homes. The city conducted a survey in 2017 that found that 95% of MDU tenants have access to broadband of at least 25/3 Mbps. However, the survey found that few tenants in the city have a competitive choice between multiple ISPs at speeds of 100 Mbps or faster. The tenants who have the choice of multiple fast ISPs were the most satisfied with their broadband. The city concluded from the survey that choice was just as important to MDU tenants as broadband speeds.

Probably the most important finding of Seattle’s research is that there is a wide variance among landlords in terms of understanding their broadband options. They found landlords who know very little about broadband up to landlords that have sophisticated tech plans. The city found that many landlords have relied on the advice from ISPs – which clearly can be self-serving and not in the benefit of landlords and tenants.

The city concluded that one way that they could help improve MDU broadband was by helping to educate landlords. The Seattle Office of Cable Communications launched an initiative they call B4B – Build for Broadband. Their goal is to create awareness of the importance of broadband for landlords and to provide educational content for the many landlords that can’t afford telecom planners and consultants.

The city has undertaken an initiative to provide information about broadband to landlords. They’ve started a series of webinars covering topics of interest to landlords. I should disclose that I helped the city with a webinar that compared wired and wireless technologies. The city is also gathering other information for landlords on their website.

This initiative makes a lot of sense in Seattle since it has one of the highest percentages of MDU residents in the country. However, any city that has MDUs could consider something similar. I’ve done broadband feasibility studies for cities that have between 20 to 50 MDU complexes, and inevitably they are as widely disparate as the ones in Seattle. There usually are a few that have little or no broadband and a few that have been wired with fiber and that offer gigabit broadband.

Cities are often surprised by the wide variance in broadband availability and speeds at different MDUs. Cities are also often surprised to hear that even if they find a broadband solution for improving broadband for single-family homes and businesses, that the solution will not necessarily apply to MDUs. I know of many fiber overbuilders that skip past MDUs due to the cost of rewiring the buildings, the reluctance of landlords to let them in, or the marketing challenge of keeping up with tenant churn.

It’s not hard for smaller cities to take an inventory of the state of broadband in their MDU community. It’s normally as simple as to visit each apartment complex to find out what’s available to tenants. While smaller cities are not going to undertake an educational process with the scope of Seattle’s, cities can assist MDUs with poor broadband to find a better solution. Sometimes it’s as easy as helping to match competitive ISPs and landlords. It might mean getting landlords talking to each other. One thing is for sure – no solutions can be found until the problems are identified.

Taking Advantage of the $9B 5G Fund

The FCC will be moving forward with the $9 billion 5G Fund – a new use of the Universal Service Fund – that will be providing money to expand cellular coverage to the many remote places in the US where 4G cell coverage is still spotty or nonexistent. There is a bit of urgency to this effort since the big cellular companies all want to shut down 3G within a year or two. This money will be made available to cellular carriers, but the funding still opens up possible benefits for other carriers and ISPs.

Some of this funding is likely to go towards extending fiber into rural places to reach cell towers, and that opens up the idea of fiber sharing. There are still a lot of places in the country that don’t have adequate fiber backhaul – the data pipes that bring traffic to and from the big hubs for the Internet. In the last six months alone I’ve worked with three different rural projects where lack of backhaul was a major issue. Nobody can consider building broadband networks in rural communities if the new networks can’t be connected to the web.

By definition, the 5G Fund is going to extend into rural places. If the FCC was maximizing the use of federal grant funds, they would demand that any fiber built with this new fund would be available to others at reasonable rates. This was one of the major provisions of the middle mile networks built a decade ago with stimulus funding. I know of many examples where those middle mile routes are providing backhaul today for rural fixed wireless and fiber networks. Unfortunately, I don’t see any such provisions being discussed in the 5G Fund – which is not surprising. I’m sure the big cellular companies have told the FCC that making them share fiber with others would be an inconvenience, so this idea doesn’t seem to be included in the 5G Fund plan.

