Given that the firm has virtually no path forward to use its frequencies to provide 4G-type services in light (no pun intended) of the apparently unresolvable GPS interference issues, Chapter 11 gives LightSquared a way to step back and . . . → Read More: LightSquared files for Bankrupcy (Chapter 11)]]>      To the surprise of very few, LightSquared has filed for Bankruptcy protection under Chapter 11.

Given that the firm has virtually no path forward to use its frequencies to provide 4G-type services in light (no pun intended) of the apparently unresolvable GPS interference issues, Chapter 11 gives LightSquared a way to step back and see what it can salvage of their operations.

In a Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding, in most cases, the debtor remains in control of its business and operations as a “debtor in possession.” The day-to-day operations are subject to the oversight and jurisdiction of the federal court (and typically the trustee). The goals of a Chapter 11 proceeding is for the company to find the cash to emerge from bankruptcy having paid its creditors some portion of the amount due, cancelling or renegotiating some contracts, and then resuming normal operations after completing the bankruptcy.

It seems pretty clear to me that the $9B contract LightSquared entered into with Sprint will be a target for cancellation.  That will place even more pressure on Sprint to fund its Network Vision project.

A Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding is is very different from Chapter 7 proceeding.

In a Chapter 7 bankruptcy action the business ceases its regular operations.  The court-appointed trustee sells off all of the business’s assets and distributes the sale proceeds to the creditors. If there’s any money leftover after all the creditors are paid, that balance is returned to the owners/shareholders of the bankrupt company, and the company ceases to exist.

Sometimes a firm starting out on a Chapter 11 bankruptcy path can still end up shutting down.  It would not surprise me if that’s the case with LightSquared, especially if they are forced to sell off their licensed frequencies.

Time will tell.

According to PBS: The smartphone revolution comes with a . . . → Read More: Cell Tower Deaths on PBS Frontline 5/22/12]]> PBS Frontline in conjunction with ProPublica will present “Cell Tower Deaths” premiering on May 22, 2012 on PBS stations. No, this story is NOT about radio frequency emissions concerns. Rather, it focuses on the risk of building and servicing cell towers. Those risks are significant.

According to PBS:

The smartphone revolution comes with a hidden cost. A joint investigation by FRONTLINE and ProPublica explores the hazardous work of independent contractors who are building and servicing America’s expanding cellular infrastructure. While some tower climbers say they are under pressure to cut corners, layers of subcontracting make it difficult for safety inspectors to determine fault when a tower worker is killed or injured.

Why are tower workers 10-times more likely to die than regular construction workers (as claimed by PBS)?

You’ll see one reason in my February 2012 post titled, “Is Tower Building a Dirty Job?”

Take a look at the clip. About 36 second in to the Dirty Jobs clip you’ll see the owner of a tower construction company attach his safety belt hook to a tower section not yet bolted to the rest of the tower.

In my opinion, what you see at that moment is an amazing deadly lack of judgment, especially for the owner of a tower construction company. Even if he’s double tied-off to the tower, were the free-floating tower section were to fly off or drop, he would be split in two (metaphorically, if not in reality). I wonder if his poor judgment is a model for his employees? I certainly hope not. I’ll bet his Workers Comp insurance carrier hopes not, as well.

Attached to this posting are the slides I used today during my portion of the T-Mobile External Affairs Headliner Series presentation.  I’ve also attached John Pestle’s slides.

We hope you find them useful.

Kramer’s T-Mobile Headliner Series Slides Pestle’s T-Mobile Headliner Series Slides

The title of our lecture, thought up by T-Mobile, is “If the Tower Doesn’t . . . → Read More: If the Tower Doesn’t Grow, Can Municipalities Say No?]]> John Pestle of Varnum and I have been invited to speak on  this month’s T-Mobile’s National External Affairs Headliner Speaker Series.  This is a monthly conference call/webinar with hundreds of internal and external T-Mobile executives, managers, line-level staff, and outside contractors.

