strand consult us eu wireless ecosystem 2016 final for ......in its new report “the wireless...

StrandReports.com 2

Executive summary In 2014 Strand Consult released a reporti “The EU’s Broadband and Telecom Policy is not working. Europe is falling further behind the US.” It observed that the EU, which had accounted for a third of the world’s capital investment in telecom infrastructure in the preceding decade, had fallen to less than one-fifth. Meanwhile per capita, America’s private telecom providers invested at double the rate of providers in the EU. In fact, the US maintained global leadership in infrastructure investment, accounting for about a quarter of the world’s total from 2003-2013, even during the financial crisis. In its new report “The Wireless Ecosystem, US vs. EU”, Strand Consult notes that in spite of lip service from European leaders on the importance of the telecom sector and their promise to improve the climate for investment, the EU has fallen further behind the US. Significantly, this report finds that by the end of 2016, some two-thirds of all American mobile subscriptions will be 4G/LTE, but at best, only 30 percent of those in the EU. Moreover the US has multiple mobile operators with pan-American national networks with near complete 4G coverage. No European operator can make a similar claim about its network in the EU. Strand Consult concludes that at least until recently, the key reason for the difference between the US and EU is that US policy supported the necessary market development to allow operators to gain economies of scale and thus invest in next generation networks. This investment friendly environment was triggered in part by a limited regulatory framework for broadband, buttressed by the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which declared that the Internet should be “free and unfettered from state and federal regulation.”ii From 1996 through 2014, a staggering $1.4 trillion was invested in private telecom infrastructure, culminating with a record $78 billion in 2014,iii half of which came from two providers, AT&T and Verizon. The corresponding number for the EU in 2014 is $48 billion.iv Strand Consult also observes how US infrastructure investment fertilizes the larger Internet ecosystem of mobile apps and devices, supporting global leadership of America’s internet companies and exports of digital goods and services, two-thirds of which go to Europe.v

Image 1: Infrastructure Investment per Capita by Private Telecom, Cable, Wireless, and Satellite Providers. Source: Capital expenditure (Capex) data from Infonetics. Population data from US Census and Eurostat.

StrandReports.com 3

In 2003, the EU’s leaders did not expect such a downturn. They thought that having a continental agreement on the GSM standard and six European phone manufacturers accounting for half of the world’s phones would ensure EU leadership in the mobile wireless sector. Today, there are no European phone makers, and 4G/LTE has long eclipsed 3G. EU leaders and regulators unwittingly destroyed investment in the telecom sector with a misguided approach to control end-users prices through a combination of access regulation and merger approvals with extreme remedies.vi Without the necessary fuel of develop infrastructure investment, the other parts of the wireless ecosystem have been slow to. Outside of Angry Birds and Spotify, Americans know of no European Internet companies whereas the leading apps which Europeans use are American-made. Of the world’s top 15 Internet companies, eleven are American and have a market capitalization of $2 trillion.vii The European Commission has recognized that its approach has failed and in response, launched at effort to create a “Digital Single Market” (DSM) as a way to shore up digital economic growth for European enterprises and jobs for EU citizens.viii Progress toward the DSM for each of the member states is tracked on the Digital Scoreboard.ix Connectivity is the first goal of the DSM, and the Commission notes that progress is mixed, with some countries such as Denmark meeting or exceeding targets and others, such as Italy, falling short.x On balance, the EU is short $106 billion in telecom investment to meet the €216 billion necessary to achieve the target. xi Not only has telecom infrastructure investment fallen below the necessary levels, it has stayed flat from 2013-2015.xii There is no single source of good information for comparison for the US and EU. The following brief table based on government/regulatory reports and leading consultancy report shows the state of key indicators for the wireless ecosystem for the US and EU.