I think there is a window of opportunity to partner with wireless carriers to build new fiber jointly. The cellular carriers can get their portion of new fiber funded from the 5G Fund and a partner can pick up new fiber at a fraction of the cost of building the route alone. This could be the simplest form of partnership where each party owns some pairs in a joint fiber.

This is worth considering for anybody already thinking about building rural fiber. The new routes don’t have to be backhaul fiber and could instead be a rural route that is part of a county-wide build-out or fiber being built by an electric cooperative. If somebody is considering building fiber into an area that has poor cellular coverage, the chances are that there will be 5G Fund money coming to that same area.

It has always been challenging to create these kinds of partnerships with AT&T and Verizon, although I am aware of some such partnerships. Both Sprint and T-Mobile have less rural coverage than the other carriers and might be more amenable to considering partnerships – but they might be consumed by the possibility of their merger.

There are a lot of other cellular carriers. The CTIA, the trade association for the larger cellular carriers, has thirty members that are facility-based cellular providers. The Competitive Carriers Association (CCA) has over one hundred members.

Ideally, a deal can be made to share fiber before the reverse auction for the 5G Fund. Any carrier that has a partner for a given route will have a bidding advantage since cost-sharing with a partner will lower the cost of building new fiber. It might be possible to find partnerships after the auction, but there could be restrictions on the newly built assets as part of the grants – we don’t know yet.

My recommendation is that if you are already planning to build rural fiber that you look around to see if one of the cellular carriers might be interested in serving the same area. Both parties can benefit through a cost-sharing partnership – but the real winners are rural customers that gain access to better cellular service and better broadband.

Maximizing the Benefits of Fiber

I recently talked to Deb Socia who is now the CEO of the Enterprise Center in Chattanooga, Tennessee. Anybody who knows Deb knows that she’s worked for decades to find solutions for digital inclusion and was also the founder of Next Century Cities. It’s not a surprise to see her now as the head of the Enterprise Center, which is a non-profit that is working to leverage the city’s fiber network to benefit a number of sectors of the community.

The organization has three primary areas of focus. First, the Enterprise Center helped to establish and now is at the forefront of promoting Chattanooga’s Innovation District. This is a section of town that is focused on promoting new business start-ups and to create collaboration between creative thinkers, entrepreneurs, the local University community, and technology gurus. This effort involves numerous initiatives such as a high-tech business incubator program, co-working space for new businesses, and a host of services to help new businesses succeed.

The second area of emphasis is the Smart City Collaborative. This currently involves a 1.5-mile section of the city that is fully-sensored with a wide range of smart devices. The area is a testbed for smart city applications and has attracted institutions like the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the National Science Foundation, U.S. Ignite, and the University of Southern California, along with numerous vendors and entrepreneurs. The collaboration has a number of goals. One is to test new smart city ideas in a field environment that is wired with gigabit fiber. The collaboration also concentrates on smart city applications that don’t violate citizen privacy. The long-term goal of the Enterprise Center is to spread the best of the smart city applications to the rest of Chattanooga.

Finally, Deb returned to her roots and is promoting digital equity through various programs such as Tech Goes Home – something she worked on in her past. Chattanooga is known for having fiber available everywhere, but like most cities still has many households that can’t afford broadband. The digital equity effort works to provide the three necessary components of digital inclusion – connectivity, computer hardware, and the training needed to use broadband. Deb reports that the demand for computer training is far exceeding predictions.

All of this is made possible to some degree by the fact that Chattanooga has a municipal broadband network. Deb says that City-owned ISP is key for her success. That can be seen in other communities like Wilson, North Carolina where the city has leveraged broadband to make big strides in revitalizing downtown, attracting businesses, invigorating the arts, and helping to solve the digital divide. Eugene, Oregon has leveraged gigabit fiber to create an economic boom by enabling a sizable community of software developers.

