To put the recent hyperbole regarding the fifth generation of mobile phone technology (5G) in context, a rough estimate puts porn and gaming at 40% of internet data. So, increasing the speed and capacity of internet infrastructure will largely go to improving the experience of those uses. My flip evaluation of the utility of 5G technology has been that it is great if you want to do robotic surgery or download all of Game of Thrones on a street corner.
5G is the latest iteration of mobile phone and data transmission technology that is now being rolled out around the country and the world. In fact, one often reads ominously that the US is “falling behind” on the implementation of 5G. The value of the new technology is essentially that more information can be pushed through fiber optic lines and wireless transmission at higher speeds as a result of how the packages of electrons carrying digital data are bundled. The result is a higher capacity for traffic, significantly faster speeds and importantly, less latency in the transmission. Latency is the time between a user pushing the “enter” key and the time the information being requested fully loads on a screen.
The reduction in latency is not only important because it keeps people from throwing their mobile devices against walls out of frustration, but more critically, it enables a whole range of new internet applications that demand effectively simultaneous real time responses in order to be effective – like self-driving cars (which also aren’t coming any time soon). A graphic example of the problems arising out of latency delay is the inability of musicians to play together using zoom. Because of latency, using existing technology, it is impossible for participants to play music together over the internet (without additional compensating software). Low latency would also, for example, make possible robotic surgery, because the visual and vital sign information being conveyed to the surgeon on one end would be instant with a doctor’s surgical procedures on the other.
This brings to the fore an important fact about 5G transmission – many of the most useful aspects of its increased speed having nothing to do with mobile phone transmission – as they would be used inside – like surgery or improved efficiency in warehouse operations. A lot of the claims being made about the commercial value of 5G have nothing to do with mobile phone service in public spaces.
Right now, as far as I can tell, the most important use of 5G service in New York City is to expand system capacity at high use times and places – where the current transmission system is nearly maxed out. The highest use, densest locations for mobile phones I understand to be in Times Square (42nd Street), at 34th Street and 7th Avenue and at Broad Street and Wall Street. Apparently, the highest use times are during the early afternoon rush hour, particularly on Fridays (“honey, (i) should I pick up a loaf of bread on the way home” and/or (ii) “I’m gonna be late. I’m having a drink with the team after work” or (iii) “my train/bus is late.”). In order for the system to accommodate the increased traffic at those times and places, the pipe needs to be wider, and 5G information bundling creates a wider pipe.
It’s worth noting that the high visibility of the perceived lack of “technological equity” has added a political dimension to the public discussion of mobile telecom infrastructure. Frankly, given the way in which mobile telephones are used, there isn’t much of an immediate need for additional capacity in New York City outside of the Manhattan core (that’s not to say there won’t be in the future – and any 5G build would likely ultimately need to be city-wide). But because of immediate concerns about “equity,” the industry is going to be required to distribute its equipment across the five boroughs, in order to be given the green light to build the additional transmitters the system really needs in Manhattan.
Mobile phone signals are transmitted by macro transmitters (those towers you see along highways and on building roofs) and more recently, and more widely via micro transmitters, which in most cities are glommed on to municipal light and signal poles. This is a huge pain for the mobile telecommunications industry, as there are tens of thousands of municipalities across the country, and each of the three national wireless companies has to make their own deals with each of them. You probably haven’t noticed the installations in New York City, because here they have been pretty well designed to blend in. They are painted the same color as the pole to which they are attached. They consist of a rectangular box near the top of the pole and a “whip” antenna sticking up from the top of the pole. Needless to say, the poles weren’t originally designed to carry telecommunications infrastructure, and it not being essential to their mission, the City’s Department of Transportation is less than thrilled with having this stuff attached to their poles and being responsible for their safety. DOT’s job is to keep the lights on at night and the signals working 24/7. In addition, City agencies have their own use for this aerial real estate – particularly DOT and the NYPD. The police use the poles, for example, for surveillance cameras and speed monitors. This is highly contested real estate. Until recently, only one of the three mobile companies’ equipment could be accommodated on each pole.