StrandReports.com 4

TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT (billions of dollars) 2013 2014

USxiv 75 78

EUxv 48 48

High Speed Broadband 30 Mbps or more (Percentage of All Households)xvi

US 84 89

EUxvii 62 68

High Speed Broadband 30 Mbps or more (Percentage of Rural Households)xviii

US 45 89

EU 18 68

High Speed Broadband 100 Mbps or more (Percentage of All Households)xix

US 60 80

EUxx 44 55

Number of 4G/LTE Subscriptions (and as a percentage of all mobile network subscriptions)xxi

2013 2014 2015* 2016*

US 90,057,933 27.94%

143,998,732 43.33%

184,456,314 52.89%

229,320,755 63.22%

EU 16,042,817 2.86%

66,629,710 11.06%

131,928,566 20.65%

200,633,052 30.53%

StrandReports.com 5

In spite of the stunning success that favors the US approach to the wireless ecosystem, a

group of regulatory advocates inexplicably claim that the US would be better off taking the

“European” approach in which Internet access is regulated the same way as the telephone

network. Their efforts, along with the support of President Obamaxxvii

, led the Federal

Communications Commission (FCC) to pass the net neutrality or Open Internet Order

(OIO)xxviii

by a split 3-2 vote on February 26, 2015.

Now, just over a year later, the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals is expected to

rule on the legality of the FCC’s Order (also called net neutrality rules), whether the FCC has

the authority to regulate the Internet, and whether wireless services can be subject to such

rules.xxix

Overturning the rules would be a boon the future of the wireless ecosystem in the

US and would restore the prudent regulatory approach which Congress proscribed and which

has worked well to date.

Net neutrality rules are already enshrined in European law, but an activist regulator from

outside the EU is attempting to write implementation guidelines with the help of one of

Google’s key advocates.xxx Naturally many are concerned that extreme net neutrality

provisions would outlaw the business models that could challenge Google’s monopoly in the online and mobile advertising industry and Netflix in streaming video. Even European

regulators recognize that net neutrality rules could “throttle innovation”.xxxi They know that

achieving innovations in 5G wireless networks and the Internet of Things require smart

networks and competitive business models that die hard net neutrality advocates are against.

As such, overturning the court decision is important in the US just as it is in the EU.

Regulators need legislative clarity so that they do not overregulate a complex system. Should

the FCC be overturned in court, it’s possible that a bipartisan agreement in Congress could be

struck to enact some consensus open Internet principles.

This report follows on Strand Consult’s work in 2014. It reviews the most recent official data

from the FCC, European Commission, and other prominent sources on international

broadband comparisons, infrastructure investment, wireless competition, coverage, and

subscriptions.

StrandReports.com 6

The Wireless Ecosystem

The FCC’s annual wireless competition reports have been tracking the sector for some time.

The 18th Annual Mobile Wireless Competition report published at the end of 2015 observes:

Mobile wireless services are an essential part of Americans’ daily lives. Mobile handsets are no longer used only for voice communication, email, social networking, and web browsing, but are increasingly used as hubs for entertainment, mobile commerce, home automation, and to connect other personal devices such as smart watches, fitness trackers, and health monitors. Further, mobile wireless serves a critical role in public safety, enabling users to summon lifesaving help, receive timely alerts, and access pertinent information. These developments have made mobile wireless one of the most important sectors in the national economy.xxxii

The report describes competition in the mobile wireless market through pricing innovation,

non-price factors such as coverage, service, quality, and speed; and other technologies and

networks.

While the FCC admits that “consumers view various mobile voice, messaging, and data services at interchangeable with one another” and that competition in the mobile industry has led “to lower prices and higher quality for American consumers, and producing innovation and investment in wireless networks, devices, and services,”xxxiii

the FCC refuses to deem the

market the mobile wireless market “competitive.” This is probably for political reasons because it would undermine the FCC’s Democratic Commissioners’ calls for increased

regulation on the mobile operators.

The FCC issues these reports at the behest of Congress which also created the statutory

classification of “commercial mobile services” to ensure a single entity for policy formation, competition, and regulation. Part of the legal basis for the lawsuit against the FCC and its

imposition of rules on the mobile wireless sector rests on Congress’s intention for mobile wireless to be free from regulatory meddling.

