3 New FCC Papers on Spectrum Policy Released Today

In a surprise move, the FCC The Office of Strategic Planning and Policy Analysis (OSP) today released three working papers on two important spectrum management issues:

• Working Paper #41, “Enhancing Spectrum’s Value Via Market-informed Congestion Etiquettes”
• Working Paper #42, “Modeling the Efficiency of Spectrum Designated to License Use and Unlicensed Operations,” examine ways in which spectrum designated to licensed and unlicensed use can be more efficiently used.
• Working Paper #43, “A Market-based Approach to Establishing Licensing Rules: Licensed Versus Unlicensed Use of Spectrum,” examines the feasibility of employing a market mechanism to determine whether spectrum should be designated to either licensed or unlicensed use.

Observers will note that this is the first time OSP, the former Office of Plans and Policy, has released any paper on any topic since September 2003. (In case you are wondering, Kevin Martin became Chairman in March 2005 so you can't blame it all on him.)

Here are the descriptions from the press release:

Combining economic theory and experimental analysis, Working Paper #41 (and its more theoretical companion Working Paper #42) evaluates the ability of different wireless spectrum congestion etiquettes to promote the efficient use of wireless spectrum in the presence of licensed and unlicensed operations. Under the examined environment, theory predicts that society leaves half of the value it can receive from spectrum “on the table.”

One new approach utilizes various types of user information to address the inefficient use problem. Assuming a close similarity between the naturally occurring environment and the experimental one, analysis reveals that the average efficiency of the existing etiquette employed in most unlicensed equipment is 42%. In comparison, experimental analysis reveals that the average efficiency of one market-informed etiquette - the Informed Greedy Algorithm - is 70%. This and other results form the factual basis for generating an entirely new type of spectrum allocation wherein a given band of spectrum is treated as a common pool resource in the absence of excessive spectrum congestion, but is treated as an excludable private good in the presence of such congestion.

Working Paper #43 addresses the issue of how best to identify the most desirable allocation rules for spectrum. This OSP paper focuses on issues associated with licensed use and unlicensed operations. Spectrum designated to unlicensed use is made freely available for uses that comply with appropriate technical standards. Spectrum allocated to licensed use is typically assigned to license owners through an auction. Moreover, winners of the auction are granted the right to exclude non-payers from using their spectrum. The allocation between licensed and unlicensed use, however, is based on the FCC’s judgment, which in turn relies on information provided by interested parties seeking to use the spectrum. One method of reducing the incentive that parties have to exaggerate the value they place on a given licensing regime involves creating a market for such rules. The study examines the feasibility of using a “clock auction” to determine, based on bids submitted by market participants for the corresponding licensing rules, the efficient allocation of a given amount of spectrum between licensed and unlicensed spectrum use. This study finds that market forces, in the form of a clock auction, can be used to determine the efficient assignment of license rules (i.e., those associated with licensed use and unlicensed operations) to spectrum.

I am busy getting ready for a trip to Europe for a conference and haven't had time to read them. readers are welcome, of course, to comment to this entry and give their views and insights.

White Space Device Testing at FCC Lab

Docket 04-186 white space device (WSD) testing continues at FCC Lab. A big issue is whether it is exciting as "watching grass grow" or "watching paint dry"?

If you go watch it, you can copy down quantitative results as they are taken. But I will not give many details here as any numbers are subject to revision. (If you go, I recommend Ma's Kettle for lunch - a real taste of Howard County.)

One of the 2 Microsoft units is out of commission due to hardware problems (reportedly a power supply problem), but testing continues on the remaining one. The two I2R units from Singapore arrived broken after their difficult shipment and the engineer who came from Singapore was unable to repair them. He took one back with him and the repaired unit is expected shortly.

Oddly, Google has not submitted a unit yet but left their antenna at the Lab - perhaps as an indication of interest.

Only the Microsoft and Adaptrum units have both detectors and transmitters.

Three basic tests are underway now:

1. Detection with undistorted ATSC signal
2. Detection with a set of 14 recorded ATSC signals that are supposed to have realistic multipath propagation fading.
3. Detection of wireless microphone signals.
   

Other tests are expected but not know scheduled. Technical details of the other tests are not yet apparent other than the vague published test plan.