As with all telecommunications regulation, the base layer is Federal – and the outdated 1996 Cable Act governs the interaction of municipalities of mobile telecommunications infrastructure in the public way. When one thinks of mobile telecommunications, one thinks of wireless transmission, but for every mobile transmitter there must be a wired connection to the network. There is a mostly separate (from cable, except for Verizon) system of fiber optic cable supporting the mobile phone network under New York streets and hanging from utility poles. Companies providing mobile telecommunications infrastructure (and there are a number of companies who provide this as a service to the Big Three, in addition to the mobile companies themselves) need to have a franchise from the City both to lay their wires under the streets and across utility poles, as well as to place their transmitters on City poles.
During the Trump administration, the industry friendly Federal Communications Commission adopted rules that constrained the regulation of the deployment of mobile infrastructure in the public way by municipalities, just as it did with cable regulation. In the case of mobile telecom, the FCC limited what local government could charge for the use of its space to essentially the cost of administering the licensing program, and created accelerated maximum timelines for approval of the location of transmitters. The latter was certainly required, as many local governments out of a concern for aesthetics, or bureaucratic lethargy, stood in the way of the mobile telecom deployment.
However, this was not at all true in New York City, which, about 20 years ago, set up an efficient system for fairly allocating and licensing pole use to the mobile telecom infrastructure companies. The industry saw the City’s system as a national model and were (mostly) happy with how things were, and especially with the City’s experienced and highly responsive team that administered the program. To put this in context, NYC has about 300,000 light and signal poles (although there is no complete inventory of poles), and the last time I looked about fewer than 10,000 were being used as hosts for mobile phone transmitters. But, because of the preemption of Federal law, the City has been cast in the same boat as all other local governments. Of course, the FCC’s newish rules are the subject of continuing litigation. The industry has not sued the City to attempt to make it conform with the new rules, presumably because they are reasonably satisfied with the status quo – and they are in a rush to deploy their transmitters and don’t want to delay the process by initiating a lawsuit here.
This is particularly the case because Verizon, T-Mobile and AT&T, given the publicity they’ve created about the benefits of 5G service, want to deploy 5G transmitters quickly. The companies have each based a good deal of their national advertising to hyping the competitive advantage of each of their 5G systems. Again, those systems aren’t all that useful to consumers yet because mobile customers mostly have access to quite high speeds all over New York City (except at peak locations at peak times) and because not many people have bought phones that have the capacity to process the 5G signal. This is in part because of the additional expense associated with 5G phones and in part for technological limitations on the handheld devices themselves (particularly with respect to battery life and reliability). It will take several years for adoption of affordable, practical 5G handheld devices to catch up with deployment of transmitter technology.
The real fly in the soup here is that wireless 5G transmission needs many more transmitters than a 4G/LTE system. The 5G micromillimeter wave system, which is the backbone (and the high-speed part) for much of the 5G networks, has a shorter signal length and is more easily blocked than the medium wave 4G/LTE networks we’re all using now. There is an inverse relationship between wavelength and signal power/distance. The shorter the wave, the less far it goes and the more easily it is interfered with. That is, for example, why AM radio signals can be picked up across the country – they use a very long wave signal. 5G needs a couple of orders of magnitude more transmitters – thousands more. Human bodies and leaves have the capacity to block micromillimeter wave signals.
That deployment of more transmitters requires more City real estate and given that up until recently only one transmitter could be placed on a pole, that meant a push was on for the City to ramp up the distribution of poles. This ran into a number of logistical roadblocks. First, corner signal poles were more valuable to industry, as they logistically had a larger radius of transmission for the short micromillimeter wave transmission. As a result of a consent decree being negotiated by the City in Federal Court having to do with the City’s dilatoriness in making its tens of thousands of street corners comply with Federal accessibility requirements, the City began requiring anyone moving a light pole near a corner to replace all four corners at an intersection.
