A recently introduced bill that would require carriers to provide more information about 4G wireless broadband services could force carriers to be more transparent about their services.

Representative Anna G. Eshoo (D-CA) introduced the Next Generation Wireless Disclosure Act as carriers continue to refer to a variety of different broadband services as 4G, result in consumer confusion. It seeks to have carriers to provide guaranteed minimum data services.

?The day that Spring called its WiMAX-based service 4G, Pandora?s box opened up and the ITU definition instantly became meaningless in the U.S. and that opened up the U.S. to the state we are in now: Nobody really knows what 4G really means,? said Chris Nicoll, distinguished research fellow at Yankee Group, Boston.

?The implications going forward are that operators will need to be more transparent as to their definition of 4G, and what does this service mean,? he said.

Consumer confusion
The speed of wireless broadband services is an issue for consumers as use grows of smartphones and tablets.

4G wireless networks are being hailed as advanced wireless broadband and the wireless industry has spent billions of dollars to improve service coverage. However, wireless service providers use different wireless mobile broadband technologies for 4G service, including LTE, WiMax and HSPA+. 

?4G in the U.S. is now seen as the must-have technology label by the operators, but spectrum limitations prevent ?true? ITU 4G services from being to market anytime soon,? Mr. Nicoll said.

Rep. Eshoo says the bills addresses the fact that there is no standard definition of 4G technology, which means consumers often experience vastly different speeds depending on the wireless provider and location.

The bill seeks to have carriers provide more information about their services at the point of sale and in all billing materials. This information would include guaranteed minimum data speed, network reliability, coverage area maps, pricing, technology used to provide 4G services and network conditions that can impact the speed of applications and services used on the network.

?Defining minimum speeds is difficult for operators,? Mr. Nicoll said.

?To re-engineer the cell sites to maintain minimum speeds for large numbers of users would require enormous investment in additional cell sites and infrastructure ? not to mention additional spectrum which is years away,? he said.

?The cost could be in the billions of dollars.?

Net neutrality
The bill would also seek to have the Federal Communications Commission evaluate the speed and price of 4G wireless data service provided by leading wireless carriers so can consumers can do a side-by-side comparison.

Another possible issue for carriers is the bill?s inclusion of net neutrality causes.

?The bill adds in net neutrality clauses which are far ranging and highly impactful and the operators will fight it tooth and nail,? Mr. Nicoll said.

Consumer advocacy groups like the Consumers Union and the Open Technology Initiative have expressed their support for the bill. 

The bill has been referred to the House Energy & Commerce Committee.

For the moment, it appears unlikely that industry will address some of these issues on its own.

?The industry will likely not agree on any sort of recommendation such as to a label a service as 4G it must support a minimum download speed of 8Mb ? just as an example,? Mr. Nicoll said.
?At least not until every operator in the country that has announced 4G can actually support what ever speed they agree on,? he said.

Final Take
Chantal Tode, Assoc. Editor, Mobile Marketer

/>