While many doubted that WSD could detect ATSC signals weaker than -114 dBm, more than one of the devices has consistently detected undistorted signals below -120 dBm. (For non techies, a bigger negative number means a smaller signal and -120 dBm is a signal with a strength 25% of a -114 dBm signal. These levels are about a thousand times smaller than what a DTV receiver can receive successfully through the magic of digital signal processing.) More than 1 of the WSDs has consistently detected recorded distorted signals with strengths less than -114 dBm and many detections of recorded distorted signals below -120 dBm have been made.

I do not have any data of the wireless microphone detection results. Personally, I think the wireless microphone issue is not one that should be addressed through obscure technologies but by reassessing the needs for such service, who the potential users are, and finding a spectrum solution for addressing their needs that is consistent with the general US spectrum policy of the last decade. Meanwhile an interim solution is also needed to address needs of present users, most of whom have stumbled into an illegal situation through circumstance often beyond their control. The FCC's UK counterpart, Ofcom, is seriously addressing the needs of all wireless microphone users (called PMSE in UK-speak). Ofcom recognizes that there is a legitimate need for wireless microphones for users other than NAB members and Hollywood moguls (e.g. churches and live theaters) - FCC rules don't.

I think FCC should look at the "forest, not the trees" and see that there is a real wireless microphone problem that has been swept under the carpet for too long and not get caught up in an esoteric technical diversion. Even if the WSD policy issue were to disappear tomorrow through some lightning stroke, there will be a real wireless microphone problem. Particularly when the 700 MHz auction winners ("$19,496,223,400 and counting") expect to use their expensive newly purchased spectrum in 363 days.

Now that -114 dBm has been demonstrated, the broadcast interests seem to be saying that that shouldn't be the criteria since the WSD's field strength sensitivity would depend on the detector's antennas and WSD manufacturer's would somehow get devices approved with one antenna and switch the antenna later. So stay tuned as we may get pressure for a "change of coordinates" from dBm for a unit of field strength as a dBu (dB re: 1 microvolt/meter) or perhaps power flux density. Just as you got used to big negative dBm numbers!

FCC's "Down Under" Counterpart Announces
"A New Approach to Consultation on Spectrum Matters"

The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) recently announced "A New Approach to Consultation on Spectrum Matters". So despite having to stand on their heads all day and drink a lot of Foster's and Yellow Tail Kangaroo, these blokes seem to be doing a good job thinking about spectrum.

The ACMA announcement deals with a 3 prong approach.

1. Establishing a new peak body, the Radiocommunications Consultative Committee to replace the former Radiocommunications Consultative Council and the International Radiocommunications Advisory Committee, but have a somewhat different emphasis and approach.

2. Holding an annual radiocommunications conference (RadComms), as well as other seminars during the year to reach its wide, and broadening, groups of more general stakeholders.

3. Introducing a range of transparency measures. The most notable of these is to publish on the ACMA website, and regularly update, a five-year plan of ACMA’s spectrum planning activities which is, as far as possible, on a band-by-band basis.

But doesn't FCC already have a similar advisory committee? You mean the Technological Advisory Council (TAC) which hasn't met since July 20, 2006?


Or perhaps you are confusing it with NTIA's Spectrum Management Advisory Committee
which has met twice in the past 3 months.

How about "annual radiocommunications conference (RadComms), as well as other seminars during the year to reach its wide, and broadening, groups of more general stakeholders". FCC management has been reluctant to have such general outreach. I note that my wife's friends at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission do have an annual Regulatory Information Conference where they meet with their regulatees to explain recent technical policy changes and ask for feedback. FCC management traditionally prefers private meetings with large corporations and major trade groups and generally avoids the technical community. Score another for the Aussies!

Finally improved transparency and a 5 year plan. Not a bad idea! Maybe I'll lift a Foster's to ACMA to congratulate them on good thinking.

DTV: What Will Happen
in 372 Days?