In any event, the FCC notes that there are four nationwide mobile networks; dozens of

regional carriers including US Cellular (which also deploys 4G/LTE service among its 23 states

and 4.8 million customers), C Spire and nTelos; and numerous mobile virtual network

operators (MNVOS), the largest of which is TracFone with 24 million subscribers as of 2014 –

a user base larger than the populations of 22 of the EU member states.

StrandReports.com 7

Wireless Capital Investment Among the many reasons why a company invests is to make its enterprise more productive. While reasons for a firm to invest may be obvious, creating the proper framework for the industry to invest overall is important in a macroeconomic sense. It is largely through increased productivity that wages increase and society experiences greater economic growth. The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), the think tank behind much of the economic policy promoted during the Bill Clinton boom years, has tracked what it calls “America’s Investment Heroes” whose “capital spending is helping to raise productivity and wages across the economy.”xxxiv Among the many industries in the annual PPI study, just three comprise 71 percent of the investment: cable/telecom; energy; and IT/Internet, some $120 billion annually. PPI is concerned that slowing investment in other sectors is a drag on the larger economy, particularly the healthcare sector where few breakthroughs have been observed in recent years, something PPI links to regulation on the sector. The report warns of a similar dismal future for cable and telecom following the FCC actions, already noting an investment decline in 2015. When so many industries underinvest, it would seem that regulators should encourage the few that are investing, or at least not deter them. As such, PPI prescribes that “regulation out of the way of investment and innovation.” The FCC report provides a helpful breakdown of the mobile wireless investment, undertaken primarily to increase coverage and speed of mobile broadband networks.xxxv From 2010-2014, it notes a sizeable and increasing level of investment for the four major operators. A similar breakdown of leading European operators was not available for comparison, but the conclusion is flat investment for the same period, but at a lower than ideal level.

StrandReports.com 8

However, the FCC’s 2015 Open Internet Order marked a turn for the worse for investment, and evidence of diminishing expenditure in the telecom sector has been observed since the

FCC decision. In addition to PPI, economist Hal Singer notes some subtle but important shifts,

including a 0.4 percent decline for the sector from 2014 through 2015.xxxvi

Notably, AT&T’s investment declined 10 percent year over year, but significant drops were also reported by

CenturyLink, Charter, Cablevision, and US Cellular, the very providers that the FCC seeks to

challenge the incumbents.xxxvii

The leading US carriers AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile and Sprint are all investing at a high rate

versus their service revenues. While 10-11 percent is considered an acceptable rate of

investment, these carriers invest at almost twice that level.xxxviii

Moreover, even the nominal

amount they invest is significant. But interestingly enough, the American operators are small

from a global perspective. AT&T and Verizon would only appear as numbers 17 and 18

among the world’s major telecom groups. The world’s largest carriers by subscribers are based in China and India, and even the European telcos Vodafone, Telefonica, Telenor,

Orange and Deutsche-Telekom are larger than the American.

It is unfortunate for the Europeans that regulators and competition authorities will not allow

the European operators to get the scale so that they can invest. Denmark is a case in point

when the second and third operator attempted a merger in September 2015.xxxix

These

From FCC’s 18th Wireless Competition Report

StrandReports.com 9

operators have significant overlapping operating costs and both are unprofitable. The operators wanted to expand their network and create greater competition to the market leader, incumbent TDC which has 51% market share and 95% of the EBITDA profits. But the merger was rebuffed by DG Comp, the European competition authorities, fearing a price increase in the market with the lowest mobile prices in Europe. Soon after the merger was deterred, one by one, all the Danish operators raised prices, a self-defeating prophesy for the seemingly omnipotent competition authorities. But Danish consumers ultimately lose because they are deprived of further next generation networks and market competition—which ultimately delivers greater value. The winner in this scuttled affair is, of course, the incumbent TDC which can continue to enjoy its market position and has further weakened competitors. With such a state of affairs, it is not difficult to understand why European carriers frequently focus their investments outside the EU. For example Deutsche Telekom’s T-Mobile in the US and Vodafone which was a major shareholder in Verizon until 2014.

