Press Statement of Commissioner James H. Quello Re: Amendment of Parts 73 and 76 of the Commission’s Rules Relating to Program Exclusivity in the Cable and Broadcast Industry

by

July 18th, 2017


Download the PDF

Tags: , , ,


Separate Statement of Commissioners James H. Quello. In Re: Mimi Weyforth Dawson and Henry M. Rivera Memorandum Opinion and Order in Docket No. 21323 (FCC-85-63)

by

July 11th, 2017


Download the PDF

Tags: , , ,


Remarks by FCC Commissioner James H. Quello to be delivered at INFOTEL ’82 Conference “Future of Telecommunications”

by

June 30th, 2017


Download the PDF

Tags: , ,


Community WiFi in the Smartphone Era: lessons & differences from the past

by

So far, this series of blog posts has focused on what private companies are doing in the unlicensed spectrum space—including startups, cable operators, Google and mobile carriers. In the next few posts I’ll consider what cities and local neighborhoods have done, are doing, and are planning to do with unlicensed spectrum.

As a first step in considering current and future “community WiFi” projects, it’s worth taking a look back at an earlier wave of municipal WiFi networks.

These date back roughly a decade, with one of the most ambitious early projects, in Philadelphia, being announced in April 2005, just a few months before the first iPhone was shipped. The Philly project was one of multiple urban deployments involving Earthlink which, at that time, was grappling with the transition from dial-up to broadband as the dominant form of Internet connectivity. Frustrated with its limited and not-very-profitable access to cable and DSL networks (which weren’t subject to the same network-sharing requirements that applied to dial-up service), Earthlink viewed these muni-WiFi projects as a way to offer Internet access services independent of wholesale arrangements with cable and telco network operators that were not only its main competitors, but increasingly refused to offer Earthlink and other dial-up ISPs access to their networks.

The problem with this effort to use WiFi as a competitive “bypass” technology was that the public-private partnership model embraced by Earthlink, its city partners and similar ventures, was flawed in multiple respects. Though some projects were relatively successful (the largest one probably being the Minneapolis network operated by USI Wireless) Earthlink eventually abandoned its WiFi ambitions after launching several high-profile projects in major U.S. cities. Other players, including MetroFi, which launched several networks in the Bay Area and in Portland, also exited the business around the same time.

Among the problems faced by these early network deployments was that they attempted to offer a service that could compete with wireline broadband services, at least at the low end of the market. But the inability of WiFi signals to reliably penetrate walls made in-home service a serious challenge, especially for the earlier generations of equipment used in these networks.

Another issue was that, ten years ago (as the June 2005 iPhone launch date suggests), there was nothing comparable to today’s nearly insatiable demand for nomadic (but not necessarily ubiquitous) outdoor Internet connectivity. Yes, there were plenty of laptops being lugged around and used in coffee houses, etc., but today’s increasingly universal presence and intensive use of high-performance WiFi-capable smartphones and tablets was, at that time, nothing more than a twinkle in Steve Jobs’ visionary eye.

As discussed in prior posts, today’s dramatically increased demand for nomadic Internet connectivity is spurring a range of efforts by private service providers, including startups, cable operators, Google and cellular providers (as well as restaurants, cafes and other venues providing WiFi hot spots as a customer amenity) to satisfy that demand.

At the same time, some municipalities and neighborhood groups are discovering unmet needs and exploring ways to address them. These efforts will be the focus of the next few posts in this series.

Tags: , , , , ,


“LTE Unlicensed” Deployments Planned for 2016

by

In the last post in this series I reviewed several different points of view regarding the pros and cons of cellular carriers using “LTE Unlicensed” (LTE-U) to expand their network capacity. In this post I’ll take a closer look at movement in this direction among U.S. carriers.

[Note: The deployment of LTE in unlicensed bands is referred to by multiple names, including “LTE Advanced in unlicensed spectrum,” “LTE Unlicensed” (LTE-U) and, most recently “Licensed Assisted Access” LTE (LAA). In this post I’ll refer to it as LTE-U, though other names may appear in some excerpts included in the post.]

The two U.S. cellular providers that have so far expressed most enthusiasm for LTE-U are Verizon and T-Mobile.

