FCC Budget &
Spectrum Policy:

Does Anyone
Read this
Stuff?







(The first thing one notices about the FY 2009 FCC budget is how sloppy the FCC seal looks. Most 7th graders would be embarrassed to have such bad art work on their websites. Did they take an embroidered shirt meant for departing employees and scan it? A much better public domain version of the FCC seal can be found on Wikipedia if anyone cares.)

But after getting over the above sloppiness, one gets to page 2 where it says,

"c. Spectrum – Electromagnetic spectrum is the means by which many new advanced telecommunications services are transmitted. The explosion of new digital services has placed huge new demands on this traditionally scarce resource, and allocating its private sector use has always been one of the FCC’s fundamental responsibilities. The pioneering work of the FCC’s Spectrum Management Task Force is producing new approaches to spectrum management, freeing up more of this valuable resource for innovative uses and shortening the time it takes to make spectrum available. These initiatives, as well as the FCC’s ongoing effort to encourage the highest and best use of spectrum domestically and internationally, will be even more essential in FY 2009 if the United States is to encourage the growth and rapid deployment of innovative and efficient communications technologies and services." (Emphasis added)

What Spectrum Management Task Force? There actually was a group by that name in the 1970s that is best know for its innovative efforts to manage Part 90 spectrum in the Chicago area that in the end were very controversial and not too successful with available technology. It is best remembered for bringing a lot of new people to the FCC in a short period, some of whom were quite good, but some of whom were rather eccentric.

Does it mean the Spectrum Policy Task Force (SPTF)? This was a group created by Chairman Powell that reported to the Commission in November 2002. It drifted on for a while after that but appears to have disappeared into the night under Chairman Martin.

Well here's from the FY 2008 Budget,

"c. Spectrum – Electromagnetic spectrum is the means by which many new advanced telecommunications services are transmitted. The explosion of new digital services has placed huge new demands on this traditionally scarce resource, and allocating its private-sector use has always been one of the FCC’s fundamental responsibilities. The pioneering work of the FCC’s Spectrum Management Task Force is producing new approaches to spectrum management, freeing up more of this valuable resource for innovative uses and shortening the time it takes to make spectrum available. These initiatives, as well as the FCC’s ongoing effort to encourage the highest and best use of spectrum domestically and internationally, will be even more essential in FY 2008 if the United States is to encourage the growth and rapid deployment of innovative and efficient communications technologies and services. "

Sound familiar? Well let's look at FY 2007, Submitted in February 2006. (Kevin Martin became Chairman in April 2006.)

c. Spectrum – Electromagnetic spectrum is the means by which most new advanced telecommunications services are transmitted. The explosion of new digital services has placed huge new demands on this traditionally scarce resource, and allocating its private-sector use has always been one of the FCC’s fundamental responsibilities. The pioneering work of the FCC’s Spectrum Management Task Force is producing new approaches to spectrum management, freeing up more of this valuable resource for innovative uses and shortening the time it takes to make spectrum available. These initiatives, as well as the FCC’s ongoing efforts to encourage the highest and best use of spectrum domestically and internationally, will be even more essential in FY 2007 if the United States is to encourage the growth and rapid deployment of innovative and efficient communications technologies and services. To support this goal, the FCC is seeking additional resources to help fund its laboratory functions.

Maybe there is a secret Spectrum Management Task Force now at FCC doing "pioneering work", but the most likely explanation is that they are really referring to the Powell era SPTF. But why are they saying this "pioneering work" is producing "new approaches to spectrum management" when all of SPTF's recommendations seem to have been killed except for the TV whitespace recommendations that started Docket 04-186 and which is way behind the schedule announced by the Commission? The other policy initiatives, "interference temperature" and receiver standards issues were all killed off and others never started. So why is FCC using the same stale budget language year after year?

Commissioners, don't feel bound by previous chairmen, but at least make a conscious decision which spectrum policy direction you want to head in, tell the public and Congress, and start moving there.

Comcast and BitTorrent
Start to Bury Hatchet

Comcast and BitTorrent announced this morning that they will

"undertake a collaborative effort with one another and with the broader
Internet and ISP community to more effectively address issues associated
with rich media content and network capacity management. While BitTorrent
and Comcast are talking directly, they are also in discussions with other
parties to help facilitate a broader dialogue and cooperation
across industries."