The clock on the FCC DTV website (and the NAB website linked above) report 372 days until the DTV transition. A New York Times article entitled "Many Obstacles to Digital television Reception, A Study Says" is not too optimistic about what will happen. While the broadcast establishment likes to project that the Docket 04-186 TV whitespace device (WSD) proposal is the biggest threat to "free" over-the-air home TV reception, the article says,

"The study by Centris, a market research firm in Los Angeles, found gaps in broadcast signals that may leave an estimated 5.9 million TV sets unable to receive as many channels as they did before the changeover. It may affect even those who bought the government-approved converter boxes or a new digital TV. To keep broadcast reception, many viewers may have to buy new outdoor antennas, the study found.

The Centris study predicts greater disruption of service than government agencies like the Federal Communications Commission have acknowledged."

The technical finding are based on studies by Dr. Oded Bendov a TV technology specialist who recently published a one sided critique of the WSD proposal in IEEE Transaction on Broadcasting. Dr. Bendov is quoted as saying,

“For the people with rabbit-ear antennas, I would say at least 50 percent won’t get the channels they were getting. I would say a lot of people are going to be very unhappy.”

Fortunately, almost no one watches over-the-air broadcasting anymore as FCC itself has documented and the numbers who do have been decreasing for a decade.

The ongoing 700 MHz auction , "$19,229,168,700 and counting" shows the huge value of UHF TV spectrum for nonbroadcast applications. I'm glad I won't be FCC chairman when 2/19/09 rolls around. Fortunately, many of the key players involved in planning the DTV transition have gone out the "revolving door" so they can just criticize the FCC and absolve themselves of all blame.

Meanwhile the dysfunctional pair of national spectrum management agencies, FCC and NTIA, continue the silly game of feuding DTV websites (www.dtv.gov and www.dtv2009.gov) : How many US Government websites does it take to inform the public about a DTV transition?

==============

2/13/08 Update (370 Days to Go)

Chairman Martin's Statement Before the Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, U.S. House of Representatives.

Adam Smith and the Gray Marketing of Cellphones

RCR Wireless News has had two recent articles about gray marketing of cell phone handsets in recent days. The first one points out that Apple claims sales of over 4 million iPhones while AT&T claims only "nearly" 2 million as having been activated. The second article reports that

"AT&T Mobility, the nation’s largest mobile-phone carrier, alleges in a suit filed in Texas federal court that its GoPhones are being purchased in bulk and, after being unlocked, resold here and abroad -- including Latin America, Asia and the Middle East -- at a premium in violation of trademark law and other statutes."

My interpretation of these event is confirmation that Adam Smith was correct: market place forces work to restore equilibrium in supply and demand. If cellphone carriers continue to sell handsets at less than cost or make them available only with odd restrictive conditions, then global marketplace forces will try to restore equilibrium. Challenging hackers with annoying restriction in software will only get them more interested in the same issue.

Microsoft got in a similar mess a few years ago when it sold early Xbox game systems at less than the price of PCs even though they consisted of basically the same hardware. MS was surprised when users started modding them to function as a very cost-effective PC.

I hope the Federal government has better things to do with its time than to defend large corporations that market products inviting diversion to the gray market. The best defense is to unbundle products and services and sell them each at a fair price.
===========
UPDATE 2/18/08


Ad for iPhone on wall in Shanghai


The NY Times seems to have confirmed the location of the millions of missing iPhones: China and other countries where Apple isn't selling them.

"The answer now seems clear. For months, tourists, small entrepreneurs and smugglers of electronic goods have been buying iPhones in the United States and then shipping them overseas.

There the phones’ digital locks are broken so they can work on local cellular networks, and they are outfitted with localized software, essentially undermining Apple’s effort to introduce the phone with exclusive partnership deals, similar to its primary partnership agreement with AT&T in the United States."

So it is reassuring that the American economy has found another product to export to China other than scrap steel and paper for recycling: made in China but "designed by Apple in California" iPhones!

FCC Releases Both 2009 Budget and "Annual" Wireless Competition Report

Yesterday was a busy day on 12th Street SW. FCC released both its 2009 Budget request and the 12th Annual (sic) Wireless Competition Report.

47 USC 332(c)(1)(C) provides

"The Commission shall review competitive market conditions with respect to commercial mobile services and shall include in its annual report an analysis of those conditions."