I’ve always been mystified why more cities don’t follow the lead of cities like Chattanooga, Wilson, and Eugene. There are now a few hundred communities that have built municipal fiber networks and many of them have not taken the next step past using the network to provide faster broadband. Faster and better broadband is important and can alone bring big benefits to a City such as increased incomes from citizens working from home, or from citizens levering broadband to start new businesses. The Enterprise Center has made the bold statement that broadband alone is not nearly enough, and a City has to expend effort to get the full benefits out of a broadband network.

Even more puzzling is that it’s rare to see this same effort in cities that have broadband networks provided by commercial ISPs. There are now many cities served by Google Fiber or other fiber overbuilders. I can’t think of anything that stops such cities from duplicating the efforts undertaken by the Enterprise Center and its many partners in the City.

I think cities that don’t tackle these issues are missing a huge opportunity. My guess is that twenty years from now the City of Chattanooga will be able to point to major employers that got their start through the business incubator effort. The city is likely to have benefitted hugely by keeping some of its brightest entrepreneurs at home rather than have them move to the handful of big tech centers around the country. It’s almost impossible to calculate the gigantic community benefit that can come from helping low-income households join the digital world. In a decade Chattanooga will start seeing young professionals and entrepreneurs that were aided by the efforts made today to solve the digital divide.

Modems versus Routers

I have to admit that today’s blog is the result of one of my minor pet peeves – I find myself wincing a bit whenever I hear somebody interchange the words modem and router. That’s easy enough to do since today there are a lot of devices in the world that include both a modem and a router. But for somebody who’s been around since the birth of broadband, there is a big distinction. Today’s blog is also a bit nostalgic as I recalled the many kinds of broadband I’ve used during my life.

Modems. A modem is a device that connects a user to an ISP. Before there were ISPs, a modem made a data connection between two points. Modems are specific to the technology being used to make the connection.

In the picture accompanying this blog is an acoustic coupler, which is a modem that makes a data connection using the acoustic signals from an analog telephone. I used a 300 baud modem (which communicated at 300 bps – bits per second) around 1980 at Southwestern Bell when programming in basic. The modem allowed me to connect my telephone to a company mainframe modem and ‘type’ directly into programs stored on the mainframe.

Modems grew faster over time and by the 1990s we could communicate with a dial-up ISP. The first such modem I recalled using communicated at 28.8 kbps (28,800 bits per second). The technology was eventually upgraded to 56 kbps.

Around 2000, I upgraded to a 1 Mbps DSL modem from Verizon. This was a device that sat next to an existing telephone jack. If I recall, this first modem used ADSL technology. The type of DSL matters, because a customer upgrading to a different variety of DSL, such as VDSL2, has to swap to the appropriate modem.

In 2006 I was lucky enough to live in a neighborhood that was getting Verizon FiOS on fiber and I upgraded to 30 Mbps service. The modem for fiber is called an ONT (Optical Network Terminal) and was attached to the outside of my house. Verizon at the time was using BPON technology. A customer would have to swap ONTs to upgrade to newer fiber technologies like GPON.

Today I use broadband from Charter, delivered over a hybrid coaxial network. Cable modems use the DOCSIS standards developed by CableLabs. I have a 135 Mbps connection that is delivered using a DOCSIS 3.0 modem. If I want to upgrade to faster broadband, I’d have to swap to a DOCSIS 3.1 modem – the newest technology on the Charter network.

Routers. A router allows a broadband connection to be split to connect to multiple devices. Modern routers also contain other functions such as the ability to create a firewall or the ability to create a VPN connection.

The most common kind of router in homes is a WiFi router that can connect multiple devices to a single broadband connection. My first WiFi router came with my Verizon FiOS service. It was a single WiFi device intended to serve the whole home. Unfortunately, my house at the time was built in the 1940s and had plaster walls with metal lathing, which created a complete barrier to WiFi signals. Soon after I figured out the limitations on the WiFi I bought my first Ethernet router and used it to string broadband connections using cat 5 cables to other parts of the house. It’s probably good that I was single at the time because I had wires running all over the house!