FCC Commissioners Copps, Tate, and McDowell wasted no time in issuing their own statements on the agreement. The Republicans focused on the the superiority of bilateral private agreements rather than government action, while Democrat Copp stated,

"Today’s announcement confirms my belief that the FCC needs to play a proactive role in preserving the Internet as a vibrant place for democratic values, innovation and economic growth. If it had not been for the FCC’s attention to this issue earlier this year, we would not be having the conversation that we are having now among network operators, edge content providers, consumers and government about the best way to implement reasonable network management."

I do recall that in the late 1980s when the Commission, under Chairmans Sikes, resolved an argument between education FM licensees (at the low end of the FM band) and adjacent band TV channel 6 licensees, they refused to adopt in detail the bilateral agreement the two groups had directly negotiated with each other. At the time several of the commissioners stated that their job was to look after the public interest and that while the public interest was often what the directly affected parties might negotiate with each other, it was not always exactly the outcome of such negotiations. Thus the Commissioners did "fine tune" the bilateral agreement in that case.

===========
Some time after this first posting, Chairman Martin issued his own statement. In it he stated,

"I am concerned, though, that Comcast has not made clear when they will stop this discriminatory practice. It appears this practice will continue throughout the country until the end of the year and in some markets, even longer. While it may take time to implement its preferred new traffic management technique, it is not at all obvious why Comcast couldn’t stop its current practice of arbitrarily blocking its broadband customers from using certain applications. Comcast should provide its broadband customers as well as the Commission with a commitment of a date certain by when it will stop this practice.

The Commission will remain vigilant in ensuring that consumers have the ability to access the lawful content of their choice on the Internet. Our hearing on April 17 offers us the opportunity to explore more fully what constitutes reasonable network management practices, including, as Commissioner Tate has highlighted, the important ability for network managers to block the distribution of illegal content, including pirated movies and music and child pornography."

Google Flip-flops on White Space

Google filed a new letter at FCC on 3/21 changing its position on the Docket 04-186 TV white space proposal. After developing a listen-before-talk (LBT) detector, showing pictures of it, and leaving its antenna at the FCC Lab, they have decided to focus on the other two alternatives in the FCC's NPRM to avoid controversy. These alternatives were: geolocation (e.g. GPS) with database lookup and a local beacon to indicate what channels are available in a local area.

Google says,

"Under our own enhanced protection proposal, a TV white space device will not transmit on a channel until it first has received an "all clear" signal for that channel, either directly from a database of licensed transmitters in that area, or from a geo-located device with access to that database. That “permission to transmit” signal (at a maximum power level of 4W EIRP) would be sent on channels the geo-located device already knows are clear of licensed users. Any device without geo-location and database access would not transmit at all, unless and until it has successfully received advance permission from such a device."

If Google thinks this will make the controversy go away, I fear they are naive. While MSTV and NAB has focused on LBT as their main enemy, they have clearly dissed the other alternatives too: "The Notice’s Other Proposed Interference Prevention Techniques Would Be Ineffective" NAB and MSTV Reply Comments at p. 8

And even if the "immovable object" of the broadcasting community gives in to the "irresistible force" a little on the other two options, we then get into a question that has been lurking under the surface since the beginning of this rulemaking: where do you draw the line on the area where white space devices can operate?

MSTV has been cryptically talking about "protected contours" but has never defined that term or given a reference to any FCC rules that define it. In reality, FCC has defined the coverage area of TV stations in various ways for various purposes. Which definition would make MSTV happy? Remember MSTV has already said that there isn't any spectrum available for WSD use in major urban areas using their acceptable conditions. That says something about their thinking and is a hint of what will happen if Google and friends try to reach a negotiated understanding with MSTV.

NAB, however, has already blasted the Google letter/olive branch saying,

"We are pleased that Google now seems to realize that spectrum sensing alone won't protect viewers against interference from unlicensed devices. Unfortunately, simply adding geolocation and beacon sensing does not mean that mobile operation is suddenly feasible. Portable, mobile personal device operation in the same band as TV broadcasting continues to be a guaranteed recipe for producing interference and should not be allowed under any circumstances."