The 11th Annual Report was released on 9/29/06. The new 12th Annual Report was released 2/4/08 and covers data from 2006 and events of 2007. Neither the report nor the press release mention the apparent discrepancy that there were more than 15 months between "annual reports" and there was no annual report in 2007. I guess the FCC only releases "good news" although they did release Comm. Copp's statement that points out that some of the data in the report shows mixed results.

Now in all fairness, the new report is more detailed than the previous ones being based on 8 million census blocks rather than the 3,200 counties. This is an impressive quantum jump in detail.

From the press release:

"The Twelfth Report introduces a new data source that allows for a significantly more granular and accurate analysis of mobile telephone service deployment and competition. The new data source is a set of maps that provide the detailed boundaries of the network coverage areas of every operational mobile telephone carrier in the United States. Using these maps, the FCC was able to estimate: (1) the percentage of the U.S. population covered by a certain number of providers, and (2) the percentage of the population covered by different types of network technologiesbased on census blocks, rather than counties. Because census blocksare much smaller than counties –there are eight million census blocks versus 3,200 counties in the United States–this enabled a significantly more accurate and granular assessment. The analysis of this data shows the following:

Approximately 280 million people, or 99.8 percent of the U.S. population,have
one or more different operators offering mobile telephone service in the census
blocks in which they live.

More than 95 percent of the U.S. population lives in areas with at least three
mobile telephone operators competing to offer service.

More than half of the U.S. population lives in areas with at least five competing
mobile telephone operators.

Approximately 99.3 percent of the U.S. population living in rural counties, or
60.6 million people, have one or more different operators offering mobile
telephone service in the census blocks within the rural counties in which they
live.

Approximately 82 percent of the U.S. population lives in census blocks with at
least one mobile broadband provider offering service.

In addition,during 2006, the number of mobile telephone subscribers in the United States rose from 213 million to 241.8 million, increasing the nationwide penetration rate to approximately 80 percent. The average amount of minutes that subscribers spend using on their mobile devices increased from 708 minutes per month during the second half of 2000 to 714 minutes per month during the second half of 2006. In addition, the volume of text messaging traffic rose from 9.8 billion messages sent during December 2005 to 18.7 billon messages sent during December 2006. Revenue per minute, which can be used to measure the per-minute price of mobile telephone service, remained unchanged during 2006 at $0.07."

I have links to a variety of FCC annual reports on my website.

NTIA Broadband Report





On January 31, NTIA released the report, “Networked Nation: Broadband in America, 2007,” This report

highlights the dramatic growth of broadband in the United States. The report shows that the Administration’s technology, regulatory and fiscal policies have stimulated innovation and competition, and encouraged investment in the U.S. broadband market contributing to significantly increased accessibility of broadband services.

So what's the problem? OECD statistics show that the US is lagging in broadband compared to other countries and ranks 15th among OECD members. (While my wife worked for OECD for 3 years, she was not at all involved with this issue.) The State Department has formally complained to OECD about the methodology used and NTIA head John Kneuer has also stated that the OECD statistics are misleading.

Surprise, the new NTIA report says things aren't so bad after all if you analyze the data the right way. The report states,

Recognizing this transformative power, four years ago President Bush articulated a national vision: universal, affordable access to broadband technology. From its first days, the Administration has implemented a comprehensive and integrated package of technology, regulatory, and fiscal policies designed to lower barriers and create an environment in which broadband innovation and
competition can flourish.

Apparently in this election year the Commission's two democrats aren't buying this logic. Commissioner Copps wrote today,

Networked Nation? If the United States were a networked nation consumers would be paying half as much for broadband connections 20 times as fast. That’s what many consumers around the globe get.

Commissioner Adelstein added,

With only half of adult Americans participating in the broadband age and U.S. consumers paying far more than citizens in other countries for less bandwidth, this report appears to be missing some key chapters. Noticeably absent is any coherent strategy going forward. This report relies on widely-discredited data in a strained effort that only distracts us from the real work ahead.