Today it’s common for an ISP to combine the modem (which talks to the ISP network) and the router (which talks to the devices in the home) into a single device. I’ve always advised clients to not combine the modem and the WiFi router because if you want to upgrade only one of those two functions you have to replace the device. With separate devices, an ISP can upgrade just one function. That’s going to become an issue soon for many ISPs when customers start asking the ISPs to provide WiFi 6 modems.

Some ISPs go beyond a simple modem and router. For example, most Comcast broadband service to single-family homes provide a WiFi router for the home and a second WiFi router that broadcasts to nearby customers outside the home. These dual routers allow Comcast to claim to have millions of public WiFi hotspots.  Many of my clients are now installing networked router systems for customers where multiple routers share the same network. These network systems can provide strong WiFi throughout a home, with the advantage that the same passwords are usable at each router.

Spectrum and Weather Forecasting

There is currently a brewing controversy over the allocation of various radio frequencies for 5G that could have a negative impact on weather forecasting. Weather forecasting has become extremely sophisticated and relies on masses of data gathered from weather satellites and other data-gathering devices. The masses of data, along with modern supercomputers and data center computing have significantly improved the ability to predict future weather.

There are numerous bands of spectrum used in weather forecasting. For an in-depth look at the complexity of the spectrum needs, see this guide for spectrum used for meteorology from the World Meteorological Association and the ITU (warning: highly technical document). It goes into depth about the various bands of frequency that are used for various weather gathering purposes.

The current controversy involves the use of spectrum at 23.8 GHz. It turns out this frequency has the characteristic that it is absorbed by water vapor. This makes it valuable for meteorological purposes since it can be used by devices in satellites called sounders to measure the different levels of water vapor in the air. This is one of the most valuable tools in the weather data gathering system, particularly over oceans where there are few other measuring devices.

The sounders work by emitting the 23.8 GHz spectrum and measuring the return signals, working similarly to radar. The process of measuring water vapor is extremely sensitive to interference because the return signals to the sounders are extremely faint. The weather community is worried that even a little bit of interference will kill the utility of this valuable tool.

In May 2019 the FCC raised over $2.7 billion through the auction of spectrum in the 24 GHz and 28 GHz bands, including spectrum sitting directly adjacent to the 23.8 GHz band. Before the auction, the administrator of NASA warned the FCC that leakage from the newly auctioned spectrum could degrade the use of the 23.8 GHz spectrum. NOAA (the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) told Congress the same thing. NOAA said that a 30% degradation in the accuracy of the sounders could worsen the ability to predict where hurricanes will land by two or three days – something that would have a huge negative dollar cost.

It’s a convenient fiction in the wireless world that radios stay within the exact frequency bands they are supposed to use. However, in real life radios often stray out-of-band for various reasons and cause interference in adjacent frequency bands. This happens up and down the radio spectrum, but in this case, scientists say that even a little interference could make it difficult or impossible to read the faint signals that are read by the sounders to measure water vapor.

Both NASA and NOAA have proposed that the FCC lower the chances of interference by lowering the power level and the ‘noise’ that comes from cross-band interference. They asked for a limit of -42 decibel watts of noise for nearby spectrum bands while the FCC is recommending -20 decibel watts. The lower the decibel watts number, the less the interference. The World Radiocommunications Conference has a current recommendation of -33 decibel watts, which is scheduled to lower to -39 decibel watts in 2027.

The carriers that bought the spectrum, through filings made by the CTIA, say that the frequencies would be a lot less valuable to them if they have to lower power to meet the noise levels recommended by NASA and NOAA, and the FCC is siding with the carriers.

