@jbtaylor on tech

I'm a spokesman for Sprint. This personal site is where I share news stories and my views about our company, our phones and other devices. I also write a bit about tech policy, the wireless industry and life in Washington, D.C.

To ensure that Sprint's lawyers continue to support employees' use of social media, please read the disclaimers on my "About this Posterous" page.

Hurricanes and Cell Phone Networks: What to Expect After the Storm

Media_httpfarm5static_lqetf

With this morning's landfall of Hurricane Irene near North Carolina's Cape Lookout, the news coverage of the storm is gearing up. Here's what you need to understand about cell phone networks and hurricanes.

Most people don't realize it, but cell phone networks depend upon the local electric utility and the local landline phone company both being up and running.

If electricity goes out, all cell phone companies have back up batteries to operate their cell sites. Those batteries will typically last between 4-8 hours depending on the level of voice and data traffic the cell site is processing. The more traffic that goes through, the less time the battery will operate.

To supplement those back up batteries, companies often deploy back up portable diesel generators to cell sites whose back up batteries are spent.

As a further safeguard to power outages, in hurricane-prone areas, cell phone companies have spent hundreds of millions of dollars to install permanent back up diesel generators that kick in automatically if power is disrupted. These generators usually have enough fuel to last about 6-8 hours. Again, the more voice and data traffic going through the site, the less time the generator can operate before refueling is needed.

Cell phone companies also depend on the local landline phone company to connect cell sites to the publicly switched telephone network. If the landline guys are down, your cell phone will not work. It's very possible that your wireless carrier has all of its cell sites up and running, yet still may have service disruptions because the landline companies are down.

Landline companies, also depend of electricity to operate, and they also have a network of backup generators in place. Sometimes storms knock out the circuits which connect towers to the landline network. When that happens, it's the landline company's job to make the repair. Your wireless carrier can't address that issue. So if you can't use your cell phone during or in the aftermath of Irene, don't assume your wireless carrier is at fault. It could be there are issues with the landline company.

But back to the diesel generators. You need to understand that neither the landline phone company or your wireless company will send technicians to refuel these generators or to do any repair work on their respective networks until the storm has passed and it's safe for employees. No one is going to ask their employees to put their safety in jeopardy so you can make a phone call.

In some storms, where there is extreme flooding, the roads to cell sites are impassable, making it impossible to refuel generators until floodwaters subside. While we saw this across Louisiana after Hurricane Katrina. But that's unlikely to be a widespread problem with Hurricane Irene. But as long as roads are passable, wireless carriers have systems in place to make sure these diesel generators are continually refueled until local power is restored.

One thing that you don't need to worry about are hurricane winds toppling towers. They are built to withstand that. In certain big storms -- Category 4 or 5 -- winds may damage antennas on the towers, but even that is unusual.

The other thing you need to be reassured about is that the power company and the local landline company work closely with your wireless carrier to share information and quickly restore service. Meeting the needs of wireless carriers is a top priority as they work to restore power and landline service.

Lastly, I'll share an observation based on my 6 years of experience in working with media covering hurricanes and cell phone network disruptions. When it comes to hurricanes disrupting service, the wireless networks of all the carriers generally perform at roughly the same level in the immediate aftermath of a storm. If Verizon is out in one area, so is AT&T, so is T-Mobile and so is Sprint.

On more than one occasion, I've seen a competitor mislead the media into thinking otherwise. One company's favorite PR trick is to report on the level of service disruption by state. Later this morning, they will likely issue a news release claiming that 95 percent of their network in NC is up and running. (Well of course it is! There are 100 counties in NC and only 20 are in Hurricane Irene's path and most of those 20 counties are very rural. Remember, wireless companies have towers were people live. My guess is that 90 percent of North Carolinians will not be impacted by Irene at all.)

When you look closely though, you will see that the wireless networks experience outages in the same places at the same times. And all the wireless carriers and landline phone companies, along with the electric utility companies, will be working tirelessly to restore service as soon as possible.

I keep hoping that a reporter somewhere will call out our competitor for their deceptive claims, but in the 6 years I've been working with media covering these storms, it's only happened once.

With all the massive media coverage of Hurricane Irene, maybe that will change.

You Don't Go to Extra Innings if You're Losing

Media_httpfarm1static_afftp

AT&T's lobbying and PR team amuses me to no end.

Regular readers of my blog will know that when AT&T mentioned to the FCC that it was working on new economic and engineering models meant to justify its anti-competitive takeover of T-Mobile, the Commission asked that AT&T submit those new models on July 25.

AT&T did that.

But since that time, AT&T has modified what they gave the Commission no fewer than seven times. It's like AT&T's lawyers can't agree on what to tell the FCC so they keep changing it -- over and over and over again.

So when Sprint pointed that out in a letter to the FCC, an AT&T spokesperson blew a gasket in comments to media.

“The data we've submitted to the FCC, including our economic and engineering models, provide compelling proof of the enormous benefits from this deal," an AT&T spokesperson said. "Sprint doesn’t like the facts, so it’s asking the Commission to ignore them. This is yet one more sign that Sprint, lacking any data of its own to refute our filings, is flailing.”

Ha! Sprint is "flailing" because we dare to point out that AT&T has blown off an FCC deadline and has modified its homework seven times after turning it in? Sprint is "flailing" because it asked questions about the rationale behind the models and urged the Commission to do the same? Seriously?

Is that really what AT&T thinks, that FCC rules don't apply to the company and that anyone who questions it is "flailing"?

Please.

If you ask me AT&T is has been unable to convince the FCC that the T-Mobile takeover is a good idea -- that's why they offered these new economic and engineering models in the first place. (Think about it. If the original application was doing the job, why in the world would they have introduced something new this far into the regulatory review?)