Reporting from the Mobile World Congress held March 2-5 in Barcelona, Spain, Mike Dano wrote the following in the March 3 FierceWireless online newsletter:

[B]ased on the discussions I’ve had this week, it appears that Verizon…, Vodafone and other carriers last year decided they wanted to make LTE-U a reality–and they decided they didn’t want to wait for the 3GPP to standardize the technology. So they teamed up with some network technology companies to design real-world tests of the technology…

Verizon clearly has high hopes for the tests and the technology–it has said that it plans to commercially deploy it in the 5 GHz and 3.5 GHz bands in 2016. Verizon is not the only carrier that supports LTE-U/LAA. T-Mobile announced this year that it too will deploy what it calls LAA in the 5 GHz band in 2016. T-Mobile CTO Neville Ray said he believes the carrier can get LAA-capable handsets this year.

As Dano notes, “[h]owever, not all carriers are on board.” Specifically, he points to comments from Tom Keathley, senior VP of wireless network architecture and design for AT&T. As one might expect from a carrier that has invested in a network of more than 30,000 WiFi hotspots, AT&T’s concerns include the risk that LTE-U deployments will not share unlicensed spectrum fairly and efficiently with WiFi.

Keathley said that current approaches to LTE-U are vague about how exactly to check for existing users in unlicensed bands, and how long LTE users can occupy unlicensed spectrum.

Dano also cites comments from Eric Parsons, an executive at Ericsson, a leading wireless network equipment vendor, regarding how these spectrum sharing issues might be dealt with in different regions of the world. As Parsons explains, “there are very specific guidelines in Europe and Japan that cover these areas, but countries like the United States don’t have specific guidelines.”

T-Mobile, which has less licensed spectrum to work with than its competitors (see here for T-Mobile CEO John Legere’s perspective on this issue), seems particularly interested in LTE-U. In anticipation of commercial deployments in 2016, it has announced plans for multiple tests of the technology, in cooperation with Alcatel-Lucent and Qualcomm, Ericsson and Nokia.

In a January 5, 2015 blog post T-Mobile chief technology officer Neville R. Ray shed some light on the company’s plans:

Currently, there is approximately 550 MHz of underutilized spectrum in the 5 GHz Unlicensed National Information Infrastructure (UNII) band, which is available for any use within the FCC’s rules for the UNII band. LAA is a new and innovative approach that allows for licensed and unlicensed spectrum to work seamlessly together. And, we’ve already begun work with our various chipset, radio infrastructure and device partners to bring LAA production trials to life this year and bring the technology to our customers in the near-future.

During T-Mobile’s February 19, 2015 yearend earnings call, Ray provided an update on the company’s LTE-U plans:

(more…)

Tags: , , , , , , ,


A Range of Views on LTE in Unlicensed Spectrum

by

A key theme in this “unlicensed spectrum” series of blog posts has been the potential negative impacts on wireless carriers of lower-cost services built on WiFi connectivity, either in a “WiFi-first” or “WiFi-only” mode.

In this two-part post the focus will shift to potential LTE deployments in unlicensed spectrum by licensed carriers, as they seek to increase network capacity while retaining tighter integration with their existing LTE-based networks than they can achieve with WiFi technology.

The prospect of carriers deploying LTE in unlicensed bands marks a new phase in the history of unlicensed spectrum. In this new phase licensed carriers and their preferred technologies (e.g., LTE) could play a much bigger role in the unlicensed space, potentially disrupting the existing spectrum sharing model embodied in WiFi standards and familiar to users of WiFi technology.

The deployment of LTE in unlicensed bands is referred to by multiple names, including “LTE Advanced in unlicensed spectrum,” “LTE Unlicensed” (LTE-U) and, most recently “Licensed Assisted Access” LTE (LAA). In this post I’ll refer to it as LTE-U, though other names will appear in some excerpts included in the post.

Not surprisingly, there exists a fairly broad range of views on the balance of benefits and harms likely to occur from carrier deployment of LTE-U.  As one might expect, Qualcomm, the wireless tech giant that first proposed the idea in late 2013, is enthusiastic. In a November 20, 2013 blog post, Prakash Sangam, Director, Technical Marketing summarized his company’s perspective:

Consider the length that operators are going to address increasing data traffic with small cells and utilizing all spectrum assets….Wouldn’t it be ideal for them to deploy small cells that support LTE not only in their regular licensed spectrum but also in unlicensed spectrum?…[I]nstead of managing two separate networks for licensed and unlicensed spectrum, and dealing with the complexities of interworking between them, they will have one unified network accomplishing the tightest possible interworking. How cool is that?