This is just the first of many frequency battles we’re going to see as the thirst for more 5G spectrum invades spectrum that has been used for scientific or military purposes. The FCC often tries to mitigate interference by moving existing spectrum users to some different frequency band in order to accommodate the best use of spectrum. However, in this case, the weather satellites must use 23.8 GHz because that’s where nature has set the interference with water vapor.

It’s hard not to side with the weather scientists. Everybody, including the carriers, will suffer great harm if the ability to predict hurricanes is degraded. When it comes to something as vital as being able to predict hurricanes, we need to use common sense and caution rather than give the 5G companies every possible slice of available spectrum. It’s not hard to predict that the carriers will fight hard to keep this spectrum even if there is too much interference. Unfortunately, the current FCC is granting the carriers everything on their wish list – expect more of this in 2020.

My Telecom Predictions for 2020

Technical Resource Shortage. There is already a growing shortage of fiber resources that includes engineers, construction companies, and fiber consultants. The upcoming $16.4 billion RDOF program will create a resource shortage in 2020 for those who can help companies seek grant funding. Once the grants are awarded, the size of the program will add stress to the resources needed to build networks. Companies that don’t line up their experts early might find themselves without help.

Broadband Price Increases Are Now Routine. The biggest ISPs including Comcast, AT&T, Charter, Verizon, and others have now made it clear that they will be raising broadband rates annually – at least in the majority of their markets where they don’t face real competition. Anybody building a business plan for a new market has to decide how to predict future rate increases.

5G Cellphones Will Prove to be a Joke. At least for 2020, almost everybody who spends extra for a 5G handset is going to be disappointed. The companies deploying millimeter wave spectrum are doing it in limited downtown areas of major cities – and the speeds are only faster outdoors. Carriers implementing low frequencies like 600 MHz and 850 MHz admit that service won’t be any faster than 4G LTE.

FCC Will Eliminate the Last Vestiges of Regulation. The FCC has been actively tearing down regulations affecting the biggest ISPs. The agency has completely deregulated broadband and killed net neutrality. They’re in the process of gutting the use of unbundled network elements They’ve preempted local authority on the placement of wireless infrastructure. Since there is a chance that the administration will change at the end of the year, the FCC will kill as many regulations as they can during 2020.

T-Mobile / Sprint Merger Will be Approved. While there is a lot of opposition to the merger, the reality is that Sprint is not particularly viable as a cellular carrier. The biggest cable companies are entering the cellular markets and will push down urban cellular prices. Dish Networks seems to have a viable plan to become a major carrier if the T-Mobile/Sprint merger is approved.

Courts Will Chip Away at the 5G Pole Attachment Rules. The authority of the FCC to override local policy for the placement of cellular infrastructure boils down to a state versus federal jurisdiction battle. The courts have already said that cellular companies must heed some historic preservation and aesthetics rules. Ultimately the courts will weaken, but not kill the FCC rules, giving cellular carriers more rights than they historically had, but not full carte blanche authority to place devices anywhere.

State Net Neutrality Will Be Almost as Powerful as Federal Policy. It will be hard for the big ISPs to comply with net neutrality rules in California and Washington without complying everywhere. It’s also likely that more states will pass similar net neutrality rules

The RDOF Grants Will Fund Poor Broadband Solutions. Unfortunately, the $16.4 billion RDOF grants will award some grant money to technologies that are not future-proofed. Since the grants can be awarded for technologies that deliver broadband speeds of as little as 25/3 Mbps, we’ll see money go to technology solutions that might be obsolete before the end of the RDOF implementation period.

Cellular Networks Will Continue to Degrade. The nationwide use of cellular data is currently doubling every two years, which is greatly stressing cellular network quality. The cellular carriers need to implement massive numbers of small cells, add new spectrum, and fully implement 5G to keep up with the growing demand. Since those solutions will take 3 – 7 years to implement, cellular network quality is going to get a lot worse before the problems are solved.

