Telecommunications Expert Witness
Telecommunications disputes usually hinge on how a wired or wireless network or device behaved under real conditions, not on how it was supposed to behave on paper. I bring over 30 years of hands-on research and engineering experience in fiber, cable, cellular, LTE, wireless, and public safety communications systems to litigation involving network failures, contract disputes, and infrastructure claims.
I’m Mark McFarland, a licensed Professional Engineer with a graduate degree in telecommunications engineering. Before founding Discovery Engineering, I spent over two decades as an electronics engineer with the federal research laboratory, the Institute for Telecommunication Sciences. I measured, tested, and analyzed wireless and telecommunications systems at a national level. That’s a depth of technical background most other experts in this field can’t bring to the table.
What I Investigate
Network Infrastructure Disputes
Routers, switches, base stations, and wireless access points, and whether a network performed as designed or failed to meet the standard it was built or represented to meet. These cases often require tracing a failure back through the layers of a network, from the physical infrastructure up through the protocols running on top of it.
Telecommunications Contract and Standards Disputes
Matters involving whether a system or service met the technical standards it was represented to meet at the time of sale or installation, a common source of contract litigation between telecommunications providers, integrators, and their customers.
Wireless System Performance
3G through 5G, LTE, satellite, and public safety communications systems, including whether a system’s coverage, capacity, or reliability matched what was promised or required.
Signal and Protocol Analysis
Data communications, network protocols, and instrumentation issues relevant to a dispute, including cases where the technical cause of a communications failure is contested between the parties. Encoding schemes, transmission techniques, and signal processing matters involving patent litigation over telecommunications technology.
Where My Background Comes From
I hold a graduate degree in telecommunications engineering and spent my career researching mobile channel measurements, in-building propagation, and network testing at a national research level. That work has been published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at international technical conferences, on subjects ranging from LTE testing methodology to multimedia synchronization standards. I also served on the Telecommunications Industry Association’s TR-8 standards committee, which means I’ve been on the side of the table that writes the standards other experts only read about secondhand.
Discuss Your Case
Fifteen minutes covers the engineering question, any conflicts, and whether my background fits. No charge, no obligation.
Why a Research Background Matters in Litigation
Many telecommunications experts lack formal engineering credentials and aren’t versed in rigorous research methods. I acquired my skill in telecommunications system analysis, testing, and measurement during my time at a federal telecommunications research lab, a level of rigor that goes well beyond typical commercial deployment testing.
When a telecommunications opinion is challenged in court, that distinction tends to matter a great deal to how confidently a judge or jury can rely on it.
My Process
- Initial call. You describe the dispute, and I tell you plainly whether it’s a fit for my telecommunications background specifically, as opposed to a broader electrical or RF question.
- Technical document review. Once retained, I review system specifications, contracts, performance logs, and any technical standards at issue.
- Testing or reconstruction, where possible. Some disputes benefit from reconstructing the network conditions in question or reviewing raw performance data directly.
- Ongoing communication. I communicate what I’m finding as I go, so there are no surprises for retaining counsel.
- Report and testimony. A written opinion when requested, and deposition or trial testimony as the case requires, nationwide.
Why Attorneys Choose Me for Telecommunications Cases
- Deep research background. Two decades in federal telecommunications research.
- Hands-on background. Experience in design, implementation, operation, testing, troubleshooting, and maintenance of equipment and systems.
- Refereed publications. My work has appeared in national and international peer-reviewed journals, which strengthens credibility significantly.
- I’ve never had an opinion limited or excluded. No Daubert challenge has ever succeeded against me, across both civil and criminal matters.
- Both sides, civil and criminal. I take on plaintiff and defense work
- Standards committee experience. Having served on a formal standards body gives me a working understanding of how telecommunications standards are actually written and interpreted, not just how they read on paper.
FAQs
Network infrastructure failures, contract disputes over whether a system met its represented technical standards, wireless or cellular system performance questions, and matters involving telecommunications patent litigation. If a case involves how a telecommunications system actually worked, or failed to work, it’s very likely a fit.
No. My background covers cellular, LTE, satellite, Wi-Fi, radar, Bluetooth, microwave, public safety communications, and network protocols more broadly, in addition to cellular-specific work I do under my Cellular Records Analysis practice area.
Yes, and for either the plaintiff or the defense, depending on the case and what the facts support.
It means my opinions are grounded in research-level rigor, not just field experience. I’ve published and presented on the same technical questions that show up in litigation, which gives attorneys a stronger foundation to work from when a case, or an expert’s methodology, is challenged.
Yes. Having served on a formal standards committee gives me firsthand insight into how technical standards are written, what they actually require, and where a system may have fallen short of them.
Reach Out Directly
If your case involves a telecommunications or wireless systems dispute, I’d rather have a direct conversation about the technical facts than a generic intake form.