Okay, the operators are covered. What about the mere mortals like us, the users? Well, remember all the juggling between LTE and Wi-Fi networks; making sure you are connected, and connected to the right technology to get the best speed; worries about the media not seamlessly moving over between the networks, and tolerating video freezing, breaks, restarts etc.? All of that will be over with LTE Advanced in unlicensed spectrum…Because it’s one network, with an anchor in the highly reliable licensed band, you are always in safe hands. Add to that carrier aggregation, across licensed and unlicensed bands, and you, the user, get higher data rates and an enhanced broadband experience.

This is all good, but one natural question someone might ask (we asked it ourselves) is, “will it affect the Wi-Fi networks out there now?” Well, LTE Advanced in unlicensed spectrum has been carefully designed to protect Wi-Fi, so that both can co-exist harmoniously. So, when an operator switches from Wi-Fi (“carrier Wi-Fi” as it is called in the industry) [to] LTE in unlicensed, not only do LTE Advanced users in the unlicensed spectrum benefit but also, in many cases, the neighboring Wi-Fi users.

Moreover, LTE Advanced in unlicensed can be brought to fruition in countries such as the United States, Korea and China using the existing standards (Rel 10) and, of course, by leveraging the existing LTE core networks.

Given the cable industry’s growing enthusiasm for a WiFi-based wireless strategy (see here and here), it’s not surprising that they are less enthusiastic than Qualcomm about wireless carriers deploying LTE in unlicensed spectrum. In a May 21, 2014 post on the CableLabs blog, Ian MacMillan expressed some of their concerns:

(more…)

Tags: , , , , , , ,


WiFi, User Interfaces and “The New Comcast for the Internet”

by

In an earlier post in this series I discussed business issues and opportunities related to a potential launch by Comcast of a WiFi-based service that could:

  1. further monetize the company’s investments in millions of in-home dual-SSID WiFi gateway devices;
  2. provide it with a relatively low-cost, high-margin entry into the wireless market space;
  3. give it a powerful position in the emerging market for nomadic, multiscreen multimedia services and;
  4. strengthen its overall market power in the communication sector as a whole.

In this two-part post I’m considering this same topic, but from a public policy perspective.

Viewed in very broad strokes, we have on one hand the potential benefits from what could be a new and attractively priced competitive option in the wireless sector. On the other hand, we have a range of complex and intertwined public policy issues related to the continued expansion of Comcast’s market power across multiple sectors of the communications industry, and the prospects for anti-competitive impacts of that expansion.

In Part 1 I focused on Comcast’s use of dual-SSID in-home gateways to deploy a network of millions of public access hotspots while:  1) charging customers $10 per month to lease these dual-use devices, which also provide them with a private in-home WiFi network; 2) using these customers’ electricity to power gateway devices that are also used as public-access hotspots; 3) activating the gateway’s public hotspot capability with an opt-out (vs. an opt-in) approach that has been criticized as “difficult to use or broken.”

Here in Part 2 I’m going to consider the competitive and public interest impacts of this strategy in the broader context of Comcast’s unique and synergistic mix of market power.

Who controls our “window on the world?”

As suggested in an earlier post, one emerging and important arena for competition is services that make it easier for customers to manage their media consumption across multiple fixed and portable devices, including large screen TVs, computer monitors, tablets and smartphones.

As the dominant provider of both wireline Internet access and traditional multichannel video, Comcast is well positioned to expand the scope of that dominance into this emerging “nomadic multiscreen multimedia” market.  This is especially true if it can successfully integrate wireless connectivity and provide customers with a combination of connectivity, content and user-interface that can’t be matched by other companies that lack Comcast’s broad set of competitive tools and assets.

As public comments by Comcast executives have suggested, the company’s deployment of more than 8 million WiFi hotspots is a big step toward achieving the threshold level of wireless connectivity needed to support this kind of strategy (as discussed in an earlier post, ubiquitous coverage and seamless handoff capabilities are less necessary for this type of “nomadic” service).