Next Generation Wireless Coverage In both the US and EU enormous regulatory attention is focused on the deployment of wireline infrastructure--the issue is micromanaged down to the bit stream. It bears mention that for all the regulatory energy spent in the EU to create “competition,” 75 percent of Europeans still get their broadband from DSL. This means that Europeans are still using the same copper networks from decades ago. To be sure, DSL is a scalable technology and now achieves speeds of 100 Mbps or more. But it highlights the divergence of the choices between the EU’s regulating access to a single infrastructure (unbundling the local loop) versus the US approach allowing different infrastructure to compete (DSL vs. Cable). This point is easier to understand when looking at the broadband maps of the US and EU, the latter which just has pockets of high-speed networks. There are vast swaths of major countries such as France and Italy which have no high-speed Internet at all. The following image appeared in the FCC’s fifth International Report.

StrandReports.com 10

From FCC’s 5th International Broadband Report


But mobile wireless technologies can provide greater coverage at a lesser cost. It is for that reason that multiple single companies can build national networks across the USA, provider the right policies and frameworks are in place. There are multiple operators in the US with continental, pan-American 4G/LTE networks, but there is not a single operator that can similarly do that for the EU. Instead regulators must impose Soviet-style price controls for roaming rather than creating a single market for spectrum so that operators could build networks at scale.xl

Maps from Operators’ website, see endnote xli

The US enjoyed a first mover advantage for 4G in part because the country completed the transfer of its “digital dividend” spectrum in 2009. The EU hoped to complete its transfer by 2012, but the process is still ongoing, hobbled by political and regulatory issues in a number of countries. The most recent 4G/LTE coverage of the EU reported by the European Commission is 59 percent for 2013 and 79 percent for 2014. xlii


The FCC also highlights the high rates of 4G/LTE coverage in urban and rural America.


While smartphone and tablet usage in the US in 2015 combined to account for 60 percent of

digital media time spentxliii, the FCC does not consider 4G a broadband technology, which

delivers between 10-20 Mbps, though the Organization for Economic Cooperation and

Development’s (OECD) definition is 256 kb/s.xliv In fact, the FCC upped the definition of

broadband twice within the period of two months, first to 10 mbps and then to 25 mbps, so

that 4G would be excluded,xlv thereby obviating the need to consider wireless in its

broadband competition reporting.xlvi


Conclusion

The Internet makes up 6% of the US economy.xlvii

The US generated over $350 billion in the

export of digital services in 2014.xlviii

This does not take into account the multitude of small

and medium-sized businesses that would have never existed without the Internet. Both

American and European app developers want to launch in the US because they immediately

get access to a major market of installed devices.

Comparable figures for the EU are difficult to find, but if the EU could achieve its Digital

Single Market goals, it could realize the needed investment and generate an additional €415

billion annually in new economic growth from digital goods and services.xlix

The commercial Internet may have been born on a desktop, but it is increasingly mobile. In

fact, for most of the people in the world, it will only be mobile in the future. This shift calls

into the question the value of regulating the mobile wireless ecosystem in all of its complexity

and dynamism with monopoly utility regulation from the 19th century railroad era.

It may be that up to one-third of Americans are wireless-only broadband users. It is a logical,

rational choice for consumers, as the usability of mobile devices far exceed that of the

desktops. However, this is a fact that concerns American regulators, especially because from

a legal perspective they do not have the same power over wireless technologies as they do

over wireline. At the same time, they do not want wireless to be considered a broadband

technology because they would have to accept the fact that wireless is a substitute for

wireline broadband. This would mean that their claims for the necessity to regulate wireline

broadband are also baseless.