Google also hopes that they can make the wireless microphone problem go away also.

"Further, all TV white space devices would be blocked from transmitting by any wireless microphone beacon in that channel, using signals specifically designed to be easy to reliably detect, and coded to be identifiable to prevent abuse. These beacons should be quite inexpensive, and would be used in conjunction with existing wireless microphones, so there would be no need to replace legacy devices.

In addition, we are proposing a "safe harbor" for wireless microphones in channels 36-38. No TV white space device would be permitted to transmit in these channels. This will also protect medical telemetry devices and radio astronomy services, which are licensed to use channel 37."

Medical telemetry does indeed use "Channel 37" -- which is really a passive radio astronomy band. But this is an agreement FCC worked out, actually I was the one who proposed it, based on the fact that the medical telemetry equipment used is quite expensive, sold only to hospitals, and has a good history of compliance with licensed operation and rules. By contrast, the wireless microphone business is basically a "wild west" of spectrum squatters who are violating criminal laws in doing so and manufacturers who aid and abet this lawlessness. This is the group you want to share with medical telemetry and radio astronomy? Did anyone check if there is even enough capacity on channels 36-38 for broadway shows and live concerts with large numbers of microphones in major urban areas that may have TV stations on channels 35, 36, 38 and/or 39?

I suppose FCC would do anything to avoid making a decision here on spectrum policy and hopes that the Google position will be the basis of consensus. I suspect it will just introduce more controversy.

However, I hope that the ongoing FCC Lab tests will show that WSDs really do work with reasonable protection to the few (and ever decreasing) households that actually receive over-the-air television. As I wrote previously, the wireless mic problems should be addressed by more efficient wireless mic technology (not just ancient FM) and relocation to bands they can share with easier.

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

Related post by Sascha Meinrath

Excellence in Engineering:

Why the Secrecy at FCC?

The FCC has an Excellence in Engineering program to maintain and improve the quality of its technical staff. It began under Chairman Powell and apparently continues to the present. Former OET Chief Ed Thomas made it a highlight of his tenure. Chairman Powell told Congress

"I also pledged to enhance the Commission's independent technical and engineering expertise. The Commission dedicated resources to recruiting, training and retaining a solid technology-oriented workforce under our 'Excellence in Engineering' Program."

OET made reference to the Excellence in Engineering program in its 2007 Annual Report to the Commission, so its continued existence must not be a total secret. (However, the fact that it is not mentioned in the recent FY 2009 Budget Estimates is a little puzzling.)

Part of the program was funding course work for FCC engineers to keep them up to date on the latest communications technology. This included paying for master's degrees for engineers who would commit to a continued study program and a postdegree commitment to work for the federal government. (Congratulations to John Kennedy of OET for being one of the first to complete such a degree!) Such financing of courses is very common in federal agencies with engineering as part of their mission and is necessary to help attract and keep good staff.

Another part of the program was annual Excellence in Engineering Awards to FCC engineers who did an outstanding job. This program has been shrouded in secrecy. But this year Commissioner Tate accidentally broke the veil of secrecy.

She apparently was the speaker at the 12/7/07 Excellence in Engineering awards ceremony that was not announced on either the FCC website or even in the FCC's Daily Digest. Is a Freedom of Information Act request needed to find out who the FCC honored for their excellence? In all fairness to the current commissioners, the recipients of these awards have never been announced.

However, in 2003, 2004, and 2006 FCC did announce the parallel Excellence in Economics award. Why engineers get the silent treatment while economists are publicly recognized is puzzling.

Comm. Tate's remarks that were published on her website:

"It is my pleasure to recognize the recipients of the FCC’s 2007 Excellence in Engineering Award. This award recognizes engineers, scientists and other technical staff for outstanding contributions performed in the course of their work at the Commission. The engineers, scientists, and technical staff are truly the Commission’s unsung heroes. While the attorneys tell us how to follow the law, and the economists tell us what will or will not be efficient, our technical experts tell us ultimately what can and cannot be done. Without them, very little would be done.

