Scheduling Problems at FCC

Readers may recall a previous entry here where I pointed out that no one from FCC was scheduled to talk at IEEE Globecom, a major telecom technology conference in Washington this week and the first such conference held in the city in several years. The good news is that things changed after the blog entry -- although it is unclear if there is a cause and effect relationship.

OET Chief Julius Knapp was invited to and was able to get Chairman's Office approval to speak at a spectrum panel chaired by NTIA. He was not on the preliminary program but was added in time for the printed final program.

Then Chairman Martin accepted an invitation to speak at the "Executive Business Forum" part of the conference. It suddenly looked like FCC really wanted to engage the telecom technical community for the first time in ages.


But when I registered for the conference, there was a insert in the program giving another set of speakers for the Wednesday "Executive Business Forum". Asking a senior organizer of the meeting, I found out that Chairman Martin canceled out a week before the meeting for reasons that were not mentioned. Now Chairman Reed Hundt had canceled out an address at the IEEE International Microwave Symposium in 1997 in San Francisco, but it was because of a last minute summons to an unpleasant congressional hearing and he videotaped his address and sent it with regrets. So why didn't Chairman Martin come? Perhaps because of the hard time he was having with cable TV regulation at the Tuesday FCC meeting that dragged on until 10:30 PM?

Then I saw yesterday's Telecommunications Reports an article entitled " Martin Tries to Steady Ship at FCC after Some Question His Leadership". The article had the following observation,

The Commission's chief regulator, replying to a reporter's question during his appearance at a symposium sponsored by the Phoenix Center about the current working relationship at the FCC, stated that while debate over issues in front of the agency can occasionally get contentious, those issues almost always get worked out through compromise.

So I said, "What Phoenix Center symposium?" With a little Googling I found that this apparently referred to The Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal & Economic Public Policy Studies' 2007 Annual U.S. Telecoms Symposium . Indeed the program has Chairman Martin speaking at 11:45 - 12:15, followed by a lunch.

So I suspect that the problem was either double booking by the Chairman's staff or a desire to avoid the "techies" and lunch with another crowd.

In any case we are not making much progress in improving the dialog between the Commission and the technical community. If the top management won't let middle management engage the technical community due to onerous preapproval requirements for any speaking engagements and then doesn't engage at higher levels, then there isn't much communications.

The continuing ambiguous status of the FCC's Technological Advisory Council, that without any explanation hasn't met in over a year, is a sign of bad communications for this communications commission. Oddly, at the Globecomm spectrum session Karl Nebbia of NTIA bragged about their new advisory committee.

700 MHz Auction About to Start - But FCC Hasn't Evicted Wireless Microphones Yet

In Docket 04-186, the "TV Whitespace" rulemaking, there has been a lot of discussion about wireless microphones. These are devices supposedly used only by TV broadcasters and other broadcast industry eligibles defined in 74.832. Of course, most users are other audio-visual operators whose use is illegal. Indeed, today I spoke at IEEE Globecom and used a Shure wireless microphone operating at 525 MHz. This is a misdemeanor violation of 47 USC 301. I feel guilty so I am confessing to my blog readers. (Perhaps this confession will make FCC come after me!)

January 24, 2008 the 700 MHz auction starts. But a review today of the current text of 47 CFR 74.802 shows , guess what, wireless microphones are still there and have no stated eviction date!

Here's the current text:

§ 74.802 Frequency assignment.

(a) Frequencies within the following bands may be assigned for use by low power auxiliary stations:

26.100–26.480 MHz

54.000–72.000 MHz

76.000–88.000 MHz

161.625–161.775 MHz (except in Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands)

174.000–216.000 MHz

450.000–451.000 MHz

455.000–456.000 MHz

470.000–488.000 MHz

488.000–494.000 MHz (except Hawaii)

494.000–608.000 MHz

614.000–806.000 MHz

944.000–952.000 MHz

(Emphasis added)

Then the current text of 47 CFR 74.803 deals with who they can't interfere with:

§ 74.803 Frequency selection to avoid interference.