Regulatory advocates like to claim that mobile is more expensive than wireline, and therefore

needs to be regulated so consumers can be “protected.” However, there is one simple

reason to demonstrate why mobile wireless does not need to be regulated – consumers get

ever more data at an ever better value. The FCC itself demonstrates this with the following

chart.l



From 2010 to 2014, American consumers increased their data consumption 4.5 times while

prices fell. Twelve years ago, it took a week and $1,200 to download the equivalent of a CD

of music. Today, providers offer music streaming services on which consumers can instantly

listen to millions of songs on their mobile phones for free.

In spite of the FCC’s reports which describe a competitive wireless industry with a bright future, the FCC has chosen to regress by regulating wireless like the centuries-old telephone

network. Speaking on the one year anniversary of the FCC rules Commissioner Ajit Pai, one of

the dissenters to the Order observed, “For 20 years, America stood at the forefront of the digital economy. The Internet was born here. Its development over the past two decades

has proven that it is the greatest free-market innovation in history.”li But a year after the

Order, the Commissioner noted declining broadband investment, particularly from small

providers, many which have put expansion plans and network upgrades on hold. Large

providers have “flatlined” in infrastructure investment and instead directed capital to other

industries or countries.lii

The EU, having fallen so far behind, sees one last chance to get ahead again in the global

race to next generation 5G networks, thinking back to its success in the glory days of 3G. But

as the the EU struggles just get the continent covered in 4G, it’s not likely they will be able to

pull it off for 5G. GSMA and EU officials attempted to raise the issue at a press conference at

the 2016 Mobile World Congress.liii However, the conference revealed the EU’s net neutrality

rules are at cross-purposes to deploying the 5G network, which is essentially a prioritized

network technology.

It does not serve the US that the EU continues to fall behind. Europe is the leading

destination for America’s digital exports, and as American-made apps evolve for better and


faster phones and networks, app makers want to run their state-of-the-art apps in the EU too. As such, other regions need to move forward together. If the DC Circuit were to strike down the Open Internet rules on wireless, it would be a boon to 5G development in both the US and the EU. Perhaps more importantly, it would improve the services their citizens receive and have far-reaching societal implications. The lesson learned to promote economic growth should be simple and the same for both regions: do not let misguided regulations imperil investment and innovation. i “The EU’s Broadband and Telecom Policy Is Not Working. Europe Is Falling Further behind the US,” Strand Consult, accessed March 29, 2016, http://strandreports.com/sw6007.asp. ii “Telecommunications Act of 1996, United States Congress. February 8, 1996, https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-104publ104/pdf/PLAW-104publ104.pdf. iii “Historical Broadband Provider Capex | USTelecom,” US Telecom - The Broadband Association, 2016, https://www.ustelecom.org/broadband-industry-stats/investment/historical-broadband-provider-capex. iv Digital Single Market. Connectivity. European Commission. Broadband Market Developments 2015. http://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/document.cfm?action=display&doc_id=9925 v Digital Trade in US and Global Economies, Part 1 United States International Trade Commission. July 2013. Accessed April 4, 2016, https://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/pub4415.pdf. viSee Strand Consult research notes “Lack of telecom investments will create the next EU crisis. Action from the Commission is too little, too late, and too slow” http://www.strandconsult.dk/sw6488.asp; EU Commission’s schizophrenic telecom policy: hurts investments, costs jobs, and pulls EU's digital development even further back compared to other parts of the world http://www.strandreports.com/sw6543.asp“EU Commission’s Schizophrenic Telecom Policy: Hurts Investments, Costs Jobs, and Pulls EU’s Digital Development Even Further Back Compared to Other Parts of the World” http://www.strandreports.com/sw6543.asp.“The EU Competition Authority’s Role in the Failed Telenor Telia Merger in Denmark and the Consequences for Europe - A Post Mortem,” http://www.strandreports.com/sw6568.asp. “The FT-ETNO Summit Gave Answers to Questions from the Telecom Industry and Investors - Vestager Determines the Speed and Direction of EU Telecoms While Ansip and Oettinger Are Just Side Shows to Promote the Illusion of the Digital Single Market.,” http://www.strandreports.com/sw6716.asp. “EU Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager Is a Gifted Woman Who Should Spend Some Time to Get Acquainted with How the Telecommunications Market Works,”http://www.strandreports.com/sw6525.asp. “Telecom Operators, Regulators and Competition Authorities Need to Update Their Knowledge of What Creates Competition in the Market. Here Are Four Factors That Should Be Considered When Regulators Define Consolidation Remedies.” http://strandreports.com/sw6318.asp. vi “Telecom Operators, Regulators and Competition Authorities Need to Update Their Knowledge of What Creates Competition in the Market. Here Are Four Factors That Should Be Considered When Regulators Define Consolidation Remedies.” http://strandreports.com/sw6318.asp. vii Liz Gannes, “Mary Meeker’s 2015 Internet Trends (Slides),” Re/code, May 27, 2015, http://recode.net/2015/05/27/mary-meekers-2015-internet-trends-slides/. viii http://ec.europa.eu/priorities/digital-single-market_en ix https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/digital-scoreboard x https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/desi xi “Five Priorities for Achieving Europe’s Digital Single Market.” Boston Consulting Group. October 2015. https://etno.eu/datas/publications/studies/FINAL_BCG-Five-Priorities-Europes-Digital-Single-Market-Oct-2015.pdf xii http://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/document.cfm?action=display&doc_id=9925 xiv 18th Mobile Wireless Competition Report. FCC, December 23, 2015. https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-15-1487A1_Rcd.pdf. xv Digital Single Market. Connectivity. European Commission. Broadband Market Developments 2015. http://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/document.cfm?action=display&doc_id=9925 xvi “International Broadband Data Report (Fifth),” Federal Communications Commission, January 29, 2016, https://www.fcc.gov/reports-research/reports/international-broadband-data-reports/international-broadband-data-