Industry has proposed to the City designs that carry more than one transmitter – as the future standard. These installations are heavier and require the replacement of the pole and the construction of a new foundation for it – triggering the accessibility retrofit requirement for corner poles – making such an installation cost prohibitive. For the time being, the mobile telecom industry is avoiding the coveted corner poles and sticking with midblock poles so as to avoid triggering the six figure cost associated with corner ramps. Also, in the highest need locations there simply aren’t enough poles to accommodate the required transmitters. On 42nd Street and 34th Street the local business improvement districts objected to the erection of transmitters on distinctive poles they had erected in the 90’s in those essential locations. There simply are not enough available poles.
When I was in City government, I advocated for a purpose-built telecommunications structure for sidewalks all over the city. Principally, this got DOT out of the telecommunications business that they didn’t want to be in – and their inspection of poles and installations had become a pinch point in the approval process, given available resources. This would be a structure licensed and regulated solely by the City’s technology agency – making the process simpler. The structure would be designed to accommodate all of the City’s telecommunications needs – mobile, Wi-Fi, cable and 911 – much like the LinkNYC program, but without advertising. The program would be financed by renting out space to telecommunications companies in this telecom condo. The structure would also replace ugly, refrigerator sized cable splicing boxes which exist all of the city outside Manhattan. The Altice and Spectrum boxes, called pedestals, have been around for decades and are generally located in the space between the street and sidewalk. Worse are the Verizon boxes, that hang from telephone pole – on some as many as four, two of which were hung at eye level. That equipment would all go into the proposed telecom structure.
The structure would need to be 32 feet high, in order to meet the needs of the mobile telecom industry. This would lower the number of needed structures (the higher the structure, the further the signal could be transmitted). Yeah, that’s tall. And yeah, that’s another big piece of stuff on the sidewalks. But my idea was that this structure could be designed by the best and become a symbol of 21st Century New York City, much as the Art Nouveau Paris Metro entrances have become a symbol of Paris. Also, I thought for initial locations, the City could replace the 6,000 DOT wayfinding kiosks, that look like the obelisk from “2001, A Space Odyssey,” and, thanks to the ubiquity of GPS and mobile phone maps, became obsolete nearly as soon as they were constructed. They were a good idea in the 90’s. The would be replaced with the telecom structure – using their sidewalk space. The idea got some, but not enough, traction.
BUT, along came the alleged economic failure of the LinkNYC program (which I plan to discuss in detail in my next post). Part of the solution to creating a new “sustainable business model” for the free public Wi-Fi program was to allow the company that built the system to partner with a telecom infrastructure provider, replace the Wi-Fi kiosks with new 32-foot-tall kiosks, and permit them to (exclusively) host multiple mobile telecom transmitters in the structure. That structure, pictured above, has been approved by the Public Design Commission and is beginning to be deployed. Given the equity issues, the City is requiring that it be built first disproportionately outside Manhattan (despite the fact that the need for additional mobile telecom capacity is in the Manhattan core). I’m not personally fond of the design – and think it could be a lot better – but I do recognize the need for the height – and the need for a structure of this sort, particularly in the high demand spots in Manhattan. This part of the story is only beginning to be played out – as I doubt that the implications of the deployment have been fully understood by elected officials, the public and the other industry players.
New York City will get 5G service in a timely fashion. It will be as fast, available and reliable as anywhere in the world. Given the competition between the big three and other discount providers that use their network infrastructure the prices will remain highly competitive (I have Altice Mobile service, for example, that uses the T-Mobile system and get unlimited talk and text for $30 per month. The price (for 4G LTE service) is guaranteed forever (whatever that means)). You aren’t likely to notice the difference any time soon – unless you’re planning to step out to the corner to download all of “Better Call Saul.” With a little luck, you won’t notice most of the transmission infrastructure.