The title of our lecture, thought up by T-Mobile, is “If the Tower Doesn’t Grow, Can Municipalities Say No?”

The conference call is scheduled for Wednesday, April 25th at 11am PST/2pm EST.

If you’re invited, you should already have the call-in information.  If not, you’ll have to contact External Affairs to get it.

This should be fun!  I have lots of slides to share.

Heck, I’ve always wanted to be a headliner!

(Added 4/23 at 8:50 a.m. PDT: I’ve received several questions asking if non-T-Mobiler’s can sit in on the call.  The answer is that I wish I could say yes.  This is a closed webinar, so you’ll have to ask your contact at T-Mobile External Affairs whether you can join in. -jlk)

If you are a government attorney outside of California, you may still be able to receive CLE . . . → Read More: Kramer’s 6409 Webinar: Cal Bar Grants 1 hour of MCLE Credit]]> The State Bar of California has granted 1.0 hours of MCLE credit for attorneys attending Jonathan’s Sec. 6409 Webinar on April 5th. This follows the American Planning Association’s approval of Certification Maintenance credit of 1.0 hours for LAW.

If you are a government attorney outside of California, you may still be able to receive CLE credit in your jurisdiction using the Uniform Certificate of Attendance which will be issued after the webinar.

If you are with a government and wish to attend the Webinar at no charge (MCLE and CM credits are also at no charge), please visit http://Bit.ly/sec6409 for more information and to sign up. About 70% of the available webinar ports have now been taken, so please don’t delay.

Sprint has committed $15B to Apple in connection with securing rights to market the iPhone to Sprint’s subscribers (let’s not talk about the newest Apple product, the iHeatingPad). That’s a lot of cash, and I’ll bet that Apple’s contract leave virtually no room . . . → Read More: Might Apple buy Sprint?]]> Okay, it sounds wild, but let’s look at this for a bit…

Sprint has committed $15B to Apple in connection with securing rights to market the iPhone to Sprint’s subscribers (let’s not talk about the newest Apple product, the iHeatingPad). That’s a lot of cash, and I’ll bet that Apple’s contract leave virtually no room for Sprint to get out from under the weight of an 800 pound Apple.

At the same time, the $9B Sprint was expecting from LightSquared seems to drifted away. This raises very serious questions about the future of Sprint’s touted Network Vision upgrade. As a result, Sprint’s plans to shutter some 30,000 cell sites, relying on the Network Vision project to make it possible…must have dropped to ‘maybe’ status, too.

Clearwire. That word has turned into a blackhole of cash for Sprint, and Google just helped further devalue Sprint’s, ah, majority investment by dumping the Google-held shares at a 90% write off. WiMax is not Sprint’s path forward–LTE is. Clearwire may be too late to Sprint’s party.

Sprint’s Board of Directors last month vetoed Dan Hesse’s plan to buy MetroPCS (for a 30% premium, no less). That puts Dan Hesse’s future outlook at Sprint at a 30% deficit (others say that number is even worse). Will there be new blood on the head of the pin, much less new confusions over the direction the pin is pointing? Hey, how about T-Mobile buying MetroPCS?

This month, Sprint seems to have tried…and failed…to get a network sharing agreement with T-Mobile, according to the Wall Street Journal. I guess that shots a hole in my idea about a SprinT-Mobile merger.

Let’s not forget the grandest of Sprint’s Grand Experiments: Nextel. Oh, you want to forget about that? Likely Sprint does, too.

With research firm Sanford Bernstein dropping its rating on Sprint, citing that Sprint might visit BK land, the Bad News Band keeps marching on. For a thoughtful look at this particular issue, see the SeekingAlpha story of March 20th by clicking here.

Now let’s consider Apple.

Apple has attained the status of a ‘mythical creature’ that can seemingly devour all that blocks it path.