Household Bandwidth Usage Will Continue to Grow. OpenVault says the average home now uses 275 gigabytes of data per month, with cord cutting households using 520 GB per month. Opensignal and Cisco both report that household broadband usage continues to grow rapidly, at about 21% annually, or a doubling every 4 years. There is nothing to suggest this growth will be slowing.

Congress Mandates Cable TV Pricing Disclosure

In a surprise move by Congress, the recent appropriations bill that funds the government through September 2020 includes a new law that mandates that cable companies tell their customers the truth about cable pricing. Labeled as the Television Viewer Protection Act of 2019 the bipartisan law places new requirements on companies selling cable TV.

The bill was originally sponsored by Representative Mike Doyle (D-PA). In the original version of the bill, the cable providers had to advertise the full monthly cost of service. Full cost meant including such things as hidden fees, equipment charges, and any taxes or surcharges added to a cable bill. The bill also requires disclosure about the details of any promotional pricing and cable companies should make it clear when the promotion ends.

That final version of the law softened the disclosure requirement and cable companies can still promote deceptive special pricing. However, a cable provider must notify customers buying a new plan within 24-hours “by phone, in person, online, or by other reasonable means” of the full cost of buying the service. Customers then have 24-hours from the time the cable company sends the notice to cancel service with no penalty. The cynic in me believes that cable companies will find ways to meet the law and still be deceptive – such as putting the pricing notice at the end of a long email message that customers aren’t likely to read. However, if cable providers follow the spirit of the law, it should end the practice of customers seeing bills that are much higher than what they expect. Another provision of the new law is that cable providers can no longer charge for equipment they don’t provide – something that Frontier was accused of during the last year.

Interestingly, the law only affects cable TV pricing and not pricing for broadband or telephone service. I hope the cable companies don’t somehow shift hidden fees to these other services. The law also seems to ignore the fact that a majority of traditional cable customers buy a bundle of multiple services. The cable companies have never come clean with customers about how bundling discounts work, leaving the companies with the flexibility to penalize customers for withdrawing any one of the bundled services. I suspect the cable companies will somehow not come clean about bundling prices for cable TV, even with this new law.

The bill gives cable companies six months to implement the new practices. Oddly, the bill also allows the FCC to extend the starting date up to six additional months. It’s hard to picture any reason for the FCC to extend the deadline other than kowtowing to the cable companies.

From a consumer perspective, this law is long overdue. For the last five years, the cable companies have disguised much of their rate increases by folding them into hidden fees rather than into advertised rates. A few months ago, Consumer Reports reported that the hidden fees for the big cable companies range from $22.96 monthly for AT&T U-verse to $43.79 for Verizon FiOS.

The timing of this new law is interesting from a market perspective. We’re now seeing cord-cutting at a record pace, and forcing the cable companies to be honest with customers is likely to accelerate cord cutting even more.

Smaller cable providers that compete against the big companies have always been torn about how to advertise their prices. Some match the practices of the big cable companies and have hidden fees and advertise deceptively low prices. Others have taken the high road and advertise the full price of service while pointing out that their competitor’s pricing is deceptive. These new rules make it easier for smaller cable companies to disclose their full prices and to challenge the big cable companies to do the same.

The new law also includes several other changes for the cable industry. The law allows the 5-year sunset provision that has allowed satellite TV providers to import distant local network stations for rural customers. The companies have always argued that the cost of negotiating with every local station across the country is astronomical and that they would allow network channels to go dark rather than seek deals with every local network affiliate in the country. I guess we’ll soon find out if that’s true when the satellite providers can no longer bring in network stations from out of the market. I would hope that a satellite provider that decides not to deliver network affiliates like ABC, CBS, FOX, or NBC will lower the price of the cable package to reflect undelivered channels.