(a) Where two or more low power auxiliary licensees need to operate in the same area, the licensees shall endeavor to select frequencies or schedule operation in such manner as to avoid mutual interference. If a mutually satisfactory arrangement cannot be reached, the Commission shall be notified and it will specify the frequency or frequencies to be employed by each licensee.

(b) The selection of frequencies in the bands allocated for TV broadcasting for use in any area shall be guided by the need to avoid interference to TV broadcast reception. In these bands, low power auxiliary station usage is secondary to TV broadcasting and land mobile stations operating in the UHF-TV spectrum and must not cause harmful interference. If such interference occurs, low power auxiliary station operation must immediately cease and may not be resumed until the interference problem has been resolved.

See any requirement not to interfere with 700 MHz CMRS licensees? So before you bid a few billion dollars, you might want to ask FCC to clarify what is going on here.

Ericsson Unveils a Bold New Approach to the Cell Tower Issue

A major problem impeding the rollout of new wireless services is the compatibility of the antenna towers/infrastructure required and the local environment. This affects mobile operators, fixed wireless access providers, and even private land mobile (Part 90) operators who want to improve their efficiency by switching to a cellular structure. All of these systems need antenna sites in suburbia* roughly every mile or so. The basic endoskeleton system used today, a tower with multiple antennas bolted to multiple platforms at different heights is visually objectionable to a large sector of the public.

The wireless industry has been amazingly insensitive to this issue: building more and more visually discordant structures while they press - with limited success - legal approaches like local preemption. Chairman Ferris' mentor "Tip" O'Neill famously said "all politics is local" - a truism that in general dooms the preemption approach to tower siting.

Traditional endoskeleton antenna systems: No wonder the neighbors don't like them!




How many antennas are needed on each tower? FCC CMRS competition report says that 51% of US population in 2006 lived in counties with 5 or more CMRS carriers.

Wireless Competition Study Data

These need 5 or more antenna systems. And this is before the 700 MHz auctions and AWS auctions are finished! The BRS build out and other point-to-multipoint systems at higher frequencies will also need multiple antenna systems in suburbia. Finally, public safety agencies and other large Part 90 operators may well go to cellular architectures creating more antenna systems needed in a given area. I estimate that in a given area there will be a long term need for more than 12 mobile systems and 6 point-to-multipoint systems. That's a lot of antennas on a grid of 1 mile or less in suburbia if the traditional endoskeleton technology is used.

Ericsson's Tower Tube takes basically an exoskeleton approach, using a smooth exterior structure, in their case an advanced cement with fiber reinforcement, and antenna placement inside the structure so individual antenna elements are not visible. This type of approach could in general accommodate a large number of antennas and still keep a smooth, hopefully attractive design. As an added bonus, the Ericsson design keeps the equipment inside the tower, eliminating the usual security fence. However, a downside of the narrow diameter of this particular structure implementation is the limited horizontal width possible for each antenna with then limits sectorization of each tower. A larger diameter top, as on some water towers, would lessen this problem.

All sorts of variations on exoskeletons are possible besides the Ericsson one, the key issue is a nonconducting strong exterior. Other approaches with closely spaced flag pole-like structures are possible.

So my congratulation to Ericsson for "thinking outside the bun" and possibly convincing industry that new technology and improved design is a better approach than confrontation with local officials on preemption issues.




* While these wireless systems also need sites in urbanized areas and rural areas, the suburban problem is the most complex one. Urban areas generally have buildings that can be used to mount antennas with little visual impact. Rural areas generally have sparse population so antennas can be sited away from residences. While camouflaged antennas like fake trees have been used in limited instances, they are very expensive, not that convincing, and not readily adaptable to mounting multiple antennas

HD Radio:
Missing in Action
from the FCC Web Site


You may have heard that HD Radio is coming, but it is unlikely you heard it from the FCC website. Why? Information there is nearly impossible to find and what little you find won't answer your questions unless you happen to own a broadcast station.