My sense is that internally AT&T is now realizes what others have been saying for some time is true: the government isn't going to approve this stinker of a deal.

AT&T is like a losing baseball team in the 9th inning that doesn't realize that you don't go into extra innings unless the score is tied.

Maybe when the FCC has called that last out, and the rest of all go home, AT&T will admit that spending $3.8 billion to provide 4G to rural America makes a lot more sense for its shareholders than spending $39 to takeover T-Mobile.

Time will tell.

Sprint Statement on East Coast Earthquake

Following a 5.9 earthquake which hit the East Coast, Sprint issued the following statement to media:

Last updated at 3:16 ET, Aug. 23

We are currently experiencing an intermittent mass calling event as is expected following an incident of this nature. There are no reported physical impacts to our networks and we encourage customers to be patient, and send a text message rather than call at this time if they need to reach family and friends.

AT&T is Overdue

Media_httpfarm5static_ilrjq

Under FCC rules, when companies merge their applications are deemed complete at the time of submission. That's one reason why when AT&T submitted a new economic model four and half months into this FCC's review of the company's proposed takeover of T-Mobile, the Commission stopped its informal merger review clock.

  • AT&T could have submitted this model in the original application it gave the FCC, but it failed to do to so.
  • It also never mentioned the model in any of the "reply comments" the company filed in June and July.
  • AT&T's CEO never brought it up in his testimony before a Senate or House hearing on the T-Mobile.
  • And none of AT&T's attorneys ever mentioned it in any of their hundreds of meetings with the FCC, that is until one meeting in July.

And five days after first learning of this new economic model, the FCC decided to stop the informal merger review clock. In their letter to AT&T, the Commission's attorney makes it very clear that the FCC will take all the time it needs to review the new model and that it will give other parties all the time they need to do the same.

The FCC did make it very clear that they expected this new economic model to be submitted to the Commission by July 25.

AT&T very smartly submitted the new model at around 7:30 p.m. that night, just hours before President Obama and Speaker of the House John Boehner were to address the nation on the debt ceiling crisis matter. (That was smart on AT&T's part, because it minimized media attention.)

Yesterday, I was amused to see AT&T's PR team alert media to a Sprint FCC filing criticizing the economic model and asking the Commission to disregard it. Here's the thing -- no reporter would have ever heard about Sprint's filing had AT&T not brought it to their attention.

Yet on the same day that AT&T is calling Sprint "desperate" for pointing out that AT&T is breaking FCC rules, AT&T is still tinkering with the economic model that was due to the FCC on July 25.

In an FCC filing late yesterday, AT&T notified the FCC it was providing, "updated inputs". In still another filing yesterday, AT&T offers an "updated economic analysis" to the Commission.

So why didn't AT&T offer this economic model and its companion engineering model in April when it submitted its original application? Why, when the FCC asked for it on July 25, is AT&T still revising their submission? Why is this economic model secret? For the most part, AT&T's original application to takeover T-Mobile was an open book -- sure there were some parts redacted -- but there were actually hundreds of pages available to the public. If AT&T is now relying upon this economic model to justify this transction is in the public interest, why can't the public see it and decide for itself?

Now we have this new economic model submitted in the middle of the regulatory review and even after the FCC asks for it, AT&T is still modifying it almost a month later.

All of this makes me think that the silver bullet of this new economic model isn't convincing the FCC (or for that matter -- the DOJ) any more than the original application did.

After all, if the original application was doing the job and had convinced regulators that the T-Mobile takeover was a good deal for consumers, why would AT&T ever have brought up the idea of a new economic model as part of its effort to justify the transaction?

Seems to me, AT&T should just save us all a lot of trouble and pull the plug on this deal rather than dig the hole its stuck in any deeper. If they pay Deutshe Telekom the $6 billion break up fee and they invest the $3.8 billion they need to spend to build out 4G to 97 percent of Americans, they would achieve everything they've promised with the T-Mobile takeover, but they'd save about $30 billions of shareholders' money.

 

Thank You AT&T!

Media_httpfarm2static_bausf

So this afternoon, the phone rings and a reporter calls with questions about a regulatory filing Sprint had made at the FCC.

Remember the new economic model that AT&T gave the FCC in an attempt to justify their takeover of T-Mobile?

In plain terms, our latest filing was basically Sprint's request of the FCC to disregard AT&T's new economic model. Under FCC rules, companies that merge are expected to file complete merger applications at the beginning of the process. Anything new submitted in the middle of the process that is new, like AT&T's new economic model, isn't anything the FCC should accept, at least in our view of the Commission's process.

When it comes to FCC filings like this, only a handful of reporters are ever really interested in them, so I typically don't harass reporters or browbeat them into covering these filings. I'm always happy to answer questions, but I generally don't ask reporters to write about what are known as ex parte letters.

Apparently AT&T takes a different approach. This afternoon, their PR team decided to email out a statement to media blasting Sprint's filing. They even called us "desperate".

What's amusing to me is I'm pretty sure near all of these reporters would have ignored Sprint's filing altogether had AT&T's PR team not drawn attention to it. (Two reporters specifically told me that.)

By my count, so far Bloomberg News, Politico, The Hill, National Journal, TR Daily and Comm Daily all wrote (or are writing) and from what I can tell, media may think someone's desperate, but it's not Sprint.

After all, I'm not badgering them on a Friday afternoon to write about an FCC filing. So for that, my dear friends at AT&T, you have my thanks!

Hope you have a wonderful weekend and come back next week and help Sprint tell the story about about why a duopoly is so bad for America. (Kind of like the CEO of Forrester Research did this morning.)

Until Monday!