The multisource, multiscreen user interface arena has attracted a range of large and small companies from related sectors, including tech giants like Apple, GoogleAmazon and Sony, as well as Dish Network’s Sling TV, smaller players like Roku, and online content distributors like Netflix and Hulu.  But, so far, none has been able to achieve a position as the dominant gateway to the widening world of online media (this recent Wall Street Journal article provides some perspective on the challenges in this arena for both companies and consumers).

Can Apple become “the new Comcast for the Internet?”

With Apple once again in negotiations with major TV content providers, the Washington Post’s Cecilia Kang raises the question of whether the creator of the iPod, iTunes, iPhone and iPad, which fundamentally transformed the music and mobile communications industries, might finally be ready to work similar magic in the TV business.

Television viewers have long yearned for the day they could get their favorite programs streamed online without having to pay a huge cable bill each month. That day has arrived — and it’s confusing…

Enter one big company — Apple — that wants to clear up all the confusion. If it succeeds, Apple could become the biggest gateway to online video — the new Comcast for the Internet. And it has more cash on hand than any of its rivals to secure the most-desired shows.

As others have done before, Kang is speculating that perhaps Apple’s expertise in user interface and product design, coupled with its extremely deep pockets, passionate user base and experience transforming other media and communication industries, may finally be a powerful enough combination to enable the company to become “the new Comcast for the Internet.”

In a Backchannel column, Harvard professor Susan Crawford expresses a different view of this issue, suggesting that, if regulators are not proactive, Comcast itself may become an even more dominant version of “the Comcast for the Internet.”

(more…)

Tags: , , , , ,


Unlicensed Spectrum: Comcast Uses In-Home Gateways to Deploy Millions of WiFi Hotspots

by

The focus of my last post in this series was business issues and opportunities related to a potential launch by Comcast of a WiFi-based service that could:

  1. further monetize the company’s investments in millions of in-home dual-SSID WiFi gateway devices;
  2. provide it with a relatively low-cost, high-margin entry into the wireless market space;
  3. give it a powerful position in the emerging market for nomadic, multiscreen multimedia services and;
  4. strengthen its overall market power in the communication sector as a whole.

In this two-part post I’m going to consider this same topic, but from a public policy perspective.

Viewed in very broad strokes, we have on one hand the potential benefits from what could be a new and attractively priced competitive option in the wireless sector. On the other hand, we have a range of complex and intertwined public policy issues related to the continued expansion of Comcast’s market power across multiple sectors of the communications industry, and the prospects for anti-competitive impacts of that expansion.

Here in Part 1 I’m going to focus on Comcast’s use of dual-SSID in-home gateways to deploy a network of millions of public access hotspots while:

1) charging customers $10 per month to lease gateway devices that provide them with a private in-home WiFi network while also being used by Comcast as a public-access hotspot;

2) using these customers’ electricity to power these dual-use gateway devices;

3) activating the gateway’s public hotspot capability with an opt-out (vs. an opt-in) option that has been criticized as “difficult to use or broken.”

In Part 2 I’ll consider the competitive impacts of this strategy in the broader context of Comcast’s unique mix of market power in both the distribution and content sectors.

*****

In my earlier post I noted that, in Comcast’s yearend earnings call, CFO Michael Angelakis told Wall Street analysts that Comcast’s investments in dual-SSID in-home WiFi gateway devices offers “great returns on their own and…seed us for different businesses that are attractive going forward.”

While clearly good for Comcast (as Angelakis’s comment suggests), a separate set of policy-related questions concerns whether the company’s approach to deploying, utilizing and paying for dual-SSID gateways provides net benefits to Comcast customers and the public interest.

According to a lawsuit filed by two Comcast customers (and complaints posted on various user forums), the answer to this question is “No.” As Jon Brodkin explains at arstechnica:

Plaintiff Toyer Grear and daughter Joycelyn Harris of Alameda County, California, filed the suit on December 4…in US District Court in Northern California, seeking class action status on behalf of all Comcast customers who lease wireless routers that broadcast Xfinity Wi-Fi hotspots. “Without authorization to do so, Comcast uses the wireless routers it supplies to its customers to generate additional, public Wi-Fi networks for its own benefit,” the complaint states.

Grear and Harris allege that Comcast violated the US Computer Fraud and Abuse Act as well as California laws on unfair competition and computer data access and fraud. They claim that the public hotspots, broadcast from the same equipment used for subscribers’ private Wi-Fi networks, raise customers’ electricity costs and harm network performance…The lawsuit [also] claims that “unauthorized broadcasting of a secondary, public Wi-Fi network from the customer’s wireless router subjects the customer to potential security risks”…

While Comcast says the public hotspots use different bandwidth than is allocated to a customer’s home Internet service, the lawsuit argues that they can create wireless congestion in areas with many Wi-Fi networks.