So take the famous FCC website search engine and type in "HD Radio". You will get the results shown below:

Note that there are just 2 hits. The second turns out to be totally bogus. The first is a 2005 R&O from ET Docket 04-139 on implementation of WRC-03 where fn. 10 says,

The Commission has previously authorized the use of an In-Band On-Channel (IBOC) Digital Audio Broadcasting system in the AM (535-1705 kHz) and FM (88-108 MHz) broadcasting bands, which was developed by the iBiquity Digital Corporation (iBiquity). The action that we take today is limited to HF broadcasting and in no way disturbs the transition to iBiquity’s technology, which is known as High Definition (HD) Radio, in the AM and FM bands. See www.ibiquity.com for more information on HD Radio.

Turns out the problem is both the FCC search engine and the fact that FCC doesn't call this technology the same thing everyone else does, except in obscure places like the footnote above. This was a problem I had noticed at the Japanese counterpart of the FCC when I worked there in 1999 - they tend to use different terminology than the Japanese public and much of the electronics industry. But I didn't expect this from FCC.

On the search engine issue, if you go to Google and enter

"HD Radio" site:www.fcc.gov

you will actually get 3 more hits on the FCC site that the FCC's obsolescent search engine missed:

1. Remarks of Commissioner Deborah Taylor Tate To the Kentucky Broadcasters Association, October 18, 2007
2. XM Document Request.11.2
3. FCC Media Ownership Study #5: Station Ownership and Programming in ... - Nov 14

So at least Commissioner Tate knows it is now generally called "HR Radio" not IBOC.

But if a consumer wants information, he will strike out. It is not one of the 17 "consumer Center" links on the cluttered FCC home page. It is not on the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau's home page. If you keep digging you may find "Digital radio - The Sound of the Future" but you will never see "HR Radio" mentioned nor get a hint of where to get further information such as the number of stations on the air.

If you keep digging further you will also find different consumer informationthe Media Bureau's "IBOC Digital Radio Broadcasting for AM and FM Radio Broadcast Stations" page. This page is mostly of interest to broadcasting policy junkies and radio station owners. It has information like the following

Where Can I Obtain a Digital Receiver

The pace of development of IBOC digital receivers for consumers depends on a number of factors, including how fast and how many AM and FM stations commence digital broadcasting, and how soon receiver manufactures can produce radio receivers. Check with local electronics suppliers from time to time for digital radio receivers!

But if you go into Radio Shack or Circuit City and say "IBOC Radio", the sales clerk will probably not understand you at all!

So my suggestion to FCC: Start using the terminology that Commissioner Tate and the rest of the world uses on your web site, not just in WRC-related agenda items and speeches by commissioners.

Google, Android and
47 CFR 2.944:

The Legacy of Myopic Rulemaking

This week Google announced Android and the Open Handset Alliance. Android is "a complete platform that will give mobile operators, handset manufacturers, and developers everything they need to build innovative devices, software and services." On November 6, 2007 Chairman Martin made the following statement:

I was pleased to hear the announcement by the Open Handset Alliance of the plans to introduce an open platform for mobile devices. As I noted when we adopted open network rules for our upcoming spectrum auction, I continue to believe that more openness—at the network, device, or application level—helps foster innovation and enhances consumers’ freedom and choice in purchasing wireless service.

So it looks like Android will have smooth sailing through FCC. But there is a problem there that got overlooked in everyone's enthusiasm: FCC has had 2 rulemakings on software defined radios (SDR) in recent years, Dockets 00-47 and 03-108. Both of these rulemakings dealt with a topic closely related to the Google announcement: how do you regulate transmitters that can change performance after approval with the addition of new software. Unfortunately, both rulemakings became "feel good" exercises to tell major industry forces FCC was supportive and both had decisions that were rushed to completion to "honor" the departing heads of OET. Not enough attention was paid to the long term implications of the specific rules that were adopted.