Apple has been fanatical about controlling, to the n-th degree, every element of its users experiences with all of the Apple devices. It controls the look and feel of the user experience, and via the App Store all of the applications on iPhones that have not been subject to a jailbreak, as well as iPads of various operating temperatures.

It must peeve Apple that it decided to confine its iPhone and iPad devices originally on an exclusive basis to AT&T to run on that carrier’s less-than-robust and less-than-adequate-capacity network, and one that actually gave up spectrum in the failed T-Mobile love affair.

Now, at least, Verizon subscribers have a better chance at being able to enjoy close to 3G speeds with their iSomethings.

Oh, yes, there’s that cash reserve thing for Apple. It’s sitting on more cash than the U.S. Treasury, and since last Summer it has been the most valuable company you’ll find in the U.S., and maybe anywhere in the entire galaxy.

If Apple thinks about it, it can have its cake and eat it, too: Buy Sprint, fund and complete Network Vision, deploy 4G at real 4G speed, and dump all of the Sprint phones save for Apple iSomethings. Using the software defined radios of Network Vision, Apple can actually build a wireless network that is optimized for data (but still including the voice app that defines LTE). Siri may be the first step to Skynet, albeit with a programmed sense of humor. (How much wood can a woodchuck chuck? See here.)

For Apple, a Sprint purchase would yield it monthly cash flow that can be put back into expanding and optimizing the “Apple Wireless” Network Vision. And given Sprint’s majority ownership in Clearwire (and the 106ish MHz Clearwire controls in the U.S.), Apple would have a real playground to expand data capacity and speeds.

Maybe Apple might make apply the principles of the iTunes Store to Sprint to shift the marketing of Sprint services to the faceless online monolith. Buy a phone and activate service online. Forget about pins dropping.

It just seems right for Apple to continue its quest to control everything its users see and do with the iSomethings now and in the future by controlling its own data delivery network. At the same time, it can keep feeding iSomethings to Verizon, AT&T, and any other carrier that can’t afford to be left in Apple’s iDust.

With the passing of Steve Jobs, the direct minutia-level control he seemed to exert on Apple (at least according to Isaacson) has also passed. This may free up the current management of Apple to take the leap (no, not Leap Wireless) to controlling even more of the user experience, but from a new distance, all without asking “WWSD?”

Of course, Apple might buy T-Mobile instead–or as well–and do more or less the same thing, but that’s a thought best left for a future post.

I won’t go into much detail now about the PCIA’s webinar now, other than to say three things:

1. It . . . → Read More: Quote from PCIA’s Webinar on Sec. 6409]]> I had a chance to legitimately listen in on the PCIA’s webinar last week providing their membership with the industry’s view of how the new rules are to be used, and taught to local governments.

I won’t go into much detail now about the PCIA’s webinar now, other than to say three things:

1. It was informative to hear the PCIA’s view of the strengths and weakenesses of the new law; and

2. Far more teaching than boasting occured (to the PCIA’s credit); and

3. The ‘quote of the meeting’ (relating to a local government’s limited ability to deny a Sec. 6409 project) was:

“If the tower doesn’t grow, they can’t say no!”

I’ll be sharing more from the PCIA’s webinar when I conduct mine (for local government attorneys/agencies) on April 5th. If you qualify, please sign up at http://bit.ly/sec6409.

About half the slots are now reserved, so please don’t wait until the last moment to sign up. One hour of MCLE credit has been applied for.

