"The Next Wireless Wave
is a
Millimeter Wave"

I recently picked up a copy of the August 2007 issue of Microwave Journal and was pleased to see it is the special "Satellite and mm-wave Applications" issue with a lead article with the above title.

This, in part, inspired me to add a new page to my website about millimeter wave (mmW) technology and my role in its regulatory history. It also includes several helpful links for those who want to explore these upper frequencies.

The upper practical frequency for commercial use has historically kept moving as new technology moved higher in frequency. Unfortunately, many spectrum management concepts are based on assumptions that made sense when frequencies we all much lower. (For example, the specific definition of "harmful interference".)

Expanding the upper limit of US spectrum for commercial use in the US was a result of an FCC initiative. It did not restrict what people were already allowed to do and it did not impose detailed regulation on new technology. But by lowering entry barriers (e.g. no need for a multiyear rulemaking petition to FCC) it did stimulate capital formation in radio technology and product innovation. It is unfortunate that the current Commission is not looking for similar opportunities. Perhaps the Technological Advisory Committee could help in this area, but only if it is allowed to meet.

How the FCC Engages the Spectrum Community
(Or Not)

I got a brochure in the mail a few days ago for Practicing Law Institutes's 25th Annual Institute on Telecommunications Policy and Regulation in December in Washington. I noticed that the FCC speakers include Chairman Kevin J. Martin, Commissioner Jonathan S. Adelstein, Commissioner Robert M. McDowell, Wireline Competition Bureau Chief Thomas J. Navin, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Chief Fred Campbell, and Homeland Security Bureau Chief Derek Poarch. I also noticed the price tag: $1395 for the 2 day meeting!

Now PLI is a nonprofit well established group and this is a long standing program that has always had lots of top level participation. So I do not begrudge PLI for landing this star studded group of FCC speakers.

I have written previously about the poor communciations between FCC management and the spectrum community and the cost of such "sounds of silence".

The current Commission is notorious for the short leash it keeps its employees on with respect to outside speaking. It has become nearly impossible to get FCC speakers on spectrum-related topics even if the invitation is limited to describing current procedures. Several times I have asked FCC employees to speak to innocent issues and gotten the answer that the Chairman's Office approval process is so painful and so unlikely for positive response that they don't even want to try. I was amazed that this high level process even applies to FCC employees passively attending technical conferences without any speaking role!

I note that November 26-30 in Washington is the IEEE 50th Anniversary Global Communications Conference (GLOBECOMM). Any FCC speakers at any level? No. Not even in FCC backyard where cost would be limited to subway fare.

So if top FCC leaders can engage lawyers at $1395 meetings, why can't anyone from FCC engage the spectrum technology community in its own backyard? If the commissioners and bureau chiefs don't want to engage an IEEE audience personally for some reason, why don't they at least let senior managers keep up a useful dialog with the spectrum community?

[If you are looking for the post on FCC equipment authorization and enforcement, it is here.]

Federal Engineer of the Year Award:Will FCC Enter a Candidate This Year?

Every year the National Society of Professional Engineers sponsors a government-wide contest for the "Federal Engineer of the Year". The NSPE website describes the award as

Sponsored by the Professional Engineers in Government, this honor is to be awarded to an engineer employed by a federal agency that employs at least 50 engineers worldwide. Candidates are nominated by their employing federal agency.

The Federal Engineer of the Year is selected by a panel of judges established by NSPE-PEG who consider engineering achievements, education, continuing education, professional/technical society activities, NSPE membership, awards or honors, and civic and humanitarian activities.

The application indicates that agency nominations are due by October 31, 2007 for the 2008 award. Each agency nominee gets a very nice plaque. If he/she is a licensed professional engineer, then they are also eligible for the overall Federal Engineer of the Year award. FCC used to participate in this program - Tom Tycz (long term distinguished FCC staffer and former IB "satellite czar") and I were both nominated and received the NSPE plaque for the agency.

Why did FCC drop out? Apparently they didn't want to pay the $90 NSPE wanted to cover the cost of the plaque. Well, NSPE is feeling flush this year and not charging for the plaque. So why doesn't FCC show that it supports its hard working engineers and nominate one for this government-wide award?

CRS Report on Spectrum Auctions

Thanks to the folks at Spectrum Matters for reporting that a new Congressional Research Service report on spectrum auctions is available. Now CRS doesn't really make its reports available to the public -- for reasons that are too complex to report here, but OpenCRS, an affiliate of the Center for Technology and Democracy has found a "workaround" and many are on their website.

An interesting quote from the report

"The FCC has concluded that auctioning of spectrum licenses has contributed to the rapid deployment of new wireless technologies, increased competition in the marketplace, and encouraged participation by small businesses. However, many have questioned whether auction policy should be supplemented more aggressively with other market-driven solutions, and whether the existing auction process and administration can be improved."

It also has some observations on the pending 700 MHz auction from a relatively neutral source, as opposed to most of the others speaking on the topic.