Let me make it clear, I think SDR is one of the greatest advancements in radio technology in recent history and along with its cousin, cognitive radio, has the promise to increase spectrum utilization and make new services available to the public. But if poorly regulated it could open Pandora's box to antisocial manufacturers who are not household names or members of major trade associations but are government by the same rules. Such manufacturers, often based in Asia, would love to get a competitive advantage on legitimate manufacturers by offering "features" such as increased power and more "frequency agility", e.g. use of improper bands such as public safety bands that have low average occupancy. In addition there is a growing interest in certain circles about selling various types of cellular jammers. CTIA is getting so annoyed about this that it have petitioned FCC for a declaratory ruling. While a "strict interpretation" of today's SDR rules would prevent the sale of transmitters that could be reprogrammed into being jammers, a "flexible" enough interpretation that is open enough to give Android a green light under existing rules probably facilitates new routes for legal sale of jammers even if CTIA gets the declaratory ruling it wants.

As a result of the 2 rulemakings SDRs are now defined in 47 CFR 2.1 as

A radio that includes a transmitter in which the operating parameters
of frequency range, modulation type or maximum  output power
(either radiated or conducted), or the circumstances under
which the transmitter operates in accordance with Commission rules, can
be altered by making a change in software without making any changes to
hardware components that affect the radio frequency emissions

Then 47 CFR 2.944 gives these requirements

(a) Manufacturers must take steps to ensure that only software that has been approved with a software defined radio can be loaded into the radio. The software must not allow the user to operate the transmitter with operating frequencies, output power, modulation types or other radio frequency parameters outside those that were approved. Manufacturers may use means including, but not limited to the use of a private network that allows only authenticated users to download software, electronic signatures in software or coding in hardware that is decoded by software to verify that new software can be legally loaded into a device to meet these requirements and must describe the methods in their application for equipment authorization.

(b) Any radio in which the software is designed or expected to be modified by a party other than the manufacturer and would affect the operating parameters of frequency range, modulation type or maximum output power (either radiated or conducted), or the circumstances under which the transmitter operates in accordance with Commission rules, must comply with the requirements in paragraph (a) of this section and must be certified as a software defined radio.

(c) Applications for certification of software defined radios must include a high level operational description or flow diagram of the software that controls the radio frequency operating parameters.

Are any of these requirements in direct conflict with the Android "vision"? Probably not. But also sorts of understandings between the Android community and FCC will be needed, especially if Android becomes "open source". And since we are a "nation of laws, not a nation of men", these will then have to apply to all radio makers, not just the major firms with friends on the 8th floor. This is where there is a potential for chaos.

If I was back at FCC, I would start reviewing the SDR policy with respect to open source Android and try to come up with a supportive and clear policy structure that allows it but blocks sleazy manufacturers who seek to make antisocial transmitters capable of interfering with public safety and other key services.

If the Commission's Technological Advisory Council was really alive - not just a meaningless circular link on the FCC's cluttered home page - this would be a good task to give it. But the TAC seems to be on life support or dead since it hasn't met since 7/20/06 and its last scheduled meeting on 10/25/06 was mysteriously canceled 2 days before the meeting.

So I suspect that FCC will just give Google and Android a blank check to do whatever they want and will ignore the long term implications of the same rule interpretations in the hands of less ethical companies. But if FCC want to take the long term view, it should start thinking now about long term changes to the SDR rules that enable legitimate systems such as Android but block SDRs as a possible back door route to antisocial systems such as jammers.

Spectrum Policy and the Wireless Engineer:

Navigating the Regulatory Maze to Get New Technology from Laboratory to Market

The IEEE Global Communications Conference (GLOBECOM) is coming to Washington, DC, November 26-30, 2007. This is the first major IEEE conference in Washington in several years and covers many different aspects of telecommunications technology from wireless to to optical.

Anne Linton, Esq., Patton Boggs LLP and I will be giving a half day tutorial on the above topic Monday morning, November 26 at 9-12:30. Registration for the tutorial is $300.

Here's a summary of the tutorial:

• Wireless technology is subject to significant government regulation all over the world. This tutorial is an overview for wireless engineers of the regulatory issues you may encounter in moving a new technology from the lab to the marketplace and how you to plan for them. These issues deal with frequency allocation, experimental licensing, licensing, unlicensed systems, and equipment authorization. Knowing what the issues are enables the developer to make realistic plans in parallel to R&D efforts.

Hope to see you there!