On February 17, 2012, Congress passed the “Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012″ (the “Act”) and sent it on to President . . . → Read More: KTLF to Conduct Sec. 6409 Teleconference on 4/5/12]]> Sec. 6409: A Landmark Change in Wireless Tower Siting
KTLF to Conduct Special Webinar on April 5th for California Local Governments
(California MCLE Application Filed For 1 Hour Credit)

On February 17, 2012, Congress passed the “Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012″ (the “Act”) and sent it on to President Obama, who signed the Act into law. The President signed the Act into law. In 145 words, Congress has changed the process for collocations and site equipment changes, and added many new loopholes in the process. Here’s what the new law says:

Sec. 6409. WIRELESS FACILITIES DEPLOYMENT (a) FACILITY MODIFICATIONS.-
(1) IN GENERAL.- Notwithstanding section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-104) or any other provision of law, a State or local government may not deny, and shall approve, any eligible facilities request for a modification of an existing wireless tower or base station that does not substantially change the physical dimensions of such tower or base station.
(2) ELIGIBLE FACILITIES REQUEST.- For purposes this subsection, the term ”eligible facilities request” means any request for modification of an existing wireless tower or base station that involves -
(A) collocation of new transmission equipment;
(B) removal of transmission equipment; or
(C) replacement of transmission equipment.
(3) APPLICABILITY OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS.- noting in paragraph (1) shall be construed to relieve the Commission from the requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act or the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

Lisa Murphy, of LeClairRyan in Norfolk, Virginia is an attorney representing wireless carriers in land use matters (read: she represents carriers before government agencies). On February 24th, Lisa and I spoke on a panel at the AGL Conference in Las Vegas, which touched on Section 6409′s potential impacts on the siting . . . → Read More: One Industry View of 6409]]>

Lisa Murphy, Esq.

Lisa Murphy, of LeClairRyan in Norfolk, Virginia is an attorney representing wireless carriers in land use matters (read: she represents carriers before government agencies). On February 24th, Lisa and I spoke on a panel at the AGL Conference in Las Vegas, which touched on Section 6409′s potential impacts on the siting process.

Not surprisingly, Lisa and I do not agree on how far 6409 will reach to change the siting process.  That said, the views expressed in her recent blog post are well worth considering in the larger context of the national discussions now beginning on how to implement this new law.

At first glance, this would appear to require all state and local governments to approve collocation requests as well as any site upgrades. What is interesting about the language Congress chose is that it left open the possibility that state and local governments could still deny applications for collocation on structures that are not “existing towers”, as was indicated in a February 22nd blog post by Jonathan Kramer, with whom I presented a program last Friday at the AGL Western Regional Wireless Conference entitled, “What We Can Teach Municipalities About Wireless”. Jonathan advises local governments on how the 1996 Telecommunications Act impacts their authority to zone and permit wireless sites and assists municipalities in their review of wireless site applications. Jonathan’s position is that collocating antennas on structures that are not “wireless towers” could still be subject to denial by municipalities depending on the applicable local ordinances and how they define the term “tower”. Our other co-presenter, Robert Jystad, who represents carriers and tower companies on all facets of site development, and I disagreed with Jonathan on the practical impact the new law would have on site development and site upgrades, but all on the panel agreed that this will no doubt lead to interesting conversations at the local and state level, between lawyers for the industry and state and local government representatives.

I disagree with Jonathan and agree with Robert that Section 6409 will likely trump state and local ordinances to the extent that they prevent modifications to “grandfathered” sites, sites that were never zoned or that pre-date current wireless tower ordinances. I also agree with Robert that Section 6409 should apply to collocation on all structures. Unfortunately, there is no record of Congress’ intent with regard to the interpretation of the phrase “existing tower”, but given its plain meaning and Congress’ explicit intent to usurp the authority of state and local governments to deny collocation and site modification requests, the term arguably applies to any structure that can support wireless antennas. In that regard, Section 6409 may also trump zoning conditions imposed on towers that limit antenna collocation and placement. One thing that Section 6409 did not do was waive any existing requirements imposed by the National Historic Preservation Act (“NHPA”) or the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (“NEPA”). As a result, to the extent that a proposed collocation or antenna modification implicates NHPA or NEPA, compliance is still required. Interestingly, Congress did not carve out or exclude from Section 6409 environmental or historical reviews that may be required under state or local law, only federal law.

Lisa makes other interesting and informative points from the industry’s view.  To read her entire blog post click here.  Look around her blog while you’re there.

Recommended.