Finally, the bill includes a requirement that local stations and programmers negotiate programming contracts in good faith. That’s an idea that has been bouncing around for a while in response to local stations negotiating in large groups instead of individually. In the last year, we have seen programming go dark at a record pace when stations and programmers are deadlocked in negotiations. We’ll have to wait a while to see if this stronger language gives the FCC any real leverage to end retransmission disputes.

The Government’s Role in 5G

It’s been really interesting to watch how much the federal government talks about 5G technology. I’ve not seen anything else like this in my adult lifetime, although there may have been times in the past, such as the advent of railroads or electricity that the federal government took such an active interest in new technology.

The government gets involved to some extent in many new technologies, but with 5G there has been a steady and persistent dialog about how 5G is vital to our economic future, and pronouncements of why we must implement 5G as quickly as possible to stay ahead of the rest of the world. As I’ve watched the way the government talks about 5G, it makes me wonder why we never heard the same urgency for breakthroughs like personal computers, the world wide web, or understanding the human genome.

A good example of what I’m talking about came in November when a bipartisan group of senators sent a letter to Robert O’Brien, the current national security advisor asking for a better government strategy for 5G. They claimed they are concerned that China is winning the 5G war, which they believe creates a security threat for the US.

I’ve been hearing about the 5G war for a few years now and I still don’t know what it means. 5G is ultimately a broadband technology. I can’t figure out how the US is harmed if China gets better broadband. If there is now a 5G war, then why hasn’t there been a fiber-to-the-home war? I saw recently where China passed us in the number of last-mile fiber connections, and there wasn’t a peep about it out of Congress.

The market reality of 5G looks a lot different than the rhetoric from the politicians. Cellular carriers worldwide are crowing about 5G deployment, yet those deployments contain none of the key technology that defines 5G performance. There is no frequency slicing. There is no bonding together of multiple frequencies to create larger data pipes. There is no massive expansion of the number of connections that can be made at a website. Cellphones can’t yet connect to multiple cell sites. What we have instead, for now, are new frequencies layered on top of 4G LTE.

New frequency does not equal 5G. The millimeter wave spectrum is faster in the handful of neighborhoods where people can go outside in the winter to use it. The carriers admit that the 600 MHz and the850 MHz spectrum being deployed won’t result in faster speeds than 4G LTE.

AT&T recently announced a significant cut in its capital budget for 2020 – something that is hard to imagine if there is an urgent need to deploy 5G faster than the Chinese. The reality is that the big cellular companies are struggling to find a business case for 5G. They are starting to realize that a lot of people aren’t willing to pay more for faster cellular data. Some of their other big uses for 5G such as using it for self-driving cars, or for supplanting WiFi as the technology to handle IoT devices are still years into the future and may never come to fruition.

The other Washington DC talking point is that 5G networks will be 100 times faster than today’s cellular data. That may be true in the tiny downtown urban areas that get saturated with outdoor millimeter wave broadband. I have a hard time thinking this is anything more than a gimmick that will never become widespread. A dense fiber network is needed to support the millimeter wave transmitters, and it’s hard to think that the revenues from millimeter wave broadband will ever justify building the needed network.

It’s starting to look like the real reason for the talk about a 5G war is to drum up sympathy for the big cellular carriers as a justification for big government giveaways. The FCC has been generous to the cellular carriers in the last few years. They killed broadband regulation and net neutrality. They gave the cellphone carriers the right to place cellular equipment anywhere in the public right-of-way. Just recently the FCC created a 5G Fund to give $9 billion to the cellular carriers to expand their networks in rural areas. The FCC has been freeing up every imaginable band of spectrum for 5G.

That sounds like that ought to be enough, but since these giveaways are behind us, I wonder why I’m still hearing the rhetoric, such as the recent letter from Senators. Are we going to be seeing other big giveaways? Is the government perhaps going to give billions of dollars to build urban and suburban 5G networks so that we don’t lose the 5G war? I’m at a loss to think of anything else that the government could do to push 5G beyond what they’ve already done.