The projects on which our engineers, scientists, and technical staff work cover – to mix metaphors a little –the full spectrum. They help ensure radio transmissions do not exceed safe levels. They help represent the interests of the United States in international negotiations. (Having recently participated at the World Radio Conference in Geneva, I know the importance of being supported with technical information when negotiating the U.S. position.) In addition, one cannot imagine our DTV transition succeeding without the expertise of many of the people in this room.

In my role as a Commissioner, I do not give a speech without telling my audience about the DTV transition and recommending they check out our website, www.dtv.gov (see, I just recommended it again). In so doing, I am directing the public to learn more about an important change that will make spectrum available for new and innovative commercial services as well as broadband for public safety service, all of which is a direct result of your efforts.

Finally, many of our fine technical staff from the Enforcement Bureau and the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau were involved in Project Roll Call, which is a system that enables the Commission or FEMA to determine which radio-based systems in an area are operational and which are not. This can be a powerful tool in the event of a major disaster, attack, or power failure, because it enables federal emergency response personnel to maintain real-time situational awareness of radio communications systems.

To all recipients of the 2007 Excellence in Engineering Award, you have my deep respect and gratitude. The American people may be less aware of the good work you do, but they are no less indebted to you. Thank you."

I fully support Comm. Tate's remarks and hope that the rest of the Commission pays attention to them.

=======

After the first posting of this item, an anonymous FCC source came up with the secret list of award winners. They are

• Michael Mullinix (IB)
  
• Alison Greenwald Neplokh (MB)
• Kwok Chan (OET)
  
• James Roop (EB)
• Nazifa Sawez (MB)
• Richard Tseng (OET)
• Nathan Bohne (EB)
• Greg Hermes (EB)
  
• Chad Israel(EB)

PSHSB and EB participants in Project Roll Call also received plaques.

Congratulations to all award winners! Sorry FCC is not proud enough about you to announce your names, but the public appreciates your achievement and I am glad to write about it here.

Some newsworthy reading from other publications:

FCC chief Martin asked to produce
extensive documents in probe:

Management style questioned

See RCR Wireless News article at http://www.rcrnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080313/SUB/840287178/1011/newsletter50

Related Ars Technica story at
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080313-congress-dons-rubber-glove-prepares-probe-of-fcc-chairman.html

Broadcasting & Cable article on same subject for editorial balance:
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6518202.html?q=minority
==============================================

FCC insider: This place is hell;

silent protest planned

By Matthew Lasar

An excerpt:

A super-politicized environment

It appears that a critical mass of FCC grunts are sick of what they experience as a super-politicized work life in which just about anything that they want to do has to get the go-ahead from the top, that being Kevin Martin. "Nothing happens in the Commission without the approval of the Chairman's office," my source told me. "It is incredible. We have become so political."

Do you have any sense of the logic of these directives from the Chair? I asked. "Nope," came the reply. "It seems as random as he got up this morning and ate his breakfast and just decided to do it."

Why are FCC employees upset about this? Not because they disagree with Kevin Martin's perspective on this or that FCC issue, but because, according to my source, he and his top subordinates demand that staff skip proper procedures and leapfrog various rules, even Congressional mandated rules, on a day-to-day level.

"In the past I may or may not have agreed with the outcome, but at least the proper procedures were followed. Now they tell us 'what are the media reform groups going to do: file a class action lawsuit? Just do it.' But ethically I have to sleep at night. It's not the decision, it's how the decision is reached. The situation has become arbitrary and capricious."

Full text at
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080316-fcc-insider-this-place-is-hell-silent-protest-planned.html

THE GENESIS OF UNLICENSED WIRELESS POLICY :

An Information Economy Project Conference

George Mason University School of Law
3301 Fairfax Drive, Arlington, Virginia

Friday, April 4, 2008

Charles Jackson, Conference Coordinator
Thomas W. Hazlett, IEP Director
Drew Clark, IEP Assistant Director

Unlicensed wireless has become an industry, with hundreds of millions of radios in use today. These devices range from short-range wireless computer keyboards to microwave links with ranges of several miles. Among the most well known are wireless local area networks (WLANs) often referred to as Wi-Fi or 802.11.

This conference will review the development of unlicensed wireless policy with the goal of assisting scholars in understanding how the current unlicensed policies came into being. It looks at the interplay between regulation and innovation and examines policy initiatives from industry and from inside the government. It also reviews technological and market responses to changes in regulation.