Finally at the end of the day I got my weekly ARRL Letter . (I am a card-carrying ARRL member, but do not agree with them on many aspects of the BPL issue as I was also heavily involved in the FCC BPL decision.) ARRL points out that there are some problems with the reports numbers on BPL deployment:

At one time the FCC's semi-annual reports, "High-Speed Services for
Internet Access," lumped BPL in with fiber optic lines. The FCC
eventually recognized that this was inappropriate, since the two
technologies have absolutely nothing in common, and stopped doing so
after 2004. For some reason, the NTIA's report continues to treat the
two together. Even so, reading the executive summary offered a glimmer
of hope that the report would be realistic with regard to BPL; it notes
that while "the total number of high speed lines delivered over fiber
and power line connections grew 789 percent from December 2003 to
December 2006...[f]iber optic lines...appear to be almost entirely
responsible for this expansion." (The latest FCC report that is
available is for December 31, 2006; it was released in October 2007.)
Less encouraging was the fact that the term "BPL" occurs no fewer than
45 times in the 60-page report, an emphasis that is hardly justified by
"Reliable BPL subscribership figures are difficult to find. The FCC's
most recent data identify fewer than 5,000 BPL customers as of year end
2006. That figure appears low, however. TIA [Telecommunications Industry
Association] estimates 200,000 current BPL subscribers, increasing to
700,000 by 2010. Another source forecast about 400,000 customers by the
end of 2007, growing to 2.5 million by year end 2011. "

WHAT IS GOING ON HERE? The FCC's data showing fewer than 5000 BPL
customers -- a number that dropped in the six-month period covered by
the report -- are taken from forms that service providers are required
to submit. Why does the NTIA not regard this figure as reliable? The
only way that it "appears low" is by comparison with the excessive
industry and government hype.

Further distorting the picture, at the bottom of page 26 is an
out-of-date map taken directly from the United Power Line Council
(UPLC), an industry source with a vested interest in BPL. It purports to
show BPL deployments "updated as of July 10, 2007." However, a number of
those shown had already been decommissioned by that date and others have
been taken out of service since then.

So it looks like NTIA's attempt to clarify the broadband situation may have just created more confusion.

======
10/9/08 Update
I was amused to get the following additional information in the latest ARRL Letter:

The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) report Networked Nation: Broadband in America 2007 that was released on January 31, 2008 includes the following: "Reliable BPL [broadband over power lines] subscribership figures are difficult to find. The FCC's most recent data identify fewer than 5,000 BPL customers as of yearend 2006. That figure appears low, however. TIA [The Telecommunications Industry Association] estimates 200,000 current BPL subscribers..."

Five years of experience in dealing with BPL systems as a radio interference source have given the ARRL, the national association for Amateur Radio, considerable insight into the BPL industry. Based on that experience, the ARRL has concluded that the FCC's figure of fewer than 5000 BPL customers is entirely credible. Therefore, the ARRL set out to determine the source of the "estimate" of 200,000 current BPL subscribers.

We contacted TIA and were advised that the figure came from a market study prepared by Wilkofsky Gruen Associates Inc and based on research conducted by In-Stat, a unit of Reed Business Information.

So we contacted In-Stat and asked how the figure was derived. They responded: "The 200,000 number for BPL subs did not come from In-Stat. In our US broadband forecast, we estimate about 231,000 broadband subscribers in the 'other' category besides DSL, cable, satellite. Other includes BPL, but is not solely BPL."

We then contacted Wilkofsky Gruen Associates. They responded: "Our source for the BPL figures was In-Stat." When In-Stat's denial was shared with them, they responded, "It was our understanding that BPL was the principal component as it was the first item listed by In-Stat."

TIA was invited to comment but declined to do so.

In other words, here is what we have learned: In-Stat does not claim to know how many BPL subscribers there are, but provides an estimate of 231,000 broadband subscribers who receive service via delivery systems other than DSL, cable, and satellite. Wilkofsky Gruen Associates, on the basis of nothing more than that BPL is listed first, assumes that the bulk of these 231,000 are BPL subscribers and arbitrarily attributes 200,000 of them to BPL. In turn, NTIA -- not satisfied with an FCC figure that is derived from required reports from service providers -- cites this arbitrarily chosen figure -- a figure that is entirely unsupported by any data whatsoever -- as evidence that the FCC's figure -- which is fully supported by data -- "appears low."

As I said before, I don't fully agree with ARRL on their BPL posture. But this incident shows something on the state of communications policy in Washington now.