report-3. Note that US numbers are based on 25 Mpbs, which the FCC believes to be a fair comparison to the EU at 30 Mbps. xvii European Commission notes that in 2013 21% of subscriptions were 30-99 Mbps; in 2014, the number rose to 26%. xviii “International Broadband Data Report (Fifth),” Federal Communications Commission, January 29, 2016, https://www.fcc.gov/reports-research/reports/international-broadband-data-reports/international-broadband-data-report-3. Note that US numbers are based on 25 Mpbs, which the FCC believes to be a fair comparison to the EU at 30 Mbps. xix The FCC does not provide values but only charts. These numbers represent what can best be interpreted from the chart. Note also that US numbers are based on 25 Mpbs, which the FCC believes to be a fair comparison to the EU at 30 Mbps.“International Broadband Data Report (Fifth),” Federal Communications Commission, January 29, 2016, https://www.fcc.gov/reports-research/reports/international-broadband-data-reports/international-broadband-data-report-3. xx European Commission notes that in 2013 5% of subscriptions were 100 Mbps or higher; in 2014, the number rose to 9%. xxi Mobile Subscription Forecast, 2015-2020. Jan 28, 2016 Ovum. http://www.ovum.com/media_coverage/zdnet-4g-lte-subscriptions-reach-1b-ovum/ xxvii Gautham Nagesh and Brody Mullins, “Net Neutrality: How White House Thwarted FCC Chief,” Wall Street Journal, February 5, 2015, sec. US, http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-white-house-thwarted-fcc-chief-on-internet-rules-1423097522. xxviii “FCC Releases Open Internet Order | Federal Communications Commission” (FCC, March 12, 2015), https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-releas es-open-internet-order. xxix http://www.strandreports.com/sw6726.asp xxx Why did BEREC invite Google’s top net neutrality lobbyist to write the telecom rules? Strand Consult. http://www.strandreports.com/sw6801.asp xxxi European Telecommunications Network Operators' Association, “Sebastien Soriano: Speech ETNO-MLEX 2015,” https://www.etno.eu/home/news-room/pictures-videos/etno-mlex-regulatory-summit-2015-videos/sebastien-soriano- xxxii “18th Mobile Wireless Competition Report,” Federal Communications Commission, December 23, 2015, https://www.fcc.gov/document/18th-mobile-wireless-competition-report. Page 3 xxxiii Ibid. Page 100 xxxiv Michael Mandel, “U.S. Investment Heroes of 2015: Why Innovation Drives Investment,” Progressive Policy Institute, September 2015, http://www.progressivepolicy.org/issues/economy/u-s-investment-heroes-of-2015-why-innovation-drives-investment/. xxxv “Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554.” Page 69 xxxvi “ISP Capital Expenditures in the Title II Era (4Q Edition),” Hal Singer, February 24, 2016, https://haljsinger.wordpress.com/2016/02/24/isp-capital-expenditures-in-the-title-ii-era-4q-edition/. xxxvii It is also important to note that Sprint changed business model such that it decided to capitalize and lease handsets, rather than buy and keep in inventory before selling with a subsidy, resulting in favorable result for 2015. xxxviii “Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554.” Page 67

