Deloitte Consulting has released an informative report
titled, “5G: The Chance to Lead for aDecade.” [Report] The Report
describes how the United States is falling behind in investing in 5G “both [in]
relative and absolute terms” to other countries, and specifically China. For example, the Report states:
Since 2015, China outspent the United States by approximately
$24 billion in wireless communications infrastructure and built 350,000 new
sites, while the United States built fewer than 30,000. Looking forward,
China’s five-year economic plan specifies $400 billion in 5G-related investment.
Consequently, China and other countries may be creating a 5G tsunami, making it
near impossible to catch up.
The Report also describes the importance of the number of
towers and small cells needed for the 5G network to operate well. While advocating for a “light touch policy
framework,” the Report notes that,
[T]his light-touch regulatory framework does not absolve
policy makers of responsibility to inspire US leadership in 5G. Policy makers
at the state, local, and federal levels can help reduce the friction associated
with deploying next generations of communication infrastructure. Specifically,
reducing the cost and deployment cycle times for small cells will help remove a
major obstacle to network densification and allow carriers to add desperately
needed low-cost capacity to our nation’s wireless networks.
…
Many cities continue to
use the same approval standards and processes for small cell equipment deployed
at the top of an existing city lamp post as they would for deployment of a new
70-foot macro tower in the public right of way; an unsustainable solution if
the United States aims to keep pace with other countries’ 5G deployment. (emphasis
added).
Notably, the Report also discusses the benefits of a “light
touch policy framework:”
First, the United States should consider establishing a
light-touch policy framework to address 5G’s inherent externalities that limit
the value created by infrastructure investment from accruing to the carriers.
Other countries may consider subsidizing, nationalizing, or otherwise
regulating aspects of a nation’s communications infrastructure to speed 5G
deployment. However, such interventions in the United States could risk
disrupting a communications and technology ecosystem that has proven symbiotic
and resilient over the past decade. Policy intervention in the same ecosystem
of carriers, suppliers, Internet innovators, and consumers that enabled LTE
leadership could inflict unintended consequences on competition and innovation.
Instead, carriers and their ecosystem partners can address
the potential pitfalls of externalities by negotiating efficient solutions.
Negotiated contracts between carriers and Internet content and applications
providers more effectively attribute profits to those making infrastructure
investments on behalf of the users.
We have already seen examples of such negotiated solutions
with LTE. Unlimited usage of video streaming applications come with
service-level conditions that help curtail network congestion. In some cases,
content providers agreed to reduce video resolution and steaming speeds in
return for carriers granting unlimited access to that content for their
subscribers. These conditions, negotiated between commercial entities, can
offer a win-win-win for carriers, content providers, and consumers. Consumers
receive access to as much content as they want without overage fees. Content
providers get unlimited access to their viewer base. In turn, carriers can
better plan for and/or avoid traffic increases that necessitate costly upgrades.
The Trump Administration released a plan to develop
and rehabilitate infrastructure throughout the United States, and the
Washington Post recently published an interesting article describing a recent study
concerning long term prosperity in Europe and the path of Roman roads. What about 5G (at least for a decade and not
falling behind what’s next)?