Comcast acknowledges that there could be a performance hit because the Wi-Fi networks use shared spectrum, but it says it designed the system “to support robust usage” and that there should be only “minimal impact.”

Brodkin also cites complaints at online user forums that Comcast’s home hotspot opt-out functionality is “difficult to use or broken.” But he also notes that Comcast customers retain the option of purchasing their own modem and router to avoid having to deal with this issue.

I’d add to this my own recent experience when I raised this issue with a Comcast technician who came out to deal with problems I was having with my Internet service (mainly very slow and erratic speeds, especially when using the WiFi connection to Comcast’s dual-SSID gateway device).

(more…)

Tags: , , , , ,


Unlicensed Spectrum: Comcast Considers its WiFi Strategy Options

by

The last post in this series discussed Cablevision’s recently launched WiFi-only service called Freewheel. It ended with the speculation that Comcast—the nation’s largest provider of cable TV and broadband services—might look to Freewheel for lessons about how to approach the WiFi-based service it is expected to launch sometime in the near future.

Though Comcast executives have so far been reluctant to discuss their WiFi plans, they did shed a little light on their thinking during the company’s February 24 yearend earnings call.

For example, during the call’s Q&A session, Comcast Cable CEO Neil Smit, describing WiFi as “a great asset,” had this to say:

We have 8.3 million hotspots now, including the in-home and outdoors…[W]e are working on how we monetize that asset and bring it to market. As you know, we have MVNO relationships with Sprint and Verizon and the use of Wi-Fi continues to go up…[W]e will be working on ways to bring it to market over the coming months… and we will announce when we’ve got the product well-refined and developed…

Clearly, the world is becoming more mobile. We have our apps, our video apps out in the mobile space and they are getting a lot of usage. Our My Account app for customer service had 41% of our customer relationships visit it in December, so we view the mobile world expanding as well as we are assessing the business opportunity.

As with Cablevision, a key element of Comcast’s WiFi network and strategy is the deployment of dual-SSID “gateway” devices in customers’ homes. In addition to supporting an in-home WiFi network, these devices also provide a second “XFINITY WiFi” network for use by other Comcast customers within reach of this second network’s signal (the XFINITY WiFi service is available free for customers subscribing to the higher speed tiers offered by Comcast).

Though I’m not aware of Comcast having released any details regarding the mix of devices in its hotspot network, it seems reasonable to assume that these in-home devices account for the bulk of the 8.3 million hotspots comprising that network.  The company serves a total of 22 million broadband customers, so if just a third of them were equipped with dual-SSID gateways, this would amount to 7.3 million home gateway-based hotspots.

In response to a question during the call, CFO Michael Angelakis described Comcast’s investment in these in-home WiFi gateway devices as having “great returns on their own and…seed us for different businesses that are attractive going forward.”

This comment highlights the favorable economics for Comcast of investing in a service that leverages the WiFi coverage footprint provided by the millions of customer premise-based gateway devices it has deployed.  For example:

  1. There’s no licensing costs associated with WiFi spectrum use (as a point of contrast, Comcast and several other cable operators paid $2.4 billion for AWS spectrum in 2006 and six years later sold it to Verizon for $3.9 billion)
  2. Comcast typically charges a $10 per month rental fee for its gateway devices. Based on retail pricing of integrated modem/router devices, I’d guess that this provides the company with a financial payback on these devices within 12-18 months, perhaps even less. And it’s important to remember that these same devices also support the company’s core Internet access business, which has historically generated an average revenue of roughly $40 per month, and at very healthy margins.  The incremental cost of adding a public hotspot functionality to such devices is probably quite modest.
  3. The task of connecting wireless hotspots to each other and to the Internet is readily provided by Comcast’s existing wireline network, which is already supporting a mix of video, data and voice services to residential and business customers.
  4. Given Comcast’s existing technical and customer service infrastructure, the incremental operating costs associated with adding a WiFi-based service is likely to be relatively small.