xxxix http://www.strandreports.com/sw6656.asp

xl See Strand Consult research notes on roaming http://www.strandreports.com/sw6568.asp and http://www.strandreports.com/sw6656.asp xli Verizon http://vzwmap.verizonwireless.com/dotcom/coveragelocator/default.aspx?zip; AT&T https://www.att.com/maps/wireless-coverage.html; T-Mobile http://www.t-mobile.com/coverage-map.html, Sprint https://coverage.sprint.com/IMPACT.jsp xlii Implementation of the EU regulatory framework for electronic communication – 2015. European Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/document.cfm?doc_id=9991 xliii Kate Dreyer, “Mobile Internet Usage Skyrockets in Past 4 Years to Overtake Desktop as Most Used Digital Platform,” comScore, Inc, April 13, 2015, http://www.comscore.com/Insights/Blog/Mobile-Internet-Usage-Skyrockets-in-Past-4-Years-to-Overtake-Desktop-as-Most-Used-Digital-Platform. xliv OECD, “Fixed Broadband Subscriptions” (OECD Publishing, June 25, 2014), http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/science-and-technology/fixed-broadband-subscriptions/indicator/english_902e48ee-en. xlv Roslyn Layton, “New FCC Broadband Threshold Misses Innovation Opportunity,” Tech Policy Daily, January 30, 2015, http://www.techpolicydaily.com/uncategorized/new-fcc-broadband-threshold-misses-innovation-opportunity/.


xlvi Gus Hurwitz, “Is Good Broadband News for Consumers Bad for the FCC?,” Tech Policy Daily, January 6, 2016, http://www.techpolicydaily.com/internet/fcc-finds-and-then-buries-good-news-about-the-us-broadband-market/. xlvii Tom Risen, “Study: The U.S. Internet Is Worth $966 Billion,” US News & World Report, December 11, 2015, http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2015/12/11/the-internet-is-6-percent-of-the-us-economy-study-says. xlviii Jessica R. Nicholson and Ryan Noonan, “Digital Economy and Cross-Border Trade: The Value of Digitally-Deliverable Services,” US Dept. of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration (ESA Issue Brief #01-14), http://www.esa.doc.gov/sites/default/files/digitaleconomyandtrade2014-1-27final.pdf xlix “Why We Need a Digital Single Market,” EU, May 4, 2015, https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/sites/digital-agenda/files/digital_single_market_factsheet_final_20150504.pdf. l “Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554.” Page 95 li Ajit Pai, “The FCC and Internet Regulation” (FCC, February 26, 2016), http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2016/db0226/DOC-337930A1.pdf. lii “Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554.” liii “Speech at WMC in Barcelona: Creating Value for Vertical Industries,” European Commission, February 23, 2016, http://ec.europa.eu/commission/2014-2019/oettinger/announcements/speech-wmc-barcelona-creating-value-vertical-industries_en.

strand consult us eu wireless ecosystem 2016 final for ......in its new report “the wireless...

Documents