There doesn’t seem to be anything that the US government can do in terms of developing 5G technology faster. Corporations all over the world are furiously working to implement the many new aspects of the 5G specifications. Many of the corporations doing the key research are not even American, and labs at Nokia and several Chinese companies are among the leaders in developing the core equipment used to transmit 5G. It’s hard to think there is anything the US government could do to help us win the 5G war from a technical perspective.

I must admit that I’m starting to cringe when I hear federal officials talk about the 5G war. It makes me believe that there more big handouts coming to the cellular carriers. I hate the idea of the federal government handing billions to these big carriers while we continue to have lousy rural broadband – which is largely the fault of these same big carriers. My response to these Senators is that we shouldn’t be trying to win the 5G war if that means losing the landline broadband war.

The Battle over DNS

One of the hottest topics in the computer world this year is controversy over DNS-over-HTTPS (or DoH). DNS stands for domain name system and is the protocol that acts like the telephone directory for the web. The DNS system translates domain names, such as ‘https://www.google.com/’ to an IP address so that the request can be routed over the Internet. Every device connected to the Internet has a unique IP address, and the DNS system helps to establish a 2-way connection across the web, in this example, between a Google server and a user.

DNS is one of the oldest protocols on the web and hasn’t changed much since it was created. Domain name requests are sent in plain text to an ISP which then converts the domain name to an IP address and routes the user’s request to connect.

DoH takes the ISP out of the picture since web browsers will initiate the DSN lookup. Currently, DoH is built into a few browsers such as Mozilla Firefox and Google Chrome, and most of the major browsers have plans to enable DoH. A web brower will use the DoH protocol to encrypt a domain name request and send it to a third party DNS database provider for routing.

Proponents of DoH cite several advantages of the new routing protocol. First, DoH stops ISPs from recording browser history – one of the biggest privacy concerns, since an ISP knows every web site visited. A user’s browser history reveals a huge amount of information. Of course, some new entity will take over the role of DNS routing and could also create a browser history. Mozilla is using Cloudflare to route DNS, and Cloudflare says that it deletes all browser history every day. This same promise of privacy may not be true for all DoH providers and users might want to think twice before choosing somebody like Google to initiate DoH and collect browser history.

DoH also stops man-in-the-middle attacks. That’s where somebody intercepts a DNS request and sends the user to a different web site. There have been cases in the past where viruses rerouted user traffic to specific web sites to stimulate web usage. Other schemes have rerouted traffic to fake banking or shopping sites to try to coax credit card or account numbers out of users.

DoH also makes it harder for ISPs to engage in targeted advertising. This is something the big ISPs have been eyeing as they try to chip away at the huge advertising revenues earned by Google and Facebook. One of the most interesting benefits of DoH is that it makes it harder for authoritarian regimes to track the web activity of dissidents.

DNS-over-HTTPS is not the only alternate DNS routing protocol and web companies are also exploring DNS over TLS (DoT), which uses the transport layer security protocol on the web to encrypt the DNS request. Over time, the safest alternate protocol will likely prevail, but the goal of both of these new protocols is to encrypt the DNS process to make it safer, with a secondary goal of improving privacy.

Many big ISPs clearly hate the alternate DNS routing schemes since they lose access to customer browsing history. Vice recently reported about a big lobbying effort by Comcast to convince lawmakers to disallow DoH. The protocol is causing controversy in Great Britain where ISPs are required to block pornography unless a user specifically allows it. For now, Mozilla does not offer DoH in Great Britain, but there will be no easy way to stop it after it gets built into the core Android browser and other ubiquitous platforms. Corporate IT staff are also worried about DoH because it makes it more difficult to track employees visiting social media during work hours or browsing dangerous parts of the dark web.

There will be more public discussion about DoH routing as more web browsers include the protocol. Before the dust settles there is likely to be an ongoing tug-of-war between big ISPs, big web companies, and users as the public demands privacy.