Together, these factors suggest that the main cost components associated with operating a WiFi-based service will be incremental to Comcast’s core business and relatively modest, especially when compared to the cost structure of the networks operated by licensed wireless carriers.

Angelakis’s comments also suggested that, like Cablevision’s Freewheel, a future Comcast WiFi service would initially focus on providing added value to existing video and high speed data customers, by supplying them with untethered and nomadic connectivity outside the home environment.  But he also suggested the company’s investment in WiFi provides a strong platform for expanding beyond this initial focus in response to the continued and rapid evolution of market demand, technology and competitive dynamics (bolding is mine).

[W]hen you think about all the investment we have made in Wi-Fi over the years and everything on our cloud DVR and our TV Everywhere platform, the real goal has been that our customers can access their video anytime anywhere whether in the home or outside the home and we think Wi-Fi is a great delivery mechanism to expand that product. If Wi-Fi can also develop into a different type of service then that is an added benefit to the Wi-Fi investment.

In a follow-up post I’ll consider public policy issues related to Comcast’s WiFi strategy in the context of its overall strategy and market position.

Tags: , , , ,


Unlicensed Spectrum: Cablevision Tests the WiFi-Only Waters

by

I ended an earlier post in this series by suggesting that Cablevision’s launch of Freewheel, a WiFi-only wireless service, marks a new chapter in the emerging “nomadic multiscreen multimedia service battleground.” In this post I’ll elaborate a bit on what I meant by that.

That earlier post reviewed the cable industry’s 20-year history of launching then aborting ventures intended to use licensed spectrum to compete in the wireless market. As comments made to investors in 2009 by Comcast CFO Michael Angelakis suggest, the balance of risk and rewards in these ventures never proved attractive enough for Comcast and other cable operators to follow through with sustained investments. “We don’t want to be the seventh competitor in a market that [is] mature from the voice side,” Angelakis told Wall Street analysts. “And it’s a huge economic investment, which we’re uncomfortable there’s a real return for.”

Another challenge facing these earlier ventures–especially those involving partnerships with wireless providers like Sprint or Clearwire–is that cable operators, especially the largest ones, don’t have a strong track record of successful collaborations; that is, unless the collaboration takes place among their cable peers, who share the same core business and virtually never compete with each other. A good example of this intra-industry mode of collaboration is the industry’s CableLabs R&D consortium which, among other things, has developed multiple generations of cable modem technology.

Comcast’s Executive Vice President David Cohen acknowledged this “partnering” challenge in comments reported in a May 2011 article in the Cherry Hill, NJ Courier-Post, and cited on pg. 80 of Susan Crawford’s 2013 book, Captive Audience. Referring to his company, Cohen conceded that “[w]e’re not very good partners. We like to run things.” [Note: payment is required to access the archived Courier-Post article].

Viewed in light of these two historical factors, the possibility raised by Cablevision’s Freewheel venture is that:

1) the balance of risk and reward for a WiFi-centric wireless strategy is today considerably more favorable than it was for cable’s earlier ventures relying on licensed spectrum;

2) a WiFi-based strategy could rely less (or not at all) on the kind of partnerships that, as Cohen noted, Comcast and its cable peers are “not very good at.”

One shift in the risk/reward balance relates to Angelakis’s 2009 comment about Comcast’s reluctance to enter a mature wireless voice market that has more competitors than cable operators typically face in the wireline access business.

While this difference in competitive dynamics still exists today, Freewheel is mainly targeting nomadic data and video services, not mobile voice.  As reported by Jeff Baumgartner of Multichannel News, Cablevision vice chairman Gregg Seibert, speaking at a March 9 investor conference, “reiterated the position that Freewheel is positioned as a data/video product, and that voice will be one of the least-used features of the phone.”

This data/video focus makes ubiquitous coverage, seamless handoff, and a cellular-connection backup (and all their associated costs) less of a requirement than they are for a service that prioritizes support for real-time voice conversations. It also is more intimately tied to the wireline video and high speed data markets in which cable operators are already dominant players. And it holds promise for helping these operators compete successfully in what I earlier referred to as “the emerging nomadic multiscreen multimedia service battleground” (e.g., value-added services that make it easier for customers to manage their media consumption across multiple fixed and portable devices, including large screen TVs, computer monitors, tablets and smartphones).

The press release announcing Freewheel’s launch listed some characteristics of its most likely customers, including those who:

(more…)

Tags: , , , ,