The speakers include several individuals who were deeply involved with the development of unlicensed policy and of standards and devices that operated under that policy.

This conference should prove informative to people interested in either spectrum policy generally or unlicensed wireless in particular. It may also interest students of regulation, innovation, or, more widely, law and economics.

8:15 a.m.	Informal Breakfast Welcome: THOMAS HAZLETT, George Mason University School of Law (Bio)
8:30 a.m.	Morning Keynote: "Wi-Fi and Bluetooth - The Path from Carter and Reagan-era Faith in Deregulation to Widespread Products Impacting Our World" MICHAEL MARCUS, former FCC Engineer and Policy-Maker (Bio) Introduction by MARK FOWLER , Federal Communications Commission Chairman, May 1981 - April 1987
9:15 a.m.	Panel 1: Policy Development Moderated by CHUCK JACKSON, Adjunct Professor, George Washington University, (Bio) "Unlicensed to Kill: a Brief History of the FCC Part 15 Rules" KENNETH R. CARTER, Senior Consultant at wik-Consult GmbH (Bio) "Unleashing Innovation: Making the FCC User-Friendly" STEPHEN J. LUKASIK, first Chief Scientist, FCC (Bio) "Grazing on the Commons: The Emergence of Part 15," HENRY GOLDBERG, (Bio)
10:30 a.m.	Break
10:45 a.m.	Panel 2: Market Development Moderated by ANTHONY TOWNSEND, Institute for the Future (Bio) "History of Wireless Local Area Networks (WLANs) in the Unlicensed Bands" KEVIN NEGUS, engineer and venture capital partner, and AL PETRICK, (Bio) "Unlicensed: The case of Wi-Fi" ING V. HAYES, and DR. IR. W. LEMSTRA, (Bio) "Broadband Access in Unlicensed Bands for Fun & Profit" TIM POZAR, (Bio)
12:15 p.m.	Lunch
	Luncheon Keynote: "What Went Wrong with U-PCS" DEWAYNE HENDRICKS, (Bio)
1:30 p.m.	Concluding Remarks THOMAS HAZLETT
1:45 p.m.	Adjourn

When: Friday, April 4, 2008, 8:30 a.m. - 1:45 p.m.

Where: George Mason University School of Law, Room 225, 3301 Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA 22201 (Orange Line: Virginia Square-GMU Metro). Admission is free, but seating is limited.
Because of construction, parking is tight. See http://www.law.gmu.edu/geninfo/parking.
See IEP Web page: http://iep.gmu.edu.

To reserve your spot, please email Drew Clark: iep.gmu@gmail.com.

Wireless Mics are a Legitimate Use of Spectrum:
They Deserve More from FCC than
Benign Neglect that Allows Most Users
Only Criminal Spectrum Squatting

My former FCC boss, Dale Hatfield, used to say "if you are looking for interesting new ideas in spectrum policy, look what people are doing illegally and legalize it."

Well most wireless microphone use at present is illegal, a point that many people like to ignore - like the elephant in the room. Why are they illegal? Most wireless microphones in the US are physically Part 74 (broadcast auxiliary) devices operating in UHF TV spectrum in "white space channels" and require licenses. Only those industries specifically enumerated in Part 74 are eligible for such licenses and these are basically only NAB members and Hollywood moguls - all of whom have effective lobbyists in Washington. It is a cozy arrangement born in a different era of both technology and spectrum policy but it is a bad anachronism.

How did we get there?

In ancient history there was only analog television in UHF spectrum. The "UHF taboos" that resulted from both NTSC technology and 1953 estimates of how well future production TV sets could reject signals on nearby channels became self fulfilling prophecies and resulted in only 1 out of 6 channels being used in a given city. There was always tons of white space under this regulatory scheme. The "club" of broadcasters in a given city knew each other well and could work out deals to use this white space in support of their operations without interference. They sought and received FCC blessing for this exclusive use, although at some point Hollywood weighed in and became eligible also. Live theater productions, live concerts, churches, and conference centers are not eligible under Part 74 so their only legal options are low powered unlicensed systems that are secondary (and hence have greater risks of receiving interference) or Part 90 systems with complicated licensing requirements that probably have license transaction costs that exceed hardware costs in many cases.

Some unethical manufacturers and their dealers took advantage of this scenario and started marketing Part 74 wireless mics to noneligibles and "fuzzified" the legal issues. One even has on its website a "Wireless Frequency Finder" to help its customers find frequencies to use illegally. Apparently the FCC has turned a blind eye to this situation for years.

Lord Nelson raising his telescope to his blind eye in the Battle of Copenhagen

That was then, this is now

All of this was tolerable when spectrum was not in great demand, the dominant spectrum policy model was "command and control", there were few technical options for other use of the this spectrum, and there was plenty of white space. But that is all obsolete or becoming obsolete. Even as I write this the 700 MHz auction is winding down and next year TV channels 52-69 will be in the hands of new licensees who will expect to use them after a multibillion dollar auction. The NPRM in Docket 04-186 proposed 3 different options to use white space for broadband distribution in both urban and rural areas. While the broadcasters question the listen-before-talk option and have dragged everyone into obscure testing issues as a delaying tactic, the other 2 options are still on the table without significant objections.

The same wireless mic manufacturers who created the present lawless situation want the FCC to kill off the 04-186 proposals and allowed endless illegal squatting of their customers. The basic problem is that this would result in negligible overall use of a valuable resource: In the best circumstances the spectrum would be used heavily in the Broadway theater district, near megachurches on Sundays, and on the Las Vegas Strip. In terms of space and time, overall spectrum use would be negligible and it would be denied to all other classes of users.

The new technology proposed in 04-186 would result in much greater spectrum user and benefit to both the economy and society, but this should not mean that wireless mic users should be "thrown to the dogs". The users of wireless mics perform valuable are entitled to spectrum access, but access consistent with the current concepts of spectrum policy. They seem to demand continued exclusive access to "free spectrum" - even for clearly commercial operations. Guys, that is not the current era of spectrum policy.

Options for the future

But FCC should find a way to legitimize spectrum access for these users. Keeping them in the UHF-TV band will deny this spectrum to more valuable users but just as FCC relocated hospital-based medical telemetry out of this band into other bands where sharing was feasible, it should enter into a dialog with the wireless mic community (amnesty?) to find new spectrum home(s) where wireless mic use can share with other users on an interference free basis. Maybe there is a need for a coordinator who will charge fees like in the UK. (JFMG is the Ofcom-designated coordinator what what is called "PMSE" in UK-speak.) Unlicensed use and Part 90 use remains an option for users with modest requirements. Audio-Technica, a major supplier, has invested in and developed high reliability ultrawideband-based systems that can

Audio-Technica UWB-based wireless microphone system using MSSI's technology

satisfy the needs of users with needs for less than 14 units in a theater and can live with 12 kHz upper audio range - adequate for many users, but not opera. (This appears not to be a basic technical limit, but rather problems of an initial design of a niche product that uses off the shelf components.) A previous post here described how a AWS (3G) spectrum-based service could serve upper end users with high density and high audio quality requirements. Yes, it would result in increased costs for spectrum access. But that is the past 20 years of spectrum policy in the US and many other countries.

Finally, one problem the US wireless microphone manufacturers face is that they are relatively small firms with niche markets and do not have a good R&D base or volumes that easily justify custom integrated circuits. Thus they tend to stay with the existing technology and not press the margins to get new products. Thus they also are spending money on lawyers to press the FCC rather than innovating - like the medical telemetry people did when they noticed the same problem with the TV band. Ausio-Technica, as mentioned above, stands out as a recent innovator because they contracted with Multispectral Solutions (MSSI) of Germantown, MD for their new UWB product. They didn't spend all their money on lawyers!

Conservative wireless mic companies watch out! The problem isn't just Docket 04-186, Sony is entering your field too with new technology. Surf over to www.sonybiz.net/go-digital and you will see that Sony believes that digital will work for wireless mics and has entered the UK market. Fortunately for the not so nimble US manufacturers the present Sony models only work in 798-862 MHz and can't be used (legally) in the US market except in a small segment that will disappear in 11 months. But it wouldn't take much to move these to another band other than UHF-TV. Marrying the Sony analog-to-digital conversion technology to 3G/AWS cell phone technology should also be straightforward.

But the key issue is that FCC is not now considering any other options for wireless mics at the moment. The status quo is an inefficient anachronistic use of valuable spectrum and will have real problems next year when the 700 MHz auction winners claim their spectrum.

Possible options that should be examined should include the possibility of opening a new band, other than UHF TV. that is more compatible with sharing with the wireless mic industry as it actually exists today along with use of more efficient technology than the current de facto monoculture of FM. The demands of the wireless mic users that the new spectrum access should have no cost should be considered but should not be treated as a "non-negotiable demand". UK wireless mic users pay for access so there is a relevant precedent. The longer FCC ignores this issue, the more difficult it will become.

================================
Harold Feld has published an interesting follow up to this post entitled "700 MHz Aftermath: Verizon, AT&T & the $16 Billion Termites"

350 Days to Go and FCC Still Thinking

With 350 days to go to the DTV transition, the public was treated to the spectacle of a rare exchange of public memos between Commissioner Copps (Acrobat) and Chairman Martin (Acrobat) about how to manage the end game of the transition.

Comm Copps wrote,

My strong first preference, as we have discussed, is to actually switch a small number of markets to all-digital service before the national transition date. Broadway shows open on the road to work out the kinks before opening night. The DTV transition deserves no less. Other countries are transitioning over time, with phased schedules. The United Kingdom, again as we have discussed, is transitioning on a regional basis between 2007 and 2012, learning at every step along the way and making necessary adjustments. Our single transition date does not afford us the luxury of a built-in learning curve. We have one chance to get this right—one opening night.

He goes on to propose several tests in the next few months,

DTV reception. There has been some controversy recently about whether consumers could lose access to certain channels they currently receive when the digital switch-over occurs. Although one study purported to demonstrate that reception of digital signals falls off sharply after 35 miles, the broadcast industry countered that the findings were not based on real-world signal strength measurements and made incorrect assumptions about the types of antennas consumers will use. The best way to resolve this issue is with real-world tests in markets with various topographies, at various distances, and with various home antenna options.

Antennas. In a related issue, there is a lack of certainty regarding the number of consumers who will need new antennas in order to transition to digital service. Reports from the UK indicate that approximately ten percent of households have needed a new antenna. Given our different DTV transmission standard and topography, we cannot assume a similar experience here.

Cable/satellite coordination. We can and should assess whether cable and satellite systems will be adequately prepared to receive and pass through broadcasters’ digital signals in February 2009.

DTV equipment installation. The UK has a program to provide eligible households—including the elderly and certain people with disabilities—with practical assistance in converting to digital. This could include help installing new equipment and learning how to use it. The US, by contrast, has no formal in-home assistance plan. We can and should explore issues such as: (1) difficulties consumers have installing DTV converter boxes and connecting peripheral equipment (e.g., VCRs); (2) particular difficulties faced by certain communities, such as the elderly, people with disabilities, and non-English speaking consumers; and (3) difficulties consumers have in using the new equipment, including analog pass-through functionality.

DTV equipment functionality. We can and should assess whether functionalities such as closed captioning and V-Chip work with converter boxes and other DTV equipment.

Consumer reactions. After the field testing is complete in a particular household, we can and should assess the consumer’s views of the difficulties, costs and benefits of the DTV transition.

Perhpas Comm. Copps read the 2/11/08 New York Times article that quoted Dr. Oded Bendov, one of the TV industry's technical leaders (whom I happen to disagree with on white space device policy) 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.”

The article went on to say,

"Centris also estimated that of the 117 million TVs not connected to cable or satellite, up to 80 percent have set-top rabbit-ear antennas that may not be able to pull in an adequate digital signal. Many of those sets will require a better antenna or a cable or satellite connection to do so."

Chairman Martin answered Comm Copps,

"I fully share your desire that we do everything we can to best prepare consumers for the upcoming transition. I look forward to continuing our dialog on these issues."

Meanwhile the FCC/NTIA website wars continue with inconsistent consumer information. More on that later. The red box on the top of this page is an actual link on the FCC website to the NTIA converter box program for consumers using the same logo NTIA uses -- guess where it is on the